Righthaven LLC State Business License in Default (Again); Another Case Dismissed

Righthaven in Default Again with State

Righthaven LLC’s financial position appears to have deteriorated further: For the second year in a row, the Las Vegas company's state business license has expired and now it’s listed in default ... The development indicates the copyright infringement lawsuit filer either can’t or won’t come up with the $200 needed to reactivate the license. A request for comment was placed with Righthaven on the issue.

The most recent VEGAS INC article continues the dissolving tale of the former "copyright enforcement partner" of the Las Vegas Review-Journal and Denver Post known as Righthaven. Separately, U.S. District Judge Richard Mark Gergle in Charleston, South Carolina, recently dismissed Righthaven's sole lawsuit in the state against Tea Party activist Dana Eiser. Kudos out to defendant Dana Eiser and attorney Todd Kincannon representing her. Next up is Eiser's request for attorney's fees.

The Words 'Chilling Effect' Simply Do Not Do it Justice, Says New CALA Amicus Brief

South Carolina lawyer Todd Kincannon along with Citizens Against Litigation Abuse (CALA) have sent an amicus brief to Colorado Federal Judge John L Kane. Judge Kane presides over all Righthaven cases in Colorado and has ordered a stay on all cases pending his decision on Righthaven's standing to sue over their agreement with MediaNews Group which is similar to the SAA agreement between Righthaven and Stephens Media.

The brief underscores the political nature of Righthaven's attacks and the chilling effect their actions have over discussing political issues where it pertains to the news of the day.

The Righthaven cases directly implicate freedom of speech and have an obvious chilling effect on core political speech on the Internet. A large proportion of Righthaven cases involve core political speech, as one would expect with lawsuits filed over material appearing in newspapers. Righthaven has sued political speakers from all over the political spectrum. From left to right, from radical to moderate, no group has escaped Righthaven‟s litigation campaign.

The following politically-oriented defendants jump out from just a quick scan of a list of Righthaven cases:

• The Democratic Party of Nevada
• The Democratic Underground website
• Free Republic LLC, a conservative website
• The Drudge Report, a major political news website
• The Center for Intercultural Organizing
• Thoughts From A Conservative Mom
• Pajamas Media, a major political blogging association
• The Second Amendment Foundation
• Virginia Citizens Defense League, Inc.
• Climate Change Fraud
• The United States Marijuana Party
• Americans Against Food Taxes
• America's Independent Party of Iowa
• Americans for Legal Immigration Political Action Committee
• American Political Action Committee
• Second Amendment Sisters, Inc.
• Americans for Immigration Reform
• Americans for Democratic Action, Inc.
• Independent Political Report
• No Quarter, a national security and terrorism blog
• Progressive Leadership Alliance of Nevada
• Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, Inc.
• National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws

As Judge Mahan noted in Righthaven v. Jama, "Righthaven's litigation strategy has a chilling effect on potential fair uses of Righthaven-owned articles, diminishes public access to the facts contained therein and does nothing to advance the Copyright Act's purpose of promoting artistic creation."

Righthaven does not sue people who have downloaded pirated movies or music. Righthaven sues people who are communicating their views about issues of the day and discussing important matters of public interest. CALA submits that Righthaven's litigation strategy is so brutal and abusive that the words “chilling effect” simply do not do it justice. The free and open exchange of ideas is fundamental to American democracy.

See: Amicus Curiae Brief of Citizens Against Litigation Abuse, Inc

Attorneys for Eiser File Supplemental Notice; Request Full Transcript of July 14 Hearing

On Friday, attorneys representing Dana Eiser filed a supplemental notice to her previous motion to dismiss. The new filing requests a full transcript of Judge Hunt's July 14 sanctions hearing and any written connection to it, as well as the consideration of a public statement recently penned by "Sherm." As readers recall, "bully-hater" Sherm vacated his roles as CEO of Stephens Media and publisher of the R-J in November 2010, but continued his column, which time and again gets him into trouble.

Yesterday, Frederick authored a blog post about Sharron Angle and media reaction to her unsuccessful Senate campaign. This post is attached as Exhibit 1.9 The Angle posting elicited comments, and Frederick responded to several of the comments. In one of those responses, Frederick referenced the Righthaven lawsuit against Sharron Angle:
Frederick’s remark, “I even sued her for lifting our material”, is a statement that is of substantial relevance to Defendant’s claims that the Righthaven-client relationship is a sham. It constitutes a public admission by Stephens Media’s then-CEO that he—and by extension, Stephens Media—was truly in control of the Righthaven litigation. It is ironic that several hours before Judge Hunt’s sanctions hearing, Sherman Frederick made a public statement confirming everything that Judge Hunt would find later that same day.

Attorneys for Eiser, who are now litigating against Righthaven in four U.S. courts, requested in the filing that the court withhold ruling on the cross motions to dismiss until Righthaven provides the court with materials from the July 14 hearing. As pointed out in the filing, Hunt not only issued a monetary sanction against Righthaven on that day, he also ordered Righthaven to provide specific materials to every court currently handing a Righthaven case, including items requested in Friday's filing.

South Carolina attorneys representing Dana Eiser include: Todd Kincannon of The Kincannon Firm, Bill Conner of Horger and Conner LLC and Thad Viers of Coastal Law LLC.

See: Eiser's Supplemental Notice Regarding Cross Motions to Dismiss
See: Eiser's Amended Response to Righthaven's Motion to Dismiss

The Kincannon Firm Accepting New Righthaven Targets as Clients

Media Advisory – For Immediate Release, July 14, 2011

The Kincannon Firm Accepting New Righthaven Targets as Clients

Today, Todd Kincannon of The Kincannon Firm announced he is accepting past and present Righthaven defendants as new clients for class action or mass action litigation against Righthaven, its media clients, and others involved in the Righthaven operation.

If you have been sued by Righthaven, even if you have already settled your case, you are invited to call or email. Cases will be taken on contingency, meaning if there is no recovery, clients will not have to pay for The Kincannon Firm’s services.

If you are interested, call The Kincannon Firm at 877-99-COURT or email Todd@TheKincannonFirm.com.

Righthaven Wrangles Over Legal Fees; Hit with New Charges, 'Just a Gang of Con Artists'

UPDATE 07/13/11: TechDirt reports that judge Navarro wasted little time in responding to the situation. In a decision dated July 12, she ordered Righthaven to pay the full fee award by July 25.

New developments occurred this week in the ongoing dispute of attorney's fees in the case against former defendant Michael Leon. On July 5, U.S. District Judge Gloria Navarro's ordered Righthaven to pay attorney Malcolm DeVoy and Randazza Legal Group $3,815 for representing Leon on a pro bono basis. Righthaven allegedly balked at the order, so on Saturday the Randazza firm asked for an injunction against Righthaven, freezing $3,815 of its assets to ensure payment. On Tuesday, Righthaven responded by asking Navarro to temporarily stay judgment of the fee award.

Details of the argument, as reported by VEGAS INC, include that Righthaven is refusing to pay based on the belief that any fee award would go to a non-profit legal group not to opposing council. "Had this fact been made clear, Righthaven would have unquestionably dismissed its claims against Leon with prejudice," they argued. Except that Righthaven did not agree to this and only agreed to dismiss Leon's case without prejudice. Later the same day, the Randazza group filed a brief opposing Righthaven's motion to stay the fee award. See parts of this brief below:

The Firm is well aware of the fact that scores of poor defendants in Righthaven cases have been bullied into making payments to Righthaven, despite the clear indications that the cases had no legally supportable foundation. If Righthaven can simply frustrate pro bono counsel’s efforts to collect fees, there will be less of an incentive for experienced counsel to get involved in these kinds of cases.  For example, while the Electronic Frontier Foundation (“EFF”) is a non-profit entity with a noble mission to protect civil liberties on the Internet, it likely would have found it frustrating to secure co-counsel if there was a certainty that there would be no possible fee award, and no possibility of collecting that award...
--snip--
The undersigned made numerous offers to Righthaven to resolve the attorney’s fee issue at the then much lower costs of the fees by donating them to non-profit entities such as the EFF or the Citizen Media Law Project, which Righthaven rebuffed. The Firm’s interest in rewarding non-profit organizations is evident from the Firm’s Reply briefing in the fee motion dispute. Righthaven cannot now complain that it would have made a different decision, had it only known that a firm, which took this case for public interest purposes, would be the recipient of a fee award rather than a non-profit entity. Not only should it make no difference where the fee award is paid, Righthaven’s “would have, could have, should have,” arguments are not in line with the facts...
--snip--
Finally, it is not as though the relief sought is in any way extreme. All the Firm has sought is the maintenance of the status quo – that Righthaven should not be able to disgorge any of its assets, such as they are, until it pays the lawfully entered fee award. This injunctive relief is so soft in nature that it is shocking that Righthaven would even oppose it – unless it has some design or scheme up its sleeve to do exactly what the undersigned suspects. Righthaven’s stated reason for the stay is to ensure that “potential appealable issues related to the July 5th Order are properly evaluated and, if sufficient grounds exist, allow of adequate time to post any security required for appeal.” A stay would change nothing; the Firm has already met the requirements for a preliminary injunction.

See: Opposition to Temporary Stay of Fees Award

The same VEGAS INC article also addresses the Denise Nichols case, who was not awarded attorney's fees by Navarro on Monday. Former defendant Leon, a friend of Nichols, expressed disappointment, but predicted that "Righthaven will get their comeuppance before the end of this calendar year." Lastly, attorneys for Dana Eiser, who are now litigating against Righthaven in four U.S. courts, filed a new motion Monday. Attorney Todd Kincannon wrote in the filing, "The lies worked for a while, but now the jig is up," and "Righthaven is just a gang of con artists, and bad ones at that."

See: Eiser's Amended Response to Righthaven's Motion to Dismiss
See: Related VEGAS INC article

South Carolina Group (CALA) Granted Approval to Appear as Friend of Court in Pahrump Case

New Attacks Launched on Righthaven Litigation Campaign

In another development, Righthaven will have to deal with South Carolina attorney Todd Kincannon and his group, Citizens Against Litigation Abuse Inc., in the Pahrump Life case in Las Vegas.
Mahan has granted the group’s request to appear as a friend of the court, where it will argue Righthaven has been practicing law without a license.
“The court has reviewed the proposed brief and agrees that it may be useful to the court in ruling on the pending order to show cause why the case should not be dismissed for lack of standing,” Mahan wrote in a June 29 order.

See: Article in full | See: Brief of Amicus Curiae by CALA

The Kincannon law group is already litigating against Righthaven in three courts. Gibson and MediaNews Group (The Denver Post) must really be kicking themselves for filing the case against activist Dana Eieser.

1. State of South Carolina Supreme Court
2. U.S. District Court - District of South Carolina
3. State of South Carolina, County of Charleston - Court of Common Pleas

South Carolina Groups Petition High Court for Injunction Against Righthaven LLC

Petition Underscores "Sham" Assignments

Earlier today, Citizens Against Litigation Abuse, Inc. (CALA) and the Lowcountry 9/12 Project filed a petition for original jurisdiction in the State of South Carolina Supreme Court. Attorneys representing CALA, Righthaven victim Dana Eiser and her nonprofit advocacy group filed the petition. The petitioners seek a declaratory judgment and injunction against Righthaven from proceeding with unauthorized practices of law in South Carolina -- aka sham copyright assignment lawsuits.

The petition cites abusive debt collection cases determined in numerous states including, Utah, New York, Michigan, Wisconsin, New Mexico, West Virginia and Iowa, involving identical assignment lawsuits found to be a "sham perpetrated on the court to enable unauthorized practice of law." Such an assignment-lawsuit-kickback scheme was also addressed by the high court of South Carolina just four years ago and met with a similar fate (cited in the petition: Roberts v. LaConey).

Some illustrative portions from the petition:

Righthaven's overreaching chills freedom of speech and expression.
Were Righthaven solely filing suit against real content pirates instead of innocent people and people who unintentionally commit de minimus infringement, its activities would still violate the law of unauthorized practice, but Righthaven would not post a broader threat to free speech. Such a course of action would require Righthaven to exercise some level of restraint and judgment, something that is apparently impossible within the confines of its offices. A direct result of RIghthaven's sue-first-ask-questions-later strategy has been the severe chilling of legitimate, constitutionally protected speech.
As U.S. District Judge James Mahan noted, "Plaintiff's litigation strategy has a chilling effect on potential fair uses of Righthaven-owned articles, diminishes public access to the facts contained thereif and does nothing to advance the Copyright Act's purpose of promoting artistic creation."(Page 28)
--snip--
The idea of a professional responsibility is entirely lacking in the Righthaven enterprise, and understandably so, because it is not a professional company. Instead of being a respectable law firm, Righthaven calls itself an "enforcer." And that is certainly what Rigthhaven is, in the most pejorative sense of the term. Righthaven's complaints are not requests for a court to remediate injustice, they are clubs used by thugs in the service of a protection racket.
Responsible law firms don't initiate suit over the reposting of four out of 34 paragraphs of a newspaper article. Responsible law firms don't sue disabled people with autism and try to leverage them out of their social security benefits. Responsible law firms don't mandate that opposing counsel lie in a press release as a condition of settlement. Responsible law firms don't try to dismiss with prejudice while claiming to be uninterested in the case, then seek to intervene after being dismissed without prejudice.
But Righthaven is neither responsible nor a law firm. It does not comply with the ethical standards of the profession because it doesn't have to. (Page 29)
--snip--
While the cases cited herein are not crystal clear on this point, it seems extremely likely most if not all of the assignors in those cases were debt collectors collecting real debts of a sum certain that were only due and owing. If the assignment-lawsuit-kickback method is barred as to judgment enforcement and cum-certain debts, it most certainly must reach Righthaven conduct. A debt collector assignee's leverage is almost certainly limited to the true upper limit of the debt. Even an unrepresented, unsophisticated defendant is unlikely to be suckered into paying more than he actually owes on a judgment or a sum-certain debt.
There is far greater need to protect the public from the harm caused by Righthaven. Righthaven isn't using improper means to collect true, legal debts, Righthaven uses improper means to convince targets they have far more exposure than they actually do, tricking them into paying out far more than the claims are worth even if brought by true copyright holders. (Page 31)

See: Petition in full (CALA v. Righthaven LLC)  | See: VEGAS INC article, TechDirt article

The comparison of Righthaven to a "thug bill collector" by the authors of the petition could not be more on point. One must always remember what truly lies beneath Gibson & Company's constitutional law and founding father "clatter" that bubbles up in media stories from time-to-time -- good old-fashioned predatory debt collection. A special thanks to the South Carolina attorney team for pointing to other cases where courts have found similar third party assignments a sham.

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

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!

Eiser Legal Team Files Complaint Against Righthaven & Company

20 Defendants Named and Explained

In Complaint filed Monday, South Carolina-based attorneys representing Dana Eiser and the Lowcountry 9/12 Project allege that Righthaven & Company is engaging in Unfair Trade Practices in South Carolina, as well as: Defamation, Breach of the Duty of Good Faith and Fair Dealing, Breach of the Duty of Good Faith and Fair Dealing Accompanied by a Fraudulent Act, Tortious Interference, and Civil Conspiracy. Defendants named in the complaint:

Righthaven LLC; SI Content Monitor LLC; Net Sortie Systems, LLC; Steve Gibson; Shawn Mangano; Steven Ganim; Anne Pieroni; John Charles Coons; Joseph Chu; Ikenna-Phillip Odunze; Edward Fenno; Fenno Law Firm, LLC; The Denver Post, LLC; MediaNews Group Inc.; Stephens Media LLC; Mark Hinueber; Sherman Frederick; and one or more John Does.

See: Eiser v. Righthaven LLC Civil - Unfair Trade Practices Complaint

According to the Complaint, the case seeks to establish that, "Righthaven is a business now operating in South Carolina whose business model— barratry—is barred by state law and constitutes an unfair trade practice. Barratry is a crime in South Carolina and therefore violates the public policy of this state. Because Righthaven’s sole enterprise violates public policy, it is an unfair trade practice."

The Complaint names and describes each of the defendants (see bottom of this post) then launches into Veil Piercing (Page 6). "Plaintiffs seek to pierce the veil against Righthaven LLC and, by extension, SI Content Monitor LLC and Net Sortie Systems, LLC, and impose personal liability on the owners of those entities. Upon information and belief, these entities are grossly undercapitalized..."

In the Second Cause of Action, Unfair Trade Practices (Page 11), they point out when and likley why Righthaven began focusing on outside council to prosecute cases instead of using in-house council:

81. Plaintiffs submit that it is no coincidence that just as Righthaven realized it would almost certainly be barred from attorney’s fee awards due to all of its lawyers being in-house counsel, Righthaven began focusing on outside counsel to prosecute matters.
82. Upon information and belief, the Fenno Defendants were hired to prosecute the Righthaven v. Eiser mere days or weeks after the filing of the EFF brief.
83. Upon information and belief, Righthaven has not hired a single in-house attorney since the EFF brief was filed in Righthaven v. DiBiase.

In the Third Cause of Action, Defamation (Page 16), they cite Steve Gibson's interview with CNN and Fortune Magazine published in January where Gibson refers to Righthaven defendants as "the infringement community" that "was caught ... not obeying the law" and is "a community of thieves":

102. No privilege attached to the making of the statements. While the statements referenced defendants to a lawsuit (persons Righthaven had “caught”), they were not made in connection with any sort of judicial or legal process, i.e. in open court or in a pleading or settlement demand, etc.
103. Gibson is at fault for the publication.
104. The statements involve claims of copyright infringement, breaking the law, and thievery and are therefore actionable irrespective of special harm. 

In the Fifth Cause of Action, Breach of the Duty of Good Faith and Fair Dealing Accompanied by a Fraudulent Act (Page 20), they call out an interesting Trojan horse allegedly planted by the Denver Post Defendants for the purposes of identifying and tracking persons for prosecution:

127. The Denver Post Defendants used software to surreptitiously insert a code on material copied and pasted from The Denver Post website.
128. For example, when an agent of the Lowcountry 9/12 Group copied the Rosen Letter from The Denver Post and pasted it, the following text was inserted automatically
by The Denver Post’s software: “Read more: Rosen: A letter to the Tea Partyers – The Denver Post http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_16147229#ixzz10NYc7ACn”.
129. The first portion, i.e. “Read more: Rosen: A letter to the Tea Partyers – The Denver Post,” indicates to a reasonable person that The Denver Post is aware the text has been copied and pasted and simply wishes to insert a link back to the article on The Denver Post’s website.
130. Not so. In fact, upon information and belief, that text is inserted merely as a Trojan horse. The real reason for the text is so that it can insert the characters appearing after the pound sign, ixzz10NYc7ACn. This is a unique per-customer code generated to allow The Denver Post to associate a particular pasted copy with a specific customer’s IP address for the purpose of identifying defendants for prosecution—and persecution—by Righthaven.

They later note, "The Denver Post’s software could easily be configured to insert 'Notice: You are violating The Denver Post’s copyright.' Instead, the software tricks unknowing users into believing they have done nothing wrong while simultaneously helping Righthaven sue them later."

As was stated in a recent email to us, "This is an entirely new lawsuit suit brought against Righthaven in South Carolina state court. WOW!" This Complaint is excellent news for all existing and potential future Righthaven victims. It will take some time, however, to more deeply digest.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Defendants Named in Complaint

1. Defendant Righthaven LLC is a Nevada limited liability company.
2. Defendant SI Content Monitor LLC is an Arkansas limited liability company. SIContent Monitor is a member of Righthaven and has a direct, pecuniary interest in theoutcome of Righthaven litigation. See Certificate of Interested Parties filed byRighthaven in Righthaven v. Brommell, No. 2:11-cv-724-RLH-RJJ (D.Nev.). SI ContentMonitor is owned by persons associated with the Stephens family, the namesake ofStephens Media LLC.
3. Defendant Net Sortie Systems, LLC is a Nevada limited liability company. NetSortie Systems, LLC is a member of Righthaven and has a direct, pecuniary interest inthe outcome of Righthaven litigation. Id. Net Sortie Systems, LLC is owned and managedby Defendant Steven Gibson.
4. Together, Defendants SI Content Monitor LLC and Net Sortie Systems, LLC own100% of Righthaven.
5. Defendant Steve Gibson is a Nevada resident and attorney. Gibson is the CEO and manager of Righthaven. Gibson has worked on Righthaven v. Eiser.
6. Defendant Shawn Mangano is a Nevada resident and attorney. Manganofrequently represents Righthaven and has provided notice of intent to seek pro hac vice admission to South Carolina District Court so as to prosecute Righthaven v. Eiser.
7. Defendant Steven Ganim is a Nevada resident and a Florida attorney. Ganim is anemployee of Righthaven. Ganim has worked on Righthaven v. Eiser.
8. Defendant Anne Pieroni is a Nevada resident and attorney. Pieroni is a formeremployee of Righthaven. Pieroni has worked on Righthaven v. Eiser.
9. Defendant John Charles Coons is a Nevada resident and attorney. Coons is aformer employee of Righthaven.
10. Defendant Joseph Chu is a Nevada resident and attorney. Chu is a formeremployee of Righthaven.
11. Defendant Ikenna-Phillip Odonze is a Nevada resident and attorney. Odonze is aformer employee of Righthaven. Odonze has worked on Righthaven v. Eiser.
12. Defendant Edward Fenno is a South Carolina attorney residing in CharlestonCounty. Defendant Fenno is the owner and manager of Defendant Fenno Law Firm, LLC.
13. Defendant Fenno Law Firm, LLC is a South Carolina limited liability companywhose principle place of business is in Charleston County. Fenno and his firmrepresented Righthaven in Righthaven v. Eiser until withdrawing on May 18, 2011.
14. Defendant The Denver Post, LLC is a Colorado limited liability company.
15. Defendant MediaNews Group Inc. is a Colorado for-profit corporation.
16. Defendants The Denver Post, LLC and MediaNews Group Inc. operate TheDenver Post newspaper in Denver, Colorado and will be referred to as “The Denver PostDefendants.”
17. Defendant Stephens Media LLC operates the Las Vegas Review-Journalnewspaper in Las Vegas, Nevada.
18. Defendant Mark Hinueber is a Nevada resident and attorney. Hinueber is VicePresident and General Counsel of Stephens Media LLC.
19. Defendant Sherman Frederick was at times relevant to this action a CEO andcolumnist for Defendant Stephens Media LLC. Defendant Frederick is no longer CEObut remains employed as a consultant and columnist for Defendant Stephens Media LLC.
20. One or more John Doe Defendants are included in this action whose identities arenot presently known to Plaintiffs. This category includes but is not necessarily limited topersons directly associated with the Righthaven scheme and persons with management responsibilities over Righthaven associates. Plaintiffs will seek leave to amend the Complaint in this action as the identities of such individuals come to light.

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

It's Gotta Hurt: Motion for Attorney Edward Fenno to Withdraw from Dana Eiser Case

Journalist Steve Green of the Las Vegas Sun (and sister newspaper VEGAS INC) recently reported that "Righthaven may need to find a new local attorney in South Carolina" in its case against Dana Eiser of Summerville. In December, Eiser posted a Denver Post column, "A Letter to the Tea Partyers," to her nonprofit advocacy website. Attorney Edward Fenno filed court papers May 17 saying he’s withdrawing from the case for undisclosed reasons. A judge has yet to rule on Fenno's motion.

Righthaven LLC v. Dana Eiser
MOTION FOR WITHDRAWAL OF APPEARANCE AND TO STAY PROCEEDINGS
Movant, Edward T. Fenno (“Counsel”), respectfully moves for withdrawal of his appearance as counsel for Plaintiff / Counter-Defendant Righthaven LLC (“Righthaven”) in the above-referenced matter, and to stay proceedings in this matter for fourteen (14) days to allow Righthaven opportunity to obtain substitute counsel. In support thereof, Counsel states the following:
1. Counsel’s withdrawal is permissible under the South Carolina Rules of Professional Conduct pursuant to Rule 1.16(b)(1) (“withdrawal can be accomplished without material adverse effect on the interests of the client”); Rule 1.16(b)(5) (“the client fails substantially to fulfill an obligation to the lawyer regarding the lawyer’s services or payment therefore and has been given reasonable warning that the lawyer will withdraw unless the obligation is fulfilled”); Rule 1.16(b)(6) (“the representation will result in an unreasonable financial burden on the lawyer or has been rendered unreasonably difficult by the client”); and/or Rule 1.16(b)(7) (“other good cause for withdrawal exists”).

See: Motion in full

Related articles:
Counterclaims Stack Up Against Righthaven; Latest Asserts Malicious Prosecution Claim
Eiser's Attorneys Reject Demand; Offer Righthaven Chance to Settle by Paying $250,000
Eiser Team Releases More Correspondence; Righthaven Drops Domain Seizure Demand

Eiser Team Releases More Correspondence; Righthaven Drops Domain Seizure Demand

Righthaven Defendant Cites Lies, Releases Correspondence

In a letter from Fenno to one of Eiser's attorneys, J. Todd Kincannon, Fenno asked what grounds Eiser may sue Fenno for and said there was no basis for abuse of process, malicious prosecution or defamation claims.
"If you are considering filing suit against my firm or me, I request that you set forth the grounds in a letter to my attention (or even in a draft complaint for me to review) and give us a chance to explain our side of the facts and law before you actually proceed with filing a suit," Fenno wrote.
That drew a heated response from Kincannon, who wrote back: "Did you give my client that opportunity? Did you send Dana Eiser a list of things you were planning to sue her for prior to filing?"
"You should be embarrassed to ask for a courtesy you didn’t show my client prior to suing her...

See: Article in full