Lightening Bolts Fired in Brian Hill's Reply; Alleged Fabricated Press Release is Just One

New charges were leveled at Righthaven LLC in a recent Reply filed by attorney David Kerr of the Santangelo Law Offices, who represents defendant Brian D. Hill. The Reply is brimming with details, particularly concerning the Release and Settlement Agreement (Exhibit F) crafted by Righthaven. (A related VEGAS INC article contains the full text of the proposed press release as does the last page of the agreement.) I've pulled a section from the Reply where Kerr summarizes the agreement's terms:

Conditions of Release (Page 21 of Reply)

1. Righthaven inappropriately sought to enjoin Mr. Hill from exploiting any and all Righthaven intellectual property, apart from the subject image, without identifying or specifying such works. Such overbroad demand being subject to an award of liquidated damages of $10,000 per breach.
2. Righthaven inappropriately sought to bind non-parties to the terms of the settlement, namely Roberta Hill, and Mr. Hill’s counsel.
3. Righthaven inappropriately sought to use the settlement agreement to remove content from non-party websites that are known to be critical of its for-profit litigation model.
4. Righthaven inappropriately sought to use the settlement agreement to obtain potentially privileged and confidential information from Mr. Hill’s counsel.
5. Righthaven inappropriately sought to condition the release of claims against Mr. Hill only on completion of certain actions by counsel and other non-parties
6. Righthaven inappropriately sought to condition the release of claims against Mr. Hill based on relinquishing his first amendment rights.
7. Righthaven inappropriately sought to condition the release of claims against Mr. Hill to stifle public criticism.
8. Righthaven inappropriately sought a permanent gag order against Mr. Hill, his mother and his attorneys, not only as to the terms of the settlement, but as to ever publically discussing any aspect of this case, or Righthaven generally. Such onerous demand being subject to an award of liquidated damages of $10,000 per breach.
9. Righthaven inappropriately sought to condition settlement on requirements that counsel for Righthaven remove, or seek to have removed any public comments made about this case or Righthaven, and that counsel for Mr. Hill would be further enjoined from ever publically discussing Righthaven, or this case, except with explicit permission of Righthaven, prejudicing his ability to represent other Defendants accused by Righthaven.
10. Righthaven inappropriately sought to impose onerous liquidated damages of $10,000 per breach of the settlement agreement. Such damages were applicable to Mr. Hill’s mother, and could be construed to apply to Mr. Hill’s counsel.
11. Righthaven inappropriately sought to fix jurisdiction and venue for any breach of this agreement in Nevada despite being aware that Mr. Hill’s medical and financial condition would make it impossible to defend his rights in that jurisdiction.
12. Righthaven inappropriately sought to require attorneys’ fee pursuant to any breach of the settlement agreement, even though they were aware that Mr. Hill had no recoverable assets, and that his only source of income was exempted from such relief under federal law.
13. Righthaven inappropriately sought to issue a press release that fabricated specific quotes falsely representing that Mr. Hill, his mother and attorney’s had made false statements directly contrary to the facts and prior declarations made to this court. The ultimate result being that, Righthaven sought to leverage and condition Mr. Hill’s release with a false admission that he, and his mother, and potentially his counsel had perjured themselves before this Court.
14. Righthaven inappropriately sought to issue a press release solely to embarrass and disparage Mr. Hill, insinuating that his mental condition may have led him to make false statements to the public and the Court.
15. Righthaven inappropriately sought to issue a press release which falsely represented that Mr. Hill’s counsel endorsed Righthaven’s business practices and that Righthaven had exhibited professional behavior during settlement negotiations.
16. Righthaven inappropriately sought to have Mr. Hill provide a false apology for his actions which he maintains are fair use under the law.
17. Righthaven inappropriately sought to extract a false apology from Roberta Hill’s for critical statements regarding Righthaven.
18. Righthaven inappropriately sought to extract a false concession from Mr. Hill’s counsel for critical statements made regarding Righthaven’s business model.
19. Righthaven inappropriately sought to fabricate quotes from Mr. Hill’s counsel that would contradict the facts of Righthavens litigation conduct in an effort to mitigate or cut-off any accrued liability.
20. Righthaven inappropriately sought to fabricate quotes from Mr. Hill’s counsel that would falsely admit, and make legal conclusions that Righthaven was within their rights to pursue claims of copyright infringement against Mr. Hill, and that Mr. Hill’s actions violated the law. Such false concessions would result in extreme prejudice to Mr. Hill’s legal rights and any later appeal efforts, but would be in total derogation of counsel’s ethical and professional obligations to his client.

See: Article in full | View: Reply in full

My God, what have other Righthaven victims signed?