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

Updated - Wisconsin Man on Bleeding Edge Against Notorious Internet Troll, Righthaven

Righthaven LLC [Image - Michael Leon]

Update: Trailblazing attorney, Todd Kincannon of The Kincannon Firm announced he is accepting past and present Righthaven defendants as new clients for class action ( 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 http://www.blogger.com/Todd@TheKincannonFirm.com.

In the intersection of Copyright, First Amendment and Fair Use law, Righhaven LLC, Shawn Mangano and his associates, stand out as what legal experts refer to as: Trash. Attorneys await sanctions hearing today.

Update: Righthaven LLC fined $5,000 for misleading the court about its lawsuits. Attorneys for Righthaven were not personally punished by Judge Hunt. [Steve Green] Righthaven likely does not realize this, but once you have been sanctioned for misrepresentations, Rule 11 violations and state bar sanctions often follow, especially for this now-infamous lawsuit mill. Every motion can now can refer to this ruling by Judge Hunt.

After Righthaven saw its case dismissed against me 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 with several media such items when dealing with Righthaven; in this case I recorded the some 10-minute conversation-monologue].

With the help of my brilliant First Amendment and Copyright attorney, J. Malcolm Deyoy [J.D. - University of Wisconsin Law School, cum laude], we have found ourselves on the leading edge of helping to destroy a billionaire-backed Internet Troll operation.

As Steve Green notes, "Righthaven is the company that since March 2010 has filed 274 lawsuits claiming material from the Las Vegas Review-Journal and the Denver Post has been misappropriated by website operators, bloggers and message board posters."

I became the first prevailing defendant after the revealing of the Strategic Alliance Agreement (SAA) scheme, won by Laurence Pulgram, "an attorney associated with the Electronic Frontier Foundation with the San Francisco law firm Fenwick and West LLP," representing the excellent political site, the Democratic Underground, another prevailing defendant. [Green]

The SAA [since amended twice] reveals Righthaven has no standing to pursue federal copyright complaints, and further that they have misrepresented their subject matter jurisdiction declaration in some 275 cases.

I became the first defendant awarded fees by Righthaven, ordered to be paid by July 25. See Judge to Righthaven: Pay Randazza by July 25.

Of course, Attorney Deyoy has not acted alone.

A motley group of lawyers, writers, tea partiers, veterans, and activists working for free speech and justice have counterattacked this troll, as chronicled by a brilliant writer, one Steve Green of the Las Vegas Sun and Vegas Inc and Righthaven Victims.

A timeline

• Case dismissed - April 20
• Leon's Attys' fees [$3,815.00] awarded - July 5
• Leon's Attys file motion for preliminary injunction barring Righthaven from disgorging $3,815 of liquid assets until it pays Randazza Legal Group’s fees - July 12
• Righthaven files motion for 30-day stay of award - July 12

Righthaven Business Model

• Court orders Righthaven to Pay Up Legal Fees Owed by July 25th - July 13

After a series of fair use and subject matter jurisdiction losses for which federal Chief Justice Roger Hunt has admonished Righthaven for being "deceitful," Righthavan and certainly some of its attorneys are on the ropes. Yet, they keep filing copyright complaints, to the astonishment of Intellectual Property lawyer with whom I have spoken to in the Midwest.



Veteran Wayne Hoehn Beats Toll

 One seriously does not know if Righthaven and Shawn Mangano are delusional or foolish, but the array of legal talent amassed against them would appear to be daunting to any rational human being.

Consider David Kerr of  Santangelo Law Offices, PC, Deyon and Randazza of the  Randazza Legal Group, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and the law firm of Wilson, Sonsini, Goodrich & Rosati, Kurt Opsahl, Chad Bowers, and Laurence Pulgram and Fenwick and West LLP, among other committed First Amendment and copyright law attorneys, and writer such as Steve Green and Righthaven Victims.

I change my mind, Righthaven is delusional.

At press time, Righthaven attorney Shawn Mangano is facing a sanctions hearing in the courtroom of chief United States District Court Judge in Nevada, Roger Hunt who reportedly hates being lied to in open court and court representations.

"Like a leech—or perhaps a tick—the copyright lawyers at Righthaven latch on tight and don't let go, even as their cases have begun to crumble around them. Instead, they're doubling down on their lawsuit strategy against individual bloggers who repost an article or two," writes Nate Anderson.

Stay tuned.

See more at Righthaven LLC.

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.