'If You Don't Like It, Don't Read It'

By Nazia Parveen

A High Court judge yesterday questioned why Chris Huhne’s lover continued to read articles about herself when she found them offensive.

Mr Justice Tugendhat was told that Carina Trimingham, who is suing the Daily Mail for alleged harassment, had set up alerts through the internet site Google where she would be warned every time a Daily Mail or Mail on Sunday article mentioned her. She was said to have found many of them upsetting, taking particular offence at readers’ comments on the Mail website.

But the judge said: ‘Once she knew how things were being reported she continued to read the articles. This is the basic education of children, if you don’t like it dear, don’t go there.’

Miss Trimingham, 44, who was in a civil partnership when she started her affair with former Energy Secretary Mr Huhne, is suing over what she describes as homophobic references to her sexuality in newspaper stories. She accuses Associated Newspapers, parent company of the Daily Mail and The Mail on Sunday, of misuse of private information and harassment in 65 articles, including references to her size and hair.

But Daily Mail journalists, columnists and editors have denied that the articles were homophobic and have said the references to Miss Trimingham were descriptive and not designed to be offensive.

The five-day hearing, which finished yesterday, was told that Miss Trimingham didn’t buy the Daily Mail but had a Google alert set up to inform her every time she was mentioned in the newspaper or its website.

Anthony White QC, for Associated Newspapers, said: ‘She went looking for these articles. It is a highly relevant feature of the case that she set up these media alerts. The coverage was not that different to what was in other newspapers, there was just more of it.’

Matthew Ryder QC, for Miss Trimingham, said setting up an alert was the same as asking a friend what had been reported. He said: ‘When you are aware that newspapers are writing about you and that people are reading it, it is reasonable to assume that you would want to know it was going on.’

In a previous hearing Miss Trimingham admitted giving newspapers tips about the sex lives of Hollywood stars. Judgment in the case has been reserved.

original article found here

Harassers Are Losing Their Anonymity...

By Yamil Berard

Imagine waking up one day and finding out that you have been labeled a thief, hooker, pimp, child abuser or tax evader on an anonymous blog.

As people ramp up their trash talk online, such harassment is becoming more common, said Kenton J. Hutcherson, a Dallas attorney who specializes in Internet defamation cases. "I see these cases every day," Hutcherson said. "I have a unique niche."

The Internet has become a Wild West of hooligans apt to besmirch the name of anybody they don't like, because they think they can get away with it under a cloak of anonymity, legal experts say.

"The real difficulties you are going to have is finding who are the John Does who are posting this stuff," said Frank Snyder, a law professor at Texas Wesleyan University in Fort Worth.

Indeed, for a while, the anonymous posters could hide. They counted on Internet service providers to refuse to unmask them.

But now, courts are ordering that they be exposed, opening the way for defamation lawsuits.

Just this week, a Tarrant County. Texas jury awarded a couple $13.8 million in a libel judgment, said to be one of the largest ever in an Internet defamation case. Hutcherson is now trying to unmask other anonymous posters who targeted three area residents, including two from Tarrant County.

He filed a lawsuit this month against "John or Jane Doe" on behalf of the three, who have been named on a Google-hosted blog as "two pimps and a prostitute." The accusations on the blog have caused "severe emotional distress," the lawsuit states.

Hutcherson says his clients are ordinary people. One, a Kaufman County woman, is a homemaker, a PTA member and a mom, he said. "She is scared to death that other people in the neighborhood will see this stuff and see that she's accused of being a prostitute," Hutcherson said.

None of the three have been charged with prostitution-related offenses, according to a check of criminal records. They did not respond to requests for comment.

Hutcherson said his clients aren't looking for a big verdict. They just want the allegations removed from the blog, known as "open secret" and affiliated with an online escort service. The blog identifies the plaintiffs as associated with Dallas brothels, a spa and another agency.

The information is easily accessible on Google, Hutcherson said.

[We are] not identifying the plaintiffs to avoid spreading the allegations.

In most of these cases, clients shun publicity, Hutcherson said. "The client in these cases is put at a difficult position because in order to vindicate their name, they have to go out there and file a public lawsuit," he said. The first goal in many Internet libel cases is to identify the anonymous poster.

To do that, the plaintiff's attorney issues a subpoena to the online service provider that hosts the pages with the defamatory content.

The provider -- Google, for example -- then typically notifies the anonymous defendant, who has 20 days to file a motion to quash the information. If no motion is filed or the court denies the motion, the provider must turn over the information, Hutcherson said. Once it is released, the defendant's real name replaces "John or Jane Doe" in the lawsuit.

Hutcherson's plaintiffs have a slam-dunk libel case if the allegations are false, Snyder said. Under age-old common law rules, it's unlawful to call a "chaste" woman a prostitute. It is called "libel per se" -- or libel that is obviously harmful.

"You're not only impugning a crime to them but implying unchastity as well," Snyder said. "If it's untrue, the common-law rule would be you get damages just by showing someone has falsely called you a prostitute."

The same rule, however, doesn't apply for men labeled pimps or prostitutes, he said. "Go back 150 years, a man who had affairs with other women was kind of admired."

Hutcherson's advice: Be careful what you post.

"People get behind the computer and they think they're anonymous and are not going to be held liable so they do things they normally would not do," he said. "They have this sense of empowerment. ... The way they act on the Internet is different than they way they act normally. The problem is that the Internet is the real world and it affects real people ... causes real damage."

original article found here

Divorcee Sues to Reclaim £6.4m Given to Internet Lover

By Amanda Perthen

(U.K.) A multi-millionaire divorcee has launched a High Court battle to reclaim £6.4 million from a lover she met through the internet.

Catherine Wood, 50, who amassed her fortune through property deals, met Shlomo Add via an online dating agency after she split from her husband, Jean Francois Cornet De Chansard.

But the romance turned sour after lawyer Mr Add persuaded Ms Wood to hand over millions of pounds during their four-year relationship, the High Court in London heard. The judge agreed to freeze Mr Add’s assets so that he could not dispose of them before the case came to trial. But Mr Add, 53, insists a large portion of the money was an ‘outright gift’ and is contesting the claims. The court heard that Mr Add came up with a number of plausible stories as to why he needed cash from her.

On one occasion he telephoned from Israel asking for £1.1 million in cash, saying he needed it for bail as he was in custody facing tax evasion charges. Ms Wood wired him the cash so he could be released. On another occasion, the court was told, Mr Add bought a Ferrari using assets belonging to Ms Wood.

Ms Wood, who made her money buying and selling properties through the family business, fought back tears as she said: ‘It’s been so painful, I can’t talk about it.’ The couple’s romance started in 2007 after Mr Add had split from his wife, Ruth, a former dancer. Despite Mr Add making regular trips to Israel, he and Ms Wood met regularly.

Mr Add lived in a £275,000 semi-detached house on an estate near East Grinstead, West Sussex. Ms Wood, who has two children – James, 17, and Natasha, 16, with Mr Cornet De Chansard – had a five-bedroom property worth £2.3 million in Golders Green, North London. But by the time the relationship had ended, Mr Add had bought a £550,000 house on a private road just a few miles from his previous home, which he still owns.

Last week, a blue Maserati saloon and a grey four-wheel-drive vehicle were parked on the driveway. Mr Add is currently staying at his £1.2 million waterfront apartment just outside Tel Aviv. A neighbour said: ‘The people who buy property here are not just any people. ‘They are wealthy bankers, Russian oligarchs, French millionaires and some of Israel’s best known figures in the underworld.’

Mr Add declined to comment on the court case, adding that his daughter Hila, who is in the Israeli Defence Force, was staying with him and he had no time to spare.

After granting permission for Mr Add’s assets to be frozen, Judge David Cook said at the High Court: ‘Her [Ms Wood’s] allegations, if correct, show a course of conduct over a number of years in which he [Mr Add] has been able to obtain assets of a wealthy woman under a series of pretexts and promises which he has not kept.’

The case continues.

original article here

Don't Shoot the Messenger: Google Can't be Held Responsible for Defamatory Blog Posts

by Tom Gardner

A High Court judge has likened Google to a graffiti strewn wall in a landmark judgement which says it cannot be held responsible for libellous or offensive content.

Mr Justice Eady said the internet giant was not bound by laws governing publishers, giving the company widespread immunity from English defamation laws.

In the judgement, which will have huge implications for freedom of speech in this country, he said: ‘It is no doubt often true that the owner of a wall which has been festooned, overnight, with defamatory graffiti could acquire scaffolding and have it all deleted with whitewash.’

'We should never have liberated France': David Starkey courts yet more controversy by claiming nations should be left to free themselves from oppression. His case against Google Inc over reactions to a blog labelling him, without justification, as a drug dealer and a thief, is now dead in the water.

Mr Tamiz sued over eight stinging ‘comments’ made in reaction to a blog posted on Google’s Blogger.com platform.

Amongst other things, they accused him of being a drug dealer and having stolen from his employers.

The judge said the allegations could not necessarily be dismissed as ‘mere vulgar abuse’ and it was ‘not altogether surprising’ that Mr Tamiz chose to sue Google as most of the posts were anonymous and it would have been difficult to track down those responsible.

But the judge was stinging of Google's lateness in reacting to Mr Tamiz's compaint, saying there was a ‘considerable delay’ before the blogger was contacted and the posts were removed.

Payam Tamiz was forced to resign as a Conservative candidate in last year's local council elections after posting inappropriate comments on the internet referring to women.

Mr Tamiz said: ‘I understand that my Facebook remarks were inappropriate and I unreservedly apologise for the offence they have caused. However, I feel it is important to put the remarks into context. They were made long before I was a member of the Conservative Party and long before I entered the political arena. They were made at a time of personal trouble and difficulty and I never intended for them to be interpreted as an unfair generalisation for the women of Thanet. I am deeply saddened that they have been taken out of context and misconstrued. I have resigned from the Conservative Party in the hope that this affair, which is being exploited and distorted by the opposition, does not damage the Party's electoral success...'

Catrin Evans, for Google, argued ‘it has no control over any of this content’ and, far from being a publisher, is merely ‘a neutral service provider’.

The judge said: ‘Google Inc makes the point that it has no way of knowing whether the comments complained of were true or not, or subject to some other defence in law.

‘It argues that it cannot reasonably be expected to investigate and determine the truth or falsity of allegations made by bloggers’.

He added: ‘One needs to be wary of analogies when considering modern technology, but it may perhaps be said that the position is, according to Google Inc, rather as though it owned a wall on which various people had chosen to inscribe graffiti. It does not regard itself as being more responsible for the content of these graffiti than would the owner of such a wall’.

Mr Justice Eady added: ‘I would be prepared to hold that it should not be regarded as a publisher, or even as one who authorises publication, under the established principles of common law. As I understand the evidence, its role, as a platform provider, is a purely passive one. I would rule that Google Inc is not liable at common law as a publisher.’

Google Inc sought almost £28,000 in legal costs against Mr Tamiz, but the judge said that figure was ‘somewhat disproportionate’ and cut it by one third.

He added that Mr Tamiz had been ‘confronted by allegations about drug dealing and stealing from his employers which no one suggested were remotely true’ and could not be blamed for going to court to remove the smear from his character.

The court heard Mr Tamiz is ‘not a man of means’ and the judge acknowledged that he ‘may not be in a position to meet’ Google’s legal costs bills, £5,000 of which he was ordered to pay within 28 days.

original article here

More Evidence Online Dating Sites are Dangerous

(U.S.A.) Army lieutenant Peter Burks was killed in Iraq in 2007 but that didn’t stop dating website True.com from swiping his picture and using it in ads to attract women to their website.

The picture was spotted on two ad spots at free dating site PlentyofFish.com with the words ”Military Man Searching for Love” and ”Soldiers Want You!”

The Burks family is now planning to sue both PlentyOfFish.com and True.com for their parts in using the photo without permission.

The family says Burks died just days after the photo was taken and that he definitely didn’t upload the photograph to the website. In fact the photo was being used on a website to help raise funds to provide supplies to troops in Burks’ honor which is likely where the picture was stolen from.

The Burks family also notes that Peter Burks was engaged when he died which makes True.com’s claims of “Soldier’s Want You!” nothing more than a scam to attract users to the site through the use of fake profiles.

In the meantime a representative for PlentyOfFish notes that the website displays ads from hundreds of thousands of advertisers and is not in charge of the ads for those websites. True.com ads were quickly blocked by PlentyOfFish.com after the Burks family notified the website of the issue.

In the meantime True.com’s potential members might want to look for a dating site that doesn’t create fake profiles in order to lure them in.

What might be the most tragic part of the entire ordeal is that True.com founder Herb Vest attacked other dating websites during a 2006 Forbes interview, as he put it at that time:

“We had to establish a wholesome environment for courtship. Internet dating is populated, to a large degree, by criminals and married people.”

It looks like True.com has turned into the exact type of company it hoped to fight against just five years earlier.

original article here

Sued for Refusing to Help a Cyberstalking Victim

By Victor Fiorillo

Earlier this week in Philadelphia’s Federal Court, 25-year-old Temple grad Cailin Arena and her friend Patricia McWilliam of South Carolina sued a John Doe they say has been cyberstalking them and publishing their copyrighted photos and writings without their permission. In the same suit, they name Internet giant Google—which hosts the perpetrator’s blog, Korean Dating Bloggers, as well as a fraudulent Google Plus account set up in Arena’s name—for failing to do anything about it.

In recent years, the women have traveled to Korea and Japan to teach English to grade-school students in those countries. Arena, who has been dating a Korean man since 2010, is currently teaching in Japan, where her boyfriend resides, while McWilliam teaches in Seoul, South Korea. Both women have blogged extensively about their overseas experiences, and these blogs, which they’ve deleted, appear to be the original source of the screen-grabbing stalker’s material.

According to the lawsuit, which was filed by Arena’s father, Montgomery County attorney Charles Arena, the problems began on January 3, 2012, when John Doe sent an anonymous email to Arena’s supervisor containing a link to sexual content and stating that Arena was responsible for it, and another email to Arena, which read, “Sorry to say but you’re an ugly brown something. You probably also smell bad. Have fun in Japan, I hear the radiation isn’t bad in Fukushima. Why not buy some vegetables from there for you and your ugly brown children.” Also that day, John Doe is said to have posted racist commentary about Arena in an online forum associated with her job.

One week later, John Doe created Korean Dating Bloggers, using Arena’s full name and her employer’s name as a website tag, so that his blog would come up in Google searches for her. On the site, he posted screen shots from her now deleted blog, copyrighted pictures she says he stole from her actual Google Plus account, and negative commentary about her. He also created an impostor Tumblr account and Google Plus profile in her name. He reached out to contacts in her actual Google Plus circle, linking them to Korean Dating Bloggers. The allegations relating to John Doe’s actions toward McWilliam are similar.

The plaintiffs contend that the defendant’s use of their copyrighted material violates the Digital Millennium Copyright and that Google has a responsibility to remove it. They and their attorneys have repeatedly contacted Google headquarters, demanding a resolution.

At first, Google responded that they do not remove allegedly defamatory, libelous or slanderous material unless requested by a court order, even though the plaintiffs’ claims were regarding copyright, not defamation.

Then, Google responded with a message that the plaintiffs call “nonsensical.” In it, Google stated that the company decided not to take action “based on our policies concerning content removal. We would like to assist you, but we don’t currently disclose this information. Should it become publicly available in the future, you may find it on our site at http://www.google.com/about.html.” Getting nowhere with Google, they filed the suit.

As for the identity of the blogger, the plaintiffs believe they know who he is and that he resides in Pennsylvania. They hope that the court will compel Google to reveal his true identity and intend to file more actions today. “The law hasn’t caught up with technology,” says Charles Arena. “This is scary. What do you do when someone seeks to do irreparable harm to you online?”

A Google spokesperson was not immediately available for comment.

original article here

Lawyer Loses Defamation Suit Against Website

By Staci Zaretsky

A lesson that Matt Couloute Jr. is learning.

It’s a sad fact, but almost everyone has had the opportunity to partake in a bad romance or two. And although it may sound elegant when Lady Gaga sings about it, in real life, it can be devastating. That’s why websites like LiarsCheatersRUs were created — so that jilted lovers could have a place to unleash their angst about failed relationships caused by a lover’s supposed infidelity.

But what happens when you’re a lawyer and a scorned ex-girlfriend lets loose on the internet about your infidelities? That is apparently what happened in the case of Matthew Couloute Jr., a former prosecutor and Court TV analyst, after he allegedly cheated on Amanda Ryncarz.

Now he’s suing Ryncarz and another ex-flame, roller-derby diva Stacey Blitsch, both represented by [ ] lawyer to the wannabe stars, Gloria Allred. Thus far, we’ve kept our coverage of the drama to Morning Docket entries (here, here, and here), but now, Matt Couloute has spoken out about the situation on television.

For those of you who haven’t been following this story as it makes its rounds on New York’s finest tabloids, here is the LiarsCheatersRUs entry that Couloute is suing over (click here)

Ouch, way to hit him where it hurts — his wallet. Couloute’s ex, Amanda Ryncarz, was outed as the “anonymous” writer of this review, and now she’s airing her grievances even more publicly. In a press conference organized by Gloria Allred last September, Ryncarz announced that she posted on the website “because [she] wanted to warn other women in order to protect them from what [she] suffered.”

Stacey Blitsch, on the other hand, completely denies posting LiarsCheatersRUs, but many suspect that this response to Ryncarz’s original entry was penned by her hand (click here)

Well, if she did write that, then this Blitsch has got balls. Hell totally hath no fury like a woman scorned.

Aww, Couloute just wants a clean Google search. You can’t fault the man for that, but you’ve got to wonder if this attorney is getting what he deserves. Recall from 1L year that truth is a defense to defamation. If you don’t remember, then Gloria Allred is here to help you out:

“I think the minimum the women should be allowed to do is to speak out and speak the truth about the men who they have had relationships [with] and about the men who have hurt them. We believe lawsuits like this should not be allowed. This is free speech. Women must have a voice and be able to speak to each other on matters of common interest without fear of being dragged into court.”

You hear that, ladies? You can say whatever you damn well want to say on the internet, and if you happen to get sued over it, then Girl Power Gloria will have your back.

Couloute’s lawsuit will be heard in court early this year, and when we get more details, we’ll be sure to pass them along to our readers. For now, if you’re thinking of cheating on your significant other, just remember that the internet is kind of like that Rockwell song — somebody is always watching you. But don’t even think about suing them for their online rants, because they’ve probably got Gloria Allred on speed dial.

original article here

____________


Couloute loses his Defamation Suit:

Couloute was called a cheating “scum” who, according to Amanda Ryncarz, dumped her over the phone five days before marrying another woman. Blitsch has a son with Couloute.

Baer ruled that the statements were opinion and “clearly hyperbolic.” Couloutee identified the following statements on the site as defamatory and injurious to his status as an attorney:

Ryncarz statements:

1. “[Mr. Couloute] lied and cheated all through his 40 years of life.”

2. “[Mr. Couloute] [u]ses people/his son/women to get what he wants then dumps you when he’s done with them. Has no long term friends. He rents or finances everything and owns absolutely nothing.”

3. “He is very very manipulating. he’s an attorney so he’s great at lying and covering it up without batting an eye.”1 .

Blitsch statements:

1. “[W]hat these ladies have said about his character is very true. I met him and dated briefly and I was taken in with the charm and instant “connection” he claimed we had . . . [A]s soon as I started asking questions about other aspects of his life and figured out he wasn’t comple[tely] honest he turned cold then disappeared. And of course another male is going to say Matt is a “solid dude” . . . if you agree with lieing [sic] and manipulating any female you come in contact with I guess he could be considered that. . . .”

2. “I came across this site by accident by following a UFL news feed, so your friend Matt has more problems than these posts if in search for the league his name is associated with this site.”

Couloute insisted that these comments included factual misrepresentations. Notably, one of the comment came with the following observation:

“This is the absolute truth about this man!! He will stop communication with you suddenly, then reach out years later as he did with me trying to sweet talk you and make you feel like you’re the most special woman in the world that he’s been looking for. He is very very manipulating. he’s an attorney so he’s great at lying and covering it up without batting an eye. Our relationship didn’t last long as I figured him out pretty quickly but for others, BE FOREWARNED, HE’S SCUM! RUN FAR A WAY!”

Couloute originally alleged only tortious interference with prospective business relations — perhaps in recognition of the opinion defense. However, he later amended to add the defamation claim.

Nevertheless, Baer (the judge) found that these comments, except one, were clearly opinion found on a site filled with one-sided accounts:

With the possible exception of the statement that Plaintiff “rents or finances everything and owns absolutely nothing”—a statement clearly capable of being proven true or false—the comments, even if viewed in isolation, are opinion. Defendants state that Plaintiff “lied and cheated all through his 40 years of life”, and that, because Plaintiff is an attorney, “he’s great at lying and covering it up without batting an eye.” Comments such as these are clearly hyperbolic. And when viewed within the larger context of the website on which they were posted, there can be no doubt that a reasonable reader would understand the comments to be opinion. As Defendants note, liarscheatersrus.com is “specifically intended to provide a forum for people to air their grievances about dishonest romantic partners.” Id. at 9. The average reader would know that the comments are “emotionally charged rhetoric” and the “opinions of disappointed lovers.” Id. Of course the Internet makes it more likely that a greater number of people will read comments such as these, and thereby amplify the impact they may have on a person, but this does not change the underlying nature of the comments themselves.

Couloutte plans to appeal.

There is a site with Couloutte’s name that contains the following odd statement from “him or her”:

Put Matt Couloute into the Google Search engine and you will not find Matthew Couloute’s background regarding his / her time as a news reporter on Court TV. You won’t learn Matt Couloute once represented a football league. An individual won’t learn this individual ended up being the assistant district attorney throughout Connecticut record.

Not at all, you will end up forwarded to liarscheatersrus.org, a site wherever ladies admit regarding extramarital affairs of the these people out dated or perhaps married.

Well Matt Couloute has decided to deal with the problem. In his or her case he recorded a lawsuit towards Amanda Ryncarz, his former sweetheart, that admits putting up on the spot relating to a few year romantic relationship. . . .

Matt Couloute has additionally within the go well with his / her child’s mom whom furthermore published on the website. She declines it but states the lady nevertheless believes Couloute is often lies. spouse.

It is not clear who has created this site, but it is one of the first sites that comes up when you try to find any site from Couloute. Here is his site. He includes a specialty in dealing with “cyberbullying.”

The case is Couloute v. Ryncarz, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20534.

original article here

Another Revenge Site - Another Lawsuit

by Anna North



A New York attorney is suing two of his exes for posting about him on the website liarscheatersrus.com. We took a look at the website he claims is ruining his career.

According to FindLaw, Matthew Couloute, Jr. is suing Stacey Blitsch and Amanda Ryncarz for posting on the site that he "Cheated on ALL of ex-girlfriends" and "lied and cheated his entire way through his 40 years of life." They also allegedly wrote, "BE FOREWARNED, HE'S SCUM. RUN FAR AWAY." Couloute is alleging that the posts have cost him clients, but FindLaw's Stephanie Rabiner writes that he probably doesn't have a case — she notes that "if true, these statements are not fraudulent misrepresentations or defamation." And Blitsch and Ryncarz are now suing Couloute with the help of Gloria Allred.

[A] review of some cached pages reveals an interesting — and disturbing — mix of rage, misery, and revenge. The homepage addresses infidelity victims directly:

Has anyone dated your spouse? Have you trusted and put yourself on the line for someone who turned out to be a player or a married person? Are you the victim of a home wrecker? You can not only find others that have been similarly victimized, but you can also report the perpetrators of these games to the world and save others from the heartache. Wouldn't you like to help others and prevent the people who cheated on you or tried to steal your husband and wife from doing it again?

Whether the posters on the site want to help others or simply vent is an open question. Some of the posts make serious allegations:

• This man has cheated on his wife with more women than is humanly imaginable. His looks get him anything he wants, and he lies as easily as most of us breathe. He has beaten his wife, is currently incarcerated, but will be out in one year, doing it all over again…. So sad….

Some mix the serious with the trivial:

This man is the worst person I've ever met in my entire life. He lied from the day we met. He said he was 31 years old, but he is 38. He said he was a physician at a local hospital, and when I found out he wasn't, he lied and said it was my misunderstanding, and he was in medical school currently working as a PA while he's in school. He's really just a lab tech at a local hospital. He said he has been divorced for 2 years, and has one son. He is STILL married, and has 3 children with his wife of 14 years. He claims to be 6′ tall, but he's only 5'10″.

And some seem to speak to relationship problems that have nothing to do with lying or cheating:

He will come on strong, the complete charmer for the first 3 months. After he has made his score, he will back off and run. Then if you ever remind him of all the things he said or wrote to you about love, he will not remember. He will blame you for every single thing that is wrong in his life even if you have poured out 100% of your life to support his dreams and goals. I know because I did for year.

As Rabiner says, if these statements are true, they fall well within the bounds of free speech. But liarscheatersrus also seems like a great place to smear your ex, whether or not he or she actually did anything wrong. The site doesn't employ any obvious fact-checking, and so it has the potential to become a sort of "slut list" for grownups, a place where people can anonymously bash others without any proof.

Don't Date Him Girl has already mined this territory — and a lawsuit against that site was dismissed in 2007. Still, Rabiner notes that "even though Matthew Couloute may not prevail on this claim, keep in mind that, with slightly different facts, a posting on liarscheatersrus.com (or any other such site) could form the basis of a successful and costly lawsuit." And even if alleged liars and cheaters don't find legal recourse, posting anonymously on a website may not be a particularly good response to infidelity. In response to a woman wondering whether to tell her ex's new lady that he was in the closet, Slate's Emily Yoffe recently wrote,

Let's say you were the happy young woman engaged to the man of your dreams. Would you want his ex to come along and ruin everything by telling you that he is a closeted gay man who is secretly having promiscuous sex? I sure would! It's always easier in cases like this to just let adults make their own decisions and find out (or not) what's really going on.

That's doubly true if you're planning on posting incriminating (or false) information on the internet. It may feel good at the time, but it's unlikely to sway somebody who's intent on dating your nasty ex. And it might get you sued.

original article can be found here

Suing Google Doesn't Always Work

by Christopher Danzig

Even stately Englishmen are no match for Google.

I had never heard of Max Mosley until yesterday, when I read he was suing Google in Europe to block all search results regarding his alleged participation in some sort of Nazi sex orgy.

Ironically, when you search for Mosley’s name now, you get a zillion news stories with headlines like “Max Mosley sues Google over ‘Nazi orgy’ search results‎.”

Let’s learn more about Mosley, the former president of Formula One, and his decidedly unsexy legal battle against Google….

From The Guardian:

Max Mosley is suing Google in France and Germany in an attempt to force the internet company to monitor and censor search results about his alleged sado-masochistic orgy.

The former Formula One boss revealed he is taking legal action against Google during his testimony before the Leveson inquiry at London’s royal courts of justice on Thursday.

Mosley is battling to remove from the internet false and libellous references to an alleged “Nazi-themed” orgy and a News of the World video. …

“The fundamental thing is that Google could stop this appearing but they don’t or won’t as a matter of principle,” he told the inquiry. “The really dangerous things are the search engines.”

Mosley is also threatening to sue Google in California.

And this is not the first time public figures have not-so-nicely asked Google to censor search results they dislike. The other obvious case involves Rick Santorum, who made headlines in the fall criticizing the unpleasant top Google result for his last name. In 2003, sex columnist Dan Savage started the bare-bones website, Spreading Santorum, which simply defines his last name as a nasty sexual term, in response to what Savage perceived as the former senator’s anti-gay statements.

In both Mosley’s and Santorum’s cases, the miffed public figures insinuated that Google could eliminate the search results if it wanted to. Santorum claimed his conservative ideology was the reason Google refused to do anything about the search ranking.

But Google does protect itself legally. When it receives specific, court-ordered takedown notices, from the government or individuals, it frequently complies. (If you have ever run searches relating to illegal music or movie sharing, DMCA takedown notifications often appear on the Google search results page.) Mosley even acknowledged that Google has taken down hundreds of references to the allegedly defamatory stories. But the company will not honor personal requests or requests to censor entire search terms.

At this point, Google spokespeople have a pretty tight statement they use to explain their actions. The company’s response to Mosley was almost exactly the same as it was to Santorum:

“Google’s search results reflect the information available on billions of web pages on the internet. We don’t, and can’t, control what others post online, but when we’re told that a specific page is illegal under a court order, then we move quickly to remove it from our search results.”

On a practical level, Tim Worstall at Forbes gives a good explanation of why the act of suing search engines simply creates more stories for them to index:

[A]ny court case arguing that Google must not add to the search engine stories which mention the untrue allegations will be reportable: for court cases and evidence are reportable under privilege. So every time Mosley sues he’s generating more newspaper pieces which Google can, entirely legitimately, add to the index. For they’ve been reported under privilege.

Finding yourself on the Internet for unflattering reasons can be humiliating, especially if the information is untrue. A whole cottage industry has grown up around people trying to prevent their old mugshots from being easily searchable. Even Natalie Portman has said she won’t do nude scenes in movies because she doesn’t want the scenes ending up online.

For better or worse, Google is the gatekeeper for the online world we live in. It would be a completely unfeasible system if people could pick and choose, without a specific legal justification, what kinds of results to allow search engines to index. It is for the same reason news outlets will not remove stories just because someone doesn’t approve of the coverage. I feel bad for Mr. Mosley, but he’s only making things worse for himself. And his attorneys should know better.

original article found here

Complete Privacy Does NOT Exist

Arguing that technology has ensured that "complete privacy does not exist," Google contends that a Pennsylvania family has no legal grounds to sue the search giant for publishing photos of their home on its popular "Street View" mapping feature.

Responding to an invasion of privacy lawsuit filed by Aaron and Christine Boring, Google has countered that the couple "live in a residential community in the twenty-first-century United States, where every step upon private property is not deemed by law to be an actionable trespass."

In a motion to dismiss the Borings's federal complaint, Google's six-lawyer team asserts that,

"Today's satellite-image technology means that even in today's desert, complete privacy does not exist. In any event, Plaintiffs live far from the desert and are far from hermits."

An excerpt from Google's U.S. District Court motion can be found below. The company asserts that the images of the Borings's Pittsburgh-area residence were "unremarkable photos of the exterior of their home," and were taken during a "brief entry upon their driveway."

In their lawsuit, the Borings charged that a Google vehicle -- outfitted with a panoramic camera on its roof -- drove down a private road to take images of their Oakridge Lane home.

In its dismissal motion, Google noted that it intends to prove that there was "no clearly marked 'Private Road' sign at the beginning" of the Borings's street. Google removed its "Street View" photos of the Boring residence and swimming pool after the couple filed its lawsuit in April.

READ THE REST HERE

Turning to the Net for Revenge

EOPC wants to remind all members and readers: We are NOT about REVENGE. We do not follow around our exposed predators and harass them. We have neither the time nor the desire to take any personal interest in anyone. Postings come from those who contact us and this site is not about personal revenge. We are about reporting, education, safe internet use and treating others honestly -- even online.

We do our stories to show the patterns and pathology of net abusers as well as the downside of looking for love, friendship or money online.

REVENGE hurts everyone... and here's a good (bad) example:

By Beth Hale

(U.K.)When Richard Bradford suspected his nurse girlfriend of having an affair he subjected her to the ultimate revenge.

Furious that Shivanthi Panchalingam had allegedly cheated on him, he sent a naked picture of the ward sister to everyone in her email address book.

Miss Panchalingam, who works at the Royal Berkshire Hospital, in Reading, only learned of the humiliating betrayal when a friend called to say he had seen one of the photographs.

The couple had taken the risque photographs of one and other to spice up their love life after becoming a couple in August last year but Bradford used them against the nurse after their relationship broke down.

The nurse spoke of her distress as George faced court charged with harassment.

In a statement, read out by the prosecution, she said:

'My friend Steven received a picture of me naked. You could see my front and the photos were detailed. I have not seen any of the others.

'I find it very distressing and cannot bear to look at them. He sent them to my whole address book.'

'I am embarrassed to say the least. I am a ward sister; people work below me and I am worried about my career credibility.

'I have been unable to cope with this anymore.'

As well as the photographs, Reading Magistrates' Court heard how Bradford, 37, had called Miss Panchalingam up to 40 times a week at work.

Bradford, of Glynde Road, Brighton, East Sussex, initially denied harassing Miss Panchalingam, but later changed his plea.

Simon Hammudi, defending, said: 'My client is sorry about his behaviour and says it was unreasonable and has not had any contact with the victim since the allegation.'

Valerie Boddington, presiding magistrate, handed him a one-year community order, a supervision order of nine months and ordered him pay the victim £200 in compensation and £100 costs.

Bradford also had a restraining order placed on him to have no contact directly or indirectly with Miss Panchalingam and prohibited him from going within 200 yards of the hospital unless for a medical appointment or emergency.

It's not the first time that e-mail has been used to enact revenge, nor the first time that naked photographs have come back to haunt the person posing for them. Four years ago a jilted boyfriend was jailed after setting up a website with naked pictures and film of his former lover.

He then printed business cards giving the web address and handed them out at her 21st birthday party, posted them through her neighbours' letterboxes and gave them to her work colleagues.

It is not just men who use humiliation as revenge. A survey found that eight out of ten women would take revenge on a partner who dumped them - with most using the internet and email to get even.

SOURCE

Jury awards $11.3M over defamatory Internet posts

By Laura Parker, USA TODAY
(2008) A Florida woman has been awarded $11.3 million in a defamation lawsuit against a Louisiana woman who posted messages on the Internet accusing her of being a "crook," a "con artist" and a "fraud."

Legal analysts say the Sept. 19 award by a jury in Broward County, Fla. - first reported Friday by the Daily Business Review - represents the largest such judgment over postings on an Internet blog or message board. Lyrissa Lidsky, a University of Florida law professor who specializes in free-speech issues, calls the award "astonishing."

Lidsky says the case could represent a coming trend in court fights over online messages because the woman who won the damage award, Sue Scheff of Weston, Fla., pursued the case even though she knew the defendant, Carey Bock of Mandeville, La., has no hope of paying such an award. Bock, who had to leave her home for several months because of Hurricane Katrina, couldn't afford an attorney and didn't show up for the trial.

"What's interesting about this case is that (Scheff) was so vested in being vindicated, she was willing to pay court costs," Lidsky says. "They knew before trial that the defendant couldn't pay, so what's the point in going to the jury?"

Scheff says she wanted to make a point to those who unfairly criticize others on the Internet. "I'm sure (Bock) doesn't have $1 million, let alone $11 million, but the message is strong and clear," Scheff says. "People are using the Internet to destroy people they don't like, and you can't do that."

The dispute between the two women arose after Bock asked Scheff for help in withdrawing Bock's twin sons from a boarding school in Costa Rica. Bock had disagreed with her ex-husband over how to deal with the boys' behavior problems. Against Bock's wishes, he had sent the boys to the boarding school.

Scheff, who operates a referral service called Parents Universal Resource Experts, says she referred Bock to a consultant who helped Bock retrieve her sons. Afterward, Bock became critical of Scheff and posted negative messages about her on the Internet site Fornits.com, where parents with children in boarding schools for troubled teens confer with one another.

In 2003, Scheff sued Bock for defamation. Bock hired a lawyer, but he left the case when she no longer could afford to pay him.

When Katrina hit in August 2005, Bock's house was flooded and she moved temporarily to Texas before returning to Louisiana last June. Court papers that Scheff and her attorney David H. Pollack mailed to Bock were returned to Pollack's office in Miami.

After Bock didn't offer a defense, a Broward Circuit Court judge found in favor of Scheff. A jury then heard Scheff's arguments about damages. Pollack did not seek a specific amount for the harm he says Scheff's business suffered.

"Even with no opposing counsel and no defendant there, $11 million is a huge amount," says Pollack, adding that Scheff is considering whether to try to collect any money from Bock. "The jury determined this was a significant enough issue. It's not just somebody's feelings are hurt; it's somebody's reputation is ruined."

Bock says that when she moved back to her repaired house over the summer, she knew the trial was approaching but did not know the date. She says she doesn't have the money to pay the judgment or hire a lawyer to appeal it. She adds that if the goal of Scheff's lawsuit was to stifle what Bock says online, it worked.

"I don't feel like I can express my opinions," Bock says. "Only one side of the story was told in court. Nobody heard my side."

ORIGINAL ARTICLE HERE

thanks to BETH for this find!

Smear Campaign Lands Man in Court

Homebuyer 'launched smear campaign' against estate agents

after being gazumped

By James Tozer

(U.K., 2010) Martin Frostick is alleged to have sent out faxes falsely claiming the estate agent had gone bust

A gazumped homeowner took drastic revenge by launching a smear campaign to try to drive the estate agency he blamed out of business, a court heard today.

Martin Frostick, 53, was so aggrieved at losing the house that he circulated bogus bankruptcy petitions falsely claiming the Ryder & Dutton chain was going bust, it was alleged.

As a result, the agency was 'deluged' with inquires from clients worried about its financial state, the court heard.

It had to issue urgent public statements dismissing the notices as a 'malicious rumour' to save its reputation from being fatally damaged, it was claimed.

Frostick allegedly walked into a branch of the agency - based in Oldham, Greater Manchester - last June demanding information about a house sale back in 1997.

The complaint related to a house he had owned which had been repossessed, and he had later been gazumped in a sale, the court was told.

Staff said they didn't keep records that far back and Frostick left, slamming the door.

The following day he sent an email to Richard Powell, one of the directors, said Roderick Priestley, prosecuting at Minshull Street Crown Court, Manchester.

'It was some sort of grievance the defendant had with the firm over a repossession of a house which Mr Frostick owned in Oldham. He seemed to have been gazumped in a sale.'

Mr Powell then received 'abusive and threatening' faxes followed by a document purporting be a petition regarding the winding up of Ryder & Dutton, the court heard.

Mr Priestley said the notice was a fictitious one drawn up by Frostick. 'It was made by the defendant to damage the company,' he added.

The firm called the police after receiving a further email from Frostick containing 31 pages of names and numbers of companies to which he allegedly planned to send the fax.
Ryder & Dutton estate agents in Royton near Oldham

In addition, Frostick allegedly circulated a copy of an article from the London Gazette - which carries insolvency notices - altered to suggest Ryder & Dutton had gone bust.

He is also accused of sending a newspaper article about the collapse of Northern Rock which had been manipulated to carry the firm's name instead.

'The firm was deluged with enquires about the financial health of the company,' Mr Priestley said.

One leasing firm actually terminating a contract as a result of the rumours.

'What this man did caused significant inconvenience, stress and time,' Mr Priestley told the jury.

'So in order to protect their reputation they issued an urgent statement where they made it very clear that this was a dishonest and malicious rumour.

'What is clear is that Mr Frostick perceives that he has been wronged and 11 years later has decided to proceed with a complaint.

'But he, in effect, says because they wouldn't respond successfully to him, he then embarked upon this campaign.'

Frostick of Delph, near Oldham, was arrested two weeks later. Told about the cancelling of the lease agreement, he allegedly retorted: 'Good, I'm delighted.'

The trial heard Frostick admits coming up with the idea but denies fraud by making false representations.



ORIGINAL ARTICLE HERE

Someone can only be DEFAMED if what you are saying about them is FALSE, NOT FULLY VERIFIABLE, ASSUMED FROM SCANT INFORMATION or UNTRUE.

If it IS TRUE - it is not: defamation, slander and/or libel. And you'd best be able to PROVE IN A COURT OF LAW that it is true. (Information that might possibly indicate something or you are assuming it indicates something is usually non-admissible.)

EOPC is held legally harmless - all claims of posted misinformation must be pursued THROUGH THE PERSON THAT SIGNED THE RELEASE TO US AND SUBMITTED IT IN THEIR COUNTRY OF ORIGIN.

Smear Campaign Lands Man in Court

Homebuyer 'launched smear campaign' against estate agents

after being gazumped

By James Tozer

(U.K., 2010) Martin Frostick is alleged to have sent out faxes falsely claiming the estate agent had gone bust

A gazumped homeowner took drastic revenge by launching a smear campaign to try to drive the estate agency he blamed out of business, a court heard today.

Martin Frostick, 53, was so aggrieved at losing the house that he circulated bogus bankruptcy petitions falsely claiming the Ryder & Dutton chain was going bust, it was alleged.

As a result, the agency was 'deluged' with inquires from clients worried about its financial state, the court heard.

It had to issue urgent public statements dismissing the notices as a 'malicious rumour' to save its reputation from being fatally damaged, it was claimed.

Frostick allegedly walked into a branch of the agency - based in Oldham, Greater Manchester - last June demanding information about a house sale back in 1997.

The complaint related to a house he had owned which had been repossessed, and he had later been gazumped in a sale, the court was told.

Staff said they didn't keep records that far back and Frostick left, slamming the door.

The following day he sent an email to Richard Powell, one of the directors, said Roderick Priestley, prosecuting at Minshull Street Crown Court, Manchester.

'It was some sort of grievance the defendant had with the firm over a repossession of a house which Mr Frostick owned in Oldham. He seemed to have been gazumped in a sale.'

Mr Powell then received 'abusive and threatening' faxes followed by a document purporting be a petition regarding the winding up of Ryder & Dutton, the court heard.

Mr Priestley said the notice was a fictitious one drawn up by Frostick. 'It was made by the defendant to damage the company,' he added.

The firm called the police after receiving a further email from Frostick containing 31 pages of names and numbers of companies to which he allegedly planned to send the fax.
Ryder & Dutton estate agents in Royton near Oldham

In addition, Frostick allegedly circulated a copy of an article from the London Gazette - which carries insolvency notices - altered to suggest Ryder & Dutton had gone bust.

He is also accused of sending a newspaper article about the collapse of Northern Rock which had been manipulated to carry the firm's name instead.

'The firm was deluged with enquires about the financial health of the company,' Mr Priestley said.

One leasing firm actually terminating a contract as a result of the rumours.

'What this man did caused significant inconvenience, stress and time,' Mr Priestley told the jury.

'So in order to protect their reputation they issued an urgent statement where they made it very clear that this was a dishonest and malicious rumour.

'What is clear is that Mr Frostick perceives that he has been wronged and 11 years later has decided to proceed with a complaint.

'But he, in effect, says because they wouldn't respond successfully to him, he then embarked upon this campaign.'

Frostick of Delph, near Oldham, was arrested two weeks later. Told about the cancelling of the lease agreement, he allegedly retorted: 'Good, I'm delighted.'

The trial heard Frostick admits coming up with the idea but denies fraud by making false representations.



ORIGINAL ARTICLE HERE

Someone can only be DEFAMED if what you are saying about them is FALSE, NOT FULLY VERIFIABLE, ASSUMED FROM SCANT INFORMATION or UNTRUE.

If it IS TRUE - it is not: defamation, slander and/or libel. And you'd best be able to PROVE IN A COURT OF LAW that it is true. (Information that might possibly indicate something or you are assuming it indicates something is usually non-admissible.)

EOPC is held legally harmless - all claims of posted misinformation must be pursued THROUGH THE PERSON THAT SIGNED THE RELEASE TO US AND SUBMITTED IT IN THEIR COUNTRY OF ORIGIN.

Married Woman Seduced by Internet Fake takes Hoaxer to Court

A married woman who spent $10,000 on a fake boyfriend she was allegedly duped into having an online relationship with has won a battle to take the case to court.

Paula Bonhomme was seduced with messages and emails from the imaginary fireman she met on TV series 'Deadwood' chat rooms in 2005.

The pair lavished each other with gifts before Bonhomme ended her marriage after planning to move with her new 'love'. But Bonhomme was devastated when she was informed that 'Jesse Jubilee James' had died of liver cancer in 2006.

Her stunned friends later discovered that the imaginary fireman was allegedly concocted by Janna St. James, a middle aged woman in Chicago, Illinois.

Bonhommme filed a lawsuit that was moved to Kane County, Illinois, where in December 2009 a judge dismissed her complaint.

But after months of legal wrangling an appeals court last month reinstated Bonhomme's fraudulent misrepresentation claim after rejecting the defence attorney's argument that the alleged hoax could be classed as fiction.

The appeals court was told how Bonhomme had been looking at message boards when she began flirting with the character. The couple spoke almost every day on the phone, with St. James being said to have used a high-tech voice altering device to sound like a man.

The pair had never met in person but Bonhomme left her marriage and was set to leave her home in Los Angeles, California, to be with her online 'boyfriend' in Colorado.

From her suburban home, St James had created a complex web of characters that were all entwined in the fireman's life. They included Pavlo Quietao, an Argentine friend, Krista, James' jealous ex-wife, Cakey, a rancher friend and even Rhys, James' young son. James was described as being a llama rancher with a love of words, and a rugged fireman who loved to knit but also suffered with bi-polar disorder. 'He' told Bonhomme that he had a six-year-old son and even sent a hand-drawn picture of a mermaid claiming to be from the child.

St James also sent gifts that were supposed to be from the mystery man. They included a rubber duck with a fireman hat, a lock of hair and a flattened quarter he'd stuck on the train tracks as a kid. Later she sent a carving knife said to have been melted in a fire and wood from a tree that had the initials 'JJJ' carved in, which St. James had said was salvaged from a fire that the man had extinguished. Bonhomme responded with her own gifts for 'James' and his family. They included a dog for his son.

Before the alleged con ended, St. James wrote Bonhomme a poem saying she was thankful of the romance between her and the imaginary fireman.

She wrote that she was grateful for 'the residual of that love, from which I now benefit.'

A short time later in 2006 Bonhomme was told that 'James' had died of liver cancer, having requested that nobody was present at his death.

'You all have temples within you,' he is said to have written in a last note. 'Go there if you want to honour me.'

The note, written on hotel paper, continued: 'I don't want to go. I don't want to die. I'm not ready. Not now. Not when I'm so close to being whole. So since everybody has always encouraged me to be selfish in my life I chose to die in secret. I know even if nobody else can understand, you can.'

An email from another of St James' characters, the fireman's son, stated: 'My daddy really died. I still cry every day and you will … it's okay to do that. We miss my daddy and your dog.'

St. James had been in constant communication with Bonhomme by posing as the fireman's friends. After the 'boyfriend's' death the pair grew closer. St. James arranged to meet the heartbroken woman and the pair traveled to New Mexico where they went on emotional visits to the fireman's imaginary haunts. But several months after the fireman's 'death' Bonhomme was told the truth about the relationship the day after St. James had visited her house.

Her friends confronted St. James who admitted putting Bonhomme through an 'emotional wringer' and the video was posted on YouTube. 'Who does that?' Bonhomme said, according to the Chicago Tribune. 'When you take it all apart and look at it, oh, you feel like such an idiot. … But when it's unspooled on you tiny bit by tiny bit and mixed in with reality, how do you even know where the lie begins?'

The court said that the fraud claim, which is usually applied to business, rested on an 'almost-two-year masquerade of false statements.' Daliah Saper, Bonhomme's Chicago attorney, said the ability to use the legal remedy for personal situations was a 'beautiful new tool'.

St James is reported to have written a letter to one of Bonhomme's friends after the hoax ended. 'I wanted nothing from her. I only wanted to be helpful,' the note is understood to have read. '(From) Janna, content with who and what I am.'

St. James' attorney claims that she should not be punished in court. She wrote in court papers: 'The concepts of falsity and material fact do not apply in the context of fiction because fiction does not purport to represent reality.'


original article here

GOOD FOR BONHOMME FOR GOING AFTER THIS WOMAN - SOUNDS A LOT LIKE THIS HOAXER (click here)

Married Woman Seduced by Internet Fake takes Hoaxer to Court

A married woman who spent $10,000 on a fake boyfriend she was allegedly duped into having an online relationship with has won a battle to take the case to court.

Paula Bonhomme was seduced with messages and emails from the imaginary fireman she met on TV series 'Deadwood' chat rooms in 2005.

The pair lavished each other with gifts before Bonhomme ended her marriage after planning to move with her new 'love'. But Bonhomme was devastated when she was informed that 'Jesse Jubilee James' had died of liver cancer in 2006.

Her stunned friends later discovered that the imaginary fireman was allegedly concocted by Janna St. James, a middle aged woman in Chicago, Illinois.

Bonhommme filed a lawsuit that was moved to Kane County, Illinois, where in December 2009 a judge dismissed her complaint.

But after months of legal wrangling an appeals court last month reinstated Bonhomme's fraudulent misrepresentation claim after rejecting the defence attorney's argument that the alleged hoax could be classed as fiction.

The appeals court was told how Bonhomme had been looking at message boards when she began flirting with the character. The couple spoke almost every day on the phone, with St. James being said to have used a high-tech voice altering device to sound like a man.

The pair had never met in person but Bonhomme left her marriage and was set to leave her home in Los Angeles, California, to be with her online 'boyfriend' in Colorado.

From her suburban home, St James had created a complex web of characters that were all entwined in the fireman's life. They included Pavlo Quietao, an Argentine friend, Krista, James' jealous ex-wife, Cakey, a rancher friend and even Rhys, James' young son. James was described as being a llama rancher with a love of words, and a rugged fireman who loved to knit but also suffered with bi-polar disorder. 'He' told Bonhomme that he had a six-year-old son and even sent a hand-drawn picture of a mermaid claiming to be from the child.

St James also sent gifts that were supposed to be from the mystery man. They included a rubber duck with a fireman hat, a lock of hair and a flattened quarter he'd stuck on the train tracks as a kid. Later she sent a carving knife said to have been melted in a fire and wood from a tree that had the initials 'JJJ' carved in, which St. James had said was salvaged from a fire that the man had extinguished. Bonhomme responded with her own gifts for 'James' and his family. They included a dog for his son.

Before the alleged con ended, St. James wrote Bonhomme a poem saying she was thankful of the romance between her and the imaginary fireman.

She wrote that she was grateful for 'the residual of that love, from which I now benefit.'

A short time later in 2006 Bonhomme was told that 'James' had died of liver cancer, having requested that nobody was present at his death.

'You all have temples within you,' he is said to have written in a last note. 'Go there if you want to honour me.'

The note, written on hotel paper, continued: 'I don't want to go. I don't want to die. I'm not ready. Not now. Not when I'm so close to being whole. So since everybody has always encouraged me to be selfish in my life I chose to die in secret. I know even if nobody else can understand, you can.'

An email from another of St James' characters, the fireman's son, stated: 'My daddy really died. I still cry every day and you will … it's okay to do that. We miss my daddy and your dog.'

St. James had been in constant communication with Bonhomme by posing as the fireman's friends. After the 'boyfriend's' death the pair grew closer. St. James arranged to meet the heartbroken woman and the pair traveled to New Mexico where they went on emotional visits to the fireman's imaginary haunts. But several months after the fireman's 'death' Bonhomme was told the truth about the relationship the day after St. James had visited her house.

Her friends confronted St. James who admitted putting Bonhomme through an 'emotional wringer' and the video was posted on YouTube. 'Who does that?' Bonhomme said, according to the Chicago Tribune. 'When you take it all apart and look at it, oh, you feel like such an idiot. … But when it's unspooled on you tiny bit by tiny bit and mixed in with reality, how do you even know where the lie begins?'

The court said that the fraud claim, which is usually applied to business, rested on an 'almost-two-year masquerade of false statements.' Daliah Saper, Bonhomme's Chicago attorney, said the ability to use the legal remedy for personal situations was a 'beautiful new tool'.

St James is reported to have written a letter to one of Bonhomme's friends after the hoax ended. 'I wanted nothing from her. I only wanted to be helpful,' the note is understood to have read. '(From) Janna, content with who and what I am.'

St. James' attorney claims that she should not be punished in court. She wrote in court papers: 'The concepts of falsity and material fact do not apply in the context of fiction because fiction does not purport to represent reality.'


original article here

GOOD FOR BONHOMME FOR GOING AFTER THIS WOMAN - SOUNDS A LOT LIKE THIS HOAXER (click here)