Huawei Files SLAPP Suits In France Against Critics Who Highlighted The Company's Ties To The Chinese Government

from the oh-come-on dept

We've spent many years pointing out that the freak out over Huawei equipment possibly being compromised by the Chinese government still remains without evidence to back it up. This does not mean that it's not there. But we've just noted that many (especially in the US) keep stating it as if it's factual, despite a Congressional investigation that turned up nothing (not to mention competitor Cisco fanning the flames of the attacks on Huawei, and the fact that the NSA is already known to compromise telco equipment for the US government). The usual response to pointing this out is to highlight that most large and successful Chinese companies have close relationships with the Chinese government (because they need to) and that Huawei's founder, Ren Zhengfei, was an engineer in the Chinese military. This is enough for many people to assume that the company would actively sabotage its own equipment to help the Chinese government.

As we've noted, there still is no actual evidence to prove this, though it's understandable why some might be cautious or concerned about it. Huawei insists that it has not backdoored its own equipment. No matter what you think about trusting Huawei equipment, hopefully everyone can agree that the company's decision to sue critics in France for pointing out the company's close relationship with the Chinese government, is an obnoxious SLAPP effort that should never have happened.

In an unprecedented move, the technology giant filed three defamation claims in Paris over comments made during television programs by a French researcher, a broadcast journalist and a telecommunications sector expert.

The company’s legal actions in France were published on Tuesday in a report by La Lettre A, an online investigative newsletter. Huawei confirmed the claims, which it said were filed with French law enforcement authorities in March.

The company is trying to defend these intimidation tactics by claiming that it only sued those critics who went too far and alleged that the company is actually controlled by the Chinese government:

Huawei said in a statement its claims “concern only statements that Huawei is a company controlled by the Chinese State and the Chinese Communist Party, led by a former member of the ‘counter-intelligence’ and using its technological expertise in telecom networks to commit acts of espionage against the Western world.” The company added that “these statements are false.”

If anything, this move seems likely to backfire, as it only calls much more attention to the accusations in the first place. It's fine for the company to rebut the claims, and to make efforts to demonstrate the security of its equipment. But filing defamation lawsuits against individuals over statements they made seems like an obvious intimidation tactic, rather than a legitimate way to engage on the controversial issues around how close the company is to the Chinese government and what that means for its equipment.

So far, it's not entirely clear exactly what statements Huawei is suing over, but the Bloomberg article quotes one example, which should not, in any way, rise to the level of defamation:

Valerie Niquet, a researcher at the Paris-based Foundation for Strategic Research that specializes in China and Japan, is a regular guest on French radio and television. Huawei filed the lawsuit after her comments in two television programs in February in which she said the company had ties to the state.

Niquet was informed of the claims in September and then in November when the police reached out to her to confirm her comments, according to copies of the authorities’ emails seen by Bloomberg.

Niquet said she confirmed her comments on TF1 television on Feb. 3, and similar remarks on France 5 television on Feb. 7. In those she alluded to the alleged control the Chinese state has over Huawei, also saying that “no one would have given a Soviet company the means to monitor all the communication in the Western world, and this is what we’re doing with Huawei.”

Even if you disagree with Niquet, it seems beyond ridiculous to then sue over such statements. Of course, now we'll have to wait and see how much France believes in sticking up for free speech on statements of opinion like those made by Niquet about Huawei.

Filed Under: china, chinese government, criticism, critics, defamation, france, free speech, slapp, slapp suit
Companies: huawei

Evangelical 'Financial Whiz' Who Apparently Hates Gossip, Sues YouTuber For Criticism

from the gossip-away dept

Dave Ramsey is a radio host/"personal finance guru" whose religious beliefs appear to be a key part of his public persona. A long and detailed story in the Daily Beast a few years back showcased another apparent part of his persona: what appears to be significant anger towards those who criticize him or his company, including former employees:

The public criticism enraged Ramsey, who, according to one current employee, went on a “warpath” to expose the Twitter critics. During an all-staff meeting on May 7 that was described by several current employees, Ramsey offered thousands of dollars in bounties in exchange for the identities of the tweeters. (Employees’ accounts differed on the dollar figure, but ranged from $5,000 to $20,000). Ramsey was especially intent on identifying the tweeter behind @LampoLeadership (suspended), a parody account that had begun tweeting about the inner workings of Lampo, suggesting it was run by someone inside the company.

There's a lot more in that story, including this tidbit:

The seeming paranoia of Ramsey’s outburst in the May 12 staff meeting startled some Lampo employees, but many said they had come to expect explosive behavior from the boss. “This is the guy who once pulled a loaded pistol out of a gift bag to teach us a lesson about gossip,” said one former employee. “It was bizarre, even for Ramsey.” (Ramsey has tweeted photos of his gun collection, which includes semi-automatic rifles.)

That event, which allegedly occurred in 2011, is one of Lampo’s worst-kept secrets, a moment that was a turning point for many. “That was the day I began planning my exit,” one said. For another, Ramsey’s gun illustration served as a reminder that the man she worked for “instills fear and dominance and control over every aspect of life.”

That's all prelude. Last year, Ramsey's company, Lampo Group, which also does business as Ramsey Solutions, sued a real estate YouTuber named Kevin Paffrath, who made a series of unflattering videos about Ramsey. Part of the background here is that Lampo/Ramsey Solutions has some sort of deal where it will sign up real estate agents (along with insurance and tax service professionals) to its "Endorsed Local Providers" (ELP) program. Fans of Ramsey can then "find" a local professional who is endorsed by Ramsey, and if they end up doing business with that professional, Ramsey takes a bit of a cut. ELPs also pay to be a part of this program, in exchange for getting leads from Ramsey's site.

Paffrath was apparently in the ELP program for some time, but was kicked out. Ramsey/Lampo claim he was kicked out for not meeting with a "coach" often enough, though there's some dispute over that. Either way, Lampo sued Paffrath in what has all the trappings of a traditional SLAPP suit. Lampo/Ramsey and its lawyers are trying to get around this really being about the negative videos made by Paffrath by throwing all sorts of other stuff at the courtroom wall. Despite multiple times that the lawsuit alleges Paffrath made false statements, there's no defamation claim in the complaint. Instead, it claims breach of contract, fraud, promissory fraud, negligent misrepresentation, business disparagement, trade secrets violation, unfair competition, and false and misleading advertising. However, as you dig into the details, it sure looks like they're just mad that he criticized and mocked Ramsey.

Paffrath, who lives in California, sought to use California's anti-SLAPP law in this case, which is in federal court in Tennessee (it was originally filed in state court, but quickly removed to federal court, given that Paffrath is out of state). Unfortunately, the court decided that state anti-SLAPP laws don't apply in federal court (there's currently a very split set of rulings on that particular question, with some regions allowing the use of anti-SLAPP laws in federal courts, and others not).

The latest motion to dismiss from Paffrath is quite a read. It makes the clear case that this is nothing more than a SLAPP suit:

This is a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (a “SLAPP-suit”) filed by the Plaintiff, a celebrity and public figure, against the Defendants that centers upon satirical YouTube videos entitled: “Dave Ramsey: Exposed,” “dave Ramsey is suing me,” and “A Message for Dave Ramsey.” .... The Plaintiff is upset, among other things, because Mr. Paffrath’s satirical YouTube videos mocked Dave Ramsey and were well-received by the public.... In retaliation, the Plaintiff has filed suit against the Defendants over several extravagant claims including: (1) a breach of contract claim; (2) fraud and misrepresentation claims; (3) speech-based “business disparagement” and “unfair competition” claims; (4) a misappropriation of trade secrets claim; and (5) a “false and misleading advertising claim” under the Lanham Act.

As the motion makes clear, none of the claims in the amended complaint are backed up with anything. Indeed, the motion to dismiss includes as an exhibit the transcript of a truly breathtaking deposition given by a senior Lampo exec, Jack Galloway. Paffrath's lawyer, Daniel Horwitz puts on an absolute clinic in how to do a deposition. It's long, but worth reading. Of course, much of the length is taken up by the lawyer for Lampo, Brandon Bundren objecting to nearly every single question that Horwitz asks, followed by letting Galloway answer anyway. Step by step throughout the deposition, Horwitz gets Galloway to admit that basically nothing in Lampo's complaint caused any harm or is the real reason it sued.

He gets Galloway to admit that Lampo more or less admitted in an earlier discovery that it can't come up with any evidence of any losses due to Paffrath's videos. The only "losses" they describe are Paffrath no longer paying them the ELP fees. But they can't exactly sue over that, since they were the ones who kicked Paffrath out of the program in the first place:

BY MR. HORWITZ:
Q. Would you agree that this contract could have been terminated at any moment including the first day that it was executed?
MR. BUNDREN: Objection to the form, speculation, calls for a legal conclusion.
THE WITNESS: Yes
BY MR. HORWITZ:
Q. Would you agree that Lampo does not have any right to $4200 under this agreement?
MR. BUNDREN: Objection to the form, calls for a legal conclusion.
THE WITNESS: Please re-ask the question.
BY MR. HORWITZ:
Q. Sure. This contract provides for Mr. Paffrath to pay Lampo $350 a month, correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. And it provides that either party can terminate this agreement at any moment; is that correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. So there's no right to have 12 months of payments made under this agreement; is that right?
MR. BUNDREN: Objection to the form, calls for a legal conclusion. You can answer.
THE WITNESS: I'm not sure.
BY MR. HORWITZ:
Q. If Mr. Paffrath had terminated this agreement the day that it was signed, how much would he owe Lampo?
MR. BUNDREN: Objection to the form, calls for a legal conclusion, speculation.
THE WITNESS: No further payments.
BY MR. HORWITZ:
Q. None at all?
A. Huh-uh.
Q. If Lampo terminated this agreement within a month of it being signed, how much would Mr. Paffrath owe Lampo?
MR. BUNDREN: Same objection.
THE WITNESS: Nothing other than referrals that were sent in the future -- that were sent that closed in the future.
BY MR. HORWITZ:
Q. And if no referrals were sent, then how much would Mr. Paffrath owe Lampo?
MR. BUNDREN: Same objection.
THE WITNESS: Zero.

Later in the deposition, Galloway admits that the "harm" was really about Paffrath "tarnishing" Lampo's brand -- which is classic 1st Amendment protected speech, thus (again) putting this into SLAPP territory. Part of the "fraud" claims is that Paffrath apparently included zip codes in his ELP application that were regions he didn't actually serve as a real estate agent. But as Horwitz gets Galloway to admit, there was no actual harm from that -- just from him mocking them.

BY MR. HORWITZ:
Q. Was Lampo injured based on the ZIP codes that Kevin Paffrath submitted to it?
MR. BUNDREN: Objection to the form,calls for a legal conclusion.
THE WITNESS: I do not have personal knowledge that Lampo was injured.
BY MR. HORWITZ:
Q. Was Lampo injured by what you have referred to as -- I'm characterizing here, so please correct me if I'm mischaracterizing you -- false statements about his intentions?
MR. BUNDREN: Objection to the form, calls for a legal conclusion, also asks a question on a -- that's more appropriate for a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition and not of this witness.
You can answer.
THE WITNESS: Yes, I believe so.
BY MR. HORWITZ:
Q. And what were those injuries?
MR. BUNDREN: Same objection.
THE WITNESS: Our brand is a brand of integrity and trust and we're in the business of helping people. And --
BY MR. HORWITZ:
Q. Sir -- (indicating.)
A. -- when Mr. Paffrath went online to say that we're liars and cheaters, it damages that brand, it keeps people who we wanted to help from having full trust in us, and it tarnishes a brand that we've worked hard to build.
Q. Sir, will you please go back to your answers to Interrogatory 1? Can you tell me if there's any provision in there that references damage to Lampo's brand?
MR. BUNDREN: Objection, calls for a legal conclusion.
THE WITNESS: No, there is not.
BY MR. HORWITZ:
Q. Sir, in your answer to Interrogatory 2, is there any indication that Lampo lost business because of damage to its brand?
MR. BUNDREN: Same objection.
THE WITNESS: (Reviews document.) No.

And, perhaps my favorite exchange -- considering how much of this case depends on the claims that Paffrath "lied" about Ramsey's service, and things like the claim that Ramsey was just a "hand-off" service (passing through unqualified leads), Horwitz gets Galloway to admit that one could think that was the case:

BY MR. HORWITZ:
Q. Would it be fair to characterize Lampo as a hand-off service between prospective leads and ELP agents?
MR. BUNDREN: Objection to form, lack of foundation, argumentative.
THE WITNESS: Do you mind to define hand-off service?
BY MR. HORWITZ:
Q. Whatever it means to you.
A. No.
MR. BUNDREN: Objection.
THE WITNESS: I would not characterize it.
BY MR. HORWITZ:
Q. Why not?
A. To me, hand-off implies that there is not a lot of effort made to send quality referrals to quality agents and we put a great deal of effort into both of those.
Q. Would other people be entitled to have a different opinion of the meaning of hand-off service?
MR. BUNDREN: Objection, vague, and ambiguous, speculation, and argumentative.
THE WITNESS: They would be entitled.

Oh, just one more tidbit from the transcript. Remember that claim in the Daily Beast article about Ramsey pulling out a gun? About that:

BY MR. HORWITZ:
Q. Has Dave Ramsey ever pulled a gun out of a bag to try to teach a lesson about gossip?
MR. BUNDREN: Objection, harassing, and relevance. We're getting pretty far afield from the claims made in this case. If we need to call the Judge, we will so I wouldn't spend much time on this.
You can answer.
THE WITNESS: Yes.

The motion to dismiss highlights how all of the claims in the complaint are just smokescreens for the actual SLAPP nature of this lawsuit. Hell, one of the claims -- business disparagement -- is not even a recognized tort in Tennessee where the case was filed.

The whole case just seems to be an exercise in trying to avoid being called out for a clear SLAPP by simply avoiding defamation claims. But all of the claims in the lawsuit seem completely bogus, and the real issue leading up to the complaint seems focused almost exclusively on the mocking videos. Hopefully the court recognizes this and tosses the case quickly.

For what it's worth, there are a couple other oddities associated with this case that should be mentioned as well. Ramsey appears to really want to avoid having to be deposed himself, and got a "protective order" blocking a subpoena for him to be deposed. The reasoning is somewhat odd:

I have no personal knowledge of any facts involved in this litigation. I have never had any personal dealings with the defendants, nor have I ever corresponded with defendants by email or otherwise. The only information I possess about the background and allegations of this litigation is summary information provided to me either by RS’s legal counsel or at RS’s legal counsel’s direction.

Basically, Ramsey is insisting he's got nothing to do with this case at all. Yet, again in the deposition mentioned above, Galloway makes it clear that Ramsey was deeply engaged in internal discussions about this lawsuit -- and even that the decision to sue was made by the executive leadership team, of which Ramsey is obviously the boss:

Q. Was this litigation filed at Dave Ramsey's direction?
MR. BUNDREN: Objection to the form, speculation, foundation.
THE WITNESS: It was a group decision by our executive leadership of which Dave is the CEO.
BY MR. HORWITZ:
Q. Was that decision made in a meeting?
A. My recollection of it is poor. My best recollection would be that Dave, our general counsel -- not the entire group in a board meeting but that they would have been made aware of. But the decision would have been between Dave, myself, our general counsel. It's possible there were other people in that conversation but I don't have memory of who they would be.

That certainly sounds like Ramsey was well aware of the decision to sue this guy, which raises some questions about that claim to the court that he's not involved in the case at all. Again, given that there is a lot of evidence suggesting the entire point of this lawsuit is to go after someone for making videos that make fun of Ramsey, it looks pretty silly for him to suggest he's unaware of the details of the case beyond being briefed on it by lawyers.

Finally, speaking of stifling speech and protective orders, this case carries a very odd "Temporary Restraining Order" that not only has Paffrath agreeing to remove all the videos in question (so we can't even see them), but also that no one associated with Paffrath, including his lawyers, are allowed to discuss the case publicly. Both of these are blatant restrictions on free speech, and it seems odd to me that the defendant appeared to agree to this without question.

The Defendants, their officers, agents, attorneys, and all persons in active concert or participation with them, agree not to post any content on any Defendants' Accounts or elsewhere related to Ramsey, its employees, officers, principals, and/or this litigation.

That's... pretty crazy. In what world is it okay for a situation in which there's an obvious SLAPP suit, for the defendant to be gagged from even talking about the litigation or about the plaintiff in the case? If anything, this just gives more credence to the claim that this is a SLAPP suit and the goal is to silence Paffrath from criticizing Ramsey.

Oh, and because it needs to be said again: this is why we need a federal anti-SLAPP law, and we needed it years ago.

Filed Under: anti-slapp, criticism, david ramsey, free speech, kevin paffrath, slapp
Companies: lampo group, ramsey solutions

John Oliver Takes On SLAPP Suits And Anti-SLAPP Laws With A Grand Musical Number

from the eat-shit-bob dept

Ever since coal boss Bob Murray threatened and then sued John Oliver and HBO over their story mocking his supposed concern for coal miners, I've been publicly (and possibly privately*) bugging Oliver and his team at HBO to do an episode specifically about SLAPP lawsuits and anti-SLAPP laws. And I'm happy to say that they listened! This past Sunday, Oliver's big story was all about SLAPP suits and anti-SLAPP laws, and focused again on Bob Murray, who finally dropped his case against Oliver and HBO earlier this year. It is well worth watching all the way up until the end:

While most of the attention is obviously going to that fairly epic final musical number of insults directed at Bob Murray, I wanted to call out a few important points that were mentioned earlier in the piece that might have been passed over by some:

• Oliver highlights the real chilling effects of SLAPP suits in a variety of ways, including a newspaper that deleted all its coverage of Murray despite winning a defamation lawsuit he filed against it for covering a protest against his companies, and the fact that there are two ongoing lawsuits involving claims of harassment by Murray of employees that have received almost no news coverage at all. The point of SLAPP suits is to create a chilling effect on people talking about things. And it works unfortunately often.
• The stunning costs of these lawsuits. Oliver notes that their own lawsuit cost HBO over $200k in legal fees and resulted in a tripling of the show's insurance premiums, despite the fact they won the case easily. I note this in particular, because I've heard some people argue that we don't need anti-SLAPP laws (or, relatedly, Section 230) because "private insurance" can fix the problems by protecting companies. Except, as the Murray/Oliver case shows, that's not at all true.
• How blatant these cases can be. Oliver mentions the fact that long after Trump sued reporter Tim O'Brien for $5 billion for reporting that Trump wasn't actually as wealthy as he claimed to be, Trump admitted he "did it to make his life miserable, which I'm happy about." Oliver also has a clip of the lawyer for a waste disposal company, GreenGroup, literally laughing about suing some people for $30 million, because they raised concerns about the storage of toxic coal ash on Facebook.

Obviously, Oliver's show is first and foremost a comedy show, though done in a way that educates people about important topics. So I can't fault the show for not including everything that would be useful to show. However, there were a couple of points that I wish were better covered in the piece (though I recognize it's difficult to get everything covered in the 25 minutes or so they had, and also to keep things funny). Among them:

• The wide variance in quality of anti-SLAPP laws. To simplify matters, Oliver just mentioned that they vary in quality, but focused on states with anti-SLAPP laws vs. those without them at all. But the difference in individual states matters quite a lot as we've discussed many times in the past. There are reasons why Devin Nunes filed multiple lawsuits in Virginia despite California almost certainly being the proper venue for his SLAPP suits.
• The importance of a federal anti-SLAPP law in addition to good state anti-SLAPP laws. Oliver briefly mentions the lack of a federal anti-SLAPP law but mostly in passing to describe why lawsuits can be filed almost anywhere (highlighting how Bob Murray sued him in West Virginia, despite Oliver being in New York and Murray being in Ohio). But a federal anti-SLAPP law also has some importance beyond jurisdiction shopping for better state laws -- including that some courts (incorrectly in my opinion) argue that state ant-SLAPP laws cannot apply in federal court, even in states with anti-SLAPP laws.
• Also, that you might not always be happy with who anti-SLAPP laws protect. Indeed, while Oliver talked about President Trump wanting to open up our libel laws to file more SLAPP suits, it might have also been useful to highlight that Trump himself used Texas' anti-SLAPP law to get the defamation lawsuit filed by Stormy Daniels tossed out.

I'll also admit to at least a tiny bit of surprise that Rep. Devin Nunes suing a satirical cow on Twitter didn't make the cut of cases for Oliver to mention, because it felt so deliciously perfect for Oliver to skewer.

Oh well, I guess there will always be time for Oliver to do a follow up show on SLAPP and anti-SLAPP In the future (sorry guys, not leaving you alone just yet!).

* In full disclosure, yes, I did spend a few hours across a few phone calls talking to people from Oliver's team after they reached out to me saying (I think, jokingly) that they were sick of me constantly writing about how they should do a show about SLAPPs. I have no idea if anything I said to them was even remotely useful but am thrilled to see them cover this issue.

Filed Under: 1st amendment, anti-slapp, bob murray, federal anti-slapp, free speech, intimidation, john oliver, slapp

Cop's Bogus Defamation Lawsuit Nearly Puts A Small Iowa Newspaper Out Of Business

from the all-the-anti-SLAPP-legislation-motivation-anyone-needs dept

Sometimes the goal of a libel lawsuit isn't to win. Sometimes the goal is to simply inflict as much financial pain as possible. Sometimes all the plaintiff really wants is to destroy the entity they're suing. It's more about being vindictive than being vindicated.

Baseless defamation lawsuits are easily headed off in states with good anti-SLAPP laws. Unfortunately, there are only a small number of states with a law worth invoking. And there's no federal anti-SLAPP law, so vexatious litigants (like, say… Devin Nunes) are free to inflict financial pain on their opponents without worrying about paying the other side's legal fees when their cases are tossed.

Even if you win in court, you can still lose in life. Without a solid fee-shifting provision that makes the losing party responsible for the winner's expenses, plaintiffs don't need to win their lawsuits to emerge victorious.

That's the case here. A small Iowa newspaper is facing the possibility of going out of business, thanks to a bogus defamation lawsuit. The suit was filed by a local police officer who didn't like having the public being informed about his multiple underage dalliances.

The Carroll Times Herald article (former) Officer Jacob Smith sued over was published in 2017. It detailed an investigation of Smith's off-duty hobbies, the ensuing investigation, and Smith's resignation. Here's the Times Herald's recounting of Smith's not-so-illustrious law enforcement career.

The Times Herald’s investigation found that Smith was fired from his first police job in eastern Iowa in 2015, in part, because he sent inappropriate private messages on Facebook to a 16-year-old girl while he was on duty. Following his hire in Carroll, a 17-year-old girl moved into his house while she still attended high school, and she was later accused of defacing the car of a 19-year-old woman with whom Smith had a brief relationship.

One day after this article was published, Officer Smith sued the paper. He alleged his reputation had been damaged by the alleged libel and swore that his career as a law enforcement officer was over. (Smith was either unfamiliar with the cop shop revolving door, or was conveniently ignoring this [awful] truism to increase potential damages.)

The court dismissed Officer Smith's case, finding the paper's article was based on plenty of facts. These included recordings of city council meetings where Smith's messages to the 16-year-old girl were discussed, as well as Smith's own deposition in which he admitted that dating a 17-year-old "wasn't right" and "looked like shit."

Here's what the judge had to say about that:

“The article at issue is accurate and true, and the underlying facts undisputed,” [Judge Thomas] Bice wrote in his 10-page ruling.

The officer also claimed the newspaper's publication of a quote from his ex-wife -- one in which she called the officer a "pedophile" -- was also defamatory. The judge said the ex-wife's opinion (which seems to be based on Smith's fondness for underage girls) was protected speech. Further, the court said the officer's resignation was of public interest and the paper's reporting served that interest without crossing the line into libel.

The paper won, but it's losing.

A small Iowa newspaper that exposed a police officer's sexual relationships with a teenage girl is raising money after successfully fighting a libel lawsuit filed by the police officer.

Douglas Burns, vice president of the Carroll Times Herald, said the western Iowa newspaper's investigation and resulting lawsuit cost it thousands of dollars in expenses and lost revenue.

More than $140,000 to be exact. That's what's still left to be paid after the paper's libel insurance picked up its part of the tab. The paper has been in the Burns family's hands since 1929. Without outside assistance, it could go out of business. Now, Burns is asking readers -- and those generally opposed to baseless legal bullying -- to help out. So far, it seems to be working. A GoFundMe page that has raised more than $45,000 in less than 24 hours.

Not every defendant will be so lucky. Surviving a baseless lawsuit takes money and time. If plaintiffs have a little of both, they can do more damage than defendants can ever hope to recoup. This is why strong anti-SLAPP laws matter. They deter baseless lawsuits by giving defendants a way to escape before the bleeding begins, and holds plaintiffs responsible for the damage they've caused by forcing them to pay their opponents' legal fees.

Sure, some people were fine with Gawker being run out of business by a vengeful venture capitalist. But would these same people be okay with a small paper closing shop because it made the mistake of printing facts?

Filed Under: anti-slapp, defamation, free speech, iowa, jacob smith, journalism, newspapers, police, slapp
Companies: the carroll times herald

Ridiculous: Judge Says Devin Nunes' SLAPP Suit Against An Internet Cow And Others Can Continue

from the well-that's-disappointing dept

In some surprising, and ridiculous, news the local court judge, Judge John Marshall (no, not that Judge John Marshall), has decided not to dismiss the lawsuit that Nunes filed against Twitter, two satirical Twitter accounts, and political strategist Liz Mair. As you'll recall, Mair and Twitter had both argued that the case had no reason to be in a local Virginia court, and that, if anything, the proper venue was in California. The judge had demanded that Twitter reveal to him the details of who was behind the Twitter accounts (something that was already questionable under the 1st Amendment, which protects anonymity). Twitter refused, though did say that neither account holder was based in Virginia.

Of course, now it looks like none of that even mattered anyway, as the judge has said that the venue is fine because Mair once lived in Virginia (she doesn't any more) even though it was a different county from where the lawsuit was filed. The reasoning from the judge is... weird.

The court rejects this argument and finds in this case that the posts to social media were made in Virginia and therefore publication occurred in Virginia and the cause of action for defamation arose in Virginia.

The judge also rejects Twitter's argument that Nunes signed Twitter's terms of service which require any disputes to be handled in California by saying (perhaps slightly more reasonably) that since the lawsuit isn't about things that Nunes did on Twitter, but about third parties, what Nunes agreed to has nothing to do with the venue question. The logic there makes some sense, actually, even though there are many other reasons why the court should say that California is the proper venue (including both Nunes and Twitter and the servers all being based in California).

The negligence claim of the Plaintiff against Twitter here arises from the Defendants use of twitter not the Plaintiff's use of twitter. The use of twitter by the Defendants to post allegedly defamatory statements cannot subject the Plaintiff to the terms of use agreements and the forum selection clause as it would not subject a plaintiff who did not have a twitter account to the terms of use agreement. The court finds the terms of use agreement does not apply to the Plaintiff here.

And, no, I have no idea why the judge chooses not to capitalize Twitter in that paragraph (he does elsewhere in the document). But the logic there is pretty sound if you're looking at this strictly about whether or not the terms of service are binding on Nunes for venue choice. However, the court notes that since Twitter has business activity in Virginia, the case is fine to remain there. It also notes that much can be done by video in the case, so it shouldn't "inconvenience" anyone too much if the case is in Virginia (ignoring that the whole damn lawsuit is an inconvenience...). Either way, in the end, the court has said Virginia is just fine and the case can move forward.

The court refuses to do so as litigation over the defamation claim will necessarily involve Twitter as the claim relates to the use of Twitter's social media platform and the fact that the negligence claim against Twitter is totally dependent upon the success or failure of the defamation claim. The court has ruled that the Defendants' cases are properly raised in Virginia. The Plaintiff came to from California to Virginia to pursue claims that arose in Virginia against Defendants in Virginia. The causes of action in this case are interdependent and for the other reasons in this opinion the court will not dismiss the action against Twitter based on forum non conveniens.

That's disappointing (and a bit surprising), but hardly the end of things as the case can still be tossed on other grounds. The defendants can (and likely will) ask for the case to be dismissed for failure to state a claim (i.e. even if everything in the complaint is accurate, it's still not defamation or any other violation of the law).

Meanwhile, not surprisingly, Nunes, who has historically positioned himself as a "small government" type whose own website focuses on all the ways he's cut "wasteful" government spending, is now crowing about using "every lever that we have in this government" to tell Twitter how to run its business.

His message is actually... contradictory:

"As conservatives and Republicans, we have to use every lever that we have in this government and we really have to have the courts step in and right these wrongs," Nunes said. "It's not OK for tech oligarchs to allow for their platforms to be used to slander conservatives — silence conservatives while at the same time, treating the Democrats differently."

Nunes said these are "monopolies that have full power over spaces of the internet" and "this can't be allowed to happen."

Of course, we don't need to go over (yet again) how there is no evidence to support that Twitter is actually treating Republicans differently than Democrats, but he seems to be saying that Twitter must do the reverse. It can't be allowed to silence conservatives... but it has to silence... people criticizing Devin Nunes? That's about the only interpretation of his statements that make sense. No censorship... except for my critics. Censor them. Also, Rep. Nunes, "slander" is spoken. Twitter is written. The word you want is "libel." And, criticizing you is not libel anyway. You're in Congress, man. Get a grip.

Filed Under: anti-slapp, defamation, devin nunes, devin nunes cow, free speech, jurisdiction, liz mair, slapp, virginia
Companies: twitter

Devin Nunes Drops One Ridiculous Lawsuit, Only To File Another One

from the featuring-rico! dept

A month ago we wrote about Devin Nunes' third lawsuit against his critics over their speech, and noted that he was promising in the press that more lawsuits were coming. We noted that the latest lawsuit was slightly odd in that he actually filed it in California, rather than Virginia (as with his first two lawsuits), and in California he could face real anti-SLAPP penalties (i.e., paying the other side's legal fees). Perhaps that's why that lawsuit was not actually filed by Nunes himself, but rather his campaign. If it got tossed out via anti-SLAPP, then suckers who donated to his campaign would foot the bill, rather than Nunes directly himself. Either way, we'll likely never find out because as suddenly as that case was filed, it's now been dismissed by Nunes. Amusingly, Nunes' lawyer is claiming victory:

“We gathered further evidence which supports the plaintiff’s overriding concerns that dark money is being used to influence our elections,” Kapetan said. “Given the new evidence recently discovered, the Nunes campaign committee voluntarily dismissed the lawsuit and the allegations underlining the lawsuit will be incorporated in a (racketeering) lawsuit filed in Virginia today.”

And that brings us to the new lawsuit that Nunes filed on Wednesday. It's a $10 million racketeering (RICO) case against Fusion GPS and Glenn Simpson along with the Campaign for Accountability. You may recall them from such past news as the infamous "Steele Dossier." Nunes has spent months insisting (incorrectly) that the Steele Dossier is some evidence of some massive overreach by US law enforcement or the intelligence community (leaving aside that under the previous administration Nunes was one of the most vocal cheerleaders for increased surveillance powers of the intelligence community) to spy on Americans. Yet when those powers may have been used (well within the law) to do surveillance on his friends, suddenly he's clutching pearls?

Anyway, the new lawsuit is a real piece of work. It's alleging racketeering by GPS Fusion and the Campaign for Accountability. As Ken "Popehat" White famously notes, IT'S NOT RICO, DAMMIT, and this case is no exception.

The Defendants are persons associated in fact (a RICO enterprise) who engage in interstate commerce by the use of one or more instrumentalities, including, but not limited to, the Internet, computers, telephones, mails and facsimile. In 2018, the Defendants received income derived, directly or indirectly, from a pattern of racketeering activity and have used or invested such income, directly or indirectly, in the establishment or operation of an enterprise engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate commerce. Through a pattern of racketeering activity, involving acts of wire fraud in violation of Title 18 U.S.C. § 1343 and acts of obstruction of justice in violation of Title 18 U.S.C. §§ 1503(a), 1512(b), 1512(d) and 1513(e), the Defendants have maintained, directly or indirectly, an interest in or control of an enterprise which is engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate commerce. While associated with such enterprise, the Defendants conducted or participated, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of such enterprise’s affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity. Between 2018 and the present, the Defendants have engaged in activity that is prohibited by Title 18 U.S.C. §§ 1962(a), 1962(b), and 1962(c).

The Defendants’ ongoing and continuous racketeering activities are part of a joint and systematic effort to intimidate, harass, threaten, influence, interfere with, impede, and ultimately to derail Plaintiff’s congressional investigation into Russian intermeddling in the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election. In furtherance of their conspiracy, the Defendants, acting in concert and with others, filed fraudulent and retaliatory “ethics” complaints against Plaintiff that were solely designed to harass and intimidate Plaintiff, to undermine his Russia investigation, and to protect Simpson, Fusion GPS and others from criminal referrals.

Plaintiff was injured in his business, property and reputation by Defendants’ racketeering activity and tortious misconduct. Plaintiff brings this action (a) to recover money damages for injuries caused by the Defendants’ racketeering activity, (b) for disgorgement of the ill-gotten gains and fruits of Defendants’ unlawful enterprise, (c) to impose reasonable restrictions on Defendants’ future activities, including Defendants’ use of fraudulent opposition research and fraudulent “ethics” complaints to intimidate members of Congress and other law enforcement officers in the performance of their official duties, (d) to enjoin the Defendants from committing wire fraud and from obstructing justice, and (e) to order the dissolution or reorganization of Fusion GPS and the CfA so as to prevent or restrain the Defendants from committing fraud, lying to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”), Department of Justice (“DOJ”), Congress and Senate, obstructing justice, and violating Title 18 U.S.C. § 1962 in the future.

The details are basically that Nunes thinks that political research against him and corresponding ethics complaints are racketeering. That is not how any of this works. Indeed, if opposition research and filing ethics complaints is racketeering, basically every politician might be guilty of racketeering.

As noted by Nunes' lawyer, it is true that this new lawsuit includes some overlap with the California lawsuit that was just dropped -- mainly about his anger at some of his critics filing perfectly legal FOIA requests for Nunes' wife's emails (Nunes' real complaint here seems to be with how FOIA works for state employees, but to him it's all RICO):

Upon information and belief, Fusion GPS and/or CfA directed Seeley to make a request under the California Public Records Act (“PRA”) for emails received by Plaintiff’s wife, Elizabeth, an elementary school teacher. Seeley’s request targeting Plaintiff’s wife ended up costing the Tulare County Office of Education thousands of dollars in unnecessary cost and expense. Seeley published Elizabeth Nunes’ emails online and included the names and email addresses of numerous school administrators and teachers, resulting in extensive harassment of these innocent, hard-working citizens of Tulare County, including hateful accusations that they teach bigotry and racism. [https://www.scribd.com/user/399236302/Michael-Seeley]. In fact, the school was so concerned about security problems resulting from this situation that it adopted enhanced security measures.

As we stated when the original lawsuit was filed, you can certainly understand why this is annoying and frustrating, but it's a perfectly legal use of FOIA until the laws are changed.

Like the previous lawsuits, this one has little likelihood of going anywhere. Doing opposition research and filing ethics complaints with Congress is not racketeering in any sense of the law. But, of course, once again we have a lawsuit in Virginia over protected speech activity. It's too bad Virginia has a relatively weak anti-SLAPP law.

Filed Under: anti-slapp, devin nunes, glenn simpson, rackeering, rico, slapp, steele dossier, virginia
Companies: campaign for accountability, gps fusion