UPDATE 04/11/11: Judge Kane, who is presiding over this case, was not too pleased with Righthaven's rant about Brian Hill in their notice of dismissal and quickly issued an order striking all but the first paragraph off the record keeping only the part stating they are dropping the suit.
See: Judge Kane's Order to Strike
See: Judge Kane's Order to Strike
04/11/11
Righthaven LLC, of Nevada has dismissed the case against North Carolina blogger Brian Hill. They were handed a humiliating defeat after they were unable to answer Brian Hill's dismissal petition written by attorney David Kerr. Righthaven had requested a 21 day extension which was summarily rejected by Judge John L. Kane of the Federal District Court of Colorado who issued a stern rebuke against Righthaven and their business model.
See: Righthaven's notice of dismissal
Brian has maintained his innocence in this matter and refused to be intimidated into settling. David Kerr said that there are still issues to be addressed by Righthaven so even though Brian Hill is off the hook, Righthaven may not be. There are also scores of other cases pending in Colorado and being presided over by the same judge. Brian Hill's case will certainly way heavily on other cases and should have Righthaven re-evaluating their business model and hopefully will convince News Media Group and the Denver Post to re-evaluate their business arrangement with Righthaven.
See: Related Ars Technica article
I for one am glad this is behind us and look forward to the day when it's behind the other Righthaven victims as well! Brian has been very blessed to have you as a friend (best friend), Ken, and he has been blessed to have 2 wonderful attorneys and a fantastic judge and one of the best mothers anyone could ever ask for. Life is tough with mild autism and especially brittle diabetes, night and day, 24 hours a day since before he was 2 years old. He is so happy today. This has been a nightmare since the last of January for him with lots of worries, all of this over one virtual photo that is all over the Internet! I call it, "Legal extortion". Wonderful article, Ken. Thank you for your help and encouragement through this entire ordeal! I know that you will continue helping the other victims too!
ReplyDeleteCongrats to Brian. Stella, give Brian a hug from all of us.
ReplyDeleteTerry Pelz
American Justice Dot Org
Judge Kane has shown that his court is not open for business for those that will abuse the law for profiteering. Righthaven's sue first and ask questions later approach has backfired on them so many times you would think they would have learned their lesson but they seem to have an attitude after getting spanked of "Thank you sir, may I have another?".
ReplyDeleteWhat lesson would Righthaven actually learn from this experience? Federal judges are a dime a dozen (lots of different jurisdictions for Righthaven to sue under with all kinds of political leanings per judge). What was that other federal judge you mentioned? Beryl Howell -- that major cutie?
ReplyDeleteThe ante is clearly upping to Appeals Court rulings (and judges that reside there) and an eventual Supreme Court appeal... Can you imagine Steve Gibson ever standing in the Supreme Court of our nation arguing his case? You should, because he might one day. Who will also be present is a great advocate from our side, "casting the light of truth" on Gibson's obscenities.
Folks,
ReplyDeleteTo offer the reader an idea of the duplicity of Righthaven, consider its claimed Venue [the legally proper place where a given case ought to be argued].
Righthaven asserts in one suit: "The United State District Court for the Southern District of California is an appropriate venue, pursuant to U.S.C. 28 §139(b)(2), because a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim for relief are situated in California.” [No 2:10-CV-01672-GMM-LRN filed 11/24/2010]
In a virutally identical suit served on another party, Righthaven asserts: "The United State District Court for the District of Nevada is an appropriate venue, pursuant to U.S.C. 28 §139(b)(2), because a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim for relief are situated in Nevada.” [No 2:10-CV-01672-GMM-LRN filed 09/27/2010]
Anyone know if this illegal? Representing myself pro se.
Mike
malleon@live.com
MAL
ReplyDeleteEvery suit they file is a form letter. Only names of places and defendants change. This is merely a law suit mill with very little actual legal talent.