Ridiculous Lawsuit Filed (And Now Dropped) Against Tor Project Gets Even More Ridiculous: Now Involving Hate Group Leader

from the wait,-what? dept

Thu, Jul 10th 2014 11:04am — Mike Masnick

So, yesterday we wrote about the already bizarre lawsuit filed by Jason Lee Van Dyke, a Texas lawyer, on behalf of Shelby Conklin, against a revenge porn site, Pinkmeth, and (even more ridiculous), the Tor Project. There were many, many problems with the lawsuit, starting with the cluelessness of Van Dyke in going after the Tor Project, when he clearly had no idea what it was or did, or any idea about how Section 230 of the CDA works (in fact, it appears he misrepresented a similar case, in which GoDaddy was protected by Section 230). There were also some problems with the First Amendment aspects of this, and Van Dyke's argument that aiding someone in being anonymous was some sort of aiding and abetting of law-breaking. Thankfully, this morning Van Dyke admitted that he was dropping the Tor Project from the lawsuit -- though he doesn't appear to have apologized or admitted to his own errors. Instead, it appears he's been doubling down -- which we'll get to later in this post.

But first, the story has taken a different twist, as Jay Wolman in our comments pointed to something even more bizarre: Van Dyke claimed that Pinkmeth's "address" (also where he had the lawsuit served) was the same address as Kyle Bristow, Esq. Pinkmeth had previously facetiously indicated that Bristow was its attorney (and uses a picture of Bristow on its Twitter account). But it's clear that whoever is behind Pinkmeth is joking. Bristow and Van Dyke have worked together to try to shut down revenge porn sites like Pinkmeth in the past, and Pinkmeth is clearly mocking Van Dyke by claiming that Bristow is its lawyer.

But Van Dyke still "served" Pinkmeth at Bristow's offices, knowing that it's bogus. As Wolman notes, since Van Dyke knows this is not actually Pinkmeth's offices, what he's done clearly borders on "fraud on the court." Meanwhile, our friends at Above the Law have even more on this situation, including the fact that Bristow was declared the leader of a hate group while he was in college, who has openly advocated racist and homophobic positions.

As for why Bristow, who appears to have rather stone-aged views of the world, is now focused on fighting revenge porn? Well, his argument kind of speaks for itself:

“Revenge pornography is nothing more than a manifestation of liberalism,” Bristow said. “Most victims on revenge pornography websites are young, white, blonde, middle class, American women. Women who the pornographers can link to conservatism or Christianity are especially targeted for harassment.”

Yes, as Above the Law notes, Bristow is against revenge porn because it's "defiling white blondes in an effort to undermine Christianity." As bad as we think revenge porn sites and their operators are, somehow I doubt that's the goal. Either way, Van Dyke pretending to believe that his buddy Bristow actually represents Pinkmeth is just the latest in a long line of problems with the lawsuit...

Meanwhile, as another commenter on our original story pointed out, Van Dyke appears to be freaking out on Facebook, threatening to sue people who are posting negative reviews of his firm:

Sometimes, combined with the threats of lawsuits, he directly threatens physical harm on people:

And, much of the rest of the time, he's displaying just the sort of "professionalism" we're sure that the Texas bar approves of:

Separately, when someone sent him a copy of my original article, he laid out his own "legal strategy," in which he explains that he's filing this on the expectation that Pinkmeth will default and then he'll get his injunction (some of the companies that he's seeking the injunction to apply to may have a word or two to say about that). Oh, and at the end, he flat out admits that "it's my job to violate the civil rights of people like you." Lovely.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: fraud on the court, jason lee van dyke, jason van dyke, kyle bristow, revenge porn, shelby conklin
Companies: pinkmeth, tor project

83 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Ninja (profile), 10 Jul 2014 @ 10:56am

Maybe he was a victim of such sites? Or molested when a child? Poor thing.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
GMacGuffin (profile), 10 Jul 2014 @ 11:02am

Good gawd, that's something. I know they have ethics rules in Texas, and this can't be part of them.

I'm almost wishing Van Dyke knew about Reddit ... that would ratchet this show up even further.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Michael, 10 Jul 2014 @ 11:09am

Jason Lee Van Dyke is a total Dick, but Dick Van Dyke was pretty cool.

#DIV/0
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Jul 2014 @ 11:14am

I suspect were this taken out of local court into state court where influence is less of an issue, the court would find the behavior of one of it's officers to be less than acceptable.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ninja (profile), 10 Jul 2014 @ 11:16am

Re:
Are we witnessing the birth of the new PRENDA?!?!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Lumpy, 10 Jul 2014 @ 11:19am

He also threatened to kill the Pink Meth owner.

https://storify.com/doxbin/meantxlawyer-doesn-t-understand-tor
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Michael, 10 Jul 2014 @ 11:21am

Re:
The bar associations in most areas don't really care if attorneys act like total asshats.

The threat of violence might cause him a problem though. It's not a real direct threat, but I could see the bar issuing him a warning for that.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 10 Jul 2014 @ 11:21am

Re:
I'm all for joking, but that one was in poor taste.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
darthskeptic, 10 Jul 2014 @ 11:22am

I can't believe I have to write the sentence "There are lawyers less professional than those of Prenda Law."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Michael, 10 Jul 2014 @ 11:26am

I like this comment from Van Dyke:

I've never beaten any woman or been accused of beating a woman. Of course, if you were a woman, I'd make an exception.

Apparently, he is unwilling to go to blows with the owner of Pinkmeth unless it's a woman - then he's ready to throw down.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
S. T. Stone, 10 Jul 2014 @ 11:28am

Prenda Law just looked at this guy and facepalmed.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Jul 2014 @ 11:28am

go ahead and file a bar grievance against me then

Let's hope people take him up on that.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Jul 2014 @ 11:47am

Holy shit, this is the best internet meltdown I have seen in MONTHS.

Please keep trolling him. PLEASE.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Roger Strong (profile), 10 Jul 2014 @ 12:03pm

P.L.L.C.
The Van Dyke Law Firm P.L.L.C.

Pissant Little Legal Challenges...?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Violynne (profile), 10 Jul 2014 @ 12:06pm

Why are the last images containing "redaction" marks (which funnily look like dicks)?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Diana, 10 Jul 2014 @ 12:08pm

Has anyone filed a grievance yet?

http://cdc.texasbar.com/cdc/Home/Index
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Jul 2014 @ 12:08pm

Re: Re:
If anything, it'd be the birth of a new Charles Carreon.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Jul 2014 @ 12:08pm

homophobic position

What is that, missionary?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That One Guy (profile), 10 Jul 2014 @ 12:16pm

Re: Re:
'I'd enjoy messing up that pretty boy face of yours with the toe of my boot'

Sounds like a pretty clear indication of a desire for violence to me. Combine that with his offers of cash payouts for personal information of the various posters, and seems like it would be pretty easy to convince a judge he's asking for that information for... 'less than legal' reasons.

Possibly enough for a restraining order at least, and wouldn't that be fun if he had a bunch of those attached to his name.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
BentFranklin (profile), 10 Jul 2014 @ 12:16pm

I don't find provocations of this sort of person, or their responses, particularly newsworthy. Even when they're so wrong, trolling them doesn't seem right. Reading these things isn't how I want to spend my time on TechDirt.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Jul 2014 @ 12:17pm

I am reminded by a quote from a Lewis Black routine that was in reference to Ken Starr being hired to go after Clinton during the Lewinsky Scandal. It was something to the effect of:

"When you want to go after an asshole, you don't do it by hiring a bigger asshole."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Jul 2014 @ 12:17pm

From the Texas Lawyer's Creed (texasbar.com)

"Order of The Supreme Court of Texas and The Court of Criminal Appeals

The conduct of a lawyer should be characterized at all times by honesty, candor, and fairness. In fulfilling his or her primary duty to a client, a lawyer must be ever mindful of the profession's broader duty to the legal system.

The Supreme Court of Texas and the Court of Criminal Appeals are committed to eliminating a practice in our State by a minority of lawyers of abusive tactics which have surfaced in many parts of our country. We believe such tactics are a disservice to our citizens, harmful to clients, and demeaning to our profession. The abusive tactics range from lack of civility to outright hostility and obstructionism. Such behavior does not serve justice but tends to delay and often deny justice. The lawyers who use abusive tactics instead of being part of the solution have become part of the problem.

The desire for respect and confidence by lawyers from the public should provide the members of our profession with the necessary incentive to attain the highest degree of ethical and professional conduct. These rules are primarily aspirational. Compliance with the rules depends primarily upon understanding and voluntary compliance, secondarily upon reinforcement by peer pressure and public opinion, and finally when necessary by enforcement by the courts through their inherent powers and rules already in existence."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Jul 2014 @ 12:20pm

Re: Re: Re:
To be technical here, the offer appears to have come from a different user that supports him.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Designerfx (profile), 10 Jul 2014 @ 12:22pm

Re:
I've heard of websites molesting people. I think Barbara Streisand may have coined the term?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rich, 10 Jul 2014 @ 12:36pm

Re:
Well, luckily Techdirt has other articles you can choose from.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That One Guy (profile), 10 Jul 2014 @ 12:38pm

Re:
To blank out the user name, for whatever reason.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That One Guy (profile), 10 Jul 2014 @ 12:38pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the third image, yes, the first had him making the 'offer' himself.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Jul 2014 @ 12:42pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Oh yeah, I missed that one, probably because it was buried in a longer screed of bullshit. I just remembered seeing it in the third one.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Zos (profile), 10 Jul 2014 @ 12:42pm

http://imgur.com/5K6aeOF

hey, he responded to my review...off to google and yelp :P
[ link to this | view in thread ]
lucidrenegade (profile), 10 Jul 2014 @ 12:42pm

Is it coincidence that the red redaction marks on the last screenshot look like male genitalia? :-)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Zos (profile), 10 Jul 2014 @ 12:44pm

http://www.yelp.com/biz/the-van-dyke-law-firm-plano

found his yelp
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Jul 2014 @ 12:46pm

Re:
Some people desperately deserve to be trolled. Case in point.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
GMacGuffin (profile), 10 Jul 2014 @ 12:48pm

Re: Re: Re:
That's what I was thinking, but I did not want to evoke his name lest something annoying occur.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Lol, 10 Jul 2014 @ 12:48pm

Such professionalism: http://i.gyazo.com/8b0984a6edd202f220ae8619e0425a8b.png
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Jul 2014 @ 12:52pm

Re:
That would be good or if somehow he caught the attention of 4chan.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
James, 10 Jul 2014 @ 12:53pm

Re:
I wondered this too. It appears that Mike redacted his own Facebook information, but not that of anyone else in the fray.

An odd choice, to be sure.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
James, 10 Jul 2014 @ 12:56pm

Re:
Pre Pear Saturn?

huh. TIL that Uranus has rings, too.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Jul 2014 @ 12:57pm

Making "revenge porn" look good
Somehow, this guy makes "revenge porn" look good. I didn't expect that to be possible.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Jul 2014 @ 1:02pm

Re: Re:
Probably because it was the only private message screenshot, and the others were public messages.

Also, whoever sent the link (and had his name redacted) was probably not Mike or one of the other techdirt authors, but some bystander who sent the lawyer the link for the lulz and then took screenshots (sending them to Mike) for even more lulz.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Jul 2014 @ 1:13pm

I love the "I'll give anyone $200 for this person's address". Aaaahahah, he's such a liar.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DCL, 10 Jul 2014 @ 2:14pm

Re: Re: Re:
The fact that it was not Mike's info is inferred in the lead sentence of the paragraph above the image:

"Separately, when someone sent him a copy of my original article..."

Names have been changed/redacted to protect the non-morons.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DogBreath, 10 Jul 2014 @ 2:16pm

How long until Van Dyke says his Facebook was hacked?
a.k.a. the old Amy's Baking Company excuse?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike Masnick (profile), 10 Jul 2014 @ 3:06pm

Re: Re:
I wondered this too. It appears that Mike redacted his own Facebook information, but not that of anyone else in the fray.

An odd choice, to be sure.

No, that screenshot, penis-shaped redactions and all, was posted by someone else in the FB thread.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
SolkeshNaranek (profile), 10 Jul 2014 @ 3:20pm

Re: Has anyone filed a grievance yet?
I did send them an email (with links to various articles about Van Dyke) earlier today.

It bounced around their offices and ended up with a nice lady suggesting I file a formal grievance.

I replied that since I am not a client of his, nor a resident of Texas, I don't think I have standing to file.

I have yet to hear back from her.

Too bad...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[Some unholy amalgam of the band 'Kansas' and Pren, 10 Jul 2014 @ 3:47pm

Re: Re: Re:
Carreon my wayward son
There'll be lols when Van Dyke comes
Tough-guy lawyer lost his cool
Don't you stop trollin'
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Jul 2014 @ 3:48pm

Re: Re: Has anyone filed a grievance yet?
I don't think I have standing to file.

The State Bar of Texas publishes "Grievance and Ethics Information".

Under that topic, there is a page on "Grievance Procedure".
Grievance Procedure

Those who believe they have been a witness to attorney misconduct — clients, members of the public, members of the legal community, and judges — have the right to file a grievance against a Texas attorney. . . .

You must, of course, determine whether this published information applies to your situation. If you need assistance, you may wish to engage the services of a qualified professional.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
TL;DR -- 'Kansas' + Prenda, 10 Jul 2014 @ 3:53pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
Damn character limit, name was supposed to be "[Some unholy amalgam of the band 'Kansas' and Prenda that was funnier in my head]"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Jul 2014 @ 4:12pm

What Van Dyke Needs...
Poor Mr. Jason Lee Van Dyke just needs a nice over sized big black butt-plug.

I'm confident that a prostate milking orgasm resulting from a behemoth of a butt-plug will finally give him the relief he's unconsciously yearning for.

Oh...and don't forget the anal ease Mr. Van Dyke...that initial penetration can sting a bit.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Jul 2014 @ 5:35pm

I can see where Whatever takes his inspiration from.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Whatever (profile), 10 Jul 2014 @ 6:15pm

Too bad
Too bad that this guy appears to be a dick, because he has some interesting legal arguments to play out. Someone has to argue them at some point.

Thankfully, unlike the Tenenbaums of the world, it appears that this guy is going to get blown out long before he set precedent and makes everyone else suffer for his arrogance.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Jul 2014 @ 6:24pm

No Service
Maybe he has never heard of a case being dismissed because of "No Service."

In case he doesn't know, that means if the sherriff can't find the defendant's house, then he can't serve the notice by handing it to the person or taping it to the door with scotch tape.

Then when you get into court, the judge asks where the defendant is, and the plaintiff says they couldn't find him.

Then the case is dismissed.
...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That One Guy (profile), 10 Jul 2014 @ 6:57pm

Re: No Service
Unfortunately, that's where the 'On the internet' modifier comes into play.

Far too often, if you're talking about something going on 'on the internet', they don't dismiss the case, instead they hand the prosecution everything they asked for, no matter how outlandish it is.

As a recent example, not too long ago there was a case where a judge allowed Microsoft to seize a ton of domains from another company, because they managed to convince the judge that they were of 'imminent danger' and needed to be dealt with immediately, all without informing the company that was running/owned them.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Name, 10 Jul 2014 @ 7:03pm

Re: Re:
Or Rule #34
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Name, 10 Jul 2014 @ 7:09pm

Re: Re: Re:
I wanted to say they were penis-shaped.....but being homphobic and all...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Name, 10 Jul 2014 @ 7:12pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
typo:homo-been drinkin'-I should stop drinkin and typin'-srry
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jay Wolman (profile), 10 Jul 2014 @ 8:42pm

Thank you
First, thank you for the shout-out.

I'm not sure on the chronology, but it appears he's trying to explain away the service on Bristow in the ATL article (page 3). He admits he knows it is bogus and seems to be asserting that their joke acts to appoint Bristow as an agent for service of process.

In the law of agency, that would be apparent authority. However, apparent authority is not a tenet of due process of which proper service is a part. Further, even if it were, actual knowledge of the alleged agent's true status and lack of actual authority would defeat any claim of apparent authority. No reasonable person with that knowledge would rely on the listing of Bristow.

Plaintiff cannot or should not get a default judgment where the defendant has not been served. It should not survive a motion to dismiss and my bet is Texas does have mechanisms to protect a defendant's anonymity. Nor would a default judgment do any good--if you cannot identify a real or legal person, then you have a worthless piece of paper. The method to enforce an injunction is a contempt proceeding against a person you cannot find. It is a waste of effort.

You have a revenge porn claim? Call Adam Steinbaugh. He'll put you in touch with a good attorney.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
techflaws (profile), 10 Jul 2014 @ 10:02pm

Re: Too bad
No wonder that with your crazy views on Aereo you would support a loony like this.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
over9000, 10 Jul 2014 @ 10:24pm

Re: Re:
http://4archive.org/b/thread/555724612
[ link to this | view in thread ]
over900, 10 Jul 2014 @ 10:26pm

http://4archive.org/b/thread/555724612

This right here should be newsworthy for you guys.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Jul 2014 @ 11:19pm

Re: Too bad
Yeah, you notice that all the people on your side end up being complete dicks?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Whatever (profile), 10 Jul 2014 @ 11:31pm

Re: Re: Too bad
I don't support the "loony" as you call him. I think he is a dick. However, I do think that at least some of the things he is trying to argue legally are at least interesting and someone will argue them at some point, hopefully in a better case.

I don't support him. Please work on your reading skills, I thought I made that very plain.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Whatever (profile), 10 Jul 2014 @ 11:34pm

Re: Thank you
It should not survive a motion to dismiss and my bet is Texas does have mechanisms to protect a defendant's anonymity.

Who would make such a motion? Answer: The defendant. Since that person (or persons) chooses to be unreachable, they end up with no voice in court. At that point, it's totally up to the judge what to do, and most of them appear to give the plaintiff everything they are looking for, even if it is an unenforceable judgement because they have no way to make it work.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ninja (profile), 11 Jul 2014 @ 4:31am

Re: Re:
Aha, sorry I offended you or something but it's common to joke around like that when somebody has some inexplicable hatred against something or someone. It's specially funny when it's someone much older ranting about someone younger (think Justin Bieber and some old person) and time machines are involved ;)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ninja (profile), 11 Jul 2014 @ 4:32am

Re: Re: Re:
The penis-shaped redactions are Tim's fault for sure.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Jul 2014 @ 5:33am

Re: Re: Re:
Grab your popcorn!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
art guerrilla (profile), 11 Jul 2014 @ 5:55am

Re: Re:
"i am all for joking" THAT I APPROVE OF...
there, FTFY...

(sorry Josh, but if you are not for the free speech of your worst enemy spouting his most vile speech, you are -alas- not for free speech at all... it turns out -like MOST sheeple who do not understand the concept- you are for speech 'you like'...)

further, i would only say i think it is HIGHLY instructive how often it turns out that the most vehement -for example- anti-gay crusaders turn out to be tapping their toes in a wide stance in public restrooms... funny how often that turns out to be the case...

thus, ninja's joking speculation may have more validity to it than a simple insult to the guy... would NOT surprise me given how many times that turns out to be so...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Gwiz (profile), 11 Jul 2014 @ 6:50am

Re: Re: Thank you
Who would make such a motion? Answer: The defendant. Since that person (or persons) chooses to be unreachable...

If that person *is* actually unknown and unable to be served how is there a actually a case in the first place? In this case, a default judgement against some unnamed John Doe isn't going to get the website taken down anyways, so I'm not sure of point of it all.

And just out of curiosity, how do you reconcile the use of Tor with the firm stance the courts have held on allowing anonymity? In SCOTUS's own words:
Protections for anonymous speech are vital to democratic discourse. Allowing dissenters to shield their identities frees them to express critical minority views . . . Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. . . . It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation . . . at the hand of an intolerant society.
Wouldn't removing the shield that Tor and similar projects provide undermine the doctrines we have always held concerning anonymity?

When SCOTUS wrote that, I'm sure they had to realize that anonymity does allow some people to do bad things, but they still held that allowing anonymity is more important to our society.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Zos (profile), 11 Jul 2014 @ 8:40am

http://www.yelp.com/biz/the-van-dyke-law-firm-plano?hrid=TjMVbOLyjl7FWdZHmGo5sg

he thinks that everyone responding is one evil hacker from some hacker forum i've never heard of. i'm oddly complimented
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Fenderson (profile), 11 Jul 2014 @ 9:00am

Re: Re: Re:
" if you are not for the free speech of your worst enemy spouting his most vile speech, you are -alas- not for free speech at all..."

I didn't see Josh demanding that the joke be suppressed, only expressing that he found it offensive. That's fair. I don't see a contradiction with the notion of valuing free speech at all: he was just using that same freedom to express his reaction to another's speech.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ninja (profile), 11 Jul 2014 @ 11:59am

Re: Re: Re:
While I agree with all you said I have to side with Josh and John on this one, he just disliked the joke and I can still joke with previous molestation if I so wish (much to his despair). Cheers!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Jul 2014 @ 1:31pm

He obtained his Juris Doctor from Stetson University College of Law in 2006
He's no ordinary asshat, he's a 10-gallon asshat.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Karl (profile), 11 Jul 2014 @ 2:08pm

Re:
What is that, missionary?

Given how many anti-gay activists turn out to be self-hating homosexuals, it's probably "doggy style so we don't have to look each other in the eyes."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Jul 2014 @ 2:34pm

Getting beat in Brazilian Ju-Jitsu
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y1XbI9lrcJU
[ link to this | view in thread ]
RobDeleu, 11 Jul 2014 @ 3:41pm

This girl must be dumb, since now everybody will want to see her naked stuff and share them. The only thing she's doing is giving that porno website more exposure.

How did she find out about that adult site in the first place? I thought you needed a special tool to visit sites on TOR and who says her video/pictures ain't on sites like eporner, http://theporndude.com/, xvideos, etc. What's so special about this pink meth site? Does anybody have an image or something, since I don't feel like installing TOR.

Looks like this girl is trying to golddig from her own stupidity, but it's a lost case. Others chicks would follow her example and the courts would be doing overtime big time.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 11 Jul 2014 @ 4:16pm

Re: Re: Re:
Don't project your bullshit onto me. If you don't think I support freedom on speech even in the vilest circumstances, read my comment history.

I just don't think child molestation is a joking matter. The Techdirt community is better than that (including Ninja, who frequently has very good one-liners).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 11 Jul 2014 @ 4:22pm

Re: Re: Re:
I'm aware that it's common. Think of this as a consciousness raising exercise.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Jul 2014 @ 10:32pm

Re: Re: Re: Too bad
You're supporting him. You're just mad that everyone staffing your side happens to be dicks.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Jul 2014 @ 5:45am

Re:
From the previous articles, the site wasn't always a TOR hidden site. He successfully got a judge to order a takedown of the original site but then it re-emerged as a TOR hidden site later.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Jul 2014 @ 7:54pm

Re:
"Saul Goodman" is more professional than this. And by what the show told me, it's a lot better to be a sweet talker full of analogies and being sneaky if you want to be a crooked, but successful lawyer. Yes fictional, sure, but I'm sure it's still more effective than this grade 10 jock bullshit behavior that's for sure.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Bill L, 14 Jul 2014 @ 12:02am

They may have a problem because when they put the petition on their website to dox him Pink Meth showed that they got the lawsuit which means they can't complain about not getting served and even if the service could have been ineffective there is a chance the Pink Meth might have made it effective. I think the whole lawsuit is a trick to try to get the Pink Meth people arrested because he has written in other places that it is not about the money and he is working for free in this case.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Charles, 15 Jul 2014 @ 12:11am

Lol, Mike obviously doesn't get it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
xvideos, 2 Mar 2018 @ 1:00pm

http://xvideos.blog.br/ lol
[ link to this | view in thread ]
FilmesPornos.net, 20 Aug 2018 @ 7:12pm

Ridiculous.
This should not be happening.
People need to watch more porn movies
https://www.filmespornos.net/ (Filmes Pornos)
[ link to this | view in thread ]