Miami Plastic Surgeon Sues Two Patients For Negative Reviews After He Had Them Sign Illegal Non Disparagement Agreements
from the this-again dept
What is it with plastic surgeons suing their former customers over negative reviews? We've written stories with that basic plotline over and over and over again. The latest involves Miami-based plastic surgeon Dr. Leonard Hochstein, who the article lets us know, has appeared on "The Real Housewives of Miami." Except, now he's getting attention for suing two of his former clients who left negative reviews online. Even though there's now a law, the Consumer Review Fairness Act, that bars anyone from forcing customers to sign a non-disparagement clause, Hochstein did so anyway. He insists he only recently became aware of that law. But he won't stop suing those customers.
His quotes are truly a work of art.
"I didn't have a choice, this is the last thing you want to do," said Dr. Hochstein.
Yeah, let's review this for a second: you did have a choice. You had lots of choices. You didn't need to sue. Indeed, you shouldn't have sued. Because before this, what people knew of your reputation, was that (and I'm not making this up), you were called "the Boob God." I mean, you even promoted yourself that way:
And, now, your name is splashed all over the news as the boob who decided to sue his patients over a few negative reviews. So you had a choice. And you chose unwisely.
"All I ever wanted was for people to be honest," he said.
Okay. Here's some honesty: don't (1) force people to sign illegal contracts that say they can't ever say anything negative about you, and (2) don't then sue those customers. Beyond being illegal under the Consumer Review Fairness Act, the agreement didn't say "be honest in your reviews." It said that your customers are not allowed to post "negative reviews or disparaging comments or statements about Dr. Leonard Hochstein or his employees." So, it's bullshit that you wanted people to be honest, because if they were honestly negative about you, you were telling them they had to shut up. And now you're suing them.
The article notes that the law doesn't prevent Hochstein from suing his patients, though now that he's getting attention for this, I'd image the FTC or potentially Florida's Attorney General might want to look into the fact that he made a bunch of patients sign such agreements. But still, Hochstein appears to have no intention of backing down:
Dr. Hochstein says he's moving forward with both cases.
"Be honest, tell the truth," he said. "There's nothing wrong with saying 'I didn't like my surgery, I didn't like how it went' and just stop there, don't make things up."
Once again, I feel the need to point out that the contract Hochstein made his clients sign would not have, in fact, allowed them to say "I didn't like my surgery." Because it forbade all negative reviews.
Over the weekend, it was reported that, far from backing down, Hochstein has now asked a court to throw his former client in jail for continuing to talk about the case.
According to legal documents obtained by The Blast, Hochstein filed a motion for bodily attachment against Kristen LaPointe, which in basically asks a judge to lock her up until she removes all negatives posts about the doctor as a part of a court order.
Unfortunately, despite "obtaining" those legal documents, The Blast didn't actually post them, so we have to rely on what they claim. Similarly, the NBC article above doesn't link to the actual court records, and a quick search of the Miami Dade court records online finds other unrelated lawsuits involving a Dr. Leonard Hochstein, but not the cases discussed here. So perhaps there are more details here, but doctors suing patients over reviews is never a good look -- especially after having them sign a non-disparagement clause. Asking to lock up patients for their reviews is even worse. And since Hochstein claims he was unaware of the Consumer Review Fairness Act, he might also be unaware of Florida's anti-SLAPP law. He might want to familiarize himself with it, because it certainly seems like he might run into some issues with that law as well.
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: anti-slapp, boob god, crfa, leonard hochstein, non-disparagement clause, reviews, slapp suits
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
It’s all in how you say it.
He went from “It’s the Boob God!” to “it’s the boob, God…” with one lawsuit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It’s all in how you say it.
Oh God. What a boob! as some would say.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: It’s all in how you say it.
Good thing one of his clients wasn't a certain Barbra Streisand.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: It’s all in how you say it.
That's Jeremy Hillary Boob Ph.D to you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: It’s all in how you say it.
"Oh you are awful, but I like you."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And now The Boob is well known for being a litigious ass.
Wonder what those other lawsuits look like?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Great as long as you are the billing lawyer. Really sad and a waste of time if you are anyone else.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Guest
He is suing 5 women total for negative reviews. His attorney calls and scares women into a lawsuit. Most women tenove reviews before a lawsuit can begin... You can look under the Miami-Dade Clerk of Courts search for Surgery Centers of North Miami LLC. There you will see Dr Leonard Hochstein has sued 5 women over negative reviews.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You don't describe whether the contracts were signed before or after the law was passed. In fact, the law forbids offering these contracts ("forced" or not) and forbids the enforcement of contracts that were signed before it was passed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Per the original NBC 6 article:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Per the original NBC 6 article:
The law doesn't stop him from suing, but it will stop him from winning any of those cases. He had better settle now and retire since a whole slew of negative reviews are about to come out about this slimy person.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hmmm if he 'had no choice' doesn't that make him a 'thing' (non sentient object) instead of a person?
Or is he asserting that his action are unrelated to his choices (which might make him a psycopath... not sure)?
I'd like here more about this "lack of choice"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Look, he broke the mirror jut by looking in it.
Physician, heal thyself!
Dr. Leonard Hochstein: "What would you have me do? I am already the Boob God.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I can answer this one:
There is a high correlation between lots of money and the reviews. Lawsuits cost a lot of money, and after a surgery, some sizable wads of money are available to the plastic surgeon that the former customer no longer has at their disposal.
So it's more effective to sue former customers over negative reviews rather than future customers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You're so Vain
Miami Plastic Surgeon Sues Two Patients For Negative Reviews After He Had Them Sign Illegal Non Disparagement Agreements
Please be happy with your natural attributes and you will never have to endure the wrath of a fool by name of Boob God (ie Dr. Leonard Hochstein) and suffer his medical/legal malpractice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why is there no penalty for the lawyers drafting these? Disbar!
From https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business-center/guidance/consumer-review-fairness-act-what-businesse s-need-know
"Congress gave enforcement authority to the Federal Trade Commission and the state Attorneys General. The law specifies that a violation of the CRFA will be treated the same as violating an FTC rule defining an unfair or deceptive act or practice. This means that your company could be subject to financial penalties, as well as a federal court order."
Odd that there's no penalty for the lawyers and law firms drafting or attempting to enforce these illegal provisions. After all, they are knowing accomplices, helping their clients violate federal law... and ignorance of the law would certainly be no excuse.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why is there no penalty for the lawyers drafting these? Disb
"Congress gave enforcement authority to the Federal Trade Commission and the state Attorneys General.
The Attorneys General discussed this at McDonald's over Quarters Pounder.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why is there no penalty for the lawyers drafting these? Disb
Odd that there's no penalty for the lawyers and law firms drafting or attempting to enforce these illegal provisions. After all, they are knowing accomplices, helping their clients violate federal law... and ignorance of the law would certainly be no excuse.
The good-faith attempt to reverse or modify existing law, however, is.
Didn't say it's a GOOD excuse, but an excuse nonetheless.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why is there no penalty for the lawyers drafting these? Disb
The answer to this may be simple--we have not seen the complaint. They may not have brought a cause of action to enforce the illegal agreement. It could just be a straightforward defamation action, or other allegations outside of that contract.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Botchstein, Hackstein, PieceOfShitstein...!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Lochschwein?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If anyone wants you to sign a 'non-disparagement clause' a part of the conditions of receiving a good or service from that person - the good or service isn't going to be very good.
ESPECIALLY IF ITS YOUR SURGEON!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It would certainly be a red flag to me, but how many people actually read the fine print, or understand it if they do?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Dear Lord. I would hope that even if you're the sort of person who doesn't read the Apple ToS that you would read everything put in front of you by the guy you're planning on letting cut into you.
Especially for cosmetic surgery.
I could sort of see if it was a necessary surgery - where a botched surgery is better than no surgery - but not for a boob job.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If anyone wants you to sign a 'non-disparagement clause' a part of the conditions of receiving a good or service from that person - the good or service isn't going to be very good.
ESPECIALLY IF ITS YOUR SURGEON!
Hopefully the laws barring these contracts are what will be thrown out. Otherwise, the white-collar professionals are sitting ducks for "reputation blackmail." Businesses have a right to dictate the terms under which they do business. "The customer is always right" was a slogan for immigrant employees that no longer applies.
This shows how Section 230 increases the power of negative reviews, power which can easily be abused by judgment-proof or burner-IP users who post. What's to stop a rival practitioner from paying someone to patronize a rival and then destroy the rival with a bad review? This has been proven to have happened before as well.
The only silver lining here is that it applies to attorneys as well as to doctors, though either could still sue for defamation rather than breach of contract, but then there are other laws attempting to restrict even that.
Given how many online reviews are fake, this is not a good thing to silence the doctor by denying due process.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Makers of false statements can already be sued under current defamation laws.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Yeah, im sure all 5 women he is currently suing are false.... pfffft
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'd say it's likely that their boobs, at least, are "false".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Sure... but what about the ones that you want to shut up that are telling the truth? Of course if there actually is any sort of blackmail involved thats already completely illegal too but what about the ones that just want to tell people about horrible stuff you have truly done... how do you shut those ones up?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
*Hopefully the laws barring these contracts are what will be thrown out. Otherwise, the white-collar professionals are sitting ducks for "reputation blackmail."
Makers of false statements can already be sued under current defamation laws.*
If they can find the poster. As other posts here note, IP addresses prove nothing, while "burner IP" addresses can make the poster impossible to find. In the case of extortion from individuals in other countries, they can be impossible to sue, and many use this flaw in Section 230 to extort money from white-collar professionals who would not be harmed in the absence of Section 230 (which is yet another example of how Section 230 can harm people).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Non-disparagement agreements aren't going to help with that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Non-disparagement agreements aren't going to help with that.
Correct. Only a modification to Section 230 would. The one I'd like to see is if the platform cannot identify the publisher, to prove third-party authorship, it is treated as the publisher. This would halt anonymous defamation (against which people have no defense) in its tracks.
Search engines should also be held to a higher standards given how many people use them. Defamation by an individual in a small corner of the internet is one thing, but should rise to the level of a constitutional harm the second it appears in Google results.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
How many lawsuits are you gonna file today jhonboi?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Of course it would put a stop to anonymous defamation…seeing as how it would also put a stop to UGC on literally every website that both operates out of the United States and allows any kind of user-generated content. (That includes this comment section, too.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
(Of course it would put a stop to anonymous defamation…seeing as how it would also put a stop to UGC on literally every website that both operates out of the United States and allows any kind of user-generated content. (That includes this comment section, too.)
Yet somehow, AUS and the UK have no 230 and many sites which allow comments. Notice-and-takedown doesn't put a site at risk unless it ignores the notices.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It does, however, create a system of extrajudicial censorship that takes down content on a mere accusation and has little-to-no real oversight into whether that system is being abused.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
You must have thought "3 strikes" models were the best thing since sliced bread too, didn't cha?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
An anonymous poster wishes to destroy anonymous posting, it seems that you have not thought this through.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
An anonymous poster wishes to destroy anonymous posting, it seems that you have not thought this through.
All poodles are dogs, but all dogs are not poodles.
I do not wish to destroy anonymous posting, merely immunity for third-party distribution of anonymous defamation.
Hope that clarifies things.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Make platforms legally liable for anonymous posting and you will destroy anonymous posting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Make platforms legally liable for anonymous posting and you will destroy anonymous posting.
By "anonymous" I mean "untraceable," not a situation where the identity can be subpoenaed. If the site has an IP address that wouldn't apply, they'd say "sue to get the IP address." For search engines they'd have to remove that which they couldn't trace back, but search engines amplify the message way beyond original publication to the point where it is definitely a republisher.
With notice and takedown, only those posts for which notice is given would be subject to takedown.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Why should anything be subject to takedown on mere notice? Prove it is defamatory in court. No one will have issues with notices then.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And how many of those posts would be proven-in-court defamatory instead of merely being accused of being defamatory, hmm? The whole point of a NaT system is to censor speech before a court can decide whether a piece of content is defamatory/infringing upon copyright/whatever else you can think of. Hell, given that enforcement of penalties for filing false DMCA notices is practically non-existent, anyone could file a DMCA notice for something to which they do not own the copyright and get away with it.
That does not sound like a system that should be in place for claims of defamation. That sounds like a system that would be used by assholes like “The Boob God” to delete negative-yet-truthful comments because of hurt feelings. You may like the idea of being able to remove insults aimed at you with a mere notice of hurt feelings, but you would be one of an insanely small number people who also wants that system — because they, too, would rather skip the lawsuit process and go straight to “judgment for the plaintiff”.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You're really quite dense, aren't you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Correct. Only a modification to Section 230 would. The one I'd like to see is if the platform cannot identify the publisher, to prove third-party authorship, it is treated as the publisher. This would halt anonymous defamation (against which people have no defense) in its tracks.
No that would only halt anonymous posts - like yours. Once the reviewing site has a valid email address, their diligence would be done under that idea.
Also, if they had to determine this before the post goes up, that would block all posts as you well understand. And would likely fall under some form of prior restraint.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
If they're saying "I'm Fred Ishkabibble, and I wasn't satisfied with the job Dr Boob...." and it's a REAL patient, identifying them isn't a big deal.
If it's "I'm not going to use my real name, but Dr Boob...", chances are it's just Jhon looking to cause trouble.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Free speech is more important that the potential harms of said speech. Congress shall enact no laws abridging Free Speech.
Now go away.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: See this is why you’re called Lyin Cryin jhon
“This has been proven to have happened before as well.”
Number of times jhonboi has claimed this: Hundreds
Number of times proof has been offered: ZERO
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Suing 5 women.... disgusting
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Back again with this bull shit. Please leave... NOW. In other words, GET THE FUCK OUT OF HERE, YOU ARE NOT WELCOME.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Gee I should post those reviews of lawyers who openly interact with hackers from Anonymous via social media, or who have ties to anti-Semitism that are also easily proven through those associations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yes. Put up or shut up. Please.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Yes. Put up or shut up. Please.
That's funny: you think I answer to you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I know you don't answer to me. I'm merely expressing annoyance that you keep making claims without backing them up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I know you don't answer to me.
Exactly.
I'm merely expressing annoyance that you keep making claims without backing them up.
I've had to retain an attorney to ensure that when I do finally drop all this, my legal rights are protected. The second my name becomes public, about 150+ posts from this site will become actionable defamation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So those reviews of lawyers you're talking about are reviews that you have written? Otherwise I don't see why citing those reviews would imperil your anonymity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
This is the guy you want to sue Techdirt - MIchael Adler
http://www.ta-llp.com/
He’s a genius, really. He already is familiar with Techdirt and the defamation that’s goes on here.
He’s small, but fierce, with tons of experience. He used to work at Gibson Dunn and Crutcher (heard of them? - they got Bush his job, were the first to beat Microsoft, etc.) but set out on his own because he is so brilliant he can do anything he wants. Very reasonably priced, too. Maybe half the rate of GDC, and pretty much a lock in litigation. All the local judges in LA love him, he never loses. Ask around in LA - he’s the guy you want.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Having successfully obtained more than $145 million dollars in judgments on behalf of clients in complex commercial litigation, Michael Adler is equally skilled on the defense side of litigation. He has represented a wide range of clients, from individual entrepreneurs through some of the largest Fortune 500 companies, when they sought cost-efficient and effective counsel. In the media and entertainment field, Michael has represented television and motion picture studios, film producers, cable companies, video game developers, book publishers, film and television distributors and talent agencies in claims arising out of copyright infringement, trademark infringement, unfair competition, breach of contract, antitrust, fraud, racketeering, security interests and bankruptcy. Beyond media and entertainment, Michael has represented clients ranging from individual technology entrepreneurs and high-profile public figures through major international computer firms, retailers, consumer products manufacturers, banking and insurance companies and the University of Southern California. Among his most significant victories, Michael was one of two primary Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher trial counsel who secured a $122 million jury verdict in federal court for a German film distributor. Michael has also been lead attorney on numerous matters, including successfully representing the University of Southern California before the United States Supreme Court and successfully obtaining arbitration awards in excess of $2.5 million dollars. On the defense side, Michael was the lead associate in reversing a $2 billion dollar preliminary injunction against a firm client and securing a complete dismissal of all claims in that matter.
In addition to trial and appellate work, Michael has enjoyed considerable success representing clients seeking or defending against “provisional” remedies such as temporary restraining orders, preliminary injunctions and pre-judgment seizures of property – procedures that effectively can resolve a case at its very outset. Michael has also represented clients in a number of arbitrations and mediations including AFMA/IFTA arbitrations and domain name disputes.
Michael is a graduate of Yale Law School, where he served as an Editor for the Yale Law Journal. He is also a graduate of the National Institute on Trial Advocacy’s in-depth course on trial skills. Law & Politics and the publishers of Los Angeles Magazine have named Michael a California "SuperLawyer" for nine years running (2007 onward) after naming him a California “Rising Star” in 2006.
Michael began his career as a litigation associate with Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, and thereafter served as a law clerk to the Honorable Stephen V. Wilson and, later, to the Honorable Gary A. Feess, both United States District Court Judges for the Central District of California in Los Angeles. Michael then joined Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, where he was a litigation associate in the firm’s Century City and Los Angeles offices for more than six years before forming Tantalo & Adler LLP.
Michael is a Los Angeles native, having attended University High School in West Los Angeles. Michael has been active with Bet Tzedek, the Anti-Defamation League, and the Los Angeles Legal Aid Foundation’s Tenant Advocacy Project.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
He the one that lost ya boy his lawsuit?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I have never seen him lose. He is all bite and no bark.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Damn Shiva shoulda used him. Just so he could taste the sting of defeat.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yeah, I thought Harder was going to be a miracle worker, but hey, sometimes that’s how the cookie crumbles.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
In addition to trial and appellate work, Michael has enjoyed considerable success representing clients seeking or defending against “provisional” remedies such as temporary restraining orders, preliminary injunctions and pre-judgment seizures of property – procedures that effectively can resolve a case at its very outset.
No kidding. He is a full on legal genius. I have seen it with my own eyes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Also, I'm annoyed when you do things like claim that intelligent conservatives have been silenced but refuse to name those conservatives, or claim that something goes against common law but refuse to name what parts of common law, areas where not backing up your claims have nothing to do with maintaining your anonymity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You’ve been saying that for a year and a half bro. At what point are you gonna realise that we all know you’re full of shit?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
You’ve been saying that for a year and a half bro. At what point are you gonna realise that we all know you’re full of shit?
A single person speaks of itself as "we." DID?
The truth can be spoken at any time.
These folks are gnats, very low priority.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You're the gnat, bud. Annoying people having an otherwise good conversation/debate about the topic at hand. Super annoying at that but still a powerless, gutless gnat.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Because it does not take a genius to realize the rather large majority of those commenting here have noticed that you are, indeed, full of shit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I wonder if any of them are yours.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I wonder if any of them are yours.
Revealing my name would not change anything I've posted, only what is posted about me. Seems your logic is failing you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Nothing was posted about you since you won't name yourself. Moron.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Yep, since he refuses to supply any identifiable information, we can only go on what he's presented to us. Now, we could be attacking what he himself is, or we could be attacking a fictional character that bears no resemblance to him. None of us know for sure, and nobody's besmirching his good name in real life since he's never provided a way to link it to his posts here.
But, since he's getting so angry about it, it's more likely that it's the real him who we are correctly identifying as a lying scam artist than it being just a character he plays. Nobody's going to get as impotently angry as this guy does if we're not hitting home, even if nobody here knows who he actually is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Totally wrong. You don't get instant retro-defamation. Anything said to an idiot anonymous poster is not said to a named individual. You might get some future defamation but I dare say it's totally deserved. You're an utter douchebag and a complete moron.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And since he's anonymous, where's the "actual harm" required to make the claims actionable? I wait with bated breath... not!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Especially since the anonymous method he's chosen is simply not logging in, and is a method known to be used by hundreds, if not thousands, of other individuals.
In other words, even if he were to reveal himself it would be hard to make the case that any specific instance of "defamation" were directed at him rather than the many other people posting anonymously. Add that to the long history of trolls whining that they're not that AC when called out on something they said, and the only outcome of any legal action would be the rest of us having this guy's identity exposed.
So, please proceed, sir...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'll butter the popcorn, Paul.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I've had to retain an attorney to ensure that when I do finally drop all this, my legal rights are protected. The second my name becomes public, about 150+ posts from this site will become actionable defamation.
Claiming to have filed legal documents that you've never filed is fraud, Jhon. Frad, Scammer, Liar, and weirdly obsessed with TD.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I am interested in this legal theory, could you please post some supporting facts and court cases that show where anonymous postings are actionable?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
about 150+ posts from this site will become actionable defamation.
I am interested in this legal theory, could you please post some supporting facts and court cases that show where anonymous postings are actionable?
You can't defame an alias (at least most people think you can't), but if someone outs my name, then the posts directed at the alias become posts directed at my legal name, and therefore actionable.
I've been called a scammer, rapist, and a bunch of horrible names. Scammer is the one I take issue with the most. "All self-help/how-to books are scams" is not valid either. People with genuine expertise need copyright protection to share it in book form. Those who write about news produce perishable content that doesn't face the issues. A good how-to book could share knowledge which took years to make.
A while back, some mail-order guru had a how-to-make-money-in-mail-order infomercial that definitely wasn't a scam. He had made money in the 1970s during the gas crisis by selling alcohol stills by mail order that allowed people to produce their own gas.
Even dating-advice books like "The Rules" aren't scams, even if people think they are low quality. The discussion about that guy's work (Herzog?) who people attacked as "crap" elicited responses that the quality of a work is irrelevant to its need for copyright protection.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
But all self help guru's are scammers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Correction: An anonymous poster was called a scammer, a rapist, and a playground-level troll. For all we¹ know, that poster could be multiple people using the same IP address and a barebones script with grammar and strucure notes to troll Techdirt on a daily basis. Besides, we have no idea who you are; how could we know if we are insulting the “real” “Jhon Smith” or some anonymous fuckwit who shares your level of both ignorance and ego? How could we know if you even are the original “Jhon Smith” and not some anonymous troll who can emulate him at will?
All you had to do was stay gone and you never would have needed to make all these (impotent, baseless, ultimately childish) threats about police investigations and lawsuits and harassing politicians about articles they wrote for this site. All you had to do was leave and nobody would have missed you; hell, if anything, you could have let some other dumb schmuck take the hit for your bullshit and no one would have been the wiser. That you came back — that you thought it necessary to defend a pseudonym that could be attached to any anonymous rando — says a lot about you. None of it is good.
¹ — By “we”, I mean “regular Techdirt commenters”.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I think the most interesting thing is that he considers being called a "scammer" to be more grievous than being called a "rapist".
Which would explain why he's absolutely obsessed with the "woman is called a hooker" scenario.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
All you had to do was stay gone and you never would have needed to make all these (impotent, baseless, ultimately childish) threats about police investigations and lawsuits and harassing politicians about articles they wrote for this site.
It's not harassment to point out who politicians choose to align themselves with, and the police were involved with a few who frequent this site long before I even got here (i found this site while tracking them to gather evidence).
Whoever was claiming to be Mark Cuban (apparently Cuban himself hasn't claimed he was impersonated) doesn't seem to mind this site, however, but he's a billionaire who answers to no one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
All you had to do was stay gone and you never would have needed to make all these (impotent, baseless, ultimately childish) threats about police investigations and lawsuits and harassing politicians about articles they wrote for this site.
Like I said, once I stopped posting here, if someone hadn't accused others of being me, I would never have needed to return to refute that. Of course, if I left AGAIN and someone started saying things similar to what I said, they'd be accused of being me, as if others cannot possibly agree with me.
Presenting opinions as if they were factual (like a pro-230 stance) is another basic debate flaw. 230 is not "resolved" in that matter. It's open to debate, a debate in which I elect to participate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
How did you know if somebody else was posting as you unless you had never left and still lurking in the comments.
Also keep in mind, that you said you would leave, not just quit posting comments.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Lyin Cryin Jhon Can’t keep his story straight
He also said “don’t bother posting anything about me because I won’t even be back to look at the comments.” Or some such garbage
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Did you know there are over 47,297+ John Smith’s in the USA alone?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
i found this site while tracking them to gather evidence
Evidence of what? Harassment and defamation? And all this happened long before you got here, Techdirt being only one of many stops on your "sue them all" global tour? Again, the John Smith pseudonym usage only started circa early 2018. The fun at your expense started midway 2018. You're saying you were masquerading as someone anonymous before then? Before anyone noticed your predictable "I hate Section 230 because it won't let me sue grandmothers" patterns?
if someone hadn't accused others of being me, I would never have needed to return to refute that
This still makes no damn sense. Nobody cares who John Smith is. I could go outside right now and scream "John Smith hates Section 230" and nobody would know or care because "John Smith" is a pseudonym that has no effect or impact on anyone. It's such a common throwaway name that the idea one of them hates Section 230 and has an obsession with legally dubious theories is not anything damning.
Again, as Stephen said, nobody would care. You're not so important to the ecosystem of this community (which you and plenty of detractors have insisted is a toxic echo chamber, so again, goodness knows why you have any value in staying here) that your departure would feel like a tragedy.
Of course, if I left AGAIN and someone started saying things similar to what I said, they'd be accused of being me
And those "someones" would be treated as being full of shit for being trolls. No idea why that result would be considered unacceptable; it's not like the original John Smith has behaved in a way that would make him out to be a troll, right?
Also, because this keeps slipping under the radar for detractors here, you're all one of a kind. Mimicking any of you is a complete waste of time because fakers are screamingly obvious. In fact, given that you yourself suggested the idea of "faking defamation" to go on a litigious buffet of settlements, Occam's Razor implies that you're the one saying all sorts of irresponsible garbage to set yourself up for a windfall.
Presenting opinions as if they were factual (like a pro-230 stance) is another basic debate flaw
And so is listing hundreds of women who were fired for being called hookers without linking to a single case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You really do not get it. I will lay the whole deal out for you as best I can, and if you do not get it after that, you are hopeless.
Here is a statement of fact: Nobody here knows who you really are. We do not know your (real) name, your home address, your age, race, gender, sexual orientation, occupation, marital status — anything about you that would make you personally identifiable in the slightest way to anyone who comments here. Nobody here could have ever made the connection between your posts and who you really are without you telling everyone who you are.
Another statement of fact: Even now, you remain wholly anonymous to every commenter here. Your pseudonym could be attached to any post by any anonymous commenter and no one but you would ever know the truth. And if you had left, regardless of whether people kept attributing posts to you under that pseudonym, no one could have ever connected any post attributed to “Jhon Smith” with your actual identity.
You chose to come back and “defend” a pseudononymous identity that cannot be connected to you without you doing the deed. You chose to keep making vague, impotent threats about lawsuits and subpoenas and police investigations. You chose to keep trolling this site despite having the absolute ability to disappear and never come back without any issue.
Even if people attributed other posts to “Jhon Smith”, so what? Nobody knew it was not you behind those posts. Nobody needed nor cared to know whether it was you. And you — the actual person behind the keyboard, that is — could have never been connected to Techdirt by anyone else here.
You could have walked away. You did not.
You could have let another anonymous douchebag become “Jhon Smith”. You did not.
You came back here to threaten people who do not know you with lawsuits you have not filed and police investigations that are not happening because someone said another completely anonymous poster was you. You came back to defend an identity you could have let go with no blowback. You came back to make impotent threats, talk about ending Section 230 and thus your commenting career here, and making every comments section you shit up all about you.
Nobody but you cares who you are. Nobody but you cares if you go away. I suggest doing that instead of letting your ego get the better of you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You came back to make impotent threats, talk about ending Section 230 and thus your commenting career here, and making every comments section you shit up all about you.
So long as it continues to work...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A fair point, and one I do not take to heart as often as I should.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I can understand the temptation given what passes for their 'arguments' are less fish in a barrel and more dead fish, lined up on a table, with the gun already loaded and pointed at them, but when dealing with someone who employs selective amnesia(forgetting anything that might prove them wrong) and what is essentially a gish-gallop(they can, and do, lie a hell of a lot easier than you can dismantle their lies, simply because there's nothing stopping them from repeating a bogus claim or coming up with a new one) it's important to consider why you're interacting with them.
Are you trying to convince them that they're wrong? Not a chance, that would require honesty and maturity, and they've demonstrated a complete and utter lack of both.
Are you trying to convince others that they're wrong? Odds are good that the vast majority of people wouldn't take them at their word if they said the sun had risen, they've poisoned their reputation so badly, so not really any need to address that.
Are you doing it to pass time in-between tasks that actually matter, merely for your own entertainment? So long as you keep in mind the kind of person you're dealing with and respond appropriately(trying, if possible, to not sink to their level as some unfortunately have), striving not to fall into troll-traps such as letting them get away with simply making the same claim multiple times and responding to it each time as though it was still valid/hadn't been addressed, knock yourself out, just realize that in so doing you're still giving them what they want, attention.
'Flag and ignore' isn't just a practical way to deal with trolls, it's also an enjoyable way to return the favor to them, as few things will get under the skin of someone desperately trying to get attention from others(and ideally get those other riled up in the process) as simply ignoring them, giving them all the attention they actually deserve.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Project much?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
That word does not mean what you think it means.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
It does to me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Thus why I've been mostly silent in these pointless exchanges. Please ignore the Deaf-amation rants, folks. The back and forth leads nowhere and is simply exhausting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Does it hurt because it’s true or does the truth just hurt
Truth is the ultimate defence bro.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Does it hurt because it’s true or does the truth just
Learn to spell, you fucking foreigner.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Does it hurt because it’s true or does the truth j
Sorry/not sorry transhamilton. Old Jhon boi stole the spotlight today and you shan’t be getting it back anytime soon.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I've been called a scammer,
Because you are a scammer? Or was that the other AC?
Which AC are you again? I was certainly calling a different AC a fuckwit.
But if you peddle self-help books, odds are high you are in fact a scammer. Especially since the AC rambling about self-help books likes to lie - makes it very believable scams are their business.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Scammer is the one I take issue with the most.
You might want to learn just a wee bit about the caselaw on whether or not it's defamation to call someone a scammer. You can start here:
https://scholar.google.com.vn/scholar_case?case=6697525320456140015&q=mccabe+v+rattiner&am p;hl=en&as_sdt=2006
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
_Scammer is the one I take issue with the most.
You might want to learn just a wee bit about the caselaw on whether or not it's defamation to call someone a scammer. You can start here:
https://scholar.google.com.vn/scholar_case?case=6697525320456140015&q=mccabe+v+rattiner&am p;am p;hl=en&assdt=2006
Once again, your links don't prove what you say they do.
If I say "All self-help authors are scammers" then I guess every self help author in the world has cause to sue me? (Hint - they don't, still not how defamation works.)
Besides - I didn't call you or your business a scam. I was addressing that other poster who brags about his self-help books and lies about caselaw, then threatens folks with lawsuits. I'm pretty sure he's a scam artist. A bad one, seeing how his self-help business couldn't help himself.
You on the other hand are obviously a different anonymous coward hiding behind your monitor.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Slow down Gary. That comment you were responding to was agreeing with you and pointing out to the troll that "scammer" is not defamatory.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"You can't defame an alias (at least most people think you can't), but if someone outs my name, then the posts directed at the alias become posts directed at my legal name"
Future ones, yes. Are you honestly saying that your revealing yourself makes everything said against a shared anonymous "account" (since there are thousands of people who have posted as "anonymous coward" over the years) retroactively personal to you?
"I've been called a scammer, rapist, and a bunch of horrible names."
No, the character you've adopted in your posts here has been called that, because those are the exact traits and desires you have exhibited while playing that character. Whether or not that is really you, nobody knows until you reveal yourself. Then, only personally directed comments against your real persona would actually be defamatory.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I've been called a scammer, rapist, and a bunch of horrible names.
Boo dee hoo! I've been targeted in real life and had to get the cops to confirm I wasn't under investigation for the actions I'd been accused of. I'm neither suing nor calling for Section 230 (or whatever they call it over here) to be repealed.
RE: commenters here, I've got (at least) one who appears to believe I post under multiple aliases here (I don't) and calls me all sorts of crazy things, then, when called on it, declares it's all a joke. After this, he whines that we don't take him seriously. Do you see me whining about it? Nope. Not going to.
As I've stated many times, unless people actually believe it and you are affected in real life by it, nothing that anyone says about you matters, however negative it is. AND potential harm is not the same as being hauled into the office and asked to explain to senior management why they've had a message accusing you of all sorts of shenanigans.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Can we link to this post in future dealings with Jhon Herrick Smith?
Like how antidirt gets the #c1210 treatment?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
How exactly does you posting defamation of some random lawyers cause 150+ unrelated non-defamatory internet posts to magically become actionable?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Two can play at the vague innuendo game
Gee I should call the police about when you threatened to rape the mentally disabled people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Two can play at the vague innuendo game
Re: Two can play at the vague innuendo game
Gee I should call the police about when you threatened to rape the mentally disabled people.
So in response to me mentioning posting a truthful review of an attorney, you are threatening to report me to the police for a posting I did not make. Interesting.
I wonder if the two congressmen who have an article on this site embrace all these comments.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Two can play at the vague innuendo game
Now if said attorneys had any ties to this site, a threat to call the cops on me over a posting I did not make here would be quite significant.
The California State Police and Attorney General might be interested in this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Spoiler alert: the answer is no
I wonder if one of your innumerable impotent threats has ever worked?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Spoiler alert: the answer is no
I wonder if one of your innumerable impotent threats has ever worked?
This is the Boolean flaw called "slanted language."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Spoiler alert: the answer is no
You clearly don't know what Boolean is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Spoiler alert: the answer is no
Doubt they have anything more than rudimentary math skills at best thanks to the atrocious state of the public school system.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Spoiler alert: the answer is no
4/10 for deflection. Not enough rape threats to keep the reader interested.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Two can play at the vague innuendo game
lol
You realize your threats are without basis or merit, right? Or are you really that deluded?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Two can play at the vague innuendo game
You realize your threats are without basis or merit, right? Or are you really that deluded?
I was threatened with a countersuit and a post claimed one of my posts was defamation, so that allows me to sue for declaratory relief that it's not. In the course of that, my name comes out, and every defamatory post directed at "John Smith" becomes actionable. I'm having an attorney look into this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Harvey Birdman is not a real attorney. Neither is Phoenix Wright.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Don’t worry he’s retained the prestigious firm of Saltmarsh and Alpha LLC.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Neither is Phoenix Wright.
...Fuck, I guess I shouldn't have attempted to solve a mystery by prancing about in a priestess costume and waiting for words to appear in water.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Strange women lying in ponds distributing s-words is no basis for a legal system.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
In retrospect, it's rather telling how Khura'in's legal system in Ace Attorney: Spirit of Justice draws many parallels with copyright and IP enforcement.
Then again, considering that the series as a whole was intended as a critique of Japan's "get guilt, confirm later" system to begin with...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Two can play at the vague innuendo game
Sorry, but I hear Prenda Law has been having some staffing issues... oh, and some legal issues as well, so I wouldn't take what they say very seriously right now. You might have better luck with Michael Avenatti.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Two can play at the vague innuendo game
Very novel legal theory, where are the court cases that back you your claims?
Oh, so you are a lying sack of shit and you actually have no fucking clue if this is true or not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Two can play at the vague innuendo game
Don't forget you were also called a goatfucker who kidnaps children and eats them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Two can play at the vague innuendo g
Not to mention an old, impotent, fuckwit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Two can play at the vague innuendo game
You never did cite any cases (or anything for that matter) that supports your novel theory.
So you are lying sack of shit and have no fucking clue if this is even true or not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Found John Smith!!!
I figured it out, here is John Smith
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RrtjCRJOSO8
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Found John Smith!!!
Nah, he's really John Barron!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Two can play at the vague innuendo game
I would recommend MIchael Adler of Tantallo and Adler, LLP in Los Angeles on Avenue of the Stars. Google him. He’s a fierce litigator, and won a lot of money, many times. He’s already familiar with Techdirt, the applicable California law and how to wn these kinds of cases. He’s a winner, like Trump.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Two can play at the vague innuendo game
I wonder what lovely other things you have said that can be found out through discovery?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And my father can defeat your father in a bare-knuckle fight.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Reason to bitch
I asked for 36 D's.
I got 35 C's. Check em out.
What's not to complain about?
Boob God in training, or what? Sheesh.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Reason to bitch
I don't think it works like you think it works.
The number is torso circumference so unless liefeldesqe body modification was involved, I very much doubt injection of polymers will have such an effect on ones physical dimensions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I wonder what lovely other things you have said that can be found out through discovery?
Only one way to find out!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: who’s vaguely threatening now!
Expect my subpoena any day now.... any day now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: who’s vaguely threatening now!
Expect my subpoena any day now.... any day now.
If that's directed at me that gives me cause to seek declaratory relief and subpoena your identity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And that would mean they could unmask you in return, then all the horrible, awful, no-good very bad things you claim will happen to you if your true identity is ever uncovered could happen to you…because you were so blinded by rage that you did not think your cunning plan all the way through.
But since you will never go to court over anything here, well…keep whining and I bet the school nurse will come make sure everything is okay.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Wouldn't filing all these alleged lawsuits instantly unmask this Smith guy?
He can't file to unmask the AC's here without removing his can he?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It was old man Smythe all along.
Correct. I for one can’t wait to see who the real fuckwit is. It’s gonna be better than an episode of Scooby Doo.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And that would mean they could unmask you in return, then all the horrible, awful, no-good very bad things you claim will happen to you if your true identity is ever uncovered could happen to you…because you were so blinded by rage that you did not think your cunning plan all the way through. But since you will never go to court over anything here, well…keep whining and I bet the school nurse will come make sure everything is okay.
You're mistaken.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Still waiting after all these months
Any day now.... any day now.
Oh hey speaking of impotent threats. What ever happened to all those “litigation holds” you put on this website like you were an actual attorney?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And you are doing nothing to prove that claim.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You mean simply saying the equivalent of 'Nuh-uh!' isn't a solid argument?
Learn something new every day.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Nuh-uh, that’s not way I’m saying at all.
I’m saying that (a) Techdirt serves no useful purpose to society but (b) Techdirt really pisses many people off with it’s bullshit so (c) it’s just a matter of time until you piss off the wrong person, that has the money and nothing better to do. Maybe someone old, rich, bored, and looking to leave a legacy. Oh wait, Not much of a legacy to kill Techdirt, after all, there’s a total of about 8 people here (if that) since MOST of the posters are Mike, Wendy or Leah using phony names.
The days of these fake news bullshit slanderous defamatory Web sites who sell filth, embarrassment, disgusting imagery and outright falsehoods are numbered.
We’re coming for ‘ya. Read Trump’s Tweets.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"there’s a total of about 8 people here (if that) since MOST of the posters are Mike, Wendy or Leah using phony names"
You do realise even if true, that 8 people includes you, right? Yet again, even in your own conspiracy theory, you're wasting your life.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I dunno, I think everybody needs a hobby. I might be old, and rich, but I’m still cheap. And there is something really attractive about this FREE place to post my opinions, and getting idiots like you (“even if true”, indeed) to respond with your idiot comments on your own dime.
Here’s a question for you legal beagles (I think that includes you): Say the people who really hate Techdirt and want to take revenge for their slanderous libelous diatribe meet each other, for example, here on Techdirt.
And let’s say that they wanted to pool their funds to have an attorney translate their animosity towards Techdirt into a legal document that can be filed in court.
And let’s say that I have $10,000 that I would put towards that fund, and I’m looking for five more team members (like the guy who is so upset above) to also put up $10,000, and we plan on $30,000 to prepare the case and $30,000 to get it to discovery (overcoming initial motions to dismiss), where we will learn all kinds of interesting things that we can publish, say ON TECHDIRT.
let’s just say I wanted to do that - is it legal? I think it is, right? People can give each other money for any purpose at all, right? And if not, Bitcoin is easy to use. And discovery materials can be published on sites like this, right, you guys advocate that all the time, right? Whistle blower behavior, so to speak.
Can I do that legally? RIght here? Right now?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You can do all of that and Shiva Ayyadurai will still not have been proven by a judge to have invented email.
Neither will it undo the humiliation he had at the hands of a fake Indian.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
He was no humiliated. He lost, and learned from his loss. Like all normal people.
Thank you for reinforcing what a disgusting slanderous libelous diatribe pit of disgusting phony pony posers this place is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: They are all laughing at him
Absolute total failure. I think Bart Simpson got more votes than that pathetic loser. Honestly he’s a laughingstock around normal people. When someone’s about to do something monumentally stupid in public they say “Hey don’t pull a Shiva.”
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: They are all laughing at him
Boring.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Knock yourself out bro. Jhon boi will personally promise you hundreds of thousands and deliver nothing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Hey, whatever you want to waste your time and money with. It's a shame you have nothing better to do, but rather here than on the streets.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Interesting - being a foreigner, have you ever considered the commitment that Americans are known for?
For example, do you think it was easy to tell assholes from the UK (like you) to fuck off, and have to back it up with a gun, for reals? That’s American.
And then for write a constitution, with other men, who (invariably) saw things a little differently, but then not kill them for their differing opinions, but embrace them, and co-sign the constitution with them. have you considered how American that was?f
Or how we recovered from a very difficult opinion after the Civil War? Some people in America have different opinions than me, but I still embrace them as totally equal Americans.
And then to be patient while foreigner fucks-offs like you preach your bullshit on and on in some anonymous form, the same voice using a hundred names, and listen, and comment, and step by step, crush your ideology? That’s American.
Have you ever considered what a small and petty UK asshole you are, and how little any real Americans, especially those in the Hamilton clan, care for any of your bullshit opinion?
I doubt you consider anything, ever, beyond your own inflated ego.
Preach some more, it’s entertaining. Tell us how smart you are, foreign asshole who lives their live jealous of Americans, American Values, American Wealth, American Prosperity, American Morality and American Superiority.
Tell us. We’re all listening. The Americans are laughing, of course, but you can’t hear us, because you a fucking foreigner phony pony talking about nothing but your own jealousy.
Not like me. I’m an upstanding American, a member of several American Societies, with a long legacy, dating back (in my direct blood line) to the American Constitution, the American Revolution, The First American Colony and the Mayflower.
Who the fuck are you again? Oh I forgot - you’re a fucking phony pony UK ex-pat Spanish what?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
At least he isn't a chest thumping anonymous coward with spittle on his screen making grandiose claims about his alleged ancestry as if that would matter in the least.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Show me where I thumped my chest, Pinocchio boy.
Grandiose? You mean American? Americans are Grandiose? Why, yes, we are.
Just ask Trump. He’s our model. Duh. We elected him president. He represents us. Accurately.
have a nice day,
Your American Friend
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
He proclaimed he would be the greatest president for LGBT people. When he won, he proceeded to stack his administration with anti-LGBT bigots such as Mike Pence and Betsy DeVos. He has passed no legislation or signed any executive order that enriches or betters the lives of LGBT people specifically. His administration has, on the other hand, banned trans people from serving in the military and weakened Department of Education guidelines on helping LGBT students. Now his administration opposes the Equality Act — which would enshrine non-discrimination protections for sexual orientation and gender identity into federal law — because it would prevent his true voting base of conservative Christians from being able to use religious beliefs as justification for kicking gay people out of employment, housing, etc. And that is despite Trump himself saying in 2000 that he would support such a law.
He proclaimed he would be the best president for Black people. When he won, he then proceeded to stack his administration with racists such as Steve Bannon, Stephen Miller, and (again) Betsy DeVos. He has passed no legislation or signed any executive order that enriches or betters the lives of Black people specifically. He has, however, given cover to very fine peo—I mean, White supremacists, and he has insulted several Black people to absurd degrees (including Colin Kaepernick). And if we move beyond Black people to people of color in general, his response to Puerto Rico alone is enough to make him and his administration look racist. Oh, and lest we forget: Trump was one of the major pushers of the racially motivated “birther” movement to prove Barack Obama was not a citizen of the United States.
I do not recall him proclaiming he would be the greatest president for women, but I can guarantee he would have if he thought he could get away with it. That said, his administration has stacked the courts with judges favorable to dismantling Roe v. Wade and a woman’s absolute right to choose whether she wants an abortion. It has also weakened Title IX protections for college students, thus making it harder for them to properly report rapes and sexual assaults. And while you may not want to notice, Trump saves his most vicious, vile, and otherwise hurtful attacks for women: Nancy Pelosi, Elizabeth Warren, and Ilhan Omar — for starters — have all been attacked more often, and with far more venom, than any of their male colleagues.
Rich assholes, bigoted White people, and anti-abortion conservative Christians (which sometimes all go hand-in-hand!) elected Donald Trump. He represents them. Accurately. Everyone else can apparently fuck off and die, so far as he cares.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You are talking out of both sides of your mouth, describing other people, describing people perceiving other people, and describing people judging people judging other people. It’s all horseshit.
First, LGBT, the 1% of sexually challenged population. God bless them and their sexual confusion. Don’t give a Shiva bout helping them. UP to them to help themselves. I have no money for them at all. I can turn my head, avert my gaze,support their American rights, and that’s about it. Good luck to them recovering their mental and physical health. The rest of us actually don’t give a shit at all. Have sex with whatever or whoever you want, dress as you will, up to you, who cares?
Black are as American as white people. Those that are anti-American can go fuck themselves, black and white alike. The rest of us, the ones that elected Trump, black, white, yellow, red and whatever, are proud Americans. We are superior to the rest of the world, but equal to each other. That’s a fact.
About women, why do you treat women like idiots? Women know what they want, and you don’t. American women especially. They appreciate choice, a strong economy, a lot of jobs available, high pay, and bright futures. The majority share all these happy thoughts with their husbands, who they often have glorious sex with. Woman are mostly normal, too. Duh.
Who are you again? Phony pony foreigner that knows nothing about America or Americans? I that about right, loser?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I am someone smarter, more eloquent, and just plain better than you. What the hell are you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Have you ever been to a Trump rally? You know that couple’a minutes in the beginning when he comes on stage and they play “And I’m proud to be an American, where at least I know I’m free. And da da da da da da da da who gave that gift to me and I’d gladly STAND UP NEXT TO YOU, and defend her da da this day, and then the other stuff, and then GOD BLESS THE USA! And then everybody cheers, yay, and Trump smiles, and it’s like Christmas, and Easter, and Hannika, all rolled into one, everyone is so happy, and Trump is great, and America is great, and I am great, and we are all great, and you are not. You know that moment, when you feel love for yourself, and love for Trump, and Love for America, the LAND OF THE FREE AND THE HOME OF THE BRAVE1 Oh, no, well, I guess you don’t. Too bad for you, loser.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The only thing sadder than a person as deluded and dumb as you present yourself here, is someone with so little else in their life, that playacting as that person on the internet seems like a fun time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I would rather drink bleach than attend a White Power rally.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The AC you're replying to set off my troll-dar with his first few posts. My recommendation is to flag and move on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bring it on faker
Wait is it only 8 people who post here or are there tens of thousands of angry people. You fucking nutjobs just can’t do basic math. Much less word problems. Like did Shiva spend more money losing to a Real Indian or Losing to Mike?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Bring it on faker
I think the election cost him more. But he learned something very valuable in both cases.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I happen to have a gift bag full of humiliation
He’s already a lifetime loser. What else was there to learn? That he gets off on being humiliated? The divorce should have taught him that bro.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I happen to have a gift bag full of humiliation
Hello Mr. Bro,
What divorce?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I happen to have a gift bag full of humiliation
Right... Shiva and Fran Drescher technically were never married, were they?
Now all he has is a mask...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
(c) falls apart because the premises it relies on, (a) and (b), are laughably false.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: who’s vaguely threatening now!
Bring it on motherfucker
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: who’s vaguely threatening now!
Here’s another idea - how about a “fake news” law, something like this:
Whomsoever shall manage a web site, such that that web site constitute what appears to the unsuspecting public be news articles, and that same web site is structured so as to create the impression of random public commentary, and that same manager incentivizes third parties to post publicly giving the appearance of sincere comments when in fact both the manager and the posters are not giving their sincere opinion but are instead following a script by which they previously agreed, and that same manager and/or at least one of the posters receive monies for their falsely stated opinions, and any person or business incurs any loss of income or reputation as a result of the false and misleading commentary or articles, those managers and those posters will be hung by the neck until dead after a swift and decisive vote of the FAKE NEWS COUNCIL, which shall be comprised of myself, my family, and my friends, in that order, with no record of any such vote being required.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: who’s vaguely threatening now!
Speaking of actionable threats.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: who’s vaguely threatening now!
That’s not a threat, idiot boy, it’s a proposed law. I heard Jerry Nadler was thinking about the whole thing, but just for the President. Something about tweeting results in the death penalty. You saw that, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: who’s vaguely threatening now!
Poor transhamilton. It must be hard being such an idiotic delusional loser. You should really get the mental help you need.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: who’s vaguely threatening now!
This site is very therapeutic - I always sleep better after coming here. Wait. Should I be sleeping now? Rats.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: who’s vaguely threatening
You sleep better after knowing this site survived Shiva?
Always had a hunch Hamilton was a masochist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: who’s vaguely threaten
I thought someone said the other day that an appeal was still pending.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: who’s vaguely thre
Yes... right after the same poster admitted that Charles Harder was a loser who failed to deliver on results.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: who’s vaguely threatening now!
It was a small subpoena.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: who’s vaguely threatening now!
Wow, that’s an interesting thing to say.
Last night I had a dream about a small subpoena. I was Jim Comey (imagine that) and I got a small subpoena, something about appearing in front of Congress to face charges. Or was it in front of General Barr, or maybe it was General Barr, in Congress, and they have me a small subpoena, and actually, i knew I was FUCKED!
Something like that. I’m not Comey, oh no, not me, that’s not me. Don’t read too much into this.
The trees. The grass. Look at the trees and grass. Lalalalalala.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: who’s vaguely threatening now!
Sorry bro. Jhon boi already shit up this thread good. It’s gonna take more than a garbage fire of an unhinged rant to grab the spotlight back from him.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: who’s vaguely threatening now!
Yep, and my 7 year old son also thinks it's a great joke to act like he's taking a joke literally.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous
Is it legal for the attorney who is suing these women to have his wife write postive reviews about this "Dr." Because she is
.. calling his negative reviews fake and calling them "haters"... is this ethical???
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Anonymous
Legal? No idea. Probably?
Ethical? Fuck no.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Anonymous
Do you care about ethics? Does Techdirt care about ethics?
Please give an honest opinion.
An ethical opinion, an ethical assessment of Techdirt.
Please. You sound honest and trustworthy and ethical.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Anonymous
Ask and you shall receive!
Techdirt cares enough about ethics to call people out when they behave badly. It also advocates for the public good, and in favour of upholding the constitutional rights of everyone, not just the "good people." Techdirt also cares about due process and the rule of law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Anonymous
[asserts facts in copious evidence]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Anonymous
Troll-tastic!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Can anyone on here please post on his reviews what he is doing?? crazy...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
if default judgement was verbally set aside by judge after hearing on a motion to vacate judgement can motion to dismiss still be considered moot on the Planlintiff's end?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This guy messed up a friend's surgery and basically ignored her request. She ended up in the hospital over it. I know a bit of reality tv stardom might be a draw, but causing disfigurement and excessive health issues is not worth it. People that do that should have to be accountable for their actions. This guy is not only still practicing, but suing for a protected right. That is a scummy thing to do to people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]