Confirmed Horrible Person James Woods Continues Being Horrible In 'Winning' Awful Lawsuit To Unmask Deceased Online Critic

from the to-the-bowels-of-hell dept

So... Hollywood actor James Woods continues to make it clear that he's a complete and total asshole. As you may or may not recall, last year, Woods sued an anonymous Twitter user who went by the name Abe List, for mocking Woods on twitter. Specifically, List called Woods "clownboy" and later tweeted: "cocaine addict James Woods still sniffing and spouting." Woods sued Abe List claiming that the "cocaine addict" statement was defamatory, and (the important part) demanding the name and identity of Abe List. The fact that Woods, himself, has a long (long, long, long) history of spouting off similarly incendiary claims to people on Twitter apparently wasn't important. Here is an example of a Woods tweet that seems quite similar to the one he, himself, claimed was defamatory: Ken "Popehat" White agreed to defend Abe List, along with lawyer Lisa Bloom. And while the judge initially (and, in our opinion, correctly) found Woods' lawsuit to be nothing more than a SLAPP suit, the judge eventually changed his mind. The case was moving along... and then something bizarre happened. Abe List (whoever that is) died (unexpectedly, apparently). Woods then took to Twitter to obnoxiously gloat about "winning" the case, leaving out the fact that the case was ending due to the death of the defendant. After people pointed out to Woods how ridiculous it was that he was gloating over a "victory" when someone had died, the ever classy Woods, gloated some more, first saying he hoped that List died "screaming my name. in agony" and then later saying: "Learn this. Libel me, I'll sue you. If you die, I'll follow you to the bowels of Hell. Get it?" Woods later deleted those tweets, but as I said at the time, the whole thing is sickening. Even if Abe List was trolling Woods, happily celebrating someone's death because they once made fun of you on Twitter seems to suggest you deserve to be made fun of on Twitter. Constantly.

To then add insult to death, Woods and his lawyers continued to push forward with the lawsuit, demanding to still uncover the name of Abe List. Woods' lawyers basically tried to argue that because they didn't know Abe List's identity, it was possible that Ken White was lying that List had died. They argued that they needed White to disclose Abe List's real name to prove that List was really dead:

Critically, although White claims that AL is deceased, he has refused to provide any evidence whatsoever substantiating this claim. Moreover, when Woods' counsel reasonably requested that White at least provide the identity of his now-purportedly-deceased client -- a fact which would be necessary in order to confirm AL is actually deceased -- White refused.

Emphasis in the original. And, of course White refused. The whole point of the lawsuit appeared to be to reveal Abe List's real identity, which he has every right to protect under the First Amendment. White was hired to protect that identity, so for Woods' lawyer to pretend that it's so horrific that White would refuse to reveal the name is ridiculous -- but apparently par for the course for Woods and his "to the bowels of hell" ethos. Even more ridiculous, Woods and his lawyers demanded White be sanctioned for refusing to give up the name.

White responded by highlighting how ridiculous all this is, and how it's pretty clear that Woods is just looking to harass and intimidate his critics. In his reply, White even included screenshots of the Tweets above, showing how Woods is gloating about all of this.

When defendant (Abe Doe)... died and his personal representative dismissed his appeal of this Court's denial of his anti-SLAPP motion, Plaintiff James Woods gloated and celebrated his death, expressing his hope that Mr. Doe died "screaming [Woods' name."

Now, Mr. Woods seeks to compel Mr. Doe's attorney, non-party Kenneth P. White ("Mr. White"), to disclose Mr. Doe's identity, and to sanction Mr. White almost $10,000 for asserting the attorney-client privilege in response to his questions.... Mr. Woods asserts that his purpose is legitimate and that he does not seek to harass or abuse Mr. Doe's survivors. But Mr. Woods' own public statements give the lie to that assertion. Mr. Woods wants to do just what he said he wants to do: publicly harass and vilify a dead man and his family.

The Motion is meritless, and is a transparent attempt to abuse the discovery process to exact twisted revenge by harassing Mr. Doe's family. First, contrary to Mr. Woods' arguments, Mr. White expressly premised his refusals to answer questions on one ground -- the attorney-client privilege. That assertion was correct. Because the entire purpose of Mr. White's representation of Mr. Doe was to protect Mr. Doe's identity, and because Mr. White only learned Mr. Doe's identity through confidential communications, Mr. Woods cannot force Mr. White to disclose it.

Unfortunately (and... ridiculously), the court has now ruled that White needs to turn over List's real name (along with the details of where he died and the name of his heirs) within 10 days. The court rejected the request for sanctions against White, and also some other information that White insisted was also protected information (such as whether or not List had other Twitter accounts as well).

This is unfortunate, and a travesty. In response, White provided the following statement:

Sometimes in litigation the bad guys win. This was such a day. I remain very proud to have fought for Abe Doe, and proud to have opposed this vexatious case by James Woods, a petulant bully whose Twitter conduct shows he can dish it out but can’t take it. I’m pleased that the court rejected his demand to compel me to answer several other questions, and that it also rejected his frivolous demand for sanctions.

Woods' lawyer, Michael Weinsten, on the other hand, made the following absolutely ridiculous statement:

This is a significant step forward in our ability to recover the millions in damages caused by John Doe's cowardly Tweet. It also sends a message to others who believe they can hide behind the anonymity of online social media to falsely accuse public figures of heinous behavior without recourse to themselves.

First of all, the idea that List's tweet caused "millions in damages" is so laughable as to make you wonder if Weinsten is also on drugs (note: that's a joke and rhetorical hyperbole...). First off, List's original tweet was a reply to someone else's tweet, meaning that only very, very, very few people saw it, because only those who followed both Abe and Woods would have seen it. Second, it would suggest that such a tweet actually hurt Woods' reputation. And I'd posit that it seems a hell of a lot more likely that Woods' own actions, such as gloating over List's death, did significantly more to harm his own reputation than any silly hyperbolic tweet from an anonymous Twitter user. Finally, List didn't "accuse" Woods of "heinous behavior." He did what people -- including Woods -- regularly do on Twitter, which is make fun of other people. To argue that Woods needs special protection from a Twitter troll makes you wonder what kind of special snowflake Woods thinks he is, that no one should ever be able to mock him on Twitter, while he is apparently free to mock anyone he likes.

And, of course, on Tuesday evening, Woods took to Twitter once again to gloat over the fact that he, that special snowflake whose itty bitty feelings were hurt by someone mocking him on Twitter, is able to stomp on the grave of a dead man. He tweeted a bunch of headlines, declaring "victory" despite the fact his victory spits on the First Amendment, and then made this idiotic analogy: Huh? I recognize that he's trying to argue that you go after "the big dog" so that others won't pester you, or whatever, but he literally went after a no name internet troll -- for doing nearly identical things to things that Woods himself had done. He also tries to defend the "damages" claim by saying that to be a "lead" in a film you have to be insured, and claims of being a drug addict can make you uninsurable. And, sure... but what fucking insurance company uses anonymous trolls tweeting obvious jokes on Twitter to determine if lead actors are drug addicts? The answer? NONE. Woods is full of shit (again: rhetorical hyperbole, James).

This case is an unfortunate travesty of justice. List was, undoubtedly, something of an internet troll himself, regularly pushing many people's buttons (in fact, when List died, White posted about how List regularly attacked White's political beliefs as well). But I don't care how annoyed a troll might make you feel, or how hurt your special feelings are, someone like Woods (who regularly mocks people he calls "snowflakes" online -- a term often used to mock those who can't take any criticism) shouldn't get to stomp all over the grave of someone just because they made him feel bad.

Filed Under: abe list, anonymity, defamation, james woods, ken white, trolls

Popehat v. James Woods SLAPP-down Match; Coming Soon To A Court Near You

from the can-i-get-front-row-seats? dept

A month ago, we wrote about actor James Woods bizarrely suing a trollish Twitter user who had been mocking Woods on the site. The whole lawsuit seemed ridiculous. The specific tweet that sent Woods over the edge was this anonymous user (who went by the name "Abe List") saying "cocaine addict James Woods still sniffing and spouting." Soon after our post on the subject, Ken "Popehat" White posted an even better takedown entitled James Woods Punches the Muppet. That post has now been updated with a brief note that White has now been retained to defend the anonymous Twitter user. And, if that gets you excited for what to expect in the legal filings, well, you don't have wait. As first reported by Eriq Gardner at the Hollywood Reporter, White has filed the John Doe's opposition to Woods' attempt to unmask the guy. And it's worth reading.

Problem number one with Woods' suit is laid out right at the beginning of the filing, which is that Woods himself has a habit of accusing others of using illegal drugs as well, just as Abe List did: The filing shows other tweets from Woods that have similar words that Woods complained about Abe List using, such as "clown" and "scum." As the filing notes, it appears Woods thinks that he can use those insults towards others, but if anyone uses them towards him, it's somehow defamatory.

Plaintiff, an internationally known actor, is active on Twitter, a social media platform. There he is known for engaging in rough-and-tumble political debate. Plaintiff routinely employs insults like “clown” and “scum,” and even accuses others of drug use as a rhetorical trope....
But Plaintiff apparently believes that while he can say that sort of thing to others, others cannot say it to him. He has sued Mr. Doe for a derisive tweet referring to him as “cocaine addict James Woods still sniffing and spouting” in the course of political back-andforth.... He also complains, at length, that Mr. Doe has called him things like a “clown” and “scum.” Naturally, Plaintiff has himself called others “clown” or “scum” on Twitter.

The filing, quite reasonably, notes that these kinds of hyperbolic claims cannot be seen as defamatory, and since there's no legitimate claim here, there is no reason to do expedited discovery or to unmask Abe List, who is entitled to have his identity protected under the First Amendment.

Oh, and, not surprisingly, White will be filing an anti-SLAPP motion shortly, which may mean that Woods is going to have to pay for this mess that he caused.

The filing also notes that while Woods sent a subpoena to Twitter to try to seek Abe List's identity, the company turned it down as deficient. The full two page letter is in the filing below as Exhibit B, but a quick snippet on the First Amendment concerns: Meanwhile, Woods has already filed a response in which he is still seeking to uncover the name of Abe List, and which repeats more ridiculous claims about the whole thing, starting off with the simply false claim that the original "cocaine addict" tweet was likely seen by "hundreds of thousands" of Woods' followers. That's wrong. They would only see if they followed both Woods and the Abe List account, which very few did.

The filing, somewhat hilariously, claims that calling someone "a joke," "ridiculous," "scum" and "clown-boy" are not protected by the First Amendment. Which makes me wonder what law school Woods' lawyers went to. Because that's just wrong:

AL's outrageous claim appears to be the culmination of a mlaicious on-line campaign by AL to discredit and damage Woods' reputation, a campaign which began as early as December 2014. In the past, AL has referred to Woods with such derogatory terms as a "joke," "ridiculous," "scum" and "clown-boy." ... Although AL's rantings against Woods began with childish name calling, it has escalated beyond the protections of free speech, i.e., the First Amendment does not permit anyone to falsely represent to the public that another person is addicted to an illegal narcotic.

Um... but Woods himself did exactly that (see above). It's standard hyperbolic speech, which is clearly not defamatory especially when mocking a public figure like Woods who has a history of using the same sort of hyperbolic insults on Twitter. Even more ridiculously, Woods' lawyers claim that by saying that the statement was a joke, that's Abe List admitting that he knew it was a false statement. I can't see that argument flying. I can see it backfiring big time once the anti-SLAPP motion is made.

So, what about those similar tweets made by Woods himself? His lawyers tell the court to ignore those piddly things.

... to the extent AL or TG attempt to argue that the Court should consider other statements on their Twitter accounts, or any previous tweets by Mr. Woods, the argument is a red herring. First, there is no reason any of Mr. Woods' followers, all of whom were exposed to the defamatory statements, would even bother to investigate the speakers and/or their Twitter sites to determine if they were reliable sources. As to Mr. Woods, we are not aware of any false statements of fact made by Mr. Woods and his sometimes sharp commentary on political matters is irrelevant to the allegations here.

Except, uh, again, Woods suggested someone smoked crack, just like Abe List joked that Woods was a cocaine addict. And, again, Woods and his lawyers are just wrong that all of Woods' followers would have seen Abe Lists' tweets. They're just factually wrong.

You never know how courts will rule in any particular case, no matter how ridiculous, but I have a hard time seeing how Woods gets out of this without having to pay two sets of lawyers -- his own and Ken White -- for filing a clearly bogus defamation case designed to shut up (and identify) an anonymous Twitter critic. No matter what, James Woods may not be a cocaine addict, but he has made it clear that he can dish it out but can't take it back when people make fun of him. What a clown.

Filed Under: abe list, anonymity, anti-slapp, cocaine, criticism, defamation, discovery, free speech, hyperbole, james woods, ken white, popehat, slapp
Companies: twitter

Is Merely Explaining The Streisand Effect To Someone A 'Threat'?

from the paranoid-much? dept

Ken White, over at Popehat, has a story on the ridiculous situation concerning how lawyer/psychotherapist Jose Arcaya is going after lawyer Scott Greenfield (whose work we often mention around these parts). The history of how it got this far is a bit convoluted, and you can read the full Popehat post for the details, but here's my shortened version: An apparently unsatisfied former client of Arcaya left a negative review of Arcaya on Yelp. Arcaya sued for defamation, arguing that being called "absolute scum" is not merely an opinion because of the use of the word "total" (which as far as I can tell is not actually used in the review -- though perhaps he means "absolute" or perhaps something was edited. Also, for the record, the review appears to call him "absolute scum" not "absolute scum bag" though I doubt the difference matters):

Regarding the matter of whether "absolute scum bag" should be deemed defamation per se rests with the present court. Mr. Boka tTots out a series of cases indicating the word "scum" and "scum bag" do not fall in that category. However, by adding the word "total" he impugns everything about me, including character and capacity to carry-out legal work. It coincides well with the Dillon standard of defamatjon per se: a maliciously intended attack on my professional capabilities, an all encompassing put-down (i.e., "absolute scum", not just "scum bag" Or "scum")...

Anyway, the former Arcaya client reached out to White, who in turn reached out to Greenfield. Greenfield then reached out to Arcaya, trying to explain to him, nicely, that suing over someone calling you "absolute scum" on Yelp is probably not a productive venture and might -- just possibly -- backfire, thanks to a little thing called the Streisand Effect. About five or six years ago, a lawyer had told me that the Streisand Effect was losing its power because lawyers now recognized it. And yet, we keep discovering new lawyers who have no idea about it at all.

Now, some might take this as a friendly bit of advice about how a course of action could potentially backfire once it is revealed to the public. But Arcaya, apparently, took Greenfield's explanation of how the Streisand Effect works... and claimed that it was Greenfield threatening him with the Streisand Effect. In response, Arcaya subpoenaed Greenfield and defended this move by apparently arguing that Greenfield was somehow threatening him in describing how the Streisand Effect tends to work, and claiming that Greenfield was somehow associated with "an illegal gang."

Again, while I have no evidence that he was part of that illegal gang, as a lawyer Greenfield still should not have served as a conduit for that criminal enterprise. Rather than calling me Greenfield should have contact [sic] the Attorney General's office or the police to denounce what he had learned. Because of his failure to uphold the principle of propriety as a server of the law, I lodged a complaint the [sic] First Department's Discipline Committee.

Oh, right. Beyond just issuing the subpoena, Arcaya filed a wonderfully handwritten bar complaint against Greenfield -- for daring to explain a basic online phenomenon. Wow. What's amazing is how frequently we've seen this kind of reaction. From Charles Carreon to Prenda Law, those who find themselves faced with the public reacting negatively to their own lawyerly overreactions assume that "the public" speaking out is some sort of "illegal gang" out to get them. They don't realize that it's not about them (at all), but rather the public exercising its free speech rights to criticize what the public believes is an abuse of power.

Either way, the idea that merely explaining the Streisand Effect to a lawyer who was about to step right into it is some sort of threat concerning a "criminal gang" that somehow violates proper lawyerly activities is so ridiculously laughable, that I'd argue it's even more ridiculous than flipping out and suing over someone calling you "absolute scum."

Filed Under: defamation, free speech, jose arcaya, ken white, scott greenfield, slapp, streisand effect
Companies: yelp

Cartoonist Donna Barstow Reappears To Generate More Negative Press While Attempting To Stifle Year-Old Negative Press

from the apparently-she-was-off-acquiring-bigger-shovels dept

Everything old is new again, copyright troll-wise. Just recently, we witnessed the return of one of internet's stranger denizens, one hit wonder Shaun "Tongues of Glass" Shane and his army of Twitter accounts deployed to ensure his oft-tweeted banalist poem is properly attributed to the gruff man with unparalleled page-turning skills.

Ken White at Popehat notes that another copyright-wielding troll has emerged from hiding. Donna Barstow, the "cartoonist" whose unfunny drawings drew the (highly negative) attention of Something Awful goons (that's their chosen name, by the way, not a statement of judgment), has ended her self-imposed hiatus by issuing a backdoor-entrance takedown attempt aimed at delisting White's highly critical post from 2012.

I wrote about her in July 2012, which resulted in a truly surreal phone call from her. I also wrote about her odd follow-up rant in which she suggested that copyright is a federal crime. Apparently she actually meant that copyright violation is a federal crime. I think.

Anyway, this morning (that is, nearly 17 months after I wrote about her) I got an email from Google indicating that she had complained that my post contained private information:

Hi,

We're writing from Google.com to bring the following page to your attention:

http://www.popehat.com/2012/07/06/cartoonist-donna-barstow-engages-in-modern-online-version-of-hey-guys-watch-this/

A Whois search indicated that you're the host for this page.

A concerned user contacted us to report that handwritten signature is published on this page. We hope that you'll assist this individual in restricting access to this private information by removing the page from the web. If it's changed to return a true 404 error via the http headers, please let us know and we'll also remove the listing from the Google index.

We appreciate your assistance. Should you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact us.

Regards,
The Google Team

On 11/18/13 15:54:25 donnabarstow@gmail.com wrote:

your_name: D. Barstow
email: donnabarstow@gmail.com
webmaster_info_live: agree

number_url:
http://www.popehat.com/2012/07/06/cartoonist-donna-barstow-engages-in-modern-online-version-of-hey-guys-watch-this/

results_url_ssn:
https://www.google.com/search?q=donna+barstow&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&channel=fflb

webmaster_info_contacted: agree

webmaster_info_whois:
http://www.networksolutions.com/whois/results.jsp?domain=popehat.com

hidden_subject_signature: Your personal information removal request for a handwritten signature

As you can see, Donna Barstow considers her signature -- the same signature she attaches to every cartoon she creates -- to be "personal information." Apparently, Barstow's idea of "personal" means "things anyone can access."

There's only one place Ms. Barstow's signature appears in my post about her — it's in her cartoon about Mexico, which I put in the post to comment upon it, criticize it, and report on ongoing allegations that some of her cartoons are racist or otherwise obnoxious. It's the signature that she displays to the world in all of the cartoons she publishes. It's "private" in the sense that you can't see it unless you look at one of her cartoons on her web site or published elsewhere by her.

White has written back to Google clarifying the situation. Presumably, Google won't follow through with this request, but stranger things have happened. It appears Barstow's earlier experience with the limitations of copyright law may have taught her at least one thing: the copyright angle probably won't work. Consequently, she has chosen to approach this from an entirely different (but still completely wrong) angle.

Speaking of stranger things, Rob Beschizza at Boing Boing points out that Charles Carreon may be behind Barstow's latest effort. His post dated November 24th details a conversation he had with the "poor woman" who contacted him about concerns that he might be posting about her at a site using Carreon's name. (The site is a "satirical diary" and is [quite obviously] not written by Charles Carreon, "Internet Lawyer".) In the long and winding post, Carreon eventually unloads plenty of hate in Ken White's direction and presumably did the same while calming Donna Barstow, victim of hundreds of self-inflicted wounds.

If this call was recent, Barstow's reaction time is horribly slow. The post she referenced in her conversation with Carreon appeared in July of 2012 (as did Popehat's). It looks as if Barstow's making a belated attempt to clean up her reputation and is apparently assuming it's so long after the fact that no one will care. Obviously, she's wrong. The takedown attempt aimed at Popehat most likely won't work and her effort has generated a minimum of three negative posts in response. Anyone else she targets will just contribute to the body of negative press she's accumulated since going nuclear last summer.

There are lessons to be learned here, but Barstow doesn't seem to have learned anything from her previous experience other than she's run the wheels off the copyright angle.

Filed Under: censorship, donna barstow, ken white, popehat, signature, takedown
Companies: google

The Popehat Signal Goes Out Against Suburban Express

from the red-phone-ringing dept

You just can't get away with attacking the internet anymore. In the ongoing saga of stupid that is Illinois bus company Suburban Express, a company that ferries college-aged customers to and from schools in the Midwest, then sues them, then un-sues them, then sues them again, one thing that is very clear is that company head wind-bag Dennis Toeppen doesn't think much of the internet. And it isn't just his campaign against online critics like Jeremy Leval that make me reach that conclusion, nor is it the use of his company's horrifically ugly website to prominently display their lawsuits (since altered in the last day or so) against their customers (because, hey, that's obviously smart business). It seems Toeppen doesn't think much of large swaths of the internet, or its ability to bring like-minds from far distances together for a cause.

Though, if Ken "Popehat" White has anything to say about it, Toeppen may be mightily disabused of that last notion now that the Popehat Signal has gone out against Suburban Express. He details what the company has been up to: reviving their small claims case against Leval, suing a woman in Champaign County (where University of IL is located) for a defamation injunction for asking if people would really want Suburban Express to have their credit card information, threatening a Reddit moderator over the title of their Reddit thread, and continuing the threats against one unhappy customer and online critic that started our reporting above. In addition to all that, White repeats past accusations that Toeppen, or other Suburban Express employees, have been anonymously altering the company's Wikipedia page and commenting in several online forums in favor of the company. When questioned about this by White, Toeppen doesn't exactly push back as hard as you'd expect were he innocent.

Ken: So, it's your position that you didn't write that?

Dennis Toeppen: You didn't send me a url.

Ken: You need a url to tell me whether or not you wrote that?

Dennis Toeppen: If I were your client, would you advise me to answer a question about something I have not seen? I imagine not. So shoot me the url.

Even simple questions go unanswered, about which you can draw your own conclusions, but if those conclusions aren't that Toeppen obviously was behind the asshattery, then you may need your head examined. Later, Toeppen claims that the company has WiFi and it was likely just some drifter-by that decided to go all pro-Toeppen on these sites. Again, draw your own conclusions, as long as you conclude that Toeppen is almost certainly a liar. But if you really want to see the simultaneous disdain for anonymity coupled with a complete evasion of a question, here's how Toeppen answers when White asks if any Suburban Express employees are involved in anonymous online attacks against Reddit critics:

I think anonymity online leads people to do things which they would never do out in public. I would like commenters to be compelled to provide their real names. I would support legislation which seeks defeat anonymous online commenting. I am willing to spend my own money in support of that goal. Nevertheless, I support off-the-record interactions between legitimate journalists and sources.

In other words, I hate anonymity except when I'm the anonymous one, in which case it's totally sweet. At one point during their correspondence, Toeppen snidely told White that he could help "those schmucks if you want to," those "schmucks" being anyone Toeppen is currently suing. White has happily taken up the offer by putting out the Popehat Signal for help in the areas of the cases in question.

First, the defendants in Dennis Toeppen's existing and threatened suits in Cook County need representation. They are students and don't have money. If you are a lawyer in Cook County [edited to add: or Champaign County], please consider helping out, as many past responders to the Popehat Signal have done. Lawyers in other states may want to back up locals with research, writing, and advice. People like Dennis Toeppen succeed in using litigation as a weapon of censorship because a defense is ruinously expensive to average people; a team of pro bono lawyers can probably make short work of him and his lawyers, and eviscerate his competitive advantage...Second, if anyone is close to Ford County tomorrow and can observe and report on the hearing on his request to revive his cases, your help would be appreciated...Third, spread the word. Actions do, and should, have consequences. If more people knew the way Suburban Express acts, they might not use it, and Dennis Toeppen would face the consequences of his conduct.

We'll see who ends up winning in the battle of Suburban Express vs. The Internet, but I think I know which way the odds makers in Vegas would weight this one.

Filed Under: dennis toeppen, jeremy leval, ken white, popehat
Companies: suburban express

Bus Company Threatens Redditor With Lawsuit, Meets Ken White, Runs Away

from the smart-move dept

Another day, another case of a business attempting to stifle online criticism via threat of lawsuit, amirite? We've seen it again and again. Companies ignorant of the terrifying Streisand Effect go after critics and, normally, the only warm and fuzzy feeling we can take away from it is knowing that these abusers are more hated as a result of their threats than they were before. But not today, friends. Today's story ends hilariously well.

It all starts with an Illinois bus company called Suburban Express that operates lines from Chicago to several colleges in and out of the state. Its online reputation is, to say the least, poor.

For example, the company's ticket policy includes a "ticket fraud" clause that hits riders who hand the wrong ticket to a driver with a $100 fine, charged to the credit card used to purchase their ticket. "In the event that ticket is used to obtain transportation on another day or at another time," the company's policy statement reads, "or to or from a Chicago area stop other than printed on your ticket, you will be charged full fare for the trip you actually rode PLUS $100 penalty. You will also be permanently banned." The company also has a history of suing passengers for violating its terms and conditions—it has filed 125 tort and contract damage lawsuits against passengers this year alone, according to a report from a student newspaper.

So, we're dealing with a company that enjoys suing its own customers after slapping their wallets around with insane fines that seem designed less to encourage good behavior than to simply extract more money out of people. Well, if Suburban Express is happy to sue its own customers, you can guess just how aggressive they like to behave with the internet upon which some of these customers express their displeasure. Unfortunately, when that displeasure is aimed at one of the company's drivers who told an exchange student, "If you don't understand English, you don't belong at the University of Illinois or any 'American' University," then you're going to raise the ire of roughly everyone. It was a witness to that event, Jeremy Leval, who took to Facebook to describe the incident. Guess what his prize for outing racism was...

Four days later, Leval told the Daily Illini, University of Illinois' student newspaper, about the incident. He received an e-mail from the company that said he was being fined $500 for "liquidated damages" and was permanently banned. In a statement on the company's website, company owner [Dennis] Toeppen threatened to sue Leval, saying, "The attorneys for Suburban Express are reviewing this incident with a view towards filing the appropriate legal action against this meddlesome MBA student."

Toeppen wasn't done there, either. He took to Reddit to push back on on Leval's story, indicating that some undescribed person had already apologized for the incident (because that makes it all better?). Unfortunately for him, his company is still being lambasted for its behavior on subreddits for the University of Illinois, where some are also claiming that Suburban Express employees are posting messages accusing reddit users of being virgins and chronic masturbators. Should you think that the idea of a business owner doing all this is a bit far-fetched, it's instructive to note the kind of slimeball we're talking about.

Toeppen is no stranger to legal action over Internet controversy. In the late 1990s, he was a self-confessed cybersquatter, registering over 200 domain names and asking for payment by trademark holders in exchange for them—including Panavision.com, for which he demanded $13,000. That led to the 1998 case Panavision International L.P. v. Toeppen (which Toeppen lost) and in part to the AntiCybersquatting Consumer Protection Act of 1999.

"It was clear to me at the time that domain names were valuable, undeveloped virtual real estate," he wrote on his personal home page. "There was absolutely no statutory or case law regarding trademarks in the context of Internet domain names at the time. It seemed to be an excellent opportunity to do the virtual equivalent of buying up property around a factory—eventually the factory owner would realize that he needed the scarce resource which I possessed."

Now, after a bunch of the insulting messages on reddit were deleted by the moderator, Murph Finnicum, Toeppen's attorney threatened to sue him for libel and over deleting the messages purportedly left by Suburban Express employees. James Long, the attorney, demanded "corrective action" immediately due to the damage the company had suffered by having their own posts deleted, and indicated that legal action against him had been authorized by the company.

But, wait, I can already hear you saying: but you promised us this story had a happy ending! Well, it does, courtesy of Ken "Popehat" White.

The legal threat against Finnicum quickly drew promises of support from others on reddit—including Ken White, the lawyer behind the legal blog Popehat. White sent an e-mail to Long, which he also posted to reddit: "I do not represent any party (though I have offered to connect the recipient of your threat with pro bono counsel). However, I am considering writing a post about the matter."

"Would you be willing to answer some questions about your threat?" White continued. "I'm particularly interested in discussing the factual basis for your assertions, how you reconcile your position with Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, and your evaluation of risks in light of the Streisand Effect."

The result? A letter from attorney James Long to Finnicum:

"I will confess that I have very limited understanding of Reddit," he wrote, "and your response regarding the thread being moderated by several different individuals was instructive and was confirmed by individuals with much more knowledge of Reddit than I possess. At this time Suburban Express is of the opinion that it is best for the company and all individuals involved with this issue for Suburban Express to move forward with its mission to provide safe, courteous and efficient service to its current and future customers."

They ran away as fast as they could. I'm not sure if they are going to continue legal action against Laval, but if they actually read into the Streisand Effect when Ken White mentioned it, then they already know that they really, really shouldn't.

Filed Under: chicago, ken white, streisand effect
Companies: suburban express

What To Expect When You're Expecting Prenda Law To Get A Judicial Beat Down

from the a-scorecard-for-those-playing-along dept

Earlier today we had a post about Judge Otis Wright ordering nearly everyone associated with copyright trolling operation Prenda Law to be in his courtroom on Monday. We made the rather obvious understatement that it appeared Wright was not happy with Prenda or what he had seen happening in the various Prenda cases he is presiding over. If you're just picking up the story now, you may have missed some of the backstory behind all of this, but, no worries, Ken White at Popehat (a former federal prosecutor and long term litigator) has put together a post that lays out, in great detail (and in an easy to understand format for non-lawyers) both exactly how we got here and "what to expect." It's worth a read.

It actually leaves out some of the history and details that suggest Prenda/John Steele/others have been acting with something less than good faith. As we've discussed in the past, it often feels like Prenda Law is using an any means necessary approach to getting access to people's identities, often piling questionable legal trick upon questionable legal trick to create a multi-layer operation of questionable activity, all designed to get identities to then start hounding those people for "settlements." Even leaving aside many of those tricks, many of which don't touch on this particular case, Prenda's actions in this case alone are quite incredible. And as White makes clear, each move by Prenda lawyer Brett Gibbs seemed to only draw more attention from Judge Wright. This started early on, when Gibbs sought sanctions against the opposing lawyer, Morgan Pietz, which the judge quickly denied. As White points out: "It's a bad sign when the judge denies your motion summarily before the other side can even oppose it."

Throughout our coverage of this case, we've repeatedly pointed out that Gibbs could have just put most of the questions to rest by identifying Alan Cooper. But his continual tap dancing around the simple question "who is Alan Cooper?" has been pretty damning. Responding: "I am sure there are hundreds of Alan Coopers in this world," really seemed to make clear that something fishy was going on here. Personally, I was wondering if there was some reasonable legal strategy that I was completely unaware of, that would explain the failure to answer the Alan Cooper question, and White points out that everyone's general suspicions are correct: it makes no sense unless there is no such Alan Cooper:

I've been a lawyer for almost 19 years now. I've practiced in federal court that entire time. Here's what's very strange to me about Gibbs' opposition to the ex parte application, and about Gibbs' sanctions motion: they conspicuously avoid direct engagement with the most incendiary accusations Pietz makes. It's one thing to argue that Pietz' evidence is insufficient, or that other courts have failed to act based on them. It's quite another to evade the question of who "Alan Cooper" really is. I find it very difficult to imagine a scenario in which an experienced litigator would have a good reason to avoid confronting such a serious charge of fraud head on by saying, for instance, "the Alan Cooper who is a principal in Ingenuity 13 LLC is a real person who is resident of the State of X, living at Y, and has no relation to the Alan Cooper who has made scurrilous allegations against Prenda Law. Here is a declaration from the Alan Cooper who is a principal of Ingenuity 13 LLC, and here are reasons why the other Alan Cooper has a grudge against Prenda Law and is lying." It is very difficult to imagine an innocent scenario explaining why Prenda Law would not offer such a response if it could.

So, what to expect? White lists out four possibilities, with a focus on the last two as being the most likely:

3. Some of the individuals named could assert that exigent circumstances or medical conditions prevent them from attending, or could ask for an extension to allow them to retain counsel and get their new counsel of up to speed.

4. Some of the individuals named could show up and answer Judge Wright's questions.

I've been wondering if Judge Wright would grant an extension, given the extremely short notice on all of this. Normally such an extension would be pretty normal, and lawyers and judges often bend over backwards to try to accommodate things like that. But given that it appears Wright is clearly deeply concerned about the possibility that Prenda is committing fraud on the court, I wonder if he'll be a little less lenient than might otherwise be normal.

Oh, and for those wondering if this could end in jail time for everyone showing up in court, White is a little more skeptical there, but suggests it is entirely possible that it leads to a criminal case, which could result in jail time:

Judge Wright could certainly issue monetary sanctions against, at a minimum, Mr. Gibbs. The question of what other attorneys he could sanction under Rule 11 and his own inherent authority depends on a tedious discussion too long for this post; suffice it to say that he might conclude that he can sanction supervisory attorneys with Prenda Law.

Judge Wright's terrifying comment aside, his ability to jail people before him for contempt is quite limited when they have not been charged with a crime by the executive. That, too, is a discussion too complex for this post. But Judge Wright might well refer the case to the U.S. Attorney's Office for criminal prosecution if he concludes that criminal contempt or fraud has occurred. Such referrals tend to get immediate and intense attention. Moreover, if Judge Wright finds misconduct, he could refer the matter to various state bars.

In the meantime, I'm curious if anyone can pinpoint the moment at which John Steele/Prenda Law surpassed Righthaven in the Hall of Fame for the Spectacular Self-Destruction of Copyright Trolls.

Filed Under: brett gibbs, john steele, ken white, otis wright, prenda, prenda law, sanctions
Companies: prenda, prenda law

Bizarre Legal Threat Of The Day: Confused Zoo Owner Threatens Popehat Over... Well... Just Read It

from the i-don't-think-it's-legal-help-that-he-needs dept

Almost exactly three years ago, we wrote about a ridiculous situation down in Louisiana, where the "Global Wildlife Center" was able to get a judge to issue an injunction against an obviously satirical site that had written an obviously satirical article about "killer giraffes" and a "recent attack" at the Center. The article was poking fun at recent violent attacks at other zoos, normally involving animals like tigers and bears. It was amazing that a court issued the injunction, and thankfully, less than two weeks later, the injunction was removed and GWC was told to pay the legal costs for the site. And that was the last that we had heard of the Global Wildlife Center... until now.

On Friday, the Center's President apparently threatened to sue lawyer Ken White, better known as Popehat, defender of internet free speech. You see, Popehat had covered the original story too, and for some reason, the President, Ken Matherne, isn't too happy about that (even though it's three years later). Perhaps it was this tidbit in Popehat's original post (which was actually quoted from a local news site):

In addition to filing this lawsuit, via email Global Wildlife Foundation president Ken Matherne threatened to file criminal charges, FCC charges, fraud charges, an IRS complaint, a governor’s office complaint, and a federal lawsuit against Brilleaux. Matherne’s email did not explain any basis for the additional threats.

If that gives you a sense of Matherne's grasp on basic legal concepts, and his willingness to assume that he can use all sorts of totally unrelated laws against people he doesn't like, well, you're just getting a tiny little sense of what Popehat went through on Friday. You kind of have to read the whole thread on Popehat to get the full effect, because each time you think "this can't possibly get more ridiculous," it does exactly that. Assuming Matherne really did send the emails in question, he would appear to have almost as much trouble with the English language as he does with the legal concepts he uses to threaten White. Here's a snippet from the first email:

My last case to decide the Apple vs Microsoft case. I am not joking – you can send this email to the judge and soon as I file suit. I will ask you as I asked that kid to take it down, if you think your malice to to our Foundation is free speech – let’s get real lawyers and hosted judges to find out! It scared teachers, parents and the general public. They were canceling trips, it was malicious, and the evidence given to court was a fraud. I did not say anything at the time. But, I think he would get dis-board by the falsified documents he presented to the judge. His father was a friend or I would have had he dis-board.

Everyone will see the truth of you and your boyfriends. You can print this – You do not have a clue what you did to damage my foundation I created for my daughter. And when you wake up in the morning – hoping you have kids- I want you to think about what you have done. Your site has done more damage than the issue and my guys think your damages will be worse the any free speech issue. And we are ready!

We are going to dp this all legal – get ready – I will have one of your partners, associates , friends , spouses, in dispositions for the at least the next 6 – 12 months. Minimum – 1 lawsuit lasted 12.7 years, the next only 6 . I have the means – so write me back or get ready. This again is no threat. Simply a promise. It is no longer about what the kid did – it is about what your company did! And I promise you we will win = you have damaged my daughters trust for at least 50 years. You are about to meet the best attorneys on the planet.

There's also a discussion about Matherne's belief that White is apparently a dope smoking drug fiend who is having sexual relations with the partners at his law firm (or maybe on Popehat, it's not clear). White, quite calmly, asks Matherne if there was anything specific in the original post that he felt was a false statement of fact, and offered to review such claims and "make adjustments to the post if appropriate." Matherne's response was to just demand that the original Popehat article was taken down "or believe I will do everything for my daughter that you would do for your children !"

And then it got wacky.

Just send me you attorney of record – you will not hurt my daughter – I do not care what it cost ! Ken It was a BS move – and I appreciate that you do that for the best of people – but you always know our kids are first – and I don't care how many $ it takes – my daughter will not live with this – so I will ask you one more time to pull this down – as a gentleman – or I will come to you! My airplane is only 10k an hour – have more cash & Gold in the bank than you can imagine – but if you hurt my daughter through this – my executives has all authority to go until all is done – I only have 1 daughter and it breaks her heart to see this! I would not do this to you or your family!

I really love this line: "My airplane is only 10k an hour – have more cash & Gold in the bank than you can imagine."

White points out, in response, that he is still waiting for any specific inaccuracies, and notes that he's willing to speak to any attorney representing Matherne -- to which Matherne initially sent a simple "Game on!" email, followed by this (not the full email, which has more where this came from):

Get your check book out – and unless you can buy every judge to the State Supreme Court – you will pay damages = not about freedom of speech –
Oh, And I will follow up with everything I said I would do. Ken White, You better have an attorney or get one .

Cannot wait to meet you – You are and I can “quote again” a piece of shit! You do a disservice to mankind. I hope the judge we come before understands what a parasite you are and does not want his kids or grandchildren to be exposed to someone like you!

And I do not care about are inaccuracies about was said or texted. You are wrong and you are libel. Again, I do not lose lawsuits, and I do not think to can pay off the judges!

If I'm reading this right, and I believe that I am, Matherne is not only threatening to take White to court under some ridiculous legal theories, but he is flat out admitting that he does "not care" about "inaccuracies." He also seems to be admitting throughout that he's doing this to tie White up in court. I would imagine that if this ever actually got to a court and wasn't thrown out immediately, these admissions would not help his case very much.

Randomly, out of curiosity, I went to check out the website for the Global Wildlife Foundation, and discovered that if you have Javascript turned off, you can see that they've got a ton of "payday loans" spam links hidden on their page. Either they've been hacked or they're selling link spam. Maybe they should take care of that before issuing bogus legal threats trying to censor a lawyer known for vocally defending the First Amendment.

Filed Under: defamation, ken matherne, ken white, legal threats, popehat, threats, vexatious litigation
Companies: global wildlife center, global wildlife foundation