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.

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Greg Troy (KeepFighting)

Pages: 1 ... 31 32 [33] 34 35 ... 103
481
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: An Experiment Against Getty
« on: September 16, 2013, 11:36:51 AM »
Welcome to the forums media,

Please keep us updated as to what you do and your results.


Greg,
Thank you for great help...

I have exact case like yours...
Letter sent...
Thanks

482
Thanks! Should you decide to file a bar complaint if you don't mind I would appreciate copies of your letters and any responses from the bar associations. I try to keep my files up-to-date with all the latest information but bar complaints unlike Atty. Gen. complaints are not public record and I cannot obtain them in less freely shared by one of the parties involved.

It is a shame because I can tell you how many Atty. Gen. complaints have been filed againstGetty Images and Mr. McCormack as well as how many Better Business Bureau complaints have been filed but cannot get a hold of the bar complaints or even see how many have been filed.

Thanks again and keep fighting!

483
I liked it a lot and tucked it away in my files for future reference and use.

484
If you are going to file a complaint to the Washington, Idaho and Oregon State Bar Associations (where Mr. McCormack is licensed) you will have to word it properly for them to look into it.  Remember it needs to be approached properly.  The article I just posted that Matthew shared with me is from an IP attorney and makes great points as to what is wrong with the Getty letters, I would read this article carefully before sending off your letter. 

http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/getty-images-letter-forum/forget-about-patent-trolls-copyright-trolls-can-be-even-scarier/

You will have to give specific reasons for the complaint and if you can point to case law all the better, unlike the AG's office you can't just write a letter and say that you don't like what they are doing.

Also remember that if you are filing a Bar complaint, you are doing this because you believe what the lawyer who sent you the letter is doing is truly wrong, unethical  and/or illegal as Bar complaints can effect or end someone career.  I personally do believe that the way Mr, McCormack presents his letters is wrong and the way he and his client (Getty) deal with letter recipients is pushing the razors edge of legality and unethical so I would have no problem sending such a letter(s).  Don't send a Bar complaint if you are just mad, do it for the reasons I stated.

Please keep us posted on what you do and the results, I know I am very interested.


I'll just put as much time and delay between each letter as possible (by responding to a letter immediately upon receiving their next letter, and repeating that procedure regarding the newly received letter, until I can finally inform them that the statute of limitations is up). My latest letter warns that if they continue to accuse and harass me, I will write them up to the relevant authorities. And, I will do what I say. (I've already downloaded your letters... meaning Troy's letters... so that I have templates to work off of.) And, in my next letter they will get copies of the letters I've sent out to the authorities.

Mulligan's view on writing the attorney bar associations makes sense as they protect their own, except for egregious violations that they want to distance themselves from. Yet, letters to the FTC, BBBs, Attorney Generals, some big consumer advocate groups, and my own state representatives should have some impact.

485
Here is a great article that Matthew found and sent to me today and I wanted to share it with everyone else.  Thanks Matthew this is a great article.

This is an article from a copyright attorney who sums up what Getty is doing pretty well.

http://technologyandjustice.com/2013/09/09/forget-about-patent-trolls-copyright-trolls-can-be-even-scarier/

Quote
The letter is not signed by an attorney, but uses the term “License Compliance Team” as the signatory.  Attempting to intentionally mislead you into thinking that Getty Images has retained legal counsel, in their Reference line they use the term “Case Number:” which is followed by a fictitious court docket number.  Nowhere in the letter, will you find an actual Copyright Registration Number issued by the U.S. Copyright Office.

Quote
We need laws in place to reward those who took risks, put in the money and time investment to create and own property (digital or tangible). However, there is a threshold that is crossed by intellectual property owners when their primary business is trolling.

Quote
The question then is when does proactively protecting one’s IP cross the line into trolling? My response would be when the IP owner receives more revenue from going after IP violations than from the legitimate licensed use of the owner’s IP.

Quote
When policing and enforcement becomes a main revenue driver for a copyright or patent holder, there is an issue.  While I am all for protecting one’s IP rights, there is a breaking point when enforcement has gone too far into money making of its own.

486
No, you are right on the money.  But do not say you will do it unless you fully intend to write letters to everyone you tell them you are.  If you don't follow through they will think you were just trying to bluff them and will continue to harass you and may even step it up.

As for me, since I did my letter writing campaign I have not heard a peep from them in over a year now and doubt that I will.

487
Would you be willing to share your letter with us, you can rest assured that your personal information will be redacted.

Any and all information will help. If you are willing my email address is [email protected].

488
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: An Experiment Against Getty
« on: September 09, 2013, 09:55:36 PM »
Okay, It's been a long while but I have an update for those who are following this. 

I received an e-mail Friday from the SEC on my Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to get the documents relating to the SEC investigation into Jonathan Klein and his top officers backdating stock options. 

It basically said that we are about 12 months out from them getting to my request and if I still wanted to continue with the request.  Here is the email, my response and the documents.

 http://www.scribd.com/doc/166887419/9-7-SEC-Request-to-Continue

http://www.scribd.com/doc/166887420/9-8-SEC-Response-to-Request-to-Continue


489
No worries, I did not word it properly, it was a case of the brain working faster than I could type.  I just worry about when I get to the point that I can type faster than my brain can work.  ;)

490
Also so there is no confusion when I spoke of going to the supreme court I was referring to the Georgia Supreme Court not the Federal Supreme Court.

491
Here are a couple of links you may be interested in.

Here is the link to the appeals case with relevant documents.
http://www.scribd.com/collections/4336412/Matthew-Chan-vs-Linda-Ellis-Georgia-Appeal-Case

Today the court granted a three week extention, they gave us an extra week as two were all that was asked for.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/165468233/Chan-v-Ellis-Order-Granting-Extension-of-Time-to-File-Appeal-Briefs



492
Due to the Holiday, Oscar's busy court schedule and a planned vacation Oscar filed today for a two week extention extending the filing deadline from September 9th to September 23rd.

The way the appeal process works in Georgia is Oscar and Mr. McKenney get to file a brief stating why Matthew's PPO should be overturned based on what was said and presented in the original hearing, then the other side gets to submit a brief why it should stand and finally Oscar and Mr. McKenney get the last word with a final brief.  After that it is up to the courts to decide.

It should be noted that this may not get settled here in the Appeals Court depending on what issues are raised as Oscar, the EFF and others feel the PPO was over reaching and affected Matthew's First Amendment rights as well as it violated Section 230 of the CDA may end up sending it to the Supreme Court.

I will keep everyone posted with any updates.

Edit:
I am referring to the Georgia Supreme Court not the Federal Supreme Court.  Sorry if there was any confusion.

493
Agreed, once Oscar is involved they can no longer contact your client.  Plus it drives Mr. Beal crazy when Oscar gets involved. :D

494
For Immediate Release

Contact: Oscar Michelen                                                                   
Email: [email protected]                                                       
Phone: (212) 448-9933

 
Anti-Troll Website Founder Files Appeal Against Georgia Censorship Order

Anti-troll website founder, Matthew Chan, filed a Notice of Appeal with the Georgia Court of Appeals to overturn the Permanent Protective Order issued against him earlier this year.  The Georgia Court of Appeals docketed the case on August 19, 2013 and designated the case: Matthew Chan vs. Linda Ellis, Docket No. A14A0014. http://www.gaappeals.us/docket/results_one_record.php?docr_case_num=A14A0014

In February 2013, Chan and his anti-troll website, ExtortionLetterInfo.com (“ELI”), became embroiled in a legal battle against Linda Ellis, poet and author of “The Dash.” In her initial complaint charging Chan with stalking, Ellis claimed that Chan posted her home address, photos of her house, family information, and made death threats. All of the activity allegedly occurred on the ELI website and many of the posts Ellis complained about were made by other forum participants on ELI, not Chan himself.

There were no allegations that Chan ever actually contacted Ellis directly or in person; Ellis discovered the offending posts when she voluntarily visited and read the ELI website. After a three-hour hearing in Muscogee County Superior Court, where Chan represented himself (“pro se”) against Ellis’ attorney, Elizabeth McBride, Ellis was awarded a sweeping Permanent Protective Order against Chan requiring among other things, that he remove every single post on the ELI website referencing Ellis.


Anti-Troll Website Founder in Self-Imposed Exile in Protest of Overreaching Protective Order

Reacting to the permanent protective order, Chan stated, “I was stunned by the Court’s decision to place a lifetime protective order against me given that I have no criminal record or any record of ever having stalked or threatened anyone prior. I feel it is grossly disproportionate and unjust. I also could not believe that the Court effectively ordered a total shutdown of any prior or future posts and references to the Plaintiff and her business activities, including the great majority of posts that were never part of the complaint! The Plaintiff has become a forbidden topic of discussion or reporting by anyone on any of my websites.”

In March 2013, Chan quietly removed himself as Editor-in-Chief of ELI and placed himself in self-imposed exile in protest of the overreaching protective order.  He no longer contributes, writes, or manages the website which discusses and reports on copyright trolling and other intellectual property issues. Volunteer community members have taken over the day-to-day responsibilities and the moderation of the website. ELI currently refers to Chan as “Founder-in-Silence.”


Legal Experts Agree: Georgia Order is Overbroad & Violates First Amendment Rights

Oscar Michelen, of Manhattan-based Cuomo LLC, is Chan’s lead attorney and the legal advisor to ELI. Michelen has teamed up with Georgia law firm, McKenney & Froehlich, to represent Chan in his bid to overturn the lower court’s decision. Michelen says, “The protective order and the cloud that Matthew Chan currently lives under is excessive and goes way beyond what the law allows. It has chilled and suppressed Matthew’s First Amendment right to report, comment, or otherwise provide information to his readers. The ELI site gets approximately 12,000 visitors per month; it is an active vibrant forum very popular among its readership. So while on the surface this may seem to be a small case involving two Georgia residents, this case could have far-reaching impact on the Internet.”

Michelen explains, “First of all, we cannot have website owners being held responsible for the posts of others. Secondly, we cannot have local courts apply local laws in disregard of federal laws governing free and protected speech, essentially ignoring laws protecting website hosts and moderators. To let this pass would have a chilling effect on all online discussion forum hosts and moderators on the Internet. Finally, even on the local and State level, we cannot have someone being found guilty of stalking someone they never met, never spoke with, or never even emailed.”

In a March 26, 2013, article published by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Senior EFF Staff Attorney Kurt Opsahl wrote, “The Court used this as a basis to order Chan “to remove all posts relating to Ms. Ellis.” All posts, not just posts that might threaten Ellis, or even just those written by Chan.  This woefully overboard restraint on speech not only threatens freedom of expression, it also ignores Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, the legal cornerstone upon which all user-generated content websites are built.”

Opsahl further wrote, “Under the First Amendment, courts limit injunctions in restraint of speech to the rare circumstances when (1) the activity to be restrained poses either a clear and present danger or a serious and imminent threat to a protected competing interest, (2) the order is narrowly drawn and (3) less restrictive alternatives are not available. Removing “all posts relating to Ms. Ellis” is neither narrowly tailored nor the least restrictive means of addressing any true threats.”
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/03/georgia-court-order-threatens-message-boards-everywhere

In a March 27, 2013 article published by Ars Technica, Ars Technica Reporter Timothy B. Lee sought First Amendment lawyer, Paul Alan Levy for his opinion. According to Lee, “Levy described JudgeJordan’s restraining order as “entirely overbroad.” The restraining order requires the removal of all content about Ellis, whether or not it’s threatening or otherwise illegal. Levy said that wasn’t kosher under the First Amendment. He also criticized JudgeJordan for failing to heed Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which provides website operators with broad immunity for content posted by third parties.”
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/03/i-made-some-stupid-posts-anti-troll-site-gagged-after-threats-against-poet/

495
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: 8-16-2013 -- MasterFile -- Fair use?
« on: August 28, 2013, 07:44:11 PM »
Once they receive Oscar's letter they are no longer allowed to contact you, if they do let Oscar know and he will handle it.

Pages: 1 ... 31 32 [33] 34 35 ... 103
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.