Oct 29, 2011

Legal Fight Against Net Troll Moves to Its Parasite Lawyer, Shawn Mangano

Image - Leon

Update: Deadline Passes on Paying Decorated Vietnam War Vet, Wayne Hoehn: Defendant Again Asks Judge to Allow Seizure of Righthaven's Assets

Wayne Hoehn was awarded $34,045 in attorneys’ fees and cost against a deceitful, fraudulent Internet troll, Righthaven LLC, that threatens to throw the sleazy outfit into bankruptcy.

After a series of Righthaven shenanigans dodging this Vietnam veteran’s judgement and those of other prevailing defendants, Hoehn's attorneys have had enough and have filed an extraordinary sanctions motion against Righthaven's attorney, Shawn Mangano.

By Michael Leon

Randazza Legal Group, Hoehn's attorneys and this writer's [who prevailed over Righthaven], also represent other victimized clients in their intellectual property and First Amendment law practice and have won case after case against Righthaven.

Righthaven seems to have a thing for ripping off veterans; just ask Denise Nichols. See also veterans come together to fight Righthaven.

Another ongoing case involves Righthaven victim, NewsBlaze LLC. Chief U.S. District Court for Nevada Judge Robert C. Jones, "said he planned to dismiss the NewsBlaze case based on Righthaven’s lack of standing." (Green. Vegas Inc)

Righthaven's MO is that it pretends to hold copyrights, claims federal copyright violations, serves defendants federal lawsuits and tries to scare defendants into a settlement.

Despite losing case after case, Righthaven's attorney, Shawn Mangano, is still proposing arguments so intellectually dishonest that he personally has garnered this sanctions motion.

Righthaven’s shake-down operation has already earned it sanctions by a federal judge ruling that Righthaven has not acquired copyrights, and its contentions are “flagrantly false,” “disingenuous,” if not “deceitful.” [U.S. District Judge Roger Hunt]

Righthaven has filed some 275 federal copyright lawsuits claiming text from the Las Vegas Review-Journal and [formerly] the Denver Post has been used without regard to copyright law by the Internet users including bloggers and message board posters.

Righthaven's con game is now blown, so its objective now is to irritate and annoy prevailing defendants, while driving up their legal costs unreasonably and vexatiously [with the purpose to annoy] by making arguments already rejected in endless proceedings, and then declaring bankruptcy.

I have experienced the downfall of Righthaven on a personal level as a prevailing defendant [it's my fervent hope that Righthaven feels sorry it ever met me] and I can tell you that a score of socially minded attorneys who defended veterans, Tea Party members, the Democratic Underground and many others across the nation deserve the thanks of all Americans who believe in liberty.

Writes Steve Green:
... Randazza attorneys wrote in their sanctions motion Tuesday that, 'Righthaven’s scheme has been rejected nationwide.'

'Yet, only days away from Halloween, the defendants in this action continue to bear the costs of litigation establishing Righthaven’s lack of standing,' their filing said.

'Righthaven and its counsel have a duty to dismiss this case, and not to waste the court’s time or the defendant’s time and resources in making the exact same arguments, which have been rejected again, and again, and again and again,' the Randazza filing said.

Randazza attorney J. Malcolm DeVoy IV complained that in the Hoehn case and in another suit against Michael Leon, in which Righthaven was ordered to pay $3,815 in fees, Righthaven 'has evinced a reticence to pay.'

He charged that while Righthaven has appealed several adverse rulings, it has yet to file an opening brief in its first appeal that was due Sept. 19.

'This appeal appears to be another stall tactic for Righthaven to deny the defendant in that case, and the First Amendment principles its fair use victory embraces, any finality,' DeVoy’s brief said.
Argues DeVoy in his brief:
Righthaven abused the Copyright Act by using it as a pretense for extortive litigation, suing defendants for damages up to $150,000 without having the right to bring the case, and without so much as considering the defendants’ fair use rights.2 Righthaven’scampaign has been an abject failure; even its own client publicly referred to it as a “dumb idea.”3 If a party or lawyer is expected to read the metaphorical “writing on the wall,” that party and that lawyer should be expected to take note when the wall collapses and falls upon them, leaving nothing more than a dusty pile of litigation rubble. In this case, Righthaven not only seems to insist that the wall has not fallen, but does so while still hurling the dislodged stones at this defendant. It must stop.
2. 2 See Righthaven v. Nat’l Org. for Reform of Marijuana Laws, Case No. 2:10-cv- 00351 (Doc. #30) (D. Nev. June 4,2010) (accepting offer of judgment for $2,815 in satisfaction of infringement claim); Righthaven v. Rawlings et al.,Case No. 2:10-cv-01527 (Doc. # 25) (D. Nev. June 28, 2011) (settling Righthaven’s infringement claim for $1,000, at a rate of $100 per month).
3. John Paton, New Chief Executive Of Media News Group Says Joining Righthaven Was "A Dumb Idea", The Huffington Post (Sept. 10, 2011)
Another champion covering Righthaven's fraud saga is Righthaven Victims:

Writes Fairuser:

Defendants' Newsblaze LLC and Alan Gray filed a motion in federal court Tuesday asking the court to impose sanctions on Shawn Mangano, counsel for Righthaven LLC for "unreasonably and vexatiously multiplying the proceedings" in their case. The defendants say they bring the motion reluctantly, but believe Righthaven's litigation campaign in their case has gone "beyond zealous advocacy" and has become "vexatious, unnecessarily multiplicative, and purposely wasteful." Defendants ask the court to impose sanctions of $11,925.50 -- the amount of defendants' attorneys' fees since July 2011. [Quoting DeVoy]:
Though sought with great reservation, the facts of this case and Mangano’s conduct across numerous cases in this district cry out for the imposition of sanctions under 28 U.S.C. § 1927. Months after Righthaven’s lack of standing was determined by the Democratic Underground court and confirmed by at least six other decisions in this District, Righthaven’s counsel still requires defendants to litigate the same precluded issues, either seeking to create inconsistent precedent or punish assertive defendants who do not wish to settle. Whether this strategy was Mangano’s or Righthaven’s (to which Mangano acceded), it is ultimately Righthaven’s Counsel who decides what arguments are presented to the Court – and must bear the consequences of those actions.
See: Defendants' Motion for Sanctions Against Counsel

Partial list of attorneys fighting against Righthaven LLC

No comments:

Post a Comment