Messages

571

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Agence France Presse - LCS Letter

« on: October 28, 2016, 02:15:13 PM »

LCS represents Agence France Press. I have seen them before.  Lots of their amounts are really low settlement amounts. I almost never see low settlement amounts of under $200. I guess LCS is getting smarter about making it easy for people to pay.

572

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: ImageRights International Inc. (ImageRights.com)

« on: October 28, 2016, 02:13:01 PM »

I have learned the name of one of ImageRights' young pup staff lawyers.  Aws Shemmeri is Director of Dispute Resolution. He has been a lawyer for 4 years. He got his license in 2012.

Aws Shemmeri
ImageRights International, Inc.   
617-871-0969   
51 Melcher Street, First Fl.   
Boston MA 02210
Admitted to the bar   on 11/30/12
Board of Bar Overseers number: 684374
Current status is Active

I think that is similar to the inexperienced, Leslie Burns of "Burns the Attorney."  All these newbie lawyers seem to end up with these shit jobs.

573

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Getty Images files two more lawsuits in 2016

« on: October 28, 2016, 02:20:28 AM »

The story of Getty Images vs. J&J Cleaning has been posted here.

http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/getty-images-letter-forum/the-interesting-case-of-getty-images-v-jj-cleaning-co-(rhon-johnson)/

Yeah, I would be interested in hearing some of the details if you have the time. Thanks.

574

Getty Images Letter Forum / The interesting case of Getty Images v. J&J Cleaning Co (Rhon Johnson)

« on: October 28, 2016, 01:57:27 AM »

A few weeks ago, I found the case of Getty Images v. J&J Cleaning Company. It is one of the few lawsuits filed against a letter recipient in 2016. What struck me as particularly odd is that is the only case I ever saw where a pro se party (individual without a lawyer) filed a counter-claim against Getty Images. I was intrigued and curious so I investigated the matter.

We have discussed on ELI Forums that one way to gain leverage and hit back against unreasonable infringement lawsuits is to file a counter-claim. You don't pay the filing fee as it was paid by the original plaintiff. And although, it has been discussed here on the ELI Forums, we also know that most people really don't have the stomach or expertise to pursue such a measure.  It is an interesting theoretical discussion but not well suited for most readers here.

HOWEVER, I found that Rhon Johnson of J&J Cleaning did EXACTLY THAT! And I think Getty Images was surprised about that because this lawsuit was filed in Little Rock, Arkansas, not exactly a place one associates with media-related lawsuits.

https://www.scribd.com/document/329195990/Getty-Images-v-J-J-Cleaning-Pro-Se-Counterclaim

https://www.scribd.com/document/329196083/Getty-Images-v-J-J-Cleaning-Case-Docket

What also struck me about this case was the "amateurish" way it was done (and I don't mean that as an insult, it was a compliment for this circumstance). I was impressed because Rhon was NOT a lawyer or legally trained. He also didn't use any standard, spiffy-looking Word legal template that lawyers use.  He crafted his own answer and counter claim filed it with the Clerk's office and, according to Rhon, HAND-DELIVERED a copy to the Arkansas law firm!

This appeared to have gotten the attention of Scottie Wilsdon of Yarsmuth Wilson (lawyer for Getty Images). From what I was able to piece together, there some email exchanges back and forth but at some point, both parties agreed that perhaps having a settlement discussion might be the best course of action.

After all, how would it look that a billion-dollar company like Getty Images is fighting a pro se defendant in Little Rock, Arkansas?  We all know that any Getty Images lawsuit generally make the news. And despite my cracks of Scottie, I believe he is a smart lawyer. Probably smarter than most of the previous Getty Images lawyers we have reported on. He can probably be as tough as any other lawyer but he probably knows that any heavy-handed or egregious behavior on his part would badly reflect upon his client, Getty Images, who have no shortage of PR problems and bad press.

Scottie knows about ELI and certainly knows about the many news sites that report on any Getty Images lawsuits.  And so, Scottie wisely had a civil discussion with Rhon to settle the matter especially when Rhon demonstrated he was prepared to soldier on by himself, if need be.  He wasn't just going to roll over and pay what Getty asked for as he felt it was unfair and unreasonable. He was prepared to go in front of a federal judge and argue his case. I am particularly biased on this because it is something I was prepared to so myself back in 2008 and I admire Rhon's spirit and determination to commit to such a path.

Rhon told me Scottie was entirely respectful during the discussions and easy to talk to. I give Scottie credit for that. Rhon could not tell me what he settled for as he signed a confidentiality agreement but  he did say he had no regrets and was happy with the outcome. Rhon said he didn't have a problem paying a reasonable settlement fee but he was not going to pay an unreasonable and exorbitant one. I tried to find out a ballpark amount he settled upon. I speculated that Rhon might have had to at least pay Getty's court filing fees of $400 but somehow I am not convinced Rhon even paid the $400 court filing fees to settle with Getty.

What is interesting to know that in a counter-claim situation, Getty Images as a plaintiff cannot unilaterally dismiss the claim if the counter-plaintiff doesn't agree. This document shows that Getty Images needed Rhon's agreement to dismiss this case:

https://www.scribd.com/document/329195993/Getty-Images-v-J-J-Cleaning-Stipulated-Motion-to-Dismiss

The reason why that is important is because if Getty settled for LESS than $400, it was a loss for Getty all the way around. After all, the Arkansas lawyer likely charged a legal fee for being the "local" Arkansas lawyer on behalf of Getty Images in addition to the court filing fee. There is also the matter of Scottie and his law firm being paid for their time in the J&J Cleaning case. Unless the lawyers decided to waive any of their fees, my estimate is that Getty Images ended up paying at least $1,500 for the two lawyers and the $400 filing fee. Getty Images were in it for around $2,000 (again a huge guesstimate on my part) to come after J&J Cleaning and Rhon. But it would seem that Getty Images would have been lucky to have the filing fees fully reimbursed at all.

I suspect that once Scottie knew who he was dealing with: a small business and scrappy entrepreneur who really had no willful intent of the vanilla infringement and that Rhon would continue as a pro se defendant and muddle his way all the way to a federal judge to present his case, this would become a PR nightmare and they would likely not collect much money for this Goliath vs. David case.

If this case had gotten publicity, Rhon would have had a good chance that some defense lawyer would step in to assist Rhon. But fortunately, none of that was necessary.

Rhon did a great job in flipping the negotiating table by filing a cobbled-together answer and counter-claim himself. He said he learned a lot from the entire experience and was gracious enough to share his story with me. On a personal note, I found Rhon easy to talk and he had a good demeanor. I understand why Scottie would have settled with him. I think Rhon himself carried himself in a way that lent him getting benefit of the doubt.

It also happens that Rhon is a publisher and author:
http://rhonjohnson.com/

You can see for yourself what kind of guy Rhon is, there embedded videos of him here:
http://rhonjohnson.com/?page_id=73

575

Higbee Associates Letter & Lawsuits Forum / Beware of Photographer Nicholas (Nick) Youngson of NYPhotographic.com

« on: October 28, 2016, 12:47:33 AM »

I bring a warning and information about a Nicholas (Nick) Youngson (UK photographer) of NYPhotographic.com. He is represented by Higbee & Associates here in the U.S. In a short amount of time, I have run into the Nick Youngson / NYPhotographic free image/"Creative Commons" honey-trap.

As regular readers know, most lawyers working on such cases work on a commission basis (30%-35% range). They are incentivized to extract as much monies they can from any particular infringer. They also have discretion in these negotiations. They depend on people's legal ignorance and hope people will never find the ELI Forums or speak to me on an ELI Support Call.  But fortunately, people do find us and find me. 

In the case of Nick Youngson, it is plainly clear he delegates most of the process to his lawyer:

http://www.nyphotographic.com/about.html

I am spending my days locating my images that are being used without a valid license, emailing people asking them to pay the license fee and most are ignoring me.

I am now thoroughly fed up with this situation so as from now any site using my images without a valid license and being used to promote a service, I am going to pass straight to my attorney to deal with. I can't be expected to spend my days emailing people infringing my copyright only to get ignored or abused so now they can deal with my attorney.

Sites run by individuals not promoting a service will continue to receive an email asking them for my standard license fee of a few dollars.

Here's the problem I have.  On JPhotoStyle.com promoting all kinds of "free" images, it actively promotes NYPhotographic images and there is text that specifically states:

This picture related to XXXX may be used for free including for commercial purposes.

The picture below related to the word human resources is licensed by it's creator under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license which permits the free use of the image for any purpose including commercial use and also permits the image to be modified.

However, some of those same images also appear on the paid site, NYPhotographic.com for $9.95!

The photographer himself allows his photos to be used under Creative Commons use and prices his own photos at $9.95 but somehow when there is an "oopsie" mistake by the user, Higbee then tries to collect $5,000-$7,000.

Of course, it is a big "bargain" if Higbee drops the settlement amount by 50% right?  Meaning settling for $2,500 to $3,500 at 30% commission nets Higbee $750-$1,050. The photographer gets the other 70% at $1,750 to $4,900.  Not a bad profit for sending a few emails to infringers right?

Remember, Youngson is charging less than $10 per photo.  So the "infringement" penalty is 250 to 350 times the sales price of the image!

We rail on Getty Images, Masterfile, LCS, etc. all the time about their settlement amounts. But the scheme being use by Youngson to lure people into "free" sites under Creative Commons use and then popping the users of those "infringers" go way beyond the tactics of our standard extortionists.  Also, the standard extortionists do not charge $10 for their images (which have settlement amounts that are lower, if one pays at all) than what Higbee and Youngson is trying to pull off.

Higbee and their ilk are likely to say that just because someone infringes, they "deserve" that exorbitant amount. I call bullshit on that.  They are the same people who, if caught speeding 5 mph over the speed limit, and were handed a $2,000 speeding ticket, would squawk how unfair and disproportionate it was.

Higbee represents a variety of photographers from what I can tell. However, this Nick Youngson and NYPhotographic.com (with the help of Higbee & Associates) is particularly egregious and people need to be on the look out for this little setup racket.

576

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Joel Albrizio (Adlife) Allegedly Threatens to "Destroy" "Ruin Life" of ELI Membr

« on: October 25, 2016, 09:31:32 PM »

My comments inline...

I am guessing this guy was smart enough not to make the threats in writing. 

From what I was told, there was a very rough conversation and ugly words were exchanged. Of course, Albrizio tried to teach Robert a "lesson".

I wonder if he realizes how many friends Robert and Matthew have made through ELI.  These are all people who have been victims of copyright extortion schemes.  Many of these people feel a debt to Robert and Matthew and might be willing to step in and assist them in the event that they are unjustly targeted by this troll.

People coming out to support the cause has been known to happen!

These friends of Robert and Matthew encompass a wide range of society. Legal scholars, large business people, small mom and pop businesses, students and bloggers who may have gotten caught in a troll net; there's even the guy who offered to fly to Seattle to personally deliver a lead calling card to Timothy McCormack.

I plead the 5th here. One never knows what rabbits will be pulled out of a creative hat when circumstances warrant it. Don't mess with 1st Amendment / free speech folks is all I will say.

At first glance, a guy with a blog and a mission to end copyright trolling may look like easy pickings to a type A intimidator.  Be careful where you step, Mr. Albrizio.  The waters may be a lot deeper than they look.

As a certain Dash Poet (and her allies) found out 2 years ago. She took in a lot of salty water for swimming into the 1st Amendment riptides.

577

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Joel Albrizio (Adlife) Allegedly Threatens to "Destroy" "Ruin Life" of ELI Membr

« on: October 25, 2016, 09:09:46 PM »

Oscar Michelen has stepped in to have Robert's back. A copy of Oscar's letter to put Albrizio on notice is posted here:

http://copyright-trolls.com/site/adlife-marketing-joel-albrizio-gets-quick-law-lesson/

October 24, 2016

Mr. Joel Albrizio
Adlife Marketing and Communications
38 Church Street
Pawtucket, RI 02860

Re: Robert Krausankas / Copyright-Trolls.com

Dear Mr. Albrizio:

I represent Robert Krausankas and his website Copyright-Trolls.com with respect to any potential claim you may be contemplating against them. Mr. Krausankas advised me of a conversation on October 21, 2016, wherein you made threatening statements against him. I take your statements to my client as a veiled reference to possible litigation regarding alleged defamation and the use of an image purportedly owned and copyrighted by you. I assume this because if I took them to be threats of a physical nature upon my client’s personal safety I would advise him to immediately report it to a law enforcement agency. Please cease and desist any further contact with Mr. Krausankas and Copyright-Trolls.com via any method or medium including U.S. Mail, telephone, email, instant message, text or posting comments on his blog. While I hope this is our last communication, direct all future correspondence on this matter to me and not my clients.

As to any purported claims of “defamation” the First Amendment to the United States Constitution greatly protects speech, opinion, criticism, parody and comedy. In fact, U.S. courts have ruled that bloggers like Mr. Krausankas have the same First Amendment protections when sued for defamation as traditional journalists such as newspapers and print.

Moreover, if the issue is of public concern, a defamation plaintiff would have to prove malice (if the subjects are public figures) or negligence (if it is a matter of public concern regardless of their status) to win damages. Courts have reiterated the public’s right to post opinions, even if they are nasty and crude. Courts generally look at three factors to distinguish between “fact” and “opinion” as follows:

“(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 Mr. Krausankas and Copyright-Trolls.com were engaging in protected speech in all of their discussions about you on the site. Any statements or references to you in the posts to which you may object to are at best statements of opinion and are not defamatory. There appears to be no false facts contained in any of the posts of which you may complain. They are merely criticisms and expressions of opinion. These types of criticisms and commentaries are of course constitutionally protected speech.

You should understand that numerous websites, 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 that may run contrary to their pursuits. I would venture to guess that the more you continue in this method of business, the more you will continue to be criticized by third parties as the Internet has a way of continuing to build on conflict.

As to the alleged use of the image of your headshot, this image has not been copied, reproduced, nor does it exist on the copyright-trolls.com server. The images were linked directly from outside sources, therefore no infringement occurred. US Courts have ruled that “linking” and “hot-linking” does NOT constitute direct copyright infringement. In the case of Perfect 10 v. Google, for example, the Ninth Circuit upheld the district court’s decision that hyperlinks did not infringe on copyright.  The court also agreed that including an inline link is not the same as hosting the material yourself. In addition, the use of the image would also fall under the “Fair Use Doctrine” which protects the use of another copyrighted work if its use is the subject of a criticism, commentary or parody of the subject.

In July of 2015, Florida expanded its anti-SLAPP laws. Florida’s anti-SLAPP law, Section 768.295 of the Florida Statutes, had historically applied to only those SLAPP suits filed by governmental entities; however, effective July 1, 2015, the law began to apply to SLAPP suits filed by anyone. The amended law will protect free speech in connection with public issues in two categories: (1) speech made before a governmental entity in connection with an issue that the governmental entity is considering or has under review; and (2) speech in connection with a play, movie, television program, radio broadcast, audiovisual work, book, magazine article, musical work, news report or similar works. Mr. Krausankas’ articles and the ensuing comments would fall under the second application of the law. The law provides for expeditious resolution of a SLAPP suit and an award of attorney’s fees to the prevailing party. Any lawsuit you might bring against my client will likely encourage my client to pursue anti-SLAPP sanctions and damages against you as provided by the recently-amended Florida anti-SLAPP statutes.

Mr. Krausankas and Copyright-trolls.com have every right to express negative opinions and make negative comments about you, about what you and others like you do and what effect what you do has on others and the legal system in general. Accordingly, I hope and expect that this communication ends this issue.

Sincerely,

OSCAR MICHELEN

OM:sjk

578

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Joel Albrizio (Adlife Marketing & Communications) Gets Nutty on Copyright-Trolls

« on: October 23, 2016, 08:31:58 AM »

I love this idea of sending your own invoice to them!

Here is my suggestion to the person that was referenced in Matthews link above:
_____

Hi Liz,

I would suggest that you prepare an invoice for the amount of time you spent researching and confirming your ownership of the image. I would submit this invoice and a letter to the company that wrongly accused you, that you require payment for the time you spent researching their error. Also maybe mention that your terms require payment within 30 days or the invoice will accrue late penalties and interest. Now you get to turn the tables and hound them! How fun.
______

When people start costing the image troll companies time or money or both, they will become much more careful about the claims they are making.

579

Getty Images Letter Forum / Joel Albrizio (Adlife) Allegedly Threatens to "Destroy" "Ruin Life" of ELI Membr

« on: October 22, 2016, 08:43:16 PM »

Since 2008 when ELI has been in existence, ELI (especially me) has made its share of enemies because of our strong advocacy & punchback against copyright extortionists. We discuss unconventional tactics & strategies against the scourge of disproportionate demands for "de minimus" infringements. Part of that is exposing the people and their sordid behavior.

Robert Krausankas has long been a friend and essential ELI Defense Team Member and works closely with me, Oscar, and Greg to watch over the ELI community. 3 years ago when I faced my own legal battle against Linda Ellis (who issues $7,500 demand letters for the innocent and fan-sharing of her viral poem), Robert stepped in to become the host provider for ELI (with ZERO compensation).

Robert also writes on his own blog: http://copyright-trolls.com and he has expanded his interests to First Amendment / free speech issues in addition to copyright extortion issues. Now, for the very first time, we have a reported threat to "destroy" and "ruin the life" of against an ELI Defense Team member and that appears to be Joel Albrizio of Adlife Marketing & Communications against Robert Krausankas.

http://copyright-trolls.com/site/joel-albrizio-threatens-me-im-going-to-destroy-you/

In my view, Joel Albrizio has crossed the line and I cannot stand by while a friend is being threatened for calling out an ethically-challenged business person. I have largely kept quiet as Robert had been breaking the story but I have been involved with another issue in another corner of the Internet: 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/10/10/dozens-of-suspicious-court-cases-with-missing-defendants-aim-at-getting-web-pages-taken-down-or-deindexed/

http://pubcit.typepad.com/clpblog/2016/10/profile-defenders-and-richart-ruddie-the-common-link-between-two-phony-defamation-suits.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/10/10/a-tip-of-the-hat-to-matthew-chan-whose-call-helped-us-uncover-the-many-suspicious-internet-takedown-cases/

I have not had much time to blog about my own case that I am involved with but I have a greater urgency to come forward to the aid of a loyal friend and loyal team member who extends and expands the reach of what Oscar Michelen and I started here on ELI 8 years ago.

It's possible Albrizio was blowing off steam in the heat of the moment but both Robert and I have Googled his past and there have been individuals from Albrizio's past making contact with Robert and the stories are not good. They revolve around complaints about Albrizio and his legal conflicts. They reveal dishonorable, thuggish tactics and heavy-handed ways as he is now doing with his $8K Food extortion letters.

I have in my possession of another threat email by Albrizio against a person who "dared" to make a complaint about him and his business to a governmental agency & business advocacy group. He is now trying to silence that person by making not-so-veiled legal threats against that person.

Essentially, he appears to be stepping into SLAPP territory. http://www.anti-slapp.org/slappdash-faqs-about-slapps/

He has legally threatened Robert and this other person for exercising their 1st Amendment rights to share their opinions and complain about Albrizio & Adlife Marketing.  There is a chance he might now legally threaten me now that I am coming to Robert's defense. No one is looking to be a defendant in any lawsuit but, at the same time, there is no way we can be silent in this matter. That is not how the ELI team or philosophy works. 

Albrizio was perfectly content to repeatedly call Robert a "thief" because of the mistaken notion that Robert might have infringed on Adlife's images. Robert didn't, he only reported on it. Robert was open to an apology from Albrizio but never got one.  Albrizio tried to slyly recruit Robert to come up with ways to be an intermediary on behalf of Adlife.  Moron Albrizio couldn't figure out that copyright-trolls.com exists for the purpose to expose COPYRIGHT TROLLING!  Why would Robert volunteer his free time to work for someone sending out outrageous $8K extortion letters for food images?

Albrizio appears to be clueless about the Streisand Effect. I was perfectly content in being in the background when Robert was reporting on Albrizio's and Adlife Marketing & Communication's $8K letters.  But now, Albrizio appears to be rattling his saber to silence anyone who calls him an insulting name and makes complaints to business advocacy and government agencies.

Albrizio seriously needs to cool his jets or he might just face the collective wrath of the tech press, anti-copyright troll community, and First Amendment advocates & their team of VOLUNTEER lawyers who will STREISAND him and his business into the ground as well as legally challenge him. I can't even imagine all the people who might appear from Albrizio's past who are more than willing to spill their guts to anyone willing to listen. Oscar Michelen is a legal advisor for ELI and he is also the legal advisor for Copyright-Trolls.com. Oscar has been contacted by myself and Robert in the Albrizio threat matter and he has given his assurances that he is part of the team should Albrizio choose to escalate the matter into the court system.

Most people would understand but there are some that think they can take on to the entire Internet. Albrizio MIGHT be dumb enough and follow the path of Charles Carreon, Prenda Law, and Righthaven into oblivion. They were all buried in the graveyard of losers-for-taking-on-the-Internet.

580

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Adlife Marketing & Communications ASKING $8,000 for an image

« on: October 19, 2016, 07:34:17 PM »

Adlife is very consistent about their $8K letters. Read what this blogger/writer has to say about her experience.

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/10-emotions-expect-when-accused-image-copyright-even-chicken-krause

581

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Joel Albrizio (Adlife Marketing & Communications) Gets Nutty on Copyright-Trolls

« on: October 19, 2016, 07:31:23 PM »

Here is an article I was made aware of that might be connected to how Adlife operates.

It is a well-written accounting of what a writer/blogger went through recently. She doesn't name Adlife but I think it was them that she writes about. 

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/10-emotions-expect-when-accused-image-copyright-even-chicken-krause

Also, Robert has released his latest report on Joel Albrizio of Adlife.

http://copyright-trolls.com/site/adlife-marketing-ceo-joel-abrizio-reaches-out-to-yours-truly/

582

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Anyone hear of Adlife from RI?

« on: October 19, 2016, 07:25:17 PM »

I am getting some new information about Adlife Marketing & Communications and how they operate. A big part of this new information is coming in from outside reports in response to Robert's recent posts about Joel Albrizio.

There is information I have that I cannot report but I believe Robert is working on it.

http://copyright-trolls.com/site/adlife-marketing-ceo-joel-abrizio-reaches-out-to-yours-truly/

However, one theme has surfaced.  A couple of people report that images legitimately obtained from iStock but still getting Adlife extortion letters. Not a good thing to happen and causing all kinds of stress to people.

Do your homework!
 

583

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Getty Images files two more lawsuits in 2016

« on: October 14, 2016, 11:27:01 PM »

I know a lot about the J&J Cleaning case and the business owner. It is an interesting case study for people to learn from. I will share more information when I have more time to write.

584

Getty Images Letter Forum / Getty Images files two more lawsuits in 2016

« on: October 12, 2016, 05:49:16 AM »

We haven't had a chance to pull up the complaints in these cases but it looks like Getty Images wants to make an example out of a couple of cases here.

Getty Images US, Inc. v. LTS - Legal Technology Staffing, LLC
Plaintiff: Getty Images US, Inc.
Defendant: LTS - Legal Technology Staffing, LLC
Case Number: 2:2016cv07120
Filed: September 22, 2016
Court: California Central District Court
Presiding Judge: Michael W. Fitzgerald
Referring Judge: Alexander F. MacKinnon


This case below is interesting because there appears to be counter-suit which is something we don't see often.

Getty Images (US) Inc v. J & J Cleaning Company Inc
Plaintiff: Getty Images (US) Inc
Defendant: J & J Cleaning Company Inc
Counter_claimant: J & J Cleaning Company Inc
Counter_defendant: Getty Images (US) Inc
Case Number: 4:2016cv00555
Filed: August 1, 2016
Court: Arkansas Eastern District Court
Office: Little Rock Office
Presiding Judge: Brian S. Miller

585

Legal Controversies Forum / Re: Mitul R. Patel vs. Chan: Bogus Defamation Case Using Fake signature & fake info

« on: October 12, 2016, 05:36:54 AM »

The next big wave of research and discovery in this story.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/10/10/dozens-of-suspicious-court-cases-with-missing-defendants-aim-at-getting-web-pages-taken-down-or-deindexed/

http://pubcit.typepad.com/clpblog/2016/10/profile-defenders-and-richart-ruddie-the-common-link-between-two-phony-defamation-suits.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/10/10/a-tip-of-the-hat-to-matthew-chan-whose-call-helped-us-uncover-the-many-suspicious-internet-takedown-cases/