Click Official ELI Links
Get Help With Your Extortion Letter | ELI Phone Support | ELI Legal Representation Program
Show your support of the ELI website & ELI Forums through a PayPal Contribution. Thank you for supporting the ongoing fight and reporting of Extortion Settlement Demand Letters.

Author Topic: Timothy B. McCormack Sends ELI Infringement/Defamation/Harassment Letter  (Read 3670 times)

Matthew Chan

  • ELI Founder, "Cult Leader", Grand Poobah, Big Cheese
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2732
  • 1st Amendment & Section 230 CDA Advocate
    • View Profile
    • Defiantly
On January 21, 2014, Seattle Attorney Timothy B. McCormack of McCormack Legal sent both ELI and http://Copyright-Trolls.com a copy of his extortion letter claiming Copyright Infringement, Defamation, and Harassment.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/202768791/McCormack-Defamation-Extortion-Letter-to-ELI

http://copyright-trolls.com/site/seattle-attorney-mccormack-ip-law-claims-copyright-infringementdefamation/

This letter has never been seen before. We believe that this letter was specifically written for both ELI and Copyright-Trolls.com in McCormack's effort to remove meme's containing an image of his head shot.  The image in question appears to have been registered with the U.S. Copyright Office on January 4, 2013 although he did not provide either ELI or Copyright-Trolls.com a copy of the copyright registration.

http://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?v1=1&ti=1,1&Search_Arg=mccormack%20timothy&Search_Code=NALL&CNT=25&PID=HVB_bCO5YsmLPJycUTX4egwuO&SEQ=20140131225841&SID=1

The image McCormack attempts to control and protect can be found here on his own website:
http://mccormacklegal.com/images/tim.jpg

Either carelessly or intentionally, the screenshots he sent as "evidence" of alleged copyright infringement, defamation, and harassment comes from a series of screenshots from July 26, 2012, a time BEFORE he ever registered his image. The remnants from that 2012 discussion thread still exists today.

http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/getty-images-letter-forum/timothy-mccormack-is-now-officially-a-meme/

This thread has been locked to both preserve its current state and to prevent additional posts to that thread. Additionally, screenshots from that thread were captured on January 28, 2014 to show that McCormack has entirely used outdated information to accuse, discredit, and attack ELI.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/202784237/ELI-Screenshots-of-McCormack-Meme-Posts-July-2012-v-Jan-2014

To the best of our knowledge, ELI has never hosted any user-submitted images of anyone much less a meme of McCormack.  All memes were created and hosted elsewhere from ELI. Even if ELI did host those memes, most people can see that the meme's are nowhere close to meeting the standard of defamation.  The image was being used for negative commentary and parody of his business practices.  He  accuses me and ELI of "harassment" by virtue of owning and hosting the ELI Forums. He was previously schooled on Section 230 of the CDA but he has conveniently ignored it for his own selfish purposes.

To prevent confusion and misunderstandings, the forum ability to automatically display images within forum posts were disabled in March 2013. When that occurred, any image (including memes) would reveal and only display the underlying hyperlink.

We feel McCormack's letter sent to ELI is meant to intimidate me into complying to his demands.  The problem is there is NOTHING to comply.  Most of the memes were killed by quickmeme.com at the source. And the few that might still be live sits on a web host which we have no relationship or control over. However, recent clicks have shown that nearly all are "dead".

And given the fact that I have been in self-imposed exile for nearly a year, how exactly would I be harassing or defaming McCormack?  Using old dead posts that I never posted to begin with?  And even if I had posted them, those memes qualify as fair use as there is commentary surrounding the image. Additionally, none of the text comes remotely close to meeting the standard of defamation and harassment.

Quite frankly, it is ok if he threatens and harasses others to get the money for himself and Getty Images but he is mighty sensitive to an negative or parodic commentary about him.

A formal reply to Attorney Timothy B. McCormack of McCormack Legal is forthcoming.

« Last Edit: February 03, 2014, 03:01:33 AM by Matthew Chan »
I'm a non-lawyer but not legally ignorant either. Under the 1st Amendment, I have the right to post facts & opinions using rhetorical hyperbole, colloquialisms, metaphors, parody, snark, epithets, & profanity. Under Section 230 of CDA, I'm only responsible for posts I write, not what others write.

scraggy

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 123
    • View Profile
Re: McCormack Legal Sends ELI Infringement/Defamation/Harassment Letter
« Reply #1 on: February 01, 2014, 02:44:34 AM »
Good to have you back Matthew!

The old proverb would seem applicable here:

“A man who is his own lawyer has a fool for his client”

Some would even say

A lawyer who represents himself has a client who is an even bigger fool!

It would seem to me that Mr McCormack has been personally hurt by a few silly memes meant only for a laugh. Just compare this to the anguish and sleepless nights experienced by the thousands of people who have received the Getty demand letter from Mr McCormack!

I think he should think twice before proceeding. No judge is going to look kindly on a lawyer abusing their profession to scare members of the public who dare fight back! In my opinion, his lack of good faith would be so clear for any judge to see!

He just failed to mention that he registered the copyright AFTER the alleged infringement! Pathetic!

Matthew Chan

  • ELI Founder, "Cult Leader", Grand Poobah, Big Cheese
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2732
  • 1st Amendment & Section 230 CDA Advocate
    • View Profile
    • Defiantly
Re: Timothy B. McCormack Sends ELI Infringement-Defamation-Harassment Letter
« Reply #2 on: February 03, 2014, 03:17:40 AM »
Copyright-Trolls.com first posted the text of Oscar Michelen's legal response to Timothy B. McCormack's latest extortion letter on behalf of Copyright-Trolls.com.

http://copyright-trolls.com/site/response-to-seattle-attorney-timothy-b-mccormack/

ELI also has permission to also reprint the text of that response here on ELI. Although the response by Oscar Michelen is the official response on behalf of Copyright-Trolls.com, Oscar also received ELI's copy of the letter at his home address.  In regards to that, Oscar also offered cautionary comments to McCormack as it relates to Oscar's role and working relationship on ELI.

Quote
January 29, 2014

Mr. Timothy B. McCormack
617 Lee Street
Seattle WA 98109
               
Re: Cease and Desist Letters

Dear Mr. McCormack:
   
This letter is sent to respond to two cease and desist letters recently issued by you.  The first letter was issued to www.copyright-trolls.com; the second was issued to me personally and to www.extortionletterinfo.com and its owner Matthew Chan. I will address them one at a time.

Copyright-trolls.com

Please be advised that I represent this site with respect to your claim regarding the use of an image purportedly owned and copyrighted by you. Please direct all future correspondence on this matter to me and not my client.
   
In an exercise of caution and to not to have to have continued correspondence with you on this matter, the site has complied with your cease and desist request and removed any display of your picture. The rest of your demands will not be complied with however. As to any purported claim of “defamation” I remind you that the First Amendment greatly protects speech, parody and comedy.  In fact, last week or so, the Ninth Circuit (which covers Washington State), in Obsidian Finance Group v. Cox, ruled that bloggers and the public have the same First Amendment protections as journalists when sued for defamation: If the issue is of public concern, plaintiffs have to prove malice (if they are public figures) or negligence (if it is a matter of public concern regardless of their status) to win damages.  The Court further reiterated the public’s right to post opinions, even if they are nasty and crude. It stated it looks at three factors to distinguish between “fact” and “opinion” as follows:

 â€ś(1) whether the general tenor of the entire work negates the impression that the defendant was asserting an objective fact, (2) whether the defendant used figurative or hyperbolic language that negates that impression, and (3) whether the statement in question is susceptible of being proved true or false."

All three of those factors point to the obvious: that any statements or references to you in the posts to which you object are at best statements of opinion and are not defamatory. There was no false fact contained in any of the post of which you complain.  They are merely jokes or expressions of opinion that amount to parody. No one believes that the posts are actually saying you are actually a “turd;” that is just an opinion and an attempt at humor.  Particularly when aimed at someone who is a public figure like yourself, these types of sarcastic, even negative, parodies and commentaries are protected.

Moreover, your continued use of boilerplate, threatening letters on behalf of digital image warehouse companies, while likely lucrative to you, naturally exposes you to being the target of scorn and commentary. You cannot pretend to ignore the numerous sites, bloggers and journalists who have decried “copyright-trolling” as a scourge of the Internet. That places the subject matter and those who engage in it in the public eye and open to expression of opinion contrary to their pursuits.  Far be it for me to tell another lawyer how to run his practice, but I would venture to guess that the more you continue in this method of practice, the more you will continue to be criticized by third parties.  Copyright-trolls.com has no less right to express negative opinions and make negative comments on what you and others do than the Washington Post or the NY Times. Accordingly, I hope and expect that this communication ends this issue.

Extortionletterinfo.com    
     
Much more troublesome is your communication to me regarding ELI. First of all, I do not practice out of my home; I am a partner in a litigation law firm with two offices – one in Manhattan and one on Long Island.  While in the past you have unsuccessfully tried to embarrass me by writing my partner Matthew Cuomo at our Manhattan office which he manages, I ask that you direct all future correspondence to me at our Long Island office, which I manage. There is no reason for you to communicate with me at my home; any further communication about a client or potential client of mine that is directed to me at my home will be taken as harassment and reported to your State Bar. 
   
Next, your letter refers to ELI as “your [meaning my] website” and asserts that you are writing to me so that I may use my “ownership” of the site to influence compliance with your demands. Too many times to mention it has been made clear to you that I do not own ELI in whole or in part. Your participation in the Linda Ellis matter also served to further instruct and advise you that Matthew Chan is sole owner of ELI. Your continued assertion that I am an owner of ELI is frivolous, baseless and beyond explanation – you clearly do not care that you are making a wrong and insupportable accusation. 

You then also reference me as “opposing counsel.”  On what matter am I opposing counsel to you with respect to ELI? Are you writing me as ELI’s lawyer or as ELI’s owner? Or both? Currently, I am in fact neither. Matthew Chan will likely want to respond to your letter directly himself. If I am going to respond on behalf of ELI, I will lead my letter with a sentence advising you that I am acting as ELI’s attorney. (See the section above dealing with copyright-trolls.com. as an example). You then intimate that I am somehow behaving in violation of Rule 8.4 of the Rules of Professional Conduct while at the same time asking me for “professional courtesy.”  This request for courtesy is laughable, coming from an attorney who:

(a) made a completely frivolous and baseless multi-page complaint against me with the Grievance Committee of my State Bar; (b) included it as an exhibit in the improper affidavit submitted in the Linda Ellis matter so that the complaint is now also a matter of public record in the Georgia Court system; (c) who wrote to my law firm partner, as if writing to scold a child to his parent; (d) who writes me repeatedly at home over business issues; and (e) who continually and falsely claims that I own a website I have no ownership in.  In my 27 years of practice as a litigator in one of the most litigious States in the Union, I can recall only one or two attorneys that I have less respect for than you Mr. McCormack. So before you ask me for “professional courtesy,” I suggest you find the nearest mirror. While I always extend professional courtesy to my adversaries, it is a two-way street and I will afford you precisely as much courtesy and respect as you seem to afford me. 

To that end, let’s look at Rule 8.4 which you cite:
      
Rule 8.4 Misconduct

It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to:

(a) violate or attempt to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct, knowingly assist or induce another to do so, or do so through the acts of another;

(b) commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects;

(c) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation;

(d) engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice;

(e) state or imply an ability to influence improperly a government agency or official or to achieve results by means that violate the Rules of Professional Conduct or other law; or

(f) knowingly assist a judge or judicial officer in conduct that is a violation of applicable rules of judicial conduct or other law.

   
Of course, like most of your demand letters, you provide no factual basis or explanation as to why any of these sections should apply to my conduct. I ask that you send me a detailed explanation of which of these sections I may have violated (or will violate) and the facts you rely upon to support such claim. Otherwise I will deem this part of your letter to constitute yet another frivolous and baseless accusation against me.
   
With respect to the substantive matters addressed in the letter to Mr. Chan, I expect he will respond to you himself. But, as usual, this looks like a boilerplate copy of the letter you sent my client at copyright-trolls.com, so the same arguments would apply.   
   
In conclusion, address all future correspondence on the copyright-trolls.com matter to my attention at my Long Island Office. Furthermore, cease and desist from making baseless and frivolous allegations about my professional conduct and my practice of law.       

Sincerely,

OSCAR MICHELEN
I'm a non-lawyer but not legally ignorant either. Under the 1st Amendment, I have the right to post facts & opinions using rhetorical hyperbole, colloquialisms, metaphors, parody, snark, epithets, & profanity. Under Section 230 of CDA, I'm only responsible for posts I write, not what others write.

ws2001

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 14
    • View Profile
Re: Timothy B. McCormack Sends ELI Infringement/Defamation/Harassment Letter
« Reply #3 on: February 20, 2014, 02:12:10 AM »
Will Timothy B. McCormack do a Prenda Law* and "issue a subpoena" to obtain IP addresses of ELI posters and readers?

* EFF Moves to Quash Subpoena in Copyright Troll's Retaliatory Lawsuit
* Prenda Law wants IP address of every anti-troll blog reader

Being a U.S. Supreme Court defined 'public figure'**, doesn't Timothhy B. McCormack have a higher burden of proof for defamation/harassment?

** United States Supreme Court - New York Times Co. v. Sullivan

Not to mention ELI protected under Section 230 of Title 47, Communication Decency Act of 1996.

« Last Edit: February 20, 2014, 10:25:47 AM by Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi) »

Matthew Chan

  • ELI Founder, "Cult Leader", Grand Poobah, Big Cheese
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2732
  • 1st Amendment & Section 230 CDA Advocate
    • View Profile
    • Defiantly
At long last, my response to Timmy has been issued and sent. Because of the length of my response, I have started a separate thread to display the full text there.

http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/mccormack-letter-forum/matthew-chaneli-response-to-mccormack-infringementdefamationharassment-letter/msg17794/#msg17794
I'm a non-lawyer but not legally ignorant either. Under the 1st Amendment, I have the right to post facts & opinions using rhetorical hyperbole, colloquialisms, metaphors, parody, snark, epithets, & profanity. Under Section 230 of CDA, I'm only responsible for posts I write, not what others write.

 

Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 
Official ELI Help Options
Get Help With Your Extortion Letter | ELI Phone Support Call | ELI Defense Letter Program
Show your support of the ELI website & ELI Forums through a PayPal Contribution. Thank you for supporting the ongoing fight and reporting of Extortion Settlement Demand Letters.