Company CEO Pleads Guilty After Forging Judge's Signatures On Bogus Court Orders Sent To Google
from the SEO-suicide dept
Earlier this spring, a jewelry company CEO earned himself a federal indictment for his bespoke reputation management efforts. Realizing it was extremely difficult to erase negative reviews from the net, National Sapphire Company boss Michael Arnstein took one such reviewer to court. He was awarded an injunction after the defendant no-showed, resulting in the delisting of 54 URLs.
But the negative reviews kept coming. Rather than hire a lawyer and bring more defamation suits, Arnstein opted for the initially less-costly option: mocking up delisting orders and forging a judge's signature. This apparently worked well enough Arnstein felt comfortable sharing his fraudulent tactics with others. This swaggering, inculpatory statement was included in the federal complaint.
"No bullshit: if I could do it all over again I would have found another court order injunction for removal of links (probably something that can be found online pretty easily) made changes in photoshop to show the links that I wanted removed and then sent to 'removals@google.com' as a pdf — showing the court order docket number, the judges [sic] signature — but with the new links put in," Arnstein wrote in a July 2014 email, according to his criminal complaint. "Google isn't checking this stuff; that's the bottom line b/c I spent $30,000 fuckin thousand dollars and nearly 2 fuckin years to do what legit could have been done for about 6 hours of searching and photoshop by a guy for $200., all in ONE DAY".
The DOJ -- aided greatly by Arnstein generating plenty of evidence against himself -- pulled the trigger on a federal indictment. And, thanks to several other cases of rep management firms defrauding courts, Google is indeed "checking this stuff," limiting the effectiveness of impersonating judges and/or sliding bogus paperwork past them.
Arnstein has now pled guilty to a conspiracy charge, the DOJ reports.
ARNSTEIN, 40, of Kailua, Hawaii, pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to forge a judicial signature, which carries a maximum sentence of five years in prison. The maximum potential sentence is prescribed by Congress and is provided here for informational purposes only, as any sentencing of the defendant will be determined by the judge.
And one more bit of schadenfreude:
Acting Manhattan U.S. Attorney Joon H. Kim said: "As he admitted today, Michael Arnstein exploited the authority of the federal judiciary in a blatantly criminal scheme. By forging court orders and the signature of a U.S. District Judge, Arnstein was able to effectively erase websites critical of Arnstein's business from its search results. Now Arnstein awaits sentencing in the same court he impersonated."
Some sympathy is warranted for those hoping to battle negative reviews. Even illegitimate negative reviews can be close to impossible to remove from the web. But if the system seems unfair, it has to be. Making it easier to remove bogus reviews would just make it easier for companies/individuals who've earned every acidic word in their negative reviews to scrub the web of bad things.
The internet may be a well-oiled hate machine, but it's also a handy source of reference for customers who want to emerge unscathed from interactions with providers of goods and services. Easy delistings would turn the web into a cheery place where every company appears to exceed expectations, even as they screw their customers over.
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: doj, fake court orders, fake lawsuits, michael arnstein, reputation management, seo
Companies: national sapphire company
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Name error
[ link to this | view in thread ]
More generally, I would also be curious to know how much effect bullshit negative reviews actually have. And what is the efficacy of having them delisted? It always seems to me that is is just a way for control freaks and people who are easily (even if rightfully) upset to waste money.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Imagine what police unions could do with that power.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
THIS would have been impossible If all court docs were freely available online! Too bad PACER can't be charged as an accessory
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Certificate of Authenticity
Where he will receive a 100% genuine order.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The magic code strikes again!
With a little dash of "Look, a distraction!"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Boggle... I guess we're just not paying close enough attention. Lawyers on both sides are exploiting the judiciary, but if you have a DoJ hat on its not criminal to steal websites & screw with peoples lives based on no actual evidence for months, then quietly hand them back.
There is TONS of extortion scheme pretending to be legal cases in courts across this country, this dumb ass just pissed off someone with enough pull to make something happen.
ADA lawsuits.
Copyright lawsuits.
Patent shakedowns.
The legal system is a joke, criminals get a pass because the DoJ lawyer doesn't feel its a slam dunk so they won't bring the case. Fake documents have been submitted in thousands of cases... they are still doing it and making bank. Glad schemes "that exploited the authority of the federal judiciary in a blatantly criminal scheme" are such a bad thing... pity your at least 8 years behind the times.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Certificate of Authenticity
It would be rather unprofessional, but I can't help but think it would be funny if the judge snuck in a footnote along the lines of 'For the record, this is what a valid court order from this court looks like'.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
He already has the judge's signature on file, all he needs is to paste it into a "case dismissed" picture and he's free to go.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Second, the vast majority of these cases are real customers who have a horrible experience with company. So the review is an honest opinion with facts to back it. Thus not slander, libel, or defamation.
Third, I think most people reading reviews try to look at couple of things. Which reviews seem to be outliers, good or bad. Is there a consist thread to the reviews which is probably more important than specific details in each review.
Fourth, most people have the good sense to filter reviews based on business itself. What is the business's products/services and what should one reasonably expect from such a business.
So if your business is consistently getting poor reviews you need to look internally for the problems. People are telling you what to fix in their reviews. If you are consistently getting good reviews, keep up the good work.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Name error
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
thump thump oooooooo
Wow. Did you hear that?
20 million businessmen just had an orgasm reading those words. A commercial capitalist's wet dream indeed.
---
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Unless you are a monopoly like the ISP's, when you just shrug...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
There are things one can do to limit collateral damage in these cases. But if you're really an ass company/service, you are *legitimately* screwed.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
unearned negative review generally solve themselve
It still sucks when it happens, it's still a bit demoralizing, but solid quality & service makes it all pretty trivial after a while.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: unearned negative review generally solve themselve
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Easy de-listings
The internet may be a well-oiled hate machine, but it's also a handy source of reference for customers who want to emerge unscathed from interactions with providers of goods and services. Easy delistings would turn the web into a cheery place where every company appears to exceed expectations, even as they screw their customers over.
If you can prove the reviews are bogus, i.e. the work of a troll, it shouldn't be hard to get a negative review delisted. The trouble is, as has been pointed out here before, the underlying content would still exist, and that can easily be re-indexed by people sharing the links.
My personal take is that one's own conduct is the biggest influence on one's reputation so I'm not really bothered by that ROR troll review that sits somewhere in the middle of the first page on Google search results of my name. The reason is, there's nothing else anywhere else to indicate that I behave that way, particularly on my own e-spaces.
Honestly, I think people worry too much about bad reviews. I believe that if you behave according to the reputation you desire, troll reviews won't make you look bad.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: BS Negative Reviews
Okay, so bearing in mind that this fool not only wrote bogus "reviews" about me, he accused me of committing a criminal offence and contacted my employers and demanded that they fire me, what do you think happened next?
Well I went to my employers and discussed the matter with them. I had to get an official email from the police to affirm that I was not under investigation for committing extortion. I then contacted the review sites and advised them that the reviews about me committing the criminal offence of extortion were bogus and proved it by providing screenshots of this twerp claiming I had paid him to write the reviews (he was citing my joking about it with a friend on Twitter). The reputable ones removed the posts at source. The con-job site left the troll review up but at least allowed me to post a rebuttal, which I did.
Result: my own online conduct doesn't indicate a tendency to make either threats or demands. I'm a bit snarky and very opinionated, and that's it. Therefore my bosses concluded that it was indeed a troll and dropped the matter. I was later promoted due to getting my head down and working my socks off. As I've often said here on TD all that any comments about you do is make people check you out. I see this over and over again as the results about me shuffle, moving the ROR post up and down the search results. This will often tie in with my blog posts; if I've been writing about CETA it'll bring up my 38 Degrees posts. If I write about copyright my Pirate Party and Falkvinge posts will move forward.
There have been so many well-documented incidents of people mobbing other people over comments on social media platforms, etc., that we tend to be a bit wary of outrage manufacturing, IMHO. Rule of thumb: the more outrageous and histrionic the claims, the less credible they are.
I've lost zero credibility here on TD and online and have gained credibility at work for the level-headed, pragmatic way I dealt with the situation.
As for getting the links de-listed, the content would remain in situ. Anyone with the link could easily get it re-listed just by sharing it around. It's a game of whack-a-mole exacerbated by the Streisand Effect if someone draws attention to attempts to get the link de-listed.
Honestly, I think it does me more good to have a bogus review plus my rebuttal plus the story of how I dealt with it than to have all positive results. I believe people are more likely to respect a person who copes well with adversity than one who seems to never have to deal with problems, but that's just my opinion. What do others think?
Serious question: does anyone believe the negative comments about me that have been repeated here on TD? If so, why? Or do you agree that it's one's own conduct that affects one's reputation the most?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Reputation
So if your business is consistently getting poor reviews you need to look internally for the problems. People are telling you what to fix in their reviews. If you are consistently getting good reviews, keep up the good work.
This. Every business has a bad hair day. It happens: one delivery company earned my ire for forgetting to deliver a parcel until after Christmas when I chased it up. Unless they have a habit of doing that the one snarky post I wrote about them on my blog won't do them any harm.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
All review sites (correct me if I'm wrong) permit the vendor to argue back. In case of a bogus review a vendor could demand that the poster provide details proving they had availed themselves of the disputed service. Failure to do so means the post is bogus and can therefore be dismissed as a fake review. Vendors who believe they're being unfairly targeted can use this to set the record straight.
As I've learned on TD, it's the way you handle things like this that make your reputation. If you've fouled up you can apologise and if you're being trolled you can point this out.
Third party sites that want to be taken seriously ought to take down false posts on production of evidence. If they don't, we shouldn't take them seriously and certainly shouldn't worry about them. I don't.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: unearned negative review generally solve themselve
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Certificate of Authenticity
Well, if he thinks that a fake let this guy out'' order, faxed to the prison, is an original notion, he is probably out of luck. Still, if I were the sentencing judge, I'd probably include a note that saidcheck with the court prior to release''.
No guarantees, other than that taxes will increase, but at least the judge will have tried.
[ link to this | view in thread ]