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.

Top Court Rules for Due Process in Vet's Case

As the U.S. Dept of Veterans Affairs (DVA) has become infamous for its culture of denial of veterans' claims, a potentially landmark decision may signal an end to this bureaucratic phenomenon that has caused veterans' advocates to shake their heads in disbelief for decades.

Signaling a judicial mandate that U.S. governmental agencies follow the law, a top federal appellate court has ruled the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) and the Dept of Veterans Affairs (DVA) violated the due process rights of a Vietnam War Marine veteran in wrongfully deciding his disability case.

The case, Cushman v. Shinseki (No. 08-7129), rules that this Marine veteran like other Americans is entitled to a fair hearing in administrative law courts such as the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC).

"The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment guarantees that an individual will not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. [U.S. Const. amend. V.] Due process of law has been interpreted to include notice and a fair opportunity to be heard," ruled the Court

The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit was created in 1982 and hears appeals from all over the U.S. including from numerous federal administrative courts such as the U.S. Court of Federal Claims and the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC).

The case is described by Larry Scott of VA WatchDog as a "landmark decision ... which could impact hundreds of thousands of veterans."

The ruling is hailed by Philip Cushman, the Marine veteran who filed the complaint, in an e-mail to Larry Scott:

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, [has] recognized a PROPERTY RIGHT INTEREST in a VA claim, thus triggering the legal protections of DUE PROCESS OF LAW which mandates a FAIR and IMPARTIAL VA adjudication process. This [is] a HUGE victory for the [nearly] MILLION veterans now caught up in VA backlogged claims denial mill.

The Court decision concludes:

Mr. Cushman demonstrated that his injury meets the service connection requirement of [United States Code]. Mr. Cushman has a constitutional right to have his claim for veteran’s disability benefits decided according to fundamentally fair procedures. We find that this right was violated due to the presence of an improperly altered medical record in Mr. Cushman’s file. We vacate the June 6, 2008 decision of the Veterans Court and remand the case with instructions to grant Mr. Cushman a new hearing before the Board to determine de novo and without the presence of the alterations in his medical record whether Mr. Cushman was unable to secure a substantially gainful occupation between May 3, 1977 and August 31, 1994, because of his service-connected disability.

VA Under Fire Again

Update: E-mails one veterans’ advocate, "The repercussions are pretty simple: VA managers can override any benefits decision that they don't want to pay. … Hey, why not confiscate all retroactive benefits from those older than 75 (65?) - they will die soon anyways."

An unofficial and apparently illegal U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) policy on granting veterans monetary benefits is drawing intense criticism in veteran advocates' and veteran attorneys' circles.

First reported in VA Watchdog by Larry Scott last year, the alleged policy puts a cap, in violation of U.S. Code, on large retroactive monetary sums granted to veterans.

Look here in the near future for updates and reporting on new developments.

Writes the VA Watchdog by Larry Scott:

VA VETS' ATTORNEYS PROTEST VA'S 'EXTRAORDINARY AWARDS' REVIEW PROCESS -- VA review has overturned nearly 20% of large awards. Legal challenge says VA's 'review scheme is punitive, discriminatory, confiscatory and contrary to the veterans' benefits system established by Congress.'

Bush Neglect Killing Veterans - Updated

Update: No respect for vets and one VA staffer who got caught and Vets for Common Sense Blast VA

The Bush administration just does not believe in focusing the assets of the American government on most of its citizens. You have be part of a select few, and veterans do not count unless they work for Blackwater.

Sarah Stillman has a piece in The New Republic worth reading:

The director of the National Institute of Mental Health says that more Iraq and Afghanistan veterans may die from suicide than from combat. So why isn't the Pentagon protecting our soldiers off the battlefield?

... (A)mong the nearly 1.7 million who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan, some 300,000 veterans suffer from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) or major depression, with nearly half of all cases going untreated. The study also highlighted a less widely-covered trend: Some 320,000 troops returning from both wars are plagued by traumatic brain injuries--again, with only half seeking treatment.