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 is a Free Speech Thug & First Amendment Butcher!  (Read 4352 times)

Matthew Chan

  • ELI Founder, "Cult Leader", Grand Poobah, Big Cheese
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2773
  • 1st Amendment & Section 230 CDA Advocate
    • View Profile
    • Defiantly
It is now public knowledge that I have some legal allies beyond Oscar Michelen especially in the realm of my First Amendment, free speech, and Section 230 CDA rights.

I can now come out and say with great certainty that Timothy B. McCormack is not only a copyright extortionist, Timmy is also a free speech thug and a First Amendment butcher.

It is interesting that although I had the information since February 2013 where Timmy tried to insert himself into a case that had nothing to do with him. (Ellis vs. Chan and the subsequent appeal Chan vs. Ellis), it didn't click with me that Timothy B. McCormack was an experienced Free Speech Thug & First Amendment butcher, not just a copyright thug.

One of the legal scholars, Eugene Volokh, who authored an amicus brief in support of my case and legal position...

http://www.scribd.com/doc/238796451/Chan-v-Ellis-EFF-Amicus-Brief-for-Appellant?in_collection=4336412

... made a casual mention of "cases we may never hear about". That immediately triggered a memory of one of the "exhibits" McCormack submitted against me.

It was the 2007 case of Host America Corporation (Colorado corporation) vs. Brent David Simcosky.

In Timmy's effort to silence me, he provided a copy of the restraining order he wrote for his 2007 client Host America Corporation against Brent David Simcosky, as an sample to my local judge to follow.  Fortunately, my local judge wasn't that insane.

It appears that Simcosky had some grievances against Host America and he was quite vocal about it on the Internet. Like many of us, Simcosky used discussion forums to openly vent and communicate his frustrations as well as to legally influence other people through the sharing of opinion and commentary.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/238810281/Host-America-v-Simcosky-Washington-State-Thurston-County-Superior-Court

I don't have access to the exhibits but it would appear that Timmy produced what he considered the most offensive comments made by Simcosky.  Here is the thing... these are rants and "threats" Simcosky made on a public forum. He threatens to tell others about how Host America wronged him.  He uses rhetorical hyperbole, profanity, derogatory, and insulting language. However, nothing that is shown in the complaint (minus the exhibits) qualifies it as a "true threat".

Unfortunately, Simcosky didn't have the legal insights I did or he wasn't lucky or resourceful enough to get access to legal minds like I did. But Simcosky was "forced" to sign an unconstitutional restraining order. Simcosky may be forbidden to talk about Host America but the rest of the Internet and Interwebs are not.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/238815136/Timothy-B-McCormack-Unconstitutional-Restraining-Order-Against-Brent-David-Simcosky

Quote
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF THURSTON COUNTY

HOST AMERICA CORPORATION, a Colorado Corporation
Plaintiff,

v.

BRENT DAVID SIMCOSKY AKA DAVID BRENT SIMCOSKY,
Defendant.

No. 07-2-01732-5
PERMANENT STIPULATED INJUNCTION

The parties to this action HEREBY STIPULATE to the following Permanent Injunction against Defendant.

D. Brent Simcosky      

Host America Corporation      9/25/07


Based on the consent of the parties and the court's own good judgment it is Ordered:

1. Defendant and any officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, and all other persons in active concert and participation with defendant who receive actual notice of this order, are enjoined from:

a. interfering with plaintiff's contracts or prospective economic relations;
b.  posting on web sites, sending letters or otherwise discussing in any way information about plaintiff or its Board of Directors or its employees, vendors, channel partners or attorneys;
c. doing any other act or thing calculated to, rending to, or likely to unfairly compete with the plaintiff or to unfairly harm the value of plaintiff s stock;

2. Defendant will agree never to mention HOST again, publically, to anyone ever again outside his own attorneys, unless by court order; Defendant will not appear or otherwise participate in any message boards or discussion forums that are affiliated with or that specifically discuss HOST or its affiliates or successors or assigns.

3. Defendant agrees to sign a Clarification Letter regarding misrepresentation of specific facts about the plaintiff and any intemperate or offensive communications for which he was responsible in the form attached to the parties settlement agreement The letter will be sent to David Murphy, the Host America Board of Directors, Channel Partners; plaintiff may use or discuss the letter with anyone in its effort to mitigate any damage caused by defendant or as might otherwise be required by law.

4. Each side will bear their own costs and attorneys, fees, except as noted.

5. The case will be removed from the court's docket and be considered dismissed and adjudicated but the court will retain jurisdiction for enforcement of this injunction and any judgment that might be filed pursuant to the parties settlement agreement; counsel for plaintiff will retain subpoena power for compliance purposes;

6. If this injunction is violated, upon a good cause showing to the court, the following sanctions against the defendant will be imposed:

a. Payment of attorneys' fees and costs for any follow-up enforcement action;
b. Surrender of any and all personal computers;
c. Agreement to not use the Internet for 10 years, unless for work; and
d. Damages in the amount of $250,000 and $25,000 in attorneys' fees (in form of consent judgment).


This order shall go into effect immediately and shalt remain in effect until further order of this Court.

Done in Open Court, Dated: 28th of September 2007.

ANNE HIRSCH
SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE 


Presented by Timothy B. McCormack, WSBA #28074
McCormack Intellectual Property Law
Business Law PS
617 Lee St.
Seattle, WA 98109
p. 206.381.8888 / fx. 206.381-1988
tim@McCormackLegal.com

The putz and lawyer hack we call Timmy McCormack unconstitutionally shut down Simcosky and deprived him of his free speech rights. Let's look at this closely.

In Point 1, Simcosky can't send letters to anyone any opinions about Host America to anyone? Even non-threatening ones?  WTF.

In Point 2, Simcosky can never mention Host America again?  WTF, are we in China?  He can't even breathe a word of that company without an attorney? He can't post anything whether it is true or his opinions on Host America even if it is non-threatening?  WTF.

In Point 6, if he violates the order, Simcosky has to surrender all his computers?  WTF. Since when can anyone take anyone's personal or business property over a civil issue? That gives him or Host America the right to just help themselves to Simcosky's computers?  WTF.

And he is going to forbid Simcosky from using the Internet for 10 freaking years except for work purposes?  So Simcosky can't use the computer to make travel arrangements, make Facebook posts, Twitter posts, play online games, view Netflix movies, make memes on the Internet, make music, write a blog, do Google searches, and all the infinite variety of things people do that don't have anything to do with work?  WTF.

And Simcosky is going to be liable for quarter-million ($250,000) dollars damages/penalties and $25,000 in attorney fees for breathing or posting one word about Host America?  WTF.


And the judge who allegedly agreed to this is Anne Hirsch, A Superior Court Judge?  WTF.

http://www.co.thurston.wa.us/superior/judge-hirsch.htm

Someone please tell me, who is the bully and extortionist.  This is why Timmy is so well hated by so many people.  Timmy uses his alleged legal expertise to be a legalized thug.

He accuses Simcosky of extortion?  You be the judge who the true extortionist is.

Timothy B. McCormack abuses the restraining order process and tramples over the First Amendment and free speech.

The funny thing about this extortionate and abusive restraining order that outright crushes free speech for Simcosky, is that McCormack is actually proud of it and presented it to the judge in MY case to set an example on me!

Well, the legal boomerang has swung. I have brought along a few legal allies to my side who truly are legal scholars in this field. I have learned much from them these past months.  This extortionate and First Amendment crushing restraining order that Timothy B. McCormack authored will likely receive the "Streisand Effect" it truly deserves.  The interwebs enjoy learning about this kind of free speech thuggery.

We, at ELI with its many community members, agree that Timothy B. McCormack is a putz and legal hack.
« Last Edit: September 06, 2014, 06:45:36 PM 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.

Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)

  • ELI Defense Team Member
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3360
    • View Profile
    • ExtortionLetterInfo
Re: Timothy B. McCormack is a Free Speech Thug & First Amendment Butcher!
« Reply #1 on: September 06, 2014, 07:57:53 AM »
In defense of Seattle Copyright Attorney Timothy B. McCormack and McCormack Intellectual Property Law it's plainly and painfully obvious why he went to such lenghts to stifle free speech, as in some of the hypebole / rhetoric the word "butt fucking" appears as well as a mention of shoving something up ones ass.. History tells us that McCormack Intellectual Property Law is somewhat sensitive to anything butt related..does The Striesand Effect equate to butthurt?
Most questions have already been addressed in the forums, get yourself educated before making decisions.

Any advice is strictly that, and anything I may state is based on my opinions, and observations.
Robert Krausankas

I have a few friends around here..

lucia

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 767
    • View Profile
Re: Timothy B. McCormack is a Free Speech Thug & First Amendment Butcher!
« Reply #2 on: September 06, 2014, 09:03:51 AM »
Could it be a negotiated settlement? (I don't know legal terminology well enough to know what "stipulated injunction" means, and the top of the article indicates consent of the parties.)

Anyway, what I wondered about was: What did 'HOST AMERICA CORPORATION, a Colorado Corporation' want him to keep quiet about?   What did he talk about? On the web, I was able to find one sort of big issue involving Host America; this involves a class action suit.

First: I could only find  Host American in connecticut, but one page suggests they are the one that adds "a Colorado Corporation' at the end.  "http://www.wikinvest.com/stock/Enerlume_Energy_Management_%28ENLU%29/Shareholders_Host_America_Corporation"
(You can find some information on names underwhich this was incorporated here http://www.nasdaq.com/markets/ipos/filing.ashx?filingid=2943941 )

In 2005, there was some sort of class action suit filed against the the corporation
[PDF]Raymond R. Collins, et al. v. Host America Corporation, et al ...
securities.stanford.edu/filings-documents/.../2005811_o02c_Collins.pdf
Aug 11, 2005 - HOST AMERICA CORPORATION, GEOFFREY .... Defendant Host America, a Colorado Corporation with its principal executive offices at 2.

This was related to some claim Host America made about installing some sort of lighting at Walmart. Later in the filing, the plaintiff says the SEC contacted Host America over said announcement and then suspended trading of Host America stock. It seems to be rather dramatic and occurred in 2005.  This might have triggered 'talk' on the web, which possible was later scrubbed.

Possibly, multiple class actions springing about the light contract were consolidated:
Yorks v Hosts America, 03:05cv1250 2006-04-10 - District of ...
www.ctd.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/.../041006.jba_.yorks_.pdf
lawsuits against Host America Corporation (“Host America”), a. Connecticut ..... Dealers and a licensed broker-dealer in Colorado” “is atypical because it is a ...


People at a site called "investors hub" posted an announcement about the stipulated order
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=22574358

I haven't found anything else.


lucia

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 767
    • View Profile
Re: Timothy B. McCormack is a Free Speech Thug & First Amendment Butcher!
« Reply #3 on: September 06, 2014, 09:22:48 AM »
I found another relevant posting http://www.investorvillage.com/mbthread.asp?mb=4223&tid=2211302&showall=1 It suggests whatever Simcosky was on about, it did have something to do with the libel case.


Quote
I am reluctant to post anything of substance on this (yahoo) board because of David Brent Simcosky's incessant harrassment that goes beyond legal definitions of libel. There is another moderated board, that many people here know and are invited to participate. If you have any contact with Corstrat, Kayak, Charter, Beach, Anewangler, CDDilo or others who used to be regular and responsible posters here, you will know how to find it. It does have OT posts, but nothing close to the obsessive rants found in this unregulated public domain. Obviously, on Yahoo anything goes.

Two stipulations were filed on May 22 -- one for the main class action suit, and the other for the derivative suit. In the class action, the settlement is $2.45 million, of which $750K is to be covered by Host America, due in January 2008. Everyone I have spoken with agrees that this is tremendously favorable for the company -- bordering on a non-material monetary amount. Further, there is language in the stipulations that suggests (in my personal, and non-legal opinion) that corporate governance conditions placed upon host (i.e., all PRs have to go through a Disclosure Committee) signal a possible impending resolution of the SEC investigation as well. There are other interesting points as well, and if you find me, I will be happy to send you the documents. And, BTW, anyone can sign up for PACER and have access to real-time documents and events for all Federal jursdiction cases.

I hope we can at some point move towards having a meaningful, informed discussion board here, as these forums are intended. Brent, I have long since realized that you are someone impossible to reason with -- the only time I remember you posting an appropriate, rational discussion was when one of your friends showed up here and you demonstrated that you actually can hold a thoughtful discussion. I simply do not understand your motives, other than a somewhat bizarre outlet for personal entertainment. I hope you can move beyond that at some point.

I'm going to try to find Brent's handle!

lucia

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 767
    • View Profile
Re: Timothy B. McCormack is a Free Speech Thug & First Amendment Butcher!
« Reply #4 on: September 06, 2014, 09:38:50 AM »
OHhh... I see you posted

http://www.scribd.com/doc/238810281/Host-America-v-Simcosky-Washington-State-Thurston-County-Superior-Court
"Motion for temporary restraining order" and the complaint mostly seems to highlight libel, defamation.

That does look like a restraining order requesting prior restraint on speech. I'm pretty sure that's a 1st amendment no-no!!

Oscar Michelen

  • ELI Legal Warrior
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1301
    • View Profile
    • Courtroom Strategy
Re: Timothy B. McCormack is a Free Speech Thug & First Amendment Butcher!
« Reply #5 on: September 06, 2014, 12:49:00 PM »
Lucia: It would be a first amendment no-no but a person is welcome to give away all of his rights of his own choosing. "A stipulated injunction" as you correctly surmised means the language was agreed upon by all parties. As much disdain as folks may have for McCormack, Matt's earlier point is the real key - this guy did not try and get access to legal help that could have resulted in a more narrow injunction or maybe no injunction at all. Once again, this goes to the heart of what ELI and those who are involved in it are trying to accomplish. Provide information and resources to folks facing these kinds of challenges. Many people don't know their rights or believe it would cost them an arm and leg to learn their rights. So companies that are willing to spend the money to hire lawyers to enforce their legal rights have a tremendous advantage over the "little guy."  A courtroom is supposed to be the place where power can be balanced out but that is only true if both sides are adequately represented. As for the judge, sure she could have said something about the injunction being overbroad, but she's not his lawyer. If he is willing to sign it and understands its ramifications, she's not supposed to read his mind and figure out why he is willing to silence himself so completely. By far most courts when they get a stipulated settlement of any kind will just say "If you're happy, I'm happy."     
« Last Edit: January 31, 2015, 05:02:38 AM by Matthew Chan »

Matthew Chan

  • ELI Founder, "Cult Leader", Grand Poobah, Big Cheese
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2773
  • 1st Amendment & Section 230 CDA Advocate
    • View Profile
    • Defiantly
Re: Timothy B. McCormack is a Free Speech Thug & First Amendment Butcher!
« Reply #6 on: September 06, 2014, 02:03:01 PM »
Let's assume that Simcosky did stupidly agree to this agreement. Is it truly enforceable? Let's say he does make one post here on the ELI Forums about Host America, does Timmy actually think he can take all his PC's, forbid him to use the Internet for 10 year beside work purposes, and fine him $250K? I am certainly no legal scholar but I would never sign an agreement like this which is what Timmy was proposing to my court last year. I don't think this is enforceable.  And if Timmy or Host America did try to enforce it, they would get the ass-whipping of a lifetime from the Interwebs.

At the end of the day, it is Simcosky's call. If he doesn't care enough to reach out for legal help, I suppose he can live with it. It was probably easier not to speak about Host America and sign this unconstitutional agreement than to fight it.

But on the upside, no one needs Timmy's, that dumb judge, or Simcosky's permission to talk about this outrageous order.  The rest of the interwebs is free to talk and tweet about it infinitum. And if the Streisand Effect kicks in, so be it.

Once again, we can show the legal genius of Timmy at work.  It is on display for everyone to see.  This is probably one reason Attorney Elizabeth McBride stonewalled me in not providing me the exhibits despite my many attempts to get them. The only way I was able to get them finally was through the court reporter months later.

If Getty thinks they have a wonderful lawyer working for them then they can enjoy this little free speech thuggery and First Amendment butchery.  It only goes to show my point.  Many lawyers like to take advantage of people's legal ignorance because only the legally ignorant would have agreed to that order.

I would love to see Lisa Wilmer publicly defend her pet doggie, Timmy, on this wonderful free speech crushing order Simcosky agreed to.

I found Simcosky's Facebook page.

https://www.facebook.com/brent.simcosky?fref=ts

However, it may be that Simcosky is too frightened to speak to anyone even privately. I am guessing Timmy will issue Simcosky an email "reminder" to shut his trap and not talk to me or anyone or he will use the order and lower the boom on him. Simcosky will need to get a screenshot just as Timmy famously loves to do with me.  But we will see. Timmy has a personal collection of screenshot posts of me to try to club me with. It wouldn't surprise me if he tried to find some naked or otherwise compromising photos of me also.

If Simcosky is smart, he might consider reaching out to Oscar Michelen to see how to get out of the unconstitutional parts of this order he signed.
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.

Matthew Chan

  • ELI Founder, "Cult Leader", Grand Poobah, Big Cheese
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2773
  • 1st Amendment & Section 230 CDA Advocate
    • View Profile
    • Defiantly
Re: Timothy B. McCormack is a Free Speech Thug & First Amendment Butcher!
« Reply #7 on: September 06, 2014, 02:16:46 PM »
Yes, once again, he wants to convince the world that the term "buttfucking" is meant literally. It appears his sensitivity to all phrases relating to "butt" is just taboo territory.  He persistently complains about ELI's use of "butthurt" in the ELI Forums. He has complained this so many times, I was forced to waste my time and actually write a forum post to clarify once and for all what "butthurt" truly means. 

http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/mccormack-letter-forum/eli-definition-of-%27butt-hurt%27-vs-timmy-definition-of-%27butt-hurt%27/

"BUTTHURT" IS NOT ANY VEILED REFERENCE TO ANAL SEX!!!!!  How many times does this actually need to be said?

What about Simcosky's "give me the finger so I intend to break it off and shove it up his DUMB ASS!!!! LOL LOL"

Timmy says that Simcosky is "threatening physical harm."  Really, we have people running around LITERALLY breaking fingers off, and taking that digital appendage and inserting it into people's rectums?  Seriously?

And Timmy complains about Simcosky's alleged "vulgar language"?  What is he and the losers at Host America?  5th-graders?  Did their sensitive feelings get hurt by Simcosky's profanity?  Grow up.

I just love all these instances Timmy acuses Simcorsky of "extortion".  Pot meet kettle.

In defense of Seattle Copyright Attorney Timothy B. McCormack and McCormack Intellectual Property Law it's plainly and painfully obvious why he went to such lenghts to stifle free speech, as in some of the hypebole / rhetoric the word "butt fucking" appears as well as a mention of shoving something up ones ass.. History tells us that McCormack Intellectual Property Law is somewhat sensitive to anything butt related..does The Striesand Effect equate to butthurt?
« Last Edit: September 06, 2014, 06:53:53 PM 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.

Matthew Chan

  • ELI Founder, "Cult Leader", Grand Poobah, Big Cheese
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2773
  • 1st Amendment & Section 230 CDA Advocate
    • View Profile
    • Defiantly
Re: Timothy B. McCormack is a Free Speech Thug & First Amendment Butcher!
« Reply #8 on: September 06, 2014, 02:25:14 PM »
It appears Timothy McCormack succeeded in driving Simcosky offline and underground. Simcosky has almost no Internet presence whatsoever of his own aside from his Facebook page.  Not even a Linkedin Page I can find.

Like Lucia, I would love to know what upset Simcosky so much regarding Host America. 
« Last Edit: September 06, 2014, 06:54:34 PM 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.

lucia

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 767
    • View Profile
Re: Timothy B. McCormack is a Free Speech Thug & First Amendment Butcher!
« Reply #9 on: September 07, 2014, 11:15:00 AM »
I'm pretty sure it was their announcement which resulted in price swings. If I understand correctly (and I may not), the events went:
1) Company makes announcement.
2) Stock price shoots up.  Some stock changes hand at this high price.
3) Some sort of "oops" announcement  related to the announcement in (1) happens -- or possibly the SEC investigation decrees it was misleading... or something. Not quite sure. The stock price craters so fast people can't necessarily react fast enough to get out.

The people who bought at high (at #2) and then either sold low or were stuck with stock were very unhappy. As they attribute the swing to the company announcement which the allege was in some way bogus, irresponsible or misleading (or something not good) various ones lambaste the company and it's directors-- some lawyers file class action sults. 

Some people bought; some sold. I suspect this particular guy bought high, sold low, was really, really angry and resorted to all sorts of vitriolic rants.  (All of which, while intemperate, rude etc, seem to me to be protected by the 1st amendment. As you not: Does any reader really think the speaker intended to find the director, cut off his finger and shove it up his ass? Literally? That looks like hyperbole to me. ) 

Now turning to the class action suit:  These have the potential for making some members of a class really, really angry. 

Historically, some of those end up seeming little more than a method for lawyers representing "the class" and the company that committed the injury negotiating something that covers the company's ass (or worse some 'settlements' actually benefit the company) and puts money for representing "the class" in the attorney's pocket. The judge is supposed to look out for this-- but it doesn't always happen, especially if members of "the class" are insufficiently alert, insufficiently vocal or don't know how to pursue their rights. The latter is often the case.   But some class action suits do work out and do benefit the class-- it sort of depends on the people who put the suit together.  (That said: Based on some settlements I've read, I'd like to see some elements of class action suits changed. But I don't know enough about the subject to suggest precisely what needs to be changed.)


Returning to the guy who submitted to the gag order:  it's possible he was very, very, very angry about having lost a lot of money, he felt  he had been ripped off, and possibly the class action made him even angrier than he otherwise would have been. But it's difficult to tell because all of his rants seem to be scrubbed from the web-- or were posted on less visible media-- or failing that, we don't know his screen names in places where some rants may remain.




Matthew Chan

  • ELI Founder, "Cult Leader", Grand Poobah, Big Cheese
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2773
  • 1st Amendment & Section 230 CDA Advocate
    • View Profile
    • Defiantly
Re: Timothy B. McCormack is a Free Speech Thug & First Amendment Butcher!
« Reply #10 on: September 07, 2014, 11:20:24 PM »
Lucia,

That was a really good write-up. It was very difficult to figure out if Simcosky was a customer or an investor. But it seemed like he was an investor who lost quite a bit of money or was disenchanted with what he perceived as trading hanky-panky. You sure picked up a lot.

Host America appears to be in the food service/food management business. I hope those executives at Host America see this thread.  As a public company, they better get it together or they will see the wrath of the Interwebs and the Streisand Effect.

http://www.answers.com/topic/host-america-corporation

Ick. I don't think I would ever be attracted to that line of business they are in. In fact, I would never want to invest in any restaurant-related stocks.  I know too much about the business and it is a cutthroat, high-risk business with huge overhead, huge liability issues, and just a bunch of other unpleasantness.

The Host America vs. Simcosky case is from 2007, seven years ago. Coupled with the fact that Simcosky himself likely removed all the posts himself as I had to with the poet trolls 2,000 posts. 

I looked up the jurisdiction of the case. That court in Olympia is one hour away from Seattle.  Timmy was in Seattle. I guess he traveled there to fix Simcosky's little red wagon.  The poor guy is probably frozen in fear. Even if he isn't, seven years ago is a long time on the Internet and he probably doesn't want to relive all that.

The guy really needs to put out a web presence.  Because now ELI will be the leading Google entries for Simcosky.  At least, we are sympathetic to the guy.  It is Timmy that looks like a schmuck but what else is new.

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.