Slashdot Mirror

The stipulation is at Citizens Media Law Project

Exactly! Bravo! Thanks for answering this while I was away yesterday.

One key thing... Dozier had nothing to do with any of this. I keep seeing people misread his article and get this wrong impression (including the /. story itself).

For everyone, the court briefs and full decision are linked/reprinted at this Harvard's Citizen Media Law Center summary.

And I've got that link plus other summary/FAQ stuff here:

Melaleuca - 43sb Lawsuit FAQ

Your link is A: to Dozier (who had nothing to do with my case, but writes like he did) and B: just to his homepage, which will gradually become less useful in finding the judgment itself or any other detailed info on this case. I suggest starting at the FAQ I'm (finally) writing as I work thru this thread: http://www.43rdstateblues.com/?q=melaleuca-43sb-faq Or go straight to Harvard's Citizen Media Law Center or Eric Goldman's blog entry: http://www.citmedialaw.org/threats/melaleuca-v-43sbcom-llc http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2007/12/takedown_letter.htm

I have it on good authority that John W. Dozier, Jr., Esq., President of Dozier Internet Law, is a pedophile, and often rapes animals when visiting his manwhore Ken Sheppard. (VP & General Council)

Furthermore, Melaleuca, Inc's CEO Frank L. VanderSloot knowingly sells products poisoned with mercury and AIDS to children. He also enjoys conspiring with known terrorists, and stealing money from grandmothers. Especially disabled ones, who are blind.

John, Ken, and Frank smoke in church, use leaded gasoline, huff gold paint, and often steal baby strollers from single Jewish mothers.

These facts are irrefutable, and also fully true, as I learned them from their toothless mothers who were over at my house blowing me, after they fought over who was going to be the star in the sequel to "Two Girls, One Cup" that their sons were filming with an illegal immigrant crew.

Also, they cheat at poker.

I kid you not. The Judge ruled that "In all intended uses of a zone transfer, the secondary server is operated by the same party that operates the primary server." The original complaint is here.

Ritz was a thorn in Reynolds' side during the years when Ritz was trying to get the Netzilla/Sexzilla porn spam operation to stop spamming. Reynolds has been quite aggressive in trying to get his past erased from the net (including forged cancel posts). The North Dakota Judge also awarded attorneys fee which could theoretically make the total bill over $500k for doing a domain zone transfer. (I believe they had claimed $250k in attorney fees in their failed suit against Ed Falk) Reynolds also filed a criminal complaint against Ritz which was on hold pending resolution of this trial.

Here is a literal worst-case scenario of what can happen when a court fails miserably to understand technology. The judge ruled:

The scary sounding port scanning/hijacking computers is posting a test message through one of Verizon's machines to prove to Verizon they had an open relay --i.e. posting to 0.verizon.security via the relay a note to Verizon's security saying "What's it going to take to get you to secure this gaping hole in what you call your network," or words to that effect. Verizon apparently had no problem with the demo post and closed the relay.

Take note, for those anti-spammers out there, this Judge is ruling that if you post the whois record for a spammer's domain your are doing a malicious, tortious act. If you telnet to a spammer's mail server and type HELO or VRFY you're illegally impersonating a mail server.

It seems clear that the Judge for whatever reason really, really, really didn't like the Defendant Ritz. But the Judge seems to want no sunshine on her trial because she ordered the entire affair sealed, except of course for her judgments of "facts."

There is a legal defense fund that was set up for his case. I believe he does not have the resources to appeal and this would be a very bad precedent to stand.

Here's the code the _civil_ lawsuit is based on:

2. A person commits computer crime by intentionally and either in excess of authorization given or without authorization gaining or attempting to gain access to, altering, damaging, modifying, copying, disclosing, taking possession of, introducing a computer contaminant into, destroying, or preventing the authorized use of any computer, computer system, or computer network, or any computer software, program, or data contained in the computer, computer system, or computer network. A person who commits computer crime is guilty of a class A misdemeanor.

I kid you not. The Judge ruled that "In all intended uses of a zone transfer, the secondary server is operated by the same party that operates the primary server." The original complaint is here.

Ritz was a thorn in Reynolds' side during the years when Ritz was trying to get the Netzilla/Sexzilla porn spam operation to stop spamming. Reynolds has been quite aggressive in trying to get his past erased from the net (including forged cancel posts). The North Dakota Judge also awarded attorneys fee which could theoretically make the total bill over $500k for doing a domain zone transfer. (I believe they had claimed $250k in attorney fees in their failed suit against Ed Falk) Reynolds also filed a criminal complaint against Ritz which was on hold pending resolution of this trial.

Here is a literal worst-case scenario of what can happen when a court fails miserably to understand technology. The judge ruled:

The scary sounding port scanning/hijacking computers is posting a test message through one of Verizon's machines to prove to Verizon they had an open relay --i.e. posting to 0.verizon.security via the relay a note to Verizon's security saying "What's it going to take to get you to secure this gaping hole in what you call your network," or words to that effect. Verizon apparently had no problem with the demo post and closed the relay.

Take note, for those anti-spammers out there, this Judge is ruling that if you post the whois record for a spammer's domain your are doing a malicious, tortious act. If you telnet to a spammer's mail server and type HELO or VRFY you're illegally impersonating a mail server.

It seems clear that the Judge for whatever reason really, really, really didn't like the Defendant Ritz. But the Judge seems to want no sunshine on her trial because she ordered the entire affair sealed, except of course for her judgments of "facts."

There is a legal defense fund that was set up for his case. I believe he does not have the resources to appeal and this would be a very bad precedent to stand.

Here's the code the _civil_ lawsuit is based on:

2. A person commits computer crime by intentionally and either in excess of authorization given or without authorization gaining or attempting to gain access to, altering, damaging, modifying, copying, disclosing, taking possession of, introducing a computer contaminant into, destroying, or preventing the authorized use of any computer, computer system, or computer network, or any computer software, program, or data contained in the computer, computer system, or computer network. A person who commits computer crime is guilty of a class A misdemeanor.

The court finds that the degree of Plaintiffs' counsel's culpability weighs heavily in favor of sanctioning the Plaintiffs' counsel, Kevin Elwell ("Elwell"). Elwell is a competent attorney who knew or should have known with the most basic research that his actions were improper. In addition, after Smith moved to strike the lis pendens, Elwell argued in court that the lis pendens was proper. Elwell had no basis to support his position. (Mem. Regarding Sanctions 2.)
Further, the court finds that Smith has been prejudiced by the filing of the lis pendens. The title to his property was clouded for over six months. Smith alleges that during that time he was attempting to sell his property. Moreover, the public interest in preventing legal counsel from filing improper lis pendens and encumbering property is great. A lis pendens is a very powerful document and the statute is strictly applied because a lis pendens clouds the title to property. There is no evidence that Elwell's client is responsible for Elwell's wrongful conduct. However, taking into account the facts and the factors listed above, the court finds that based on Elwell's grossly improper conduct, he should be sanctioned in the amount of $1,000.00 payable immediately to the Defendant.

Here's a better link that includes links to the actual court documents: http://www.citmedialaw.org/texas-judge-orders-discovery-anonymous-bloggers-identity

The blog is here: http://the-paris-site.blogspot.com/

I don't see how the blogger is liable for anything HIPAA related. The complaint references criminal law and Essent's own responsibility to keep patients' information private, nothing relevant to a blogger or the independent actions of Essent's employees. E.g., Essent could fire the employees under the confidentiality agreement, but they reference no matter of law that says the employees are otherwise liable. There may be some other documents or law not mentioned by the complaint, but I don't see how the blogger is a party to such matters, especially since he/she likely never signed the employees' confidentiality agreements. Also, I don't see how Essent has standing to prosecute federal HIPAA violation in state civil court.

I don't know why the blogger and the other Does are joined in a lawsuit as well. Any HIPAA violation between Essent and employees would be a distinct event from the publishing of any such information on the blog. As in the RIAA lawsuits, it seems this would be a valid way to appeal the imminent order from the judge. (Although remember this is state district court and the RIAA lawsuits are federal district court.) Also note that the blogger's lawyer has come forward (see lawyer's Aug letter, although the judge's Sept order says he has not), so the case can continue on it's merits without the need to disclose the blogger's identity.

I also don't see any specific allegations of defamation. Defamation is hard to prove, and I don't see anything in the complaint that couldn't be interpreted as opinion by a reasonable person, or is simply disclosing internal happenings in the hospital, which would be known to a lot of the hospital's employees and patients. If a hospital employee relates false information on the blog or to the blogger, then that employee would be the defamer, and not the blogger. E.g., who would reasonably assume that an anonymous blogger would be an authority on the inner workings of Essent, and use that one blogger's opinion to judge Essent? Of course, it's possible the blogger is an employee. It's also possible that the blogger and all other Does are patients.

Finally, I was amused by a couple of things in the complaint. First, to see an employer refer to the employees' "breaches of the employees' duty of loyalty". What?!? Employers and employees have a legal obligation of loyalty? I sure haven't seen many employers show loyalty to their employees, but then that's another thread... Second, the complaint says the blog is publicly available (that's how the hospital's business would supposedly be harmed), and that "...the blog has as it's sole purpose to conduct a one-sided attack and disparagement of the Hospital, PRMC, and their employees and doctors, and is in no manner intended to be an open and fair discussion of issues." OK, so that's why you filed a lawsuit instead of posting to the publicly available blog your open and fair rebuttal of the issues raised?!?!

I don't know the blogger, the other Does, or Essent, and IANAL, so I can only hope the truth of this matter comes out in court.

Regards,
Art