Net Troll Co-Defendant Lose Motion, Wins Battle

By Michael Leon

Denise Nichols served 20 years during the Vietnam War and Gulf War as a military era as a military nurse saving the lives of our servicemen and women. In her retirement, she spends her time advocating for veterans, efforts for which she became a target of Righthaven LLC, a notorious Internet troll and as anti-American an outfit as you will ever encounter.

For Denise Nichols' efforts for veterans, earlier this year she was hit a with a $150,000 federal copyright complaint that failed ONCE even to mention her in the complaint. Welcome to the World of Righthaven.

As the Steve Green reports today: U.S. District Judge Gloria Navarro

rejected a request by [Michael] Leon’s co-defendant and fellow veterans' advocate, Denise Nichols, that she require Righthaven to reimburse her for $1,500-$1,600 in legal costs.

After settlement talks broke down between Righthaven and Nichols in the suit over an alleged infringement of a Denver Post column, Righthaven dropped its suit against Nichols with prejudice – meaning it can’t sue her again over the same alleged infringement. ...

Nichols, who lives in the Denver area, says she has symptoms of Gulf War syndrome illnesses from her combat service in the first Gulf War, Desert Storm, and that the stress of Righthaven’s no-warning lawsuit is threatening to harm her health further.

What happens is Judge Navarro very early in an April 20 hearing gave Nichols and me a choice to:

• Have our respective cases dismissed with prejudice, with no attorneys' fee
• Have our respective cases dismissed without prejudice, with attoneys' fees

I lucked out and was able to receive the services of attorney J. Malcolm Devoy of the Randazza Legal Group who advised a dismissal without prejudice, with attoneys' fees, in light of the apparent lack of standing and deceitful nature of Righthaven.

I became the first prevailing defendant after it came to light that Righthaven, as revealed by its Strategic Alliance Agreement (SAA), has no standing to sue, a revelation that showed Righthaven to be guilty of "fraud upon the Copyright Office," as well as deceiving defendants and federal judges.

Righthave lies in federal court even now as my attoneys attempt to collect what they were awarded.

Righthaven responded on Tuesday, asking Judge Navarro to temporarily stay judgment of her fee award "so that it can properly evaluate any potential appealable issues" in her fee ruling.

"As the court is certainly aware, Righthaven’s counsel dismissed the action against Leon without prejudice based on the belief that any resulting fee award would be made to a non-profit legal organization. Counsel certainly did not believe this `non-profit legal organization’ would be opposing counsel’s law firm. Had this fact been made clear, Righthaven would have unquestionably dismissed its claims against Leon with prejudice," Righthaven argued in Tuesday’s court filing. [Green]

Nichols, who attended the hearing telephonically from a D.C. VA medical center, offered to engage in good-faith negotiations. Righthaven refused at every turn to pay her attorneys' fees and then discharged her as a defendant, leaving her stuck with $1,600 in attorneys' fees.

But Righthaven conned a U.S. military veteran, and they will lose.

They lost with decorated Vietnam War veteran, Wayne Hoehn.

Still, because the standing issue is still being litigated, and Righthaven sued and ran, discharging Nichols, she is out $1,600.

Randazza Legal Group attorneys Marc Randazza and J. Malcolm DeVoy IV wrote in their filing for Mr. Hoehn:

This pattern of conduct evinces Righthaven’s total disregard for even the notion of fair use, and that many of the republications it targets are not infringements at all. Instead, Righthaven was going to continue its campaign terrorizing people into making payments to it, and if they wanted to raise fair use as a defense, it would cost them dearly – as it has cost Mr. Hoehn. This cost should be shifted to Righthaven, as provided for by the Copyright Act. [Green]

Those wishing to assist Denise Nichols to receover her attorneys' fees can send help to:

dsnurse1@yahoo.com

Denise Nichols

4050 Cody St

Wheat Ridge CO 80033

Fed Judge rules Righthaven lacks standing to sue, threatens sanctions over misrepresentations

Update II: Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) Statement

Update: Text of Righthaven v. Democratic Underground, [Case No. 2:10-cv-01356 (D. Nev.)], in which the Court held that Righthaven does not have standing to sue Democratic Underground and that Righthaven faces sanctions.

Wisconsin citizen, Michael Leon, prevailed on April 20 - Now, Wronghaven and Attorney Shawn Mangano are found "disingenuous, if not outright deceitful,” says U.S. District Judge Roger Hunt

"A federal judge in Las Vegas today issued a potentially-devastating ruling against copyright enforcer Righthaven LLC, finding it doesn't have standing to sue over Las Vegas Review-Journal stories, that it has misled the court and threatening to impose sanctions against Righthaven," writes Steve Green at the Las Vegas Sun.

Righthaven LLC is an Internet troll,  "a bottom feeding legal outfit -- [that] has teamed up with the Las Vegas Review-Journal and the Denver Post to sue 'mom and pop' websites, advocacy and public interest groups and forum board operators for copyright violations," writes the Righthaven Victims site.

Righthaven also has targeted numerous disabled military veterans in its particularly repulsive cookie-cutter lawsuit operation, making systemic misrepresentations against multiple co-defendants.

All of Righthaven's cases were stayed in the Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit by Senior U.S. District Judge John Kane in Denver on May 19.

Reports Steve Green.

"Because there are serious questions as to whether my exercise of subject matter jurisdiction over Righthaven’s claim of copyright infringement is proper, I think it most prudent to stay the proceedings in all pending cases in this district in which Righthaven is the named plaintiff," Kane wrote in an order filed today [May 19]. "Should I find that I lack subject matter jurisdiction over Righthaven’s claim of copyright infringement, it is likely that I will be required to dismiss all pending actions. A stay will best conserve the parties’ and the court’s resources pending resolution of this fundamental inquiry."

In other Righthaven news, Righthaven's crusade against a 20-year Veteran nurse, Denise Nichols, drew her response filed in federal court.

Nichols whose case was terminated May 6 is seeking attorneys' fees, joining potentially 100s of defendants nationwide.

Nichols writes:

Displaying the same stubborn posture Righthaven LLC has shown this Court and the same reckless disregard for facts, Righthaven again distorts the record in this matter.

On April 20, due to Righthaven’s carelessness admitted to in its STATUS REPORT TO HEARING … for April 20 [FILED 04-18-2011], this Court declared at the beginning of the hearing that the cases against defendant Leon and co-defendant Nichols would be dismissed. The Court did not predicate this directive upon whether Righthaven 'would consent to dismissal with or without prejudice.' It made the directive and order clear at the April 20 hearing, irrespective of what Righthaven wished.

This Court left it to the defendants – as prevailing parties - to decide whether the dismissal would be with or without prejudice.
Facing life-threatening medical issues, I entered into good-faith negotiations with the plaintiff who admits in its April 20 Status Report that 'Righthaven’s Complaint apparently did not name Denise Nichols (‘Nichols’) as a defendant in this action.' ...

Righthaven took this Court’s ruling as an opportunity to engage in bad-faith negotiations before terminating the frivolous suit on May 6, through its Notice of Voluntary Dismissal, and then opposing my effort to obtain the very low amount of $1,600 in attorneys’ fees, which I now request.

To review Righthaven’s behavior in this case, it bears noting the following facts:

• Righthaven served Denise Nichols with a complaint that fails to mention Nichols
• Righthaven’s cookie cutter lawsuits made misrepresentations in this case against multiple co-defendants, arguing two separate Venues for alleged infringements that are simply not credible. In one complaint against co-defendant Medbillz, Righthaven names the United States District Court for the Southern District of California as venue. In another complaint served on Leon, Righthaven says the proper venue is the United States District Court, District of Nevada.
• Righthaven failed to serve defendant Leon within 120 days
• Reading Righthaven’s tortured April 20 Report, Righthaven also claims that 'Righthaven filed the Amended Complaint in this action by mistake.' (p.2)

Righthaven says I am attempting to ask the Court for a sum to which I am not entitled, though in its opposition Righthaven admits the mistakes are Righthaven’s not mine.

The reason I am responding pro se is I simply cannot afford money for another attorney and Righthaven as made it clear in my co-defendant’s pro bono case that it will oppose any and all claims for attorneys’ fees and costs.

Righthaven's Crusade Against 20-year Veteran Nurse Gets Worse

Wronghaven!—Righthaven Calls Veteran's Motion Seeking Attys' Fees for Suit Mistakenly Served Upon Her: An Effort to "extract blood money"

Denise Nichols Fights for Veterans

via mal contends—Few attorneys and defendants who have dealt with Internet troll, Righthaven LLC and its attorney, Shawn Mangano, are surprised by their duplicity and blatant abuse of process of the federal court system.

Now, Righthaven just dove deeper into the pond scum in its vendetta against an Air Force nurse (my former co-defendant), a veteran fighting for her life against Gulf War Syndrome, and life-threatening ailments--believed by this medical professional to be exacerbated by Righthaven's frivolous federal lawsuit for $150,000 and attorneys' fees.

Though veteran Denise Nichols persists in her work of helping fellow veterans, Righthaven won't halt its legal efforts against her.

Righthaven served Nichols, of Denver, Colorado, with a federal complaint earlier this year that was ordered to be dismissed on April 20 by federal Judge Gloria M. Navarro.

The complaint, in a reflection of the often shoddy work of Attorney Shawn Mangano and Righthaven generally, fails to mention Denise Nichols in the text of the complaint, even once.

Subsequent bad-faith negotiations by Righthaven ensued in which Righthaven tried to induce Nichols to sign a press release with language describing how generous and thoughtful Righthaven is to veterans and the disabled, a la the case against North Carolina blogger Brian D. Hill.

After dismissal negotiations failed, Righthaven was forced to terminate its suit against Nichols May 6 or face Judge Navaro again.

Nichols then filed a motion for $1,600 in attorneys' fees that she paid to Attorneys John Arsenault of Colorado and Mike Kimbrell of Nevada. Even these facts are disputed by Righthaven.

Both attorneys agreed the Righthaven suit lacked any merit as a defendant is of course to be mentioned in a complaint if she is accused a tort.

Reads Nichols' motion is part: "The Complaint, which was served upon defendant, Denise Nichols, on 03/23/2011, is predicated upon a likely Rule 11 violation as the plaintiff admits the complaint fails to mention the defendant in the text of the complaint, as indicated in the plaintiff's summary report (filed April 18) for the April 20 hearing at which your Honor ruled the case was to be dismissed."

In a Court filing this week, Righthaven responded by saying of Nichols' motion "it is nothing short of an attempt at trying to extract blood money in the form of an attorney's fee award to which she is not entitled."

Righthaven's position is that Nichols is not entitled to recoup attorneys' fee though she was served with a complaint that does not mention her.

Nichols, who had to appear by telephone at an April 20 federal Court hearing from a DC Veterans' Medical facility, continues her fight for her life and those of her fellow veterans.

Nichols said yesterday she is composing her response to Mangano and Righthaven's outrageous "blood money" charge and will file it this weekend.

Maj. Denise Nichols (ret), Vietnam era and Gulf War veteran, retired nurse, MSN, retired US Air Force Flight Nurse Clinical specialist in cardio-vascular nursing, served on the nursing faculty of several universities around the country.

"I think Righthaven has this backwards. Righthaven and Mangano are after blood money. They are harming people and lying about it. The idea that I, along with other prevailing defendants, are after 'blood money' for Righthaven's mistakes and abuse is absurd," said Nichols today.

Veteran Nurse Seeks Attorneys' Fees from Righthaven

Denise Nichols is seeking $1,600 in attorneys' fees and costs and any other relief the Court deems just from Righthaven which served her with a civil complaint that failed to mention her in the text.

"Righthaven and Attorney Mangano admitted in Court they made a mistake in serving on me a complaint that fails to even mention my name. So, I should pay for their mistake? No. They should pay full attorneys' fees and costs, and that's giving these people a break," said Denise Nichols. "What should happen is Shawn Mangano should be slapped with a Rule 11 violation that sanctions lawyers for misrepresenting facts in federal Court. How can it be reasonable and diligent for attorney Mangano to file with the Court a complaint he has admitted was a mistake? Mangano needs to be stopped."

Nichols' Rule 11 complaint refers to the federal Court Signing Pleadings, Motions, and Other Papers; Representations to the Court; Sanctions rules.

"I say good for Denise Nichols. She's carrying the ball right now on behalf of all veterans and the Internet community. Mangano's negligence is blatant in Denise's case; but when you consider the systemic, organized fraud he has perpetrated on the Court on the matter of Subject Matter Jurisdiction, it's clear justice demands the Court act against not just Righthaven; but also Mangano for failing to meet his responsibilities as an attorney under Rule 11. He fought Denise Nichols the whole way, instead of just admitting his mistake and owning up to it, apologizing to the Court and the veteran, Denise Nichols whom honestly is likely to be alive, no thanks to Mangano," said Michael Leon.

Nichols says she was lucky her attorneys charged her so little out of respect for the injustice of her case, though Righthaven proved unwilling to negotiate a settlement on the case that was terminated on May 14. -- Civil Action No 2:10-CV-01672-GMM-LRN

Reads Nichols' motion is part: "The Complaint, which was served upon defendant, Denise Nichols, on 03/23/2011, is predicated upon a likely Rule 11 violation as the plaintiff admits the complaint fails to mention the defendant in the text of the complaint, as indicated in the plaintiff's summary report (filed April 18) for the April 20 hearing at which your Honor ruled the case was to be dismissed."

Said Nichols, "The point is until victims stand up to Righthaven, then this will continue. And the victims that have gone through untold amounts of stress then have to hire attorneys to fight. It is a situation that the courts and judges need to pay attention to but also legislators who need to hold hearings and to possibly review the law as passed to review if changes to the law are necessary. All these steps to protect Freedom of speech and fair use."

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 v. Veteran, Denise Nichols

The news is out that Righthaven LLC is scum is crawling out of the gutters of Las Vegas suing bloggers and veterans.

Over the weekend news broke that Righthaven LLC has misrepresented on numerous occasions in federal court that it "is the owner of the copyright in and to the Work" that it claims to have been infringed upon by numerous defendants, including one Denise Nichols, a Vietnam-era and Gulf War veteran, and retired nurse.

Righthaven has misfired again. This time targeting a veteran who spends her time when she is not recuperating from service-connected ailments: Helping other veterans.

Nice job, Righthaven.

Nichols has a lot of friends and they sure don't like you. Here's some more advice: Crawl back into your gutters and get the hell out of Denise's way!

Here's a bio of Ms. Nichols.

Maj. Denise Nichols, Vietnam era and Gulf War veteran, retired nurse, MSN, retired US Air Force Flight Nurse Clinical specialist in cardio-vascular nursing, served on the nursing faculty of several universities around the country. Denise has been active in research and advocacy in the areas of Gulf War Illness and Agent Orange. Denise has testified before Congress many times, has been interviewed nationally and internationally and is an outspoken advocate for Americas veterans.

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.