Traverse Internet Law‘s John W Dozier Jr, author of Google Bomb , a book about online defamation on your bookstore shelves September 1, 2009, reports that five former employees of a Guess Jeans founder have been awarded $370 Million by a Los Angeles jury for defamation related to comments contained in emails and other communications sent by the defendant, Georges Marciano. Mr. Marciano is currently running for California governor. Traverse Internet Law will continue to monitor developments.
August 4, 2009
Leave a Comment
December 16, 2008
Traverse Internet Law reports today that a self styled “free speech advocate” has been ordered to pay a Court judgment of $30,000, and the Ontario Court of Appeal added another $10,000 in legal costs in a decision confirming the award. The defendant had earlier reported that the Appeal Court judges were “snapping and confrontational” during his hearing earlier in the week. At trial, the Judge described the defendant’s defamatory attacks against the lawyer as a “steady diet of diatribe and insults, couched in half-truths and omissions…” and rejected a free speech and fair comment defense. The defendant posted on his “free speech” website that he is $17,500 behind in legal bills, and he is trying to raise money to pay his bills, the judgment, and/or appeal again to the Supreme Court. At Traverse Internet Law we are seeing a pronounced trend among the Courts to view claims of “free speech” with increasing skepticism in an apparent response to the realities of the impact of the veritable tidal wave of false and damaging online personal and business attacks.
November 10, 2008
Leave a Comment
Recovering Damages From Thieves, Crooks and Scofflaws
It seems not a day passes that Traverse Internet Law is not asked how to pursue someone who is using a replica website to “compete”, is stealing traffic through trademark infringement, is publishing outrageously false information online, or is undertaking sinister, threatening conduct against a business or its owners. “You can’t get water from a rock” is often a self-serving declaration offered by the crooks when caught. At Traverse Internet Law we have come to appreciate the fact that with some hard digging sometimes there are pockets from which to collect a significant damages award. And the good news is that there are very powerful legal tools to work with that, if understood, can be used to recover a judgment.
First, let’s acknowledge that getting a huge monetary judgment against someone personally is often meaningless unless it can be collected. With very limited space, let me tell you how you can get your money from a judgment:
1) For a Federal Court judgment, you can execute and serve post judgment actions anywhere in the US. For a state court judgment, you can “execute” on a judgment after using a very easy process to register an out of state judgment in the state in which you need to proceed. The defendant’s location may be irrelevent to your ability to collect, particularly when e-commerce is occurring and money is owed to the defendant from third parties like payment processors, Google, and others.
2) Garnishment is the most often used process, and means that 25% of the defendant’s wages as an employee, and 100% of sums owed as a contractor or from any other company, are taken and paid directly to you through the court. This includes bank accounts also, and some retirement accounts. And Paypal account and Adsense account balances also! You can issue many at the same time, and do them again and again until paid.
3) Attachments are used to seize property. If the defendant owns a car, the vehicle can be seized, sold, and the proceeds after paying off the note and expenses are paid to you. It is often used to seize personal property, and can include rings and watches, household items, other personalty, and even domain names and web sites.
4) Judgment liens are placed on real estate records and property owned by the defendant, unless owned as husband and wife in its entirety, and the property cannot be sold without paying you the proceeds. Or, you can file a lien and then file a lawsuit to force the sale of the house if you don’t want to wait.
5) Debtor’s Interrogatories are used when you don’t know what the defendant (“judgment debtor”) owns. You can serve a summons on the defendant every six months and your lawyer will interrogate the defendant under penalty of perjury. If the defendant fails to show it can lead to the defendant being held in jail until the next hearing date, often a month away. This is as close as we get in the US to “debtor’s prison”!
Obviously this is a succinct list of tools that, together with applicable statutory exemptions, vary by state. But you work with the tools you have. Envision yourself in the judgment debtor’s shoes…never knowing when the sheriff will knock on his door to inventory his household effects, never knowing when the money he is owed by a business will disappear into your coffers, never knowing when he will be required to come in and be interrogated, and never knowing when his car will be pulled over and seized. Yes, you do work with the tools you have…and on a rock, you may want to try a chisel.
So whether you are someone faced with a potential claim, or someone trying to decide how to pursue a scofflaw, understand that this is the mindset a high quality, motivated lawyer will have in pursuing the recovery of a judgment. Mr. Dozier was a founder, Vice President, and National Legislative Chairman of the National Association of Retail Collection Attorneys, a trade group of almost 1,000 law firms dedicated to collecting debts. There are plenty of law firms ready, willing and able to make life very difficult for a judgment debtor. It’s not a place you will ever want to be.
November 10, 2008
Leave a Comment
Traverse Internet Law has learned of an award for $35,000 in the UK against an individual who posted a false profile on Facebook about the plaintiff. The posting was reportedly in retaliation for past business disagreements and the profile included accurate information to lend it credibility, and also set forth libelous, inaccurate, misleading, and damaging information. In reviewing the award, Traverse Internet Law notes that the award was based upon defamation and privacy violations, and given the expansive view of personal jurisdiction in the UK in defamation cases, it is important to note that someone posting defamatory statements in the US could be subject to defending a lawsuit in the UK.
November 5, 2008
Traverse Internet Law deals with a lot of online defamation for clients around the country and world and we monitor legal decisions. A recent report is revealing in terms of the liability associated with the publication of false information online. Richard Warman, a lawyer, was recently awarded a judgment of $50,000 and then the Judge issued an injunction requiring the defendant to issue a retraction, remove comments from the web, and publish nothing that is defamatory in the future. Mr. Warman, a well known attorney trying to eradicate Internet hatred, was the subject of a “mobosphere attack” resulting from comments published by the defendant and others taking his lead. At Traverse Internet Law we take particular notice of the basis for the monetary judgment, which included the Judge’s conclusion that the comments of the defendant “by their volume and wide dissemination” exposed the Plaintiff to “hatred, contempt and ridicule”, which sounds an awful lot like a “mobosphere attack”.
October 24, 2008
Leave a Comment
Traverse Internet Law is involved extensively in the law of online defamation. This case serves as a “worst case scenario” warning for those who elect to use the web as a vehicle of attack. Sue Scheff and her small business obtained a jury award of over $6 Million in compensatory and $5 in punitive damages, and the District Court of Appeal for the State of Florida confirmed and upheld the jury award and judgment against a lady who had allegedly undertaken defamatory attacks against the plaintiff. Traverse Internet Law counsels parties on both sides of these types of disputes, and this is the largest judgment we have seen for online defamation.