Attorneys for Dana Eiser Blast Righthaven in Amended Answer and Counterclaim

Civil RICO Raised as Defense1

South Carolina attorneys representing Righthaven defendant Dana Eiser filed a 119 page amended answer and counterclaim yesterday along with 16 attachments. The new filing amends the complaint filed June 13, 2011. Plaintiff's attorneys raised several new interesting defenses in the amended filing including the: Lanham Act, Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, Sherman Act and Civil RICO.

I've bulleted out the defenses of the new filing to show how the recent rulings by Chief U.S. District Judge Roger Hunt and U.S. District Judge Philip Pro are now being used to bolster cases of existing Righthaven victims. The filing also includes many defenses raised by past defendants and adds to the them. This filing serves as an excellent historical marker that summarizes and captures Righthaven's sham operation from start to present.

Amended Answer and Counterclaim

• First Defense: Response to Factual Allegations
• Second Defense: Lack of Standing
• Third Defense: No Right to Sue
• Fourth Defense: Fraud on the Copyright Office
• Fifth Defense: Abandonment of Copyright
• Sixth Defense: Copyright Misuse
• Seventh Defense: Unclean Hands
• Eighth Defense: Failure to Join an Indispensible Party
• Ninth Defense: Failure to Prosecute Lawsuit in the Name of the Real Party in Interest
• Tenth Defense: Barratry
• Eleventh Defense: Illegal Syndication of Lawsuits
• Twelfth Defense: Rule of Professional Conduct Prohibition Action
• Thirteenth Defense: Public Policy Violations
• Fourteenth Defense: Champerty
• Fifteenth Defense: Maintenance
• Sixteenth Defense: License
• Seventeenth Defense: Implied License
• Eighteenth Defense: Equitable Estopple
• Nineteenth Defense: Promissory Estopple
• Twentieth Defense: Fair Use
• Twenty-First Defense: De Minimis Non Curat Lex
• Twenty-Second Defense: Innocent Infringement
• Twenty-Third Defense: Waiver
• Twenty-Fourth Defense: Laches
• Twenty-Fifth Defense: First Amendment
• Twenty-Sixth Defense: Statutory Damages Barred by Due Process
• Twenty-Seventh Defense: Failure to Timely Register
• Twenty-Eighth Defense: Failure to Mitigate Damages
• Twenty-Ninth Defense: Failure to State a Claim
• Thirtieth Defense: Frivolous Proceeding
• Thirty-First Defense: Sham Transaction Doctrine
• Thirty-Second Defense: Betterment
• Thirty-Third Defense: Charitable Immunity
• Thirty-Fourth Defense for a First Cause of Action: Civil Conspiracy
• Thirty-Fifth Defense For a Second Cause of Action: Declaratory Judgment 
• Thirty-Sixth Defense For a Third Cause of Action: Fraud 
• Thirty-Seventh Defense For a Fourth Cause of Action: Constructive Fraud 
• Thirty-Eighth Defense For a Fifth Cause of Action: Negligent Misrepresentation
• Thirty-Ninth Defense For a Sixth Cause of Action: Lanham Act
• Fortieth Defense For a Seventh Cause of Action: Breach of Contract 
• Forty-First Defense For an Eighth Cause of Action: Breach of Contract Accompanied by a Fraudulent Act
• Forty-Second Defense For a Ninth Cause of Action: Breach of the Duty of Good Faith and Fair Dealing
• Forty-Third Defense For a Tenth Cause of Action: Breach of the Duty of Good Faith and Fair Dealing Accompanied by a Fraudulent Act
• Forty-Fourth Defense For an Eleventh Cause of Action: Abuse of Process
• Forty-Fifth Defense For a Twelfth Cause of Action: Malicious Prosecution
• Forty-Sixth Defense For a Thirteenth Cause of Action: Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
• Forty-Seventh Defense For a Fourteenth Cause of Action: Negligent Supervision
• Forty-Eighth Defense For a Fifteenth Cause of Action: Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
• Forty-Ninth Defense For a Sixteenth Cause of Action: Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act
• Fiftieth Defense For a Seventeenth Cause of Action: South Carolina Unfair Trade Practice Act
• Fifty-First Defense For an Eighteen Cause of Action: Defamation
• Fifty-Second Defense For a Nineteenth Cause of Action: Sherman Act
• Fifty-Third Defense For a Twentieth Cause of Action: Civil RICO

927. Defendant Eiser asserts a cause of action for relief under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act by way of counterclaim against Plaintiff Righthaven. 928. The material within this cause of action is also pled as a setoff defense, recoupment defense, and reduction defense. 929. The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, codified at 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c), allows suit against members of a criminal enterprise when certain designated predicate acts have occurred within a ten year time period. 930. Defendant submits those connected with the Righthaven scheme formed an Enterprise, which was at all relevant times engaged in interstate commerce. 931. Defendant Righthaven was obviously associated with the Righthaven scheme and conducted a pattern of racketeering activity. 932. The racketeering activity consisted of extortion, mail fraud, and wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1951, 1341, and 1343. 933. Specifically, Righthaven engaged in an intentional scheme to extort and defraud its targets and to obtain money or property from them through false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, threats, and promises.

• Fifty-Fourth Defense For a Twenty-First Cause of Action: Veil Piercing
• Fifty-Fifth Defense For a Twenty-Second Cause of Action: Permanent Injunction
• Fifthy-Sixth Defense for a Twenty-Third Cause of Action: Indemnification

See: Second Amended Answer and Counterclaim (Righthaven v. Eiser) | See: Attachments

Attorneys for Plaintiff: Todd Kincannon of The Kincannon Firm, Thad Viers of Coastal Law LLC and Bill Conner of Horger and Connor LLC.

1It's about time Civil RICO has been raised as a defense!