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

• David Kerr
• J. Malcolm DeVoy IV of the Randazza Legal Group)
• Marc J. Randazza, counsel of record and lead attorneyRandazza Legal Group
• Todd Kincannon of The Kincannon Firm
• Electronic Frontier Foundation
• Fenwick and West LLP,
• Las Vegas attorney, Chad Bowers
• Mike Kimbrell of Nevada
• John Arsenault of Colorado
• Laurence Pulgram
• Kurt Opsahl
• Clyde DeWitt
• Jason Schultz

Righthaven Takes Drubbing at Hands of Vietnam War Vet, Wayne Hoehn‏



Righthaven LLC [Image - Michael Leon]



Win for Randazza Legal Group
- Federal Judge Rejects New, May 9 'Clarification' of Strategic Alliance Agreement -

By Michael Leon

Highly decorated Vietnam War-era veteran, Wayne Hoehn, believes in duty.

Wayne Hoehn

When Internet Troll and inveterate liars, Righthaven LLC [aka Wronghaven], hit Hoehn with a federal lawsuit alleging copyright violations, Hoehn fought back, and then contributed to the defence of fellow veteran and fellow Righthaven victim, Denise Nichols, who also prevailed in her case with Wronghaven.

United States District Court Judge for the District of Nevada, Justice Philip M. Pro, granted Wayne Hoehn's motion to dismiss for lack of standing today, additionally finding that Righthaven's May 9 clarification of its revealed Strategic Alliance Agreement "does not provide Righthaven with any exclusive rights necessary to bring suit.

Justice Pro found that the necessary elements of copyright ownership are not met by the "May 9, 2011 clarification [that] provides Righthaven with only an illusory right to exploit or profit from the [copyrighted] Work."

Pro also granted Hoehn's motion for summary judgement on fair use grounds, finding that Hoehn's reproduction is non-commercial and not harmful to Righthaven, which in any event has no standing.

The ruling represents a legal drubbing for Righthaven LLC and follows a repudiation of Righthaven in the Democratic Underground case by U.S. District Judge Roger Hunt.

Other veterans targeted by Righthaven, including Denise Nichols, Larry Scott, and the POW Network, are now or may seek costs of past settlements and attorneys' fees as Righthaven has been operating its lawsuit mill under the claim that it owned sufficient rights in its copyright suits, a position Justice Hunt said is, "flagrantly false—to the point that the claim is disingenuous if not outright deceitful."

See: Order to Dismiss: Righthaven v. Wayne Hoehn.

Righthaven's Atty, Shawn Mangano, Is Desperate

Notorious Internet troll, Righthaven's Shawn Mangano, is turning into one Scaredy Cat.

After Righthaven saw its case dismissed by the Honorable Judge Gloria M. Navarro on April 20, Righthaven's attorney, Shawn Mangano, phoned me from Nevada and unleashed a stream of invectives at about 4:20 P.M. Central time [I log and document such items when dealing with Righthaven].

Made for an amusing conversation; though I sincerely was concerned about Mangano suffering a stroke in the Nevada heat though he phoned from some outfit entitled "Investors Realt [cut off]" on caller ID. Made some other significant, shall I say, documentation of the phone call.

Now, Righthaven Victims reports at least three legal groups are donating their work pro bono in an apparent bid to rid the profession of these vampires.

In an e-mail to my attorney at the time, J. Malcolm Deyoy of the Randazza Legal Group, Mangano complained about a number of statements made by his-then client, me, embarrassing Mangano repeatedly.

One complaint concerns Righthaven's attorney, Steven Ganim. Ganim is not licensed to practice law in Nevada.

Writing this fact, first reported by Righthaven Victims, [see also Righthaven Turnover Rate Resembles Fast Food Chain Operation, April 18, 2011] made Mangano very angry and threatening.

Writes Mangano to my attorney in a letter dated April 19, "Your client has also disseminated that Mr. Ganim is apparently not a member of the State Bar of Nevada. In doing so, your client has attempted to cast the impression that Mr. Ganim is holding himself out an attorney when he is not licensed to do so. Once again your client is wrong."

Mangano threatened to sue me for libel for telling the truth. Absurd as usual.

Righthaven Victims has a new, related update: "Another Attorney Defending a Righthaven Victim on a Pro Bono basis Seeks Attorney Fees" (May 13).

‘Casting an impression' as libel, a novel interpretation of libel law applied to stating an undisputed fact. So here:

Attorney Mangano of Wronghaven LLC,

Here's what I want from you. I want you to call Ganim and borrow Bar materials on the elements of "libel" and study very hard. You can help Ganim pass the Nevada Bar and kill two birds at once.

Then I want you to study Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 11, (b) Representations to the Court and likewise study very hard.

The same for Summary Judgement.

No apologies necessary. Just bone up on the law.

Do not waste the Court's time. Bad form, fella.

Oh, and quit screwing over decorated veterans like Wayne Hoehn. I like that guy.

Wronghaven goes down again!

Updated: "Party Denise Nichols terminated per [43] Notice of Voluntary Dismissal. (ASB)"
Righthaven Internet troll serves complaint that fails to mention defendant, now says defendant fails to negotiate in good faith in dismissal talks

In a bizarre turn of events, Righthaven LLC is now requesting a dismissal with prejudice of its own complaint in order to avoid paying the attorneys' fees of Denise Nichols, a retired Air Force nurse who served in the Vietnam War era and the first Gulf War.

Righthaven says in a motion filed May 5 that the defendant, Nichols who is battling Gulf War illness as a patient and advocate and is demanding attorneys' fees and costs, is refusing to negotiate in "good faith."

In an April 20 hearing, Judge Gloria M. Navarro of the federal District Court for Nevada ruled that the case against Nichols would be dismissed, and the only point to be decided was whether the absurd case would be dismissed with or without prejudice.

To understand this case, consider this hypothetical.

Suppose I file a complaint against you, the reader. I fail to mention you, the reader, in the complaint; but I demand $150,000 and plaintiff attorneys' fees and costs from you anyway. You then hire defense attorneys, but when you demand attorneys' fees and costs in negotiations for the defense of the absurd complaint, I say you are failing to negotiate in "good faith."

That's Righthaven's position. Negotiations have proven futile.

Nichols even volunteered in negotiations to give Righthaven a non-disclosure clause so it would not look as foolish as it does today. Righthaven rebuffed the offer in April.

The stress of the federal lawsuit on Nichols and her family is intense and ongoing. "I just want this to go away. And I want to be made whole for what I paid my attorneys. Righthaven refuses," said Nichols this morning.

Righthaven claims the motion and its negotiations "accurately (reflect) its desire to dismiss this action against Nichols in view of her extensive prior military service to the Untied (sic) States of America and in view of her apparent medical condition."

Righthaven cares about veterans and the disabled? This contention is what legal experts refer to as: Bullshit.

"These people have extended no courtesy to any defendant, veteran or disabled. That's the truth of the matter," said Nichols. "Where was the concern for negotiating for the straight-to-court federal suit filed in the first place? I'm still shaking my head. I want to get out of this alive and whole. But will Righthaven play ball?"

No, Righthaven is asking for the case to be dismissed with prejudice (meaning roughly it would be difficult for Righthaven to bring other similar suits), but is saying the defendant is refusing to negotiate in "good faith" because of Righthaven's refusal to consider paying Nichols' attorneys' fees and costs.

The absurd becomes real.

That's crazy? No, that's Righthaven.

Veterans Come Together to Oppose Righthaven

By Denise Nichols

On April 20, I listened from the D.C. Veterans hospital complex by phone to a legal hearing in front of the Honorable Judge Gloria M. Navarro, United States District Court for the District of Nevada.

The hearing pertained to my case, Righthaven v. Michael Leon, Denise Nichols and others.

Judge Navarro made it clear in the hearing almost immediately that this hearing would dismiss the cases against my co-defendant, Mike Leon--a proud veterans’ advocate--and me.

The only question, the Judge said, was whether she would dismiss the cases with or, without prejudice.

So, now with Judge Navarro’s decision, and because of the efforts of my friends, my fellow veterans and my attorneys (Mike Kimbrell and John Arsenaul) Righthaven will be gone from my life, though some personal health matters just diagnosed in D.C. may persist.

Wayne Hoehn

My purpose in part in writing this is to say ‘ thank you’ to all, and single out another defendant, another veteran who is a victim of Righthaven, Wayne Hoehn, who out of a sense of duty that Righthaven will never comprehend contacted from out of the blue and supported me in my defense.

Wayne Hoehn: A Vietnam veteran with a Silver Star, Bronze Star Medals (2) bronze oak leaf clusters with V for valor devices, Purple Heart Medal, Air Medal with numeral 2, Army Medal with numeral 2, National Defense Service Medal,Vietnam Service Medal with 2 Bronze Service Stars, Combat Service Medal, Vietnam Campaign Service Ribbon with Device 1960 and the Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross with Palm Unit

In Wayne’s case, Righthaven LLC v. Hoehn, Righthaven attacks another veteran, a highly decorated Vietnam veteran.

What is it about veterans—Larry Scott, POW Network, Veterans Today, Wayne Hoehn and who knows who else that Righthaven hates so much?

I have served 20 years as a nurse, active duty and reserve, and I know that surviving is about staying together.

Maybe that's it.

Staying together

Righthaven lawsuits against veterans, retirees and disabled persons that are particularly unable to fight this situation inflicted upon them, aims for people who are isolated and unable to fight back.

Is there someway to protect veterans, active duty, national guard, reserves, retirees, their family members or the disabled from being suing by Righthaven? There should be. 

The big guns right now that will silence this despicable anti-veteran, anti-people lawsuit mill are focusing on subject matter jurisdiction and legal positions that may be read as purporting fraud on the part of Righthaven and its attorneys. Randazza Legal Group, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), Fenwick and West, David Kerr and several others are doing a tremendous public service.

Righthaven may find out in the coming months that veterans may be the one class of people that right at this time possess a particular ability to come together.

Below are veterans [that's me on the left] getting together to discuss Gulf War syndrome in the Women at war trailer.

Righthaven Case Against MAL Dismissed

Thanks to the work of an array of brilliant attorneys and friends, [hat tip to J. Malcolm DeVoy of Randazza Legal Group], Righthaven's case against me was dismissed (without prejudice) this morning by the Honorable Judge Gloria M. Navarro, United States District Court for the District of Nevada.

See Righthaven LLC v. Michael Leon, et al; Civil Action No 2:10-CV-01672-GMM-LRN.

The status of litigation against my co-defendant, Denise Nichols, a Vietnam-era, Gulf War veteran, and a retired U.S. Air Force flight nurse—who spends her time when not fighting off ailments sustained in the '91 Gulf War—helping other veterans is not yet clear.

Nichols' attorney, a respected former JAG attorney, is fighting the good fight.

Nichols listened to this morning's proceedings by phone from a D.C. veterans' hospital.

The strain of the case by Righthaven LLC on Nichols is heavy, and to be candid, I'm worried about her. She's too proud to say it; but her health is suffering badly.

Denise Nichols deserves better.

Being a defendant in a federal lawsuit is no picnic. But I'm lucky. I have encountered so many dedicated, brilliant and humanistic people since being served with a summons on March 6, that I truly feel rejuvenated.

Righthaven LLC hinted they may bring a libel or defamation suit against me for God knows what reason. I think they didn't like my references to and citing from the Democratic Underground's case against Righthaven, and my standing with Nichols.

In any event, this site is committed to the defense of Denise Nichols, whose perseverance, support and grace through this ordeal has left me both inspired and humbled.

To Denise: You have a lot of more friends than you may know. We will stay in touch, and I am proud to stand with you.

Anyone wishing to support Nichols with legal advice or financial assistance can reach me at: malleon@live.com. I will make sure that Denise and her team gets what is sent.

Kurt Opsahl: Righthaven lacks exclusive copyright ownership of Stephens Media news articles

Wronghaven

Read supporting documents at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, including Righthaven's secret Strategic Alliance Agreement that Righthaven fought to keep from public view. Righthaven LLC is threatening to sue MAL for defending veteran Maj Denise Nichols (ret) and attacking Righthaven's inclination to ... sue.

Commentary by Kurt Opsahl in the Electronic Frontier Foundation:

For several weeks EFF and co-counsel Fenwick & West have been trying to persuade a federal district court to unseal a critical document Stephens Media produced in Righthaven v. Democratic Underground. The document, the Strategic Alliance Agreement between Righthaven and Stephens Media (publisher of the Las Vegas Review-Journal), and our accompanying supplemental brief were unsealed on [last] Friday.

As the court explained, “Righthaven and Stephens Media have attempted to create a cottage industry of filing copyright claims, making large claims for damages and then settling claims for pennies on the dollar, with defendants who do not want to incur the costs of defending the lawsuits.” While Righthaven’s business is suing bloggers for copyright infringement, it is not a publisher. It does not produce the works that are the basis for its numerous lawsuits. Instead, it trolls the Internet, looking for news articles published by Stephens Media (Las Vegas Review-Journal) or Media News Group ( Denver Post) and, when it finds them, gets the publisher to “assign” the copyright so it can file a lawsuit. At least, that was the public story.

Getting this assignment right was essential because copyright law does not permit a person to sue for infringement unless that person’s own copyrights (e.g., the rights to reproduce and distribute a work) are actually being infringed. In other words, you have to have some real skin in the game. Thus, in each lawsuit, Righthaven alleged ownership of the copyright rights. ...

As the Court correctly noted, “consider[ing] the multitude of cases filed by Righthaven, on the claimed basis that Righthaven owns the copyrights to certain Stephens Media copy, it appears to the Court that there is certainly an interest and even a right in all the other defendants sued by Plaintiff to have access to this material.” Now that the Agreement is public, Stephens Media and Righthaven have a lot of explaining to do. Per the Court’s order, the companies might start by explaining why the Strategic Alliance Agreement does not torpedo their case against Democratic Underground (their justification is due by May 8). We look forward to responding.

Righthaven Turnover Rate Resembles Fast Food Chain Restaurant

Distasteful Parasite Resembles Atty Shawn Mangano

From the Righthaven Victims Network:

One Righthaven Attorney  [reportedly] Not Even Registered with the Nevada State Bar

Just how many months can a Righthaven attorney be expected to do the heavy lifting in their ongoing sham copyright claims? According to the Las Vegas Sun, not very long.

Righthaven observers note another attorney for the firm, Anne Pieroni, has left Righthaven for undisclosed reasons. Attorneys John Charles Coons, Joseph Chu and Ikenna Odunze left earlier.

One has to wonder how Righthaven employment on a résumé is perceived by potential new employers? As for the unnamed new [Righthaven] attorney, one has to wonder the questions thrown out in the interview process: Are you up for the task of being a:

• copyright troll
• copyright extortionist
• parasitic bottom feeder
• perpetrating a fraud upon the court
• engaging in unclean hands and more

Are you up to squeezing autistic individuals on a fixed income, or having your correspondences leaked to the media? (Pieroni and Odunze have since left the firm.)

Are you up to "name-calling and saber-rattling" in what observers believe to be a set-up for a recusal motion, which may invite severe consequences? It's unknown how long attorneys Shawn Mangano and Steve Ganim will last.

Attorney Steven Ganim is [reportedly] not even registered as a member of the Nevada State Bar.

Righthaven Copyright Troll Targets Pro-Veteran Groups and Advocates

Righthaven LLC as Troll

Update: Sources report Righthaven LLC, the embarrassment to the legal profession and lowest scum to crawl out of the gutter of Las Vegas, is the subject of multiple major press stories coming out in the coming weeks. U.S. District Judge John Kane: Courts will not be used as tools to exact settlements from intimidated defendants afraid of high costs of litigation and alleged liabilities

Righthaven LLC is a new business model that is organized to abuse the judicial process in its search for potential defendants to sue.

Now Righthaven is targeting veterans and advocates for veterans.

As reported by the Las Vegan Sun, Righthaven, “detects (alleged copyright) infringements, obtains copyrights to the stories at issue and then retroactively sues the alleged infringers.”

A very partial list of Righthaven lawsuits reveals a "sue-first-ask-questions-later," gutter operation run out of Las Vegas abusing its way to 100s and 100s of lawsuits the number of which appears to grow almost by the day.

From the Righthaven Victims Network:

Righthaven LLC -- a bottom feeding legal outfit -- has teamed up with the Las Vegas Review-Journal and the Denver Post [among over 100 media outlets] to sue 'mom and pop' websites, advocacy and public interest groups and forum board operators for copyright violations. The strategy of Righthaven is to sue thousands of these websites and counts on the fact that many are unfunded and will be forced to settle out of court. Most cases are being filed in a Nevada Federal Court and [according to Righthaven] must be fought in this jurisdiction.

From the late and great Larry Scott to the POW Network to a Gulf War trauma nurse veteran, Denise Nichols [whom Righthaven appears to be attempting to drive to her grave by inflicting stress through litigation], to Veterans Today, to Michael Leon, the list of veteran advocates and writers across the political spectrum under target is growing.

But so is the pushback against Righthaven, led by a federal judge.

The legal-political tide is definitely turning:

From Joe Mullin at Yahoo Finance:

Court orders from [Tuesday] and Thursday make it clear that the judge overseeing the [Righthaven defendant Brian Hill's] case has great distaste for Righthaven’s sue-first-ask-questions-later business model. The problem for Righthaven is that the same judge—U.S. District Judge John Kane—is handling all 58 of the lawsuits the company has filed in Colorado. ...

Judge John L Kane of the Federal Court of the District of Colorado ruled 'against Righthaven stating his court will not be used as a tool to encourage and exact settlements from defendants who may be intimidated due to the high cost of litigation and potential liabilities. Thus cutting to the heart of Righthaven's business model.'

Righthaven is also targeting Veterans Today.

Veterans Today describes itself as "a journal representing the position of members of the military and veteran community in areas of national security, geopolitical stability and domestic policy .... the only independent, unaligned voice of its kind in America, accepting no financial support from any organization or individual, existing solely for educational purposes."

Reading between the lines of this shadowy group, best I can tell the site is run by ex-intel and ex-special forces American military personnel with a long reach into many spheres of intelligence, geo-political and international covert ops.

Reaching Veterans Today is like finding life on Mars, and Righthaven which has numerous suits pending against Veterans Today calls them in court documents, an "entity of unknown orgin and nature."

I'm guessing Righthaven just stepped into some deep waters with funny undertows.

In any event, here's an open statement to Righthaven: Nobody likes a scumbag.

And the Tenth Circuit of the United States District Court system really doesn't like these scumbags.

To 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 virtually 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]

Attorneys litigating in the federal court system are expected to be diligent about the facts presented to the Court. But this cookie-cutter nonsense litigating is absurd on its face.

I'm no lawyer, but the above example of Righthaven simultaneously claiming two venues for the same complaint sure does appear to be a violation of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure III. PLEADINGS AND MOTIONS; Rule 11. Signing Pleadings, (b) Representations to the Court.

(b) Representations to the Court.

By presenting to the court a pleading, written motion, or other paper — whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating it — an attorney or unrepresented party certifies that to the best of the person's knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances:

(1) it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation;

(2) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or for establishing new law;

(3) the factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery; and

(4) the denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence or, if specifically so identified, are reasonably based on belief or a lack of information.