Slashdot Mirror
CPA Googles For His Name, Sues Google For Libel
fbform writes "Mark Maughan, an accountant, searched Google for his name on March 25 2003 and found some 'alarming, false, misleading and injurious' information about himself and his firm. Therefore, he is now suing Google, Yahoo (which used Google as its search engine at the time), AOL (for using Google to enhance its search results) and Time Warner (because they're the same company as AOL) for libel. Specifically, his lawyer John Girardi believes that Google's PageRank algorithm takes known good information and twists its context when displaying search results."
Googling for "litigious schmuck" now turns up a new entry...
"It was a summer's tale: Just a boy, his Linux, and a head full of dreams..."
...how much of it was true? ;)
I think it should be manditory for people to know how things work before they can sue someone. I realize why this guy's suing (it wasn't HIS lisence revoked) but seriously. He should be given the job to check over the 3 billion pages google has for libel.
Etiquette is etiquette. He kills his mother but he can't wear grey trousers.
Google's PageRank algorithm takes known good information and twists its context
Yeah it isn't like lawyers to do that is it?
Hey everybody, I heard that Mark Maughan once killed a man in Reno just to watch him die!
He also has poor math skills and failed basic algebra twice.
I called several of my business' competitors, and asked them for their opinion on my company, and they said they were better! This is outrageous!
... is censorship, because if they delete him from Google nobody can find him.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
He just wants some free publicity. Seriously, this will be good for his business.
Tort reform, anyone?
Yeah, Google ditched the technology that helped get them famous. Right.
if his lawyer browses this at -1.
hey
Man sues white pages for listing his name and phone number. WTF!
I just googled the guy's name and got nothing that said that he had been "disciplined for gross negligence, for failing to timely submit a client's claim for refund of overpayment of taxes, and for practicing as a CPA without a permit".
Maybe they changed things in an effort to stop the lawsuit, which, btw, is one worthy of SCO-like fame.
On
Last i checked Libel required some form of intent since google's results are computer generrated by the web spiders where the intent do the spiders have it out for him?
If this guy gets any money.... actually, if this guy gets any money, it will only continue the current legal trends.
However, I was going to say that if this guy gets any money our legal system will have gone kaput. This is like suing a library for providing books which contain recommendations against your products. It's also like suing me for giving you a book with the same information.
What a great example of shooting the messenger... how pathetically ridiculous.
Oh, and is this guy actually suing the parties responsible for the creation of the socalled 'defamatory content'? Probably not, seeing as how they are broke due to doing business with a poor accountant.
-Ryan
AUWYHSTOT (Acronyms are Useless When You Have to Spell Them Out Too)
Have fun tilting at that windmill, bub.
Wonder if this will add strength to his case?
Anyway, here's what I was going to post... Can this CPA add up 2 and 2? If there is libelous information on the Internet, and he wishes to pursue litigation, then he should go after the persons responsible for the information. Google is only an index, making the information on the Internet easily available for access. Without Google (and perhaps without similar search engines), it would be all but impossible to find anything useful on the Internet.
In fact, I think the aforementioned CPA should THANK Google for making it possible for him to FIND the offending information, so that he can take action against whomever he should take action. Without Google, the alleged libel might have been posted all over the Internet and our friend the CPA would never have been any the wiser.
I further think there is no basis in law for suing an index for pointing to information. On the contrary, I think this was tested in court quite a few times (in all those trials against linking to pages within a site) and it was decided that you can link to whatever the heck you want to link to.
Therefore, I think this CPA is making a stupid decision, and I believe the case will get dismissed. I hope Google countersues for legal fees. And wins.
Oh yeah, and did I mention I'm a Supreme Court Justice? Yeah, the Supreme Court of Bullshit.
So in other words he is suing Google, et al. for pointing to publicly available records that are not flattering. The odd side effect is now that everyone will see this link and know all the sorted details about he and his law firm. Before he made this fuss no one would have cared. Maybe he will sue me too for posting this link. Hmm. . . .
"Anything is possible with enough programmers, time and pizza." (Substitute caffeine for time as needed.)
"I think it should be manditory for people to know how things work before they can sue someone."
Does this mean no one will be able to sue me if I write destructive code in perl?
My Blog
This page seems to list some disciplinary action taken against his law firm. I quote from the "Cause for Discipline" column (all emphasis mine):
For purposes of settlement, Respondent admits the truth and accuracy of the allegations and charges in the Accusation. Respondent and his accountancy corporation engaged in the practice of public accounting with expired licenses.
Respondent additionally failed to pay an administrative fine imposed by the Board for failing to supply the Board with copies of a financial report representing the highest level of service rendered, in accordance with Section 89.1 of the California Code of Regulations. Respondent's failure to pay the administrative fine caused the Board to withhold renewal of his CPA license.
Sounds like someone knew they'd have no luck taking on the state and decided to try and get some quick cash out a Google. Nice try.
The mental midget known as Mark Maughan, who has only been a member of his local CPA association for about a year, is just out to get some easy cash by trying to make it more expensive for Google to fight him in court. CPAs normally make ass-loads of money, so I guess he must be really crappy at his job if he needs the money this badly.
People will now find out the horrible things he does to animals during his free time...
While I think this is a bogus lawsuit, I have a fairly good guess as to what he is refering to.
In google search results, the brief clip of information below the link is often snippets of 3 or 4 different sentences (to show you that all of your requested words did in fact show up."
I'm going to hazard a guess that Mr. Maughan's result looked something like "Mark... Maughan... And Associates have... not paid their taxes... practice without a license... eat babies."
If that's what this is about... hes god a point...
I think it may be time for the US to seriously consider implementing a "Loser Pays" system in civil court. Basically, if you, as a lawyer, pursue what is found to be suit with insufficient legal merit, then you are liable for all the costs of the case, including the other sides fees, plus any penalty the court finds suitable.
If you as a lawyer don't believe that a case has merit, but the client wants to pursue the case, the lawyer can draw up a contract noting that the client has been advised that consuel believes the case does not have merit, and that they, the client, will bear the liability for all costs and penalties in the case.
The first thing that happens in a civil suit is that it is analyzed for merit, and if it found lacking, liability and fines are assessed.
Basically, it takes the profit motive for pursuing crappy cases out of the system. Why shouldn't lawyers pursue any case? Money is money.
And this still allows for anybody to pursue a case, but they have to assume the costs if the lawyer doesn't find any merit to the case.
Oh ya, kill the messenger (Google) after he dies of a heart attack to bring you the best information possible; that always works.
Yes, while countless millions go on with their lives being perfectly able to make the distinction between "circular argument" and "leading question", you are there in the forefront making sure that an insignificant badly worded phrase coined centuries ago shall continue to wreak confusion for years to come! Well done! Carry on!
You know, your anal retentive obsession about "begs the question" really begs the question, do you really understand basic English? This is the question that I am begging.
And gosh, did you know that I B.A'd in Logic? Fat lot of good that did me with guys like you around telling me how to speak.
The reason he is suing is because "Surrender of license accepted." is shown in the description, while it actually is carried over from a section on the page which doesn't refer to his company. Though if you view the page you'll see that the company is actually on probation for 3 years. The site linked to is actually http://www.dca.ca.gov. Now, apparently, this guy thinks that if Google sampled some of the results on the page, and accidentally showed that, Google is somehow responsible for libel.
Personally, I think he's insane, but I can see his position on this because it does look misleading. I just hope he doesn't win anything.
Googling for my name reveals that, in addition to being an avid gamer, I apparantly played Greedo in Star Wars.
Think I'll sue Lucas for not paying me.
Happiness is relative, Based upon the way we live.
That's plain bad logic.
If I offer you child porn with a disclaimer, no matter what's in the disclaimer, traffiking in the child porn would still be illegal.
There are many instances where you cannot be forced to abandon your rights by signing a contract saying that you do. And this Google search happens whether or not the 'complaintent' searched or not. He's concerned about other people doing this.
I've no idea who's right here, but your logic fails badly.
While I don't believe that a lawsuit is the appropriate response to this...I can at least understand where this guy is coming from. As a CPA myself, having your clients (and potential clients) being able to trust you and that your credentials are on the up and up is absolutely critical. As the use of google has become more and more ubiquitous, typing in a local CPAs name and turning up results alleging misdeeds, fraud, etc. certainly does not help to give "warm and fuzzy" feelings to clients.
I'm not all that familiar with libel in legal terms, so here are a couple of questions I had off the top of my head - can you sue someone for the results of a mathematical equation? After all, PageRank is basically glorified statistics and mathematical wizardry. Furthermore, is it "libel" if a computer produces results based on mere data? Doesn't some human have to be involved in making the "statements" about someone for it to be considered libel?
"Wow, you're like some kind of superhero able to ward off happiness and success at every turn."
-- Ryan Stiles
suppose Microsoft funded this guy too?
--
There is no hatred more pure and true than that expressed by children.
You mean this technology I presume...
DrkBr
For purposes of settlement, Respondent admits the truth and accuracy of the allegations and charges in the Accusation. Respondent and his accountancy corporation engaged in the practice of public accounting with expired licenses.
Respondent additionally failed to pay an administrative fine imposed by the Board for failing to supply the Board with copies of a financial report representing the highest level of service rendered, in accordance with Section 89.1 of the California Code of Regulations. Respondent's failure to pay the administrative fine caused the Board to withhold renewal of his CPA license.
He broke the law by practicing with an expired license, failed to pay fines, and is now now suing search engines because the information was posted on the internet by the state of California. That's his own damn fault. People need to learn to live with the consequences and take responsibility for their actions.
Go not unto/. for advice, for you will be told both yea and nay (but have nothing to do with the question)
Nope. Without some form of page rank (where links count), search engine results would have to be based entirely on the content of the page - those were the really bad old days of hidden text, stuffed title tags, and the imfamouse "meta tags". I have a feeling some form of page rank will be with us for a long, long time.
Everyone should look at this as a lesson.
Talk about bad things being said about him... He just gave everything credence by bringing up those ridiculous lawsuits. At the end of the day, he is going to look 10 times worse than the Google results alone could make him appear... Add to that, that it is going to be much more widely known?
I mean, honestly... Does this guy think that the slim chance of getting lots of cash out of these companies is really worth the REAL damage this is going to do to him and his company?
Lawyers that represent frivelous lawsuits are scummy... The People that hire the lawyers are scummier.
Here's the offending page.
It's the Disciplinary Actions page in the California Board of Accountancy section on the California Dept of Consumer Affairs's website.
Note that Google itself does not list any specific disciplinary actions, except for the rather damning page title of "Disciplinary Actions List - Bi-Bz".
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.
Google is your friend.
When google gives wrong info on me(other people have same name), i just add their stuff to my resume.
I gained a dance school and a few civil war books in my resume experiences.
It's only right that Google should validate the truth of every one of the six billion pages indexed by their system. After all, eager minds want to know:
Who really killed JFK, did Tammy really make out with Nick at the end of the high school prom, and whether UFO's, the Lock Ness Monster, bigfoot, black triangles and the chucacubra really exist or not. This could save so much effort and time wasted on speculation and controversy.
I'm not sure about all of the charges, but the California Board of Accountancy does list the disciplinary action for practicing with an expired license. This is the first Google result for "Mark Maughan CPA" (without quotes). So as far as I can tell, the information DOES appear on the state board site, contraditing the article.
...blah blah blah blah blah blah Mike...
...Maughan punished for gross negligence...
At first, I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, because I have seen results before where it takes search terms from different parts of the page, and gives a misleading summary:
Even though the linked article might be talking about Mike Smith and Fred Maughan. I can see how something like that could be damaging to someone's reputation, and Google might want to change the way it presents summaries. But since the "offending information" actually does appear on the Board website, I'm not sure how Google is supposed to be responsible.
"The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than that of whether a submarine can swim" -EWD
When I saw the headline I immediately thought, "why is the Coalition Provisional Authority suing anyone? I didn't think they had time or money for that..."
Boy do I need to get out of Baghdad...
Travel the Galaxy! Meet fascinating life forms...
A librarian is a bad example, because Google doesn't even understand what a person is...it's just a pattern-matching algorithm. You make them sound like some kind of a malevolent agent that refuses to stop telling big mean 'ol nasty lies...the truth of the matter is that Google just scans for whatever words you put in it, and if someone is publishing information that contains those words, it's going to turn up.
Furthermore, there are so many people in the world with any given name there's no expectation that just giving google a name is enough to be sure you're going to be talking about the same person.
This is like looking in the card catalog for your name and then suing the library for libel.
Don't be so quick to knock ridiculous metaphors, you had a really ridiculous one and you didn't seem to understand what was going on at all.
But there is another kind of evil that we must fear most... and that is the indifference of good men.
Excuse me, but if you went through the trouble of going to court with this, why did you not take it all the way? I mean, you won $1000, why did you call THEM asking for satisfaction? Why not take further legal action? I'm sorry, but if a company owes me that kind of money, I'm going to get it.
The next part is even more unbelievable. As big as SBC is, I highly doubt that some low level bill supervisor cares about your lawsuit and complaints enough to perform highly illegal actions (of which you have written, documented proof in your bill). Even more ludicrous is that a high level manager would care about something so petty as $1000 to fuck with you. Then, even if this did happen, why did you not take those bills to the Better Business Bureau or to small claims court again?
All of this sounds like urban legend... even the $1000. I would guess that a judge would fine them the amount you paid to have your phone unlisted, then ordered them to take your name out of the next version of the phone book.
IANAL, but I play one on
awwww.... boohoo poor old Mark Maughan. big ol' mean nasty google has narrowed down billions of people in this whole world just to put a few nasty search results under his name. shall we give him a group hug? i wonder if this is just another microsoft-backed conspiracy or if he's just an immature idiot... or perhaps even both. who knows? maybe he will try to sue slashdot next, because if you run his name under its search engine, a few nasty (and true) things may pop up. and the world goes kersplash.
I have no idea about the state of gay marriage, but as for this guy, I found this info via Google.
:P I'm just reporting what I've found, verbatim, from Google. I didn't write up any of this information, I've just pieced it together and I have no idea how true any of it is.
By reading this, you agree not to sue me and not to use this information unlawfully
Of course, *since* I found it via Google, it may well be the same "false and misleading" information. Hell, I don't even know if this is the right guy! However, it is a CPA with at least the same first & last name as him, who I *think* is in the right area. It's apparently old info (from 2000), and when I looked under the accountancy firm he does business for, this was the business' only citation listed (this is also the only citation listed for him).
Interestingly, a citation for someone with the last name McBride is right next to this guy's (no known relation to Darl, but I don't have those Mormon geneology databases to work off of, either)
The citation is at the end of this post for formatting purposes. As for the email/address/info of this guy, if my research is right, his web page appears to be:
http://www.markmaughan.com/
Which lists the following contact information:
Contact us at:
10221 Slater Avenue, Suite 104
Fountain Valley, CA 92708
Ph: (714) 962-1600
Fax: (714) 962-8598
E-MAIL: taxxbiz@aol.com
What follows is the citation, exactly as listed on some California government server's webpage. I didn't make this up, I'm just quoting exactly what I know, without any expressed or implied endorsement of what they've said. Clearly, this person seems to feel that this information is "false and misleading," so... Anyhow, the following information is taken from http://www.dca.ca.gov/cba/discipline/ma-me.htm
MAUGHAN, MARK G. (CPA 38184)
BROWN & MAUGHAN, AN ACCOUNTANCY CORPORATION (COR 2529)
Fountain Valley/Rolling Hills Estates, CA
Revocation stayed with three years' probation and a 30-day suspension, via stipulation settlement.
Probation terms include:
30-day suspension from the practice of public accountancy.
Renewal of the CPA and corporate licenses, respectively, within 30 days of the effective date of this order.
Compliance with the citation order which contained administrative fines totaling $1,500.00 and an order of correction and abatement. Payment of $1,500.00 is due within 30 days of the effective date of this order.
Reimbursement of $4,360.17 to the Board for investigative and prosecution costs.
Submission of a sample set of financial statements, representing the highest level of service rendered, between August 1, 1995, and July 31. 1997.
Completion of a Board-approved ethics examination with a score of 90 percent or grater, within the first year of probation.
Other standard terms and conditions.
Effective December 27, 2000
For purposes of settlement, Respondent admits the truth and accuracy of the allegations and charges in the Accusation. Respondent and his accountancy corporation engaged in the practice of public accounting with expired licenses.
Respondent additionally failed to pay an administrative fine imposed by the Board for failing to supply the Board with copies of a financial report representing the highest level of service rendered, in accordance with Section 89.1 of the California Code of Regulations. Respondent's failure to pay the administrative fine caused the Board to withhold renewal of his CPA license.
Business and Professions Code, Division 3, Chapter 1, 5050, 5100 (f) and 5154; California Code of Regulations, Title 16, Division 1, 89.1.
-----
For reference, here is all the information you could want on Darl McBride, as has been posted several times to SlashDot before:
The SCO Group
355 South 520 West
S
New York Times Co vs Sullivan
In this case, it is well known that Google is a search engine that finds information on somebody else's website.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
...for disparaging my character by claiming a total lack of bravery. If there are any others out there like me, we might be able to form a class action.
He needs to take this up with the original posters of this information. You can sue someone for libeling you (hopefully if it's not true), but you can't sue Xerox for printing the copy.
Stupid fscking lawsuits. How about this - don't be an asshole and you'll have nothing to worry about to begin with - END OF LINE.
"...Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam..."
From http://www.dca.ca.gov/cba/discipline/bi-bz.htm
BROWN & MAUGHAN,
AN ACCOUNTANCY CORPORATION (COR 2529)
MAUGHAN, MARK G.
(CPA 38184)
Fountain Valley/Rolling Hills Estates, CA
Revocation stayed with three years' probation and a 30-day suspension, via stipulation settlement.
Probation terms include:
30-day suspension from the practice of public accountancy.
Renewal of the CPA and corporate licenses, respectively, within 30 days of the effective date of this order.
Compliance with the citation order which contained administrative fines totaling $1,500.00 and an order of correction and abatement. Payment of $1,500.00 is due within 30 days of the effective date of this order.
Reimbursement of $4,360.17 to the Board for investigative and prosecution costs.
Submission of a sample set of financial statements, representing the highest level of service rendered, between August 1, 1995, and July 31. 1997.
Completion of a Board-approved ethics examination with a score of 90 percent or grater, within the first year of probation.
Other standard terms and conditions.
Effective December 27, 2000
For purposes of settlement, Respondent admits the truth and accuracy of the allegations and charges in the Accusation. Respondent and his accountancy corporation engaged in the practice of public accounting with expired licenses.
Respondent additionally failed to pay an administrative fine imposed by the Board for failing to supply the Board with copies of a financial report representing the highest level of service rendered, in accordance with Section 89.1 of the California Code of Regulations. Respondent's failure to pay the administrative fine caused the Board to withhold renewal of his CPA license.
Business and Professions Code, Division 3, Chapter 1, 5050, 5100 (f) and 5154; California Code of Regulations, Title 16, Division 1, 89.1.
"GET / HTTP/1.0" 200 51230 "-" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; Setec Astronomy)"
If he was any good at what he did, he wouldn't need to sue Google for money.
Honestly, if you can sue P2P "search engines" for finding music in which they ultimately do not control who downloads or not, why not sue a normal search engine for all the pirated material, warez and serialz? Why not sue them for libel since they're propagating false and slanderous information while you're at it?
It's always a riot to see hypocrisy and lawsuit abuse come head to head. What a wonderful standard the RIAA has set for us.
You need a FREE iPod Nano
Perhaps if you looked in a good dictionary you'd find it.
For the record, the word's Yiddish in this context. Literally, it means "penis," but is used as a synonym for "asshole."
Oddly, in German, it means "jewelry." One could draw some odd conclusions on etymology, were one so inclined.
Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachtani?
www.fogbound.net
I think it's about time Slashdot had something along this line:
----- -----
Slashdot Men of Genius...
Today we salute you, mister "begs-the-question".
Mister begs-the-question!
While millions can understand a basic phrase, you take the lead in misinterpreting everything.
Cannot make a distinction!
Your lack of logic ensures that phrases coined centuries ago will continue to wreak confusion for years come.
A leader in confusion!
You know, your anal retentive obsession about "begs the question" really begs the question, do you really understand basic English?
This is the question I'm beggin'!
And gosh, did you know that I B.A'd in Logic? Fat lot of good that did me with guys like you around telling me how to speak.
Slashdot Men of Genius
----- -----
I have to ask, do you actually know where that quote came from? For those of you that don't know your music, allow me to give you the low-down on those lyrics. Also, your quote is slightly flawed. It's actually:
That's a quote from one of the great country western songs, "Folsom Prison Blues", written and sung by the late Johnny Cash, better known as The Man in Black. That song is now one of the staples of country music, hell music in general. For those of you that aren't familar with Cash's music I encourage you to pick up one of his greatest hits albums. The Essential Johnny Cash is a good place to start. I thought I'd make that slightly OT point. Who knows, maybe it'll educate one of you tenderfoots. ;-)
Permit loser-pays up to the loser's own costs or some pre-set minimum (otherwise lawyers acting as own counsel will be able to get away with paying one dollar every time).
:-)
In fact, it should just be "loser pays winner amount of loser's costs". If I sue MS and lose, I pay a few hundred or whatever. If MS pays me and loses, I get lawyer fees for their entire legal department on top of my award.
It's rare that you're presented with a knob whose only two positions are Make History and Flee Your Glorious Destiny.
He's sick. My best friend's sister's boyfriend's brother's girlfriend heard from this guy who knows this kid who's going with a girl who saw Mark Maughan pass out at 31 Flavors last night. I guess it's pretty serious.
Did you shoot first or didn't you?
Given that the california state gov't lists his firm as under investigation for the things listed below, I believe he's barking up the wrong tree:
b ro w_cor
:) He's just looking to squeeze some money out of the big guys.
http://www.dca.ca.gov/cba/discipline/bi-bz.htm#
All google does is index and store. The information, so far as I can tell is accurate.
GJC
Gregory Casamento
## Chief Maintainer for GNUstep
Google returned the following page when I searched for his name and CPA: http://www.dca.ca.gov/cba/discipline/bi-bz.htm
.gov address so if it's incorrect according to the article then somebody screwed up elsewhere, not google.
It turns out that it's a
Google does not attest to the validity of statements on each web site; they merely index them. I don't think the guy has a clue, or a case.
There's a gorilla from Manilla whose a fella that stinks of vanilla and has salmonella.
Your bait of falsehood takes this carp of truth:
and thus do we of wisdom and of reach,
with windlasses and with assays of bias,
by indirections find directions out:
so by my former lecture and advice,
shall you my son.
You have me, have you not?
--Polonius, from Hamlet Act II Scene
Whenever I acquire the use of an attorney, doctor, or an accountant, I google their name first. I googled (searched outside of google as well) the names of my professors to determine their research interests and teaching style. I can understand this man's complaint. However, I believe his complaint is with the website owner (in this case the state of California).
Although this does bring up an interesting legal question. Does Google have the same responsibility that say the New York Times (haha, I know) of providing context for their reporting. Matt Drudge has demonstrated the power of the internet. Heck, I've recently run into two cases where people in our justice system have been disbarred|fired for misconduct based solely on their internet postings.
There is a deeper precedent here.
Imagine a future in which programmers are hired to place data to throw off intelligent agents parsing for good information. Do you have a bad credit history? You need to call a data munger. Did your business get a bad review in the local paper and it's now been preserved for all of history on the Wayback Machine and Google -- get a data munger. You see a data munger won't hide the information, but he will surround it with so much spamorific tripe as so to make it unparsable. The Orwellian future is now. Are you a struggling musician wishing to create some word of mouth for your band -- hire a data munger. Perhaps we should all jump on board the new field of data manipulation for profit.
A case study of the church of scientology newsgroup
I've created a simple business plan:
Step 1: Spam|Parse the internet at large
Step 2: (Blackmail|Obfuscate data for|plant news for) clients
Step 3: Profit
What do you mean my sig is repetitive? What do you mean my sig is repetitive? What do you mean....
The folks at General Hospital will be hearing from my attorney.
How about...
mark_maughan.isgay.com
or
darl.isgay.com site.
Terms of service
There's a long bit about disclaiming responsibilities, limitation of liability etc. IANAL so perhaps someone could read through the legalese and provide some insight?
...Google bombing.
Libel Law in the United States: