Messages

751

Legal Controversies Forum / Marc Randazza Response to DMCA-like takedown request....

« on: November 17, 2014, 09:13:58 PM »

Marc Randazza's response is actually quite amusing. My understanding is that this is a real response to a bogus takedown request by a dumb lawyer.

https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentcloud.org/documents/1362088/randazza-v-rsd-asshats.pdf

752

Hawaiian Letters & Lawsuits Forum / Re: Vincent K. Tylor vs. Vermont Woods Studios - Round 2

« on: November 14, 2014, 10:02:33 PM »

Did you identify yourself appropriately to him? Did he know your name?  Or did he think you were another random victim?

I understand that but I helped him a great deal, took time out of my schedule to do so, send him info that helped his case I am quite sure, and agreed to be on his witness list.  So I just thought he might take 5 minutes to call me back at least and say thanks for your help sorry but I can't talk about it.

753

Legal Controversies Forum / Roca Labs Sues First First Amendment Big-Dog Lawyer Marc Randazza for Defamation

« on: November 12, 2014, 06:07:54 AM »

I have been mostly quiet about the whole Roca Labs situation because it is largely unrelated to what ELI covers. But I have not been able to ignore it because of the craziness that Roca Labs has generated. I read Twitter posts and the occasional blog post about Roca Labs by prominent bloggers Popehat, Techdirt, Adam Steinbaugh, BoingBoing, etc.

However, what has put me over the top regarding Roca Labs is that they have foolishly made this into even a bigger show by suing First Amendment big-dog lawyer, anti-revenge porn lawyer, Righthaven-crusher, Marc Randazza. All one has to do is Google "Marc Randazza" and his reputation speaks for himself. Although I have never met or communicated with Marc, I respect his frank, passionate, and outspoken style. He doesn't mince words nor does he suffer fools and idiots.  He is pretty generous with his use of tasty 4-letter words.  I've read a few of Marc's briefs over the years and he is a very good and assertive writer. His "style" is quite agreeable with my sensibilities.  (Take that for what it's worth!)

Based on second-hand info, it appears that Roca Labs is allegedly a company that makes some kind of "stuff" (that has little or no calories) that a person can "eat" to make themselves "feel full" thereby allowing a person to lose weight. Part of Roca Labs "strategy" is that pricing is very expensive.  And people who are interested in buying this "stuff" get a huge discount by agreeing to NOT disparage or complain about the the company and its product.

Roca Labs has made themselves famous in the tech and legal blogging world by engaging in its crazy tactics. Thus far, they have attempted to silence three Florida ex-customers (Companies seem to like to pedal sleazy shit to suckers in Florida.) for complaining about Roca Labs and its allegedly ineffective "stuff" to the Better Business Bureau, PissedConsumer.com, among others.  This, of course, reminds me a lot of Getty Images' outside counsel, Timothy B. McCormack's, nasty little First Amendment-stealing tactic from 2007 of taking advantage of legally ignorant, David Simcosky, by "leaning" on him to sign and shut up or Simcosky would be forbidden use the Internet, have his PC's removed, pay fines, etc.

http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/mccormack-letter-forum/timothy-b-mccormack-is-a-free-speech-thug-first-amendment-violator/

In any case, I have posted this little story right here in the PPO Forum because it seems appropriate as I view it as a potentially First Amendment crushing story. As if it wasn't bad enough that ex-customers are being used for rightfully making public complaints.  But now they want to try to silence Marc Randazza himself who represents PissedConsumer.com.

Both Adam Steinbaugh and Popehat is covering the Roca Labs v. Marc Randazza lawsuit.  You can read their takes on this recent Roca Labs development.

http://www.popehat.com/2014/11/11/roca-labs-lacking-a-hornet-nest-into-which-it-could-stick-its-dick-has-sued-marc-randazza/

http://adamsteinbaugh.com/2014/11/11/roca-labs-sues-marc-randazza-for-defamation/

My guess is that Roca Labs is in denial of the Streisand Effect and they believe they can legally pummel the interwebs into silence. And according to Popephat, the Florida lawyer, John DeGirolamo, representing Roca Labs, apparently has an arrest record.  http://openpasts.com/publicrecord/john-degirolamo/1598426033908

Roca Labs, by suing Marc Randazza for defamation, has pretty much ensured that First Amendment advocates come out of the woodwork in droves on behalf of Marc.  My guess is that John DeGirolamo and Roca Labs thinks they can take on Marc Randazza and actually shut him up.  Really?  They have pretty much ensured that Marc will be working pro-bono to putting Roca Labs into the ground much like how he helped put Righthaven out of business.

This is going to get very interesting very fast.

754

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: New extorting company: August

« on: November 07, 2014, 04:42:34 AM »

How do you figure you are screwed?  I looked up his name (Don Flood) in Federal lawsuit database and I didn't find anything.  Unless he goes by another corporate name, I don't see any lawsuits.

Also, look at his contact details. I'm definitely screwed. 

755

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Price of Photo and Demand Amount $186 different. Just pay or fight?

« on: November 07, 2014, 04:36:51 AM »

Sometimes the best way to "fight" is to simply go dark.  This is the advice I give to certain people in certain situations. It doesn't fit all situations but if the circumstances are correct and ideal, it is the best course of action.

756

Hawaiian Letters & Lawsuits Forum / Re: Vincent K. Tylor vs. Vermont Woods Studios - Round 2

« on: November 07, 2014, 04:33:29 AM »

I have never spoken to Aloha Plastic Surgery but I would cut him a break and give him the benefit of the doubt here.  Unfortunately, he has the distinction on ELI of being the only defendant I know that took the fight back to the Hawaiian "team" which ended with a settlement that Aloha appeared be satisfied with.  Because of this, I think he is probably getting more uninvited calls and emails over VKT matters than he would prefer.  The number of VKT victims are getting larger in number and his reputation is only getting more notorious.  With greater notoriety, people come flocking to ELI and learn about VKT but also learn about Aloha Plastic Surgery.  And I can tell everyone from personal experience, people have no reservations on ringing someone's phone if they need and want information.  They are well-intended but the person receiving random calls regard it as uninvited, unwelcome, and sometimes even disruptive to a workday.

That happened with Aloha Plastic Surgery.  That guy was wanting all kinds of information, really active then suddenly he was gone and got all short and rude responding to a status check.  Used everyone for information and then couldn't be bothered to even be polite and say "thanks for checking and for your time, sorry but I can't talk about it."

757

Hawaiian Letters & Lawsuits Forum / Re: Vincent K. Tylor vs. Vermont Woods Studios - Round 2

« on: November 07, 2014, 04:23:52 AM »

Legal ignorance by victims is epidemic. They are perfectly allowed to say they settled but not "allowed" to disclose the terms of settlement. To be fair, some victims do communicate behind the scenes (and a number of victims have confided in me over the years).  But, no offense, they aren't going to communicate with a total stranger.

There is a lot of secrecy going on and I have been at the forefront of making known as much as possible the best I can.  Unfortunately, some of the information I have cannot be revealed online without inadvertently giving away the identity of the person who provides me such information.

On behalf of the victims, they don't want any more grief but rest assured they are not happy about being silent but they are being cautious and they don't want any more energy or time suck. They also don't know who they can trust.

I assumed that. I guess I was hoping at least one or two would just confirm, "yes, we did settle"

758

Hawaiian Letters & Lawsuits Forum / Re: My experience with Vincent Tylor and J.Stephen Street thus far

« on: November 07, 2014, 04:12:06 AM »

Email me: matt30060 / gmail. I will try to help you find your old account if you give me your name, email address, and any other info that will help me locate your account.

**I am trying to login to my old account here to find my history so I can reference the posts I talked about here.  But if anyone has a link to it can you post?

759

Hawaiian Letters & Lawsuits Forum / Re: My experience with Vincent Tylor and J.Stephen Street thus far

« on: November 07, 2014, 04:09:23 AM »

I concur with Buddhapi that no one "forces" Oscar to do anything. Oscar very much has his own mind. He is not being "forced" to do anything. Having said that, Oscar doesn't have to explain his reasons for his post nor do any of us have to agree with him. I respect Oscar as an individual and a professional as well as his role as a lawyer to represent his client as he sees fit.

If it means anything, Oscar's post did seem a bit odd to me also. I have not asked him why he posted what he did or what motivated him but I am going to assume he did it for the greater good. He certainly owes me no explanation to post.  Please note that Oscar is very clear in his points of what he believes and what he does not believe.  He is NOT embracing VKT here.

Oscar's view is reflective of his own views.  There are aspects of his post that I agree with and there are aspects I don't. I am sure that is true with every reader.  People make their own judgments with the information they have.  I have no problems saying (barring any new information) that I have little respect for either James Stephen Street and Vincent K. Tylor. I remain a strong supporter of Vermont Studios and very much against this Hawaiian "team".

So count me in with Peeved and Buddhapi that count both of these "people" as "asshats" to put it mildly.

What is interesting to me is how observant people are and how dedicated ELI readers are.  Enemies of me and ELI are amongst are most devoted readers and they are amongst the biggest cry-babies.  After all, they seem to have no problems profiting and causing misery, forcing others to give up large amounts of money. They have no problems being hated by their victims but seem to be easily wounded when others talk about them.

760

Hawaiian Letters & Lawsuits Forum / Re: VERMONT WOODS - Another casualty?

« on: November 07, 2014, 03:48:15 AM »

You are observant. I will not deny posts were removed. The reasons for removal of certain posts is mixed but they were done voluntarily. And although I am not particular happy about removing any posts, it is being done for the greater good for several parties. Because Vermont Woods is an active case, I cannot elaborate as to why. I wish I could but, at least for now, I won't.

However, what I will say is that there is a reason why I have launched Defiantly.net. And while ELI was started and owned by me, ELI has become "representative" of a larger community, not any particular individual including myself.

Ok so lets just say it.  They got beat down didn't they?  Posts are getting removed here, her posts are getting removed, Oscar posts a message that seemed oddly like he was being held at gunpoint.

Please tell me Vincent Tylor didn't just bully another business into settlement or bankruptcy?

761

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Schneider Rothman IP Law v. Getty Images & Zemanta Lawsuit

« on: October 23, 2014, 04:18:06 PM »

Sorry to disappoint everyone.  This case is over.

http://www.sriplaw.com/dismissed-case-getty-images/

762

Getty Images Letter Forum / Gigaom writes about Getty Images

« on: October 21, 2014, 06:27:14 PM »

ELI is not quoted in the current article by GigaOM. However, I am quite certain ELI has a huge bearing to Getty's supposed "change of heart."

https://gigaom.com/2014/10/21/getty-images-claims-to-turn-away-from-controversial-copyright-tactics-but-critics-remain/

However, within the article Jeff John Roberts does link back to his earlier article which refers to us:
https://gigaom.com/2012/09/19/copyright-trolls-2-0-image-sites-embrace-righthaven-tactics/

Getty Images is definitely not trustworthy and only motivated by self-serving interests.

763

ELI Responses: Media Coverage of Chan v. Ellis Case / Re: Oral Argument video for Chan v. Ellis Posted by Georgia Supreme Court

« on: October 16, 2014, 02:25:37 PM »

It's hard to tell how long the Justices will take with their workload. The official reply from the Georgia Supreme Court website is 6-8 months from docketing.

Direct Appeals

The Supreme Court dockets direct appeals to one of three terms of Court - January, April or September. The Court is required to decide an appeal by no later than the end of the second term to which the appeal was docketed for hearing, or the decision of the lower court will be affirmed by operation of law. On average, most appeals are decided within 6-8 months of docketing.

http://www.gasupreme.us/faq/how_long.php

Since my appeal was docketed with the Georgia Supreme Court on July 15, 2014, that would put the ruling around January 15, 2014 to March 14, 2014, around the 2nd anniversary of my getting served with my TPO (Feb 16, 2013), hearing (Feb 28, 2013), and PPO (March 6, 2013) timeframe.

764

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: My case could not be solved, even after trying Oscar Defensive Letter Program

« on: October 16, 2014, 02:13:13 PM »

Since you brought up McCormack, people seriously need to "get to know" him better. I have a 9-minute video for recipients of McCormack letters to watch ...

http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/mccormack-letter-forum/timothy-b-mccormack-tries-to-shut-matthew-chan-down-in-court!/

After watching Mr. McCormack's performance in person before the Georgia Supreme court I might want to debate you on this point.

765

ELI Responses: Media Coverage of Chan v. Ellis Case / Re: Oral Argument video for Chan v. Ellis Posted by Georgia Supreme Court

« on: October 16, 2014, 04:23:17 AM »

It was my observation that Betsy McBride (the name she goes by and much shorter to type) knew she was getting clobbered by the Justices while their 20-minutes was whittled away. Hence, she took a fast escape the first chance she got a little over the 11 minute mark.  At the outset, she intended for Timmy to get the majority of time (she stated as much). As it turned out, he got less than 9-minutes. He got pounded and it appeared he got so involved on the cyberbullying rant at the end, he didn't even realize the clock had run out on him.

It was interesting that neither Timothy B. McCormack or Betsy McBride cited any cases in support of their position.  It was almost entirely reliant on Linda's testimony that she was in "reasonable fear". Judge David Nahmias appeared to tire of the whole fear argument and practically demanded from McBride what she thought the statutory interpretation of what "safety" meant.

Believe me, when you are there live, those 20-minutes go by very quickly.  As prepared as Oscar and Eugene Volokh were and as few questions as they received, they still had to move through their points quickly.

I was surprised at how unprepared the appellee team looked.  A few times there, they appeared to me to actually be anxious for their time to expire.

Admittedly they do have an un-compelling set of facts to work with, but I really thought they'd come out stronger than they seemed to in the video.

Anyway kudos to Oscar, Matt, et. al. who were obviously well prepared and did a spectacular job in my humble opinion.