In December 2005, Pennsylvania Turnpike Commissioner Pasquale Deon filed a libel suit against the Town Supervisor of Middletown, Pennsylvania, Robert McMonagle, in Pennsylvania state court. Deon alleged that McMonagle published statements claiming on two websites dealing with local politics that Deon was involved in criminal and corrupt activities.

The record is unclear, but it looks like McMonagle never appeared in the lawsuit and there has been no activity in the case since April 2006. According to the Bucks County Court docket, Deon filed a similar lawsuit against McMonagle in May 2004 (case number 200402986).  Neither case had any recent activity as of June 17, 2009.

Harold King runs the forum site "McAlester Watercooler," which he describes as a forum for citizens of McAlester, Oklahoma to "voice their views about the on-going City events." In August 2005, former state senator Gene Stipe filed a police report alleging that King had published false information about Stipe and his family on the forum (the precise nature of the statements was not disclosed).

The police passed Stipe's complaint and evidence on to the local district attorney, but the district attorney did not pursue criminal charges.

Oklahoma has a criminal libel statute, making libel "punishable by imprisonment in the county jail not more than one (1) year, or by fine not exceeing One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00), or both." 21 Okla. Stat. § 773. "Libel" is defined as "a false or malicious unprivileged publication by writing, printing, picture, or effigy or other fixed representation to the eye, which exposes any person to public hatred, contempt, ridicule or obloquy, or which tends to deprive him of public confidence, or to injure him in his occupation, or any malicious publication as aforesaid, designed to blacken or vilify the memory of one who is dead, and tending to scandalize his surviving relatives or friends." 21 Okla. Stat. § 771.

Elsebeth Baumgartner and Bryan DuBois co-ran a blog called "Erie Voices," which posted articles and commentary alleging misconduct about local officials in a number of counties in Ohio.

In June 2005, Baumgartner and Dubois were indicted in Cuyahoga County court for intimidation, retaliation, and possession of criminal tools. The charges related to emails that Baumgartner and DuBois allegedly sent to a retired judge who had previously presided over a libel case in which Baumgartner was a defendant.

Baumgartner and DuBois were re-indicted in Cuyahoga County in August 2005, when the prosecution added a harassment charge based on emails sent to the retired judge's children after the initial indictment.

DuBois pled guilty to separate charges against him in Ottowa County and agreed to testify against Baumgartner in her trial. As a result of this deal, the charges against him in the Cuyahoga County action were dropped.

During the pendency of the criminal action, Baumgartner allegedly began threatening and harassing DuBois and his wife through postings on the Erie Voices blog. In February 2006, police in Ottowa County obtained a search warrant for Baumgartner's home seeking documents and computers related to Baumgartner's online activity. The blog was eventually shut down.

Baumgartner was convicted on multiple counts of intimidation and retaliation and sentenced to eight years in prison. She is appealing her conviction, and her sentence is stayed pending appeal.

Update:

5/11/2008 - According to the North County Gazette, Baumgartner was imprisoned after violating the terms of her stay of sentence. The court prohibited her from filing any new cases as a conditon of her release, but she filed a civil rights case in federal court on April 7, 2008.

Sierra Corporate Design ("Sierra"), a self-described "specialized Internet service provider and web hosting provider," sued Ed Falk, an anti-spam campaigner and operator of the "Spam Tracking Page," and David Ritz, a member of one of Falk's Usenet groups, in North Dakota state court for violations of North Dakota's computer crime statute (N.D. Cent. Code § 12.1-06.1-08) and trespass to chattels.

The complaint alleged that Ritz hacked servers owned by Sierra, gathered confidential information (in the form of "internal network configurations and NIP addresses for Sierra's network" and "private domain name/IP address/company information"), and published that information on the Internet. It alleged that Falk was aware of Ritz's unauthorized access to Sierra's servers and assisted in publishing Sierra's information by posting a link to Ritz's announcement on Usenet that itself linked to Ritz's website, where Sierra's information appeared.

In October 2006, the North Dakota court held that it did not have jurisdiction over Falk, dismissed the lawsuit against him, and vacated a default judgment that previously had been entered against him. (This case is related to Jerry Reynold's defamation suit against Falk, which is addressed in another CMLP database entry.)

Update:

1/11/2008 - After a bench trial, the court ruled in favor of Sierra, finding that Ritz had committed trespass to chattels by accessing its computers without authorization and with malicious intent. The court awarded Sierra $2,930 in actual damages and $50,000 in exemplary damages, and fined Ritz $10,000 for violating a court order. The court permanently enjoined Ritz from accessing Sierra's computers. The court held that Sierra also was entitled to attorneys' fees and ordered Sierra to submit an application for fees within thirty days.

Patrick Atkinson is the founder and executive director of the God's Child Project, a charitable organization that provides health and medical care, food, and education to children in Guatamala. Dr. James McLaughlin and Roberta McLaughlin volunteered for the God's Child Project from July 1997 to March 1998, at which time they were terminated from their volunteer positions. After their dismissal, the McLaughlins made a number of allegations against Atkinson with Guatamalan authorities.

According to court filings, the McLaughlins then returned to the United States and began emailing the Project's board members and supporters claiming that they had been improperly terminated and questioning Atkinson's ethics and character. They subsequently sent additional emails claiming that Atkinson had sexually abused two boys and issued a press release claiming that Atkinson had been arrested on chages of sexual abuse.

The McLaughlins also created a website called "Friends of Guatemalan Children" in November 1998.  According to court filings, they allegedly made statements on the website that suggested that Atkinson misued funds, lied, molested children, and committed criminal acts in Guatamala and the United States, all in connection with Atkinson's previous work for Covenant House, another charitable organization that operated in Guatamala. The McLaughlins also contacted the North Dakota Attorney General's Office concering Atkinson and the Project and repeated their previous accusations of criminal conduct.

In an effort to resolve the present dispute, Atkinson and the God’s Child Project attempted to contact the McLaughlins in October of 2002, to request that they retract their website. At the time the McLaughlins received notice of the letter they were traveling in Argentina and Brazil. On November 7, 2002, an attorney responded on behalf of the McLaughlins and asked what portions of the website were false or misleading. On February 24, 2003, an attorney for Atkinson responded and included a copy of Atkinson’s unfiled complaint.

In July 2003, Atkinson sued the McLaughlins in federal court in North Dakota for defamation and interference with business relations. The McLaughlins moved to dismiss the complaint, and the court denied the motion in November 2004, holding that it had personal jurisdiction over them. The McLaughlins later filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that the two-year statute of limitations on defamation claims barred Atkinson's lawsuit.

In November 2006, the court ruled on the McLaughlin's motion for summary judgment, holding that the statute of limitations for a defamation claim begins to run from the day that defamatory statements are published to a website, and that making minor changes or updates to material on a website does not constitute a second publication of the defamatory statements. See Atkinson v. McLaughlin, No. 1:03-cv-091, slip op., at 20-22, 26-27 (D. N.D. Nov. 28, 2006).

The court concluded that Atkinson's claims based on statements made before July 28, 2001 were time barred. The court determined, however, that there was a genuine issue of fact as to whether the McLaughlin's made defamatory statements after that time. See id. at 31-32.

In May 2007, the parties settled the lawsuit, and Atkinson voluntarily dismissed the action.  The Friends of Guatemalan Children website appears to have been taken down as a result of the settlement. The homepage states:

This website and all of the content contained herein has been removed as part of an agreement resulting from a federal lawsuit alleging that the site contained false and misleading information about the individuals and organizations mentioned on this site.  This action is the result of successfull legal action taken by The GOD'S CHILD Project and Patrick Atkinson against the former owners of this web-site.

James Sollami, the former Town Supervisor of Cornwall, New York, sued blogger Tom Sheppard for libel in New York state court in 2004. Sheppard operates a website called "Cornball-Local.com," which deals with local politics. Sollami objected to 27 statements made on the blog, which, according to the RecordOnline.com, accused Sollami of "a laundry list of misdeeds involving town business."

The trial judge granted Sheppard's motion to dismiss in April 2004, concluding that the statements at issue were statements of opinion protected by the First Amendment. Sollami appealed, and the New York apellate court reversed the dismissal as to seven statements. The appellate court concluded that these statements were capable of a defamatory meaning and that a jury could conclude that they contained underlying assertions of fact. Sollami v. Shepphard, 799 N.Y.S.2d 427 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005). The appellate court sent the case back to the lower court for trial.

Trial commenced in May 2007, but the judge declared a mistrial weeks later when Sollami's lawyer became incapacitated due to a back injury. Retrial is pending.

Update:

4/11/2008 - Jury selection began for a new trial.

Penn Warranty contracts with individuals to provide service warranties on used cars. On May 20, 2000, Penn Warranty provided DeGiovanni a "standard warranty" for a used truck in New Jersey, where he lived at the time. DeGiovanni filed a claim under the service contract, which Penn Warranty denied. Giovanni brought a breach of contract lawsuit in small claims court in New Jersey, and the case settled out of court for $2500. He then created a "gripe site," on which he claimed that Penn Warranty engaged in deceptive business practices. The site contained some generally negative comments about the car service warranty industry, the auto insurance industry, and New Jersey judges. More importantly, the gripe site also contained statements that Penn Warranty "cleverly" interprets its standard contracts, that it is a "blatantly dishonest company," that it is a "crooked company," that it "has been ripping of ripping off its contract holders for quite a while," and that it had committed fraud.

Before publishing the site on the web, DeGiovanni contacted Penn Warranty and stated that he would publish the website and expose the company's unfair practices unless it "did the right thing." Penn Warranty did not concede to DeGiovanni's "demands," and he pubished the site. DeGiovanni also sent the content of the site to Penn Warranty's employees.

Penn Warranty sued in New York state court, alleging defamation, trade libel, harrasment, extortion and coercion, intentional interference with prospective economic advantage, cybersquatting, and violations of RICO. On DeGiovanni's motion for summary judgment, the court dismissed the defamation and trade libel claims, holding that the statements on DeGiovanni's website were statements of personal opinion protected by the First Amendment. The court dismissed the intentional interference with economic advantage claim because Penn Warranty offered no evidence of any customer that did not do business with it as a result of DeGiovanni's site. The court dismissed the extortion/harassment/coercion claim, holding that the defendant could not be held liable for threatening to do something he had a right to do -- to express his constitutionally protected opinions. It dismissed Penn Warranty's trademark claim, which revolved around DeGiovanni's use of a domain name similar to the domain name of Penn Warranty's website, because DeGiovanni's use of the mark was not commercial and because the domain names were not confusingly similar. Finally, it dismissed the RICO claims for failure to provide any evidence of an enterprise, among other grounds. See Penn Warranty Corp. v. DiGiovanni, 810 N.Y.S.2d 807 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2005).

A New York news station broadcast a report on Citywide Sewer & Drain focusing on customer complaints. Angelo Carusone, who had worked a summer job at Citywide, made comments on his blog under the title, "Citywide Really Is Shittywide." Citywide sued Carusone and his father, who worked at Citywide, for defamation. In September 2006, the New York Supreme Court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, holding that the statements on Carusone's blog were statements of opinion protected by the First Amendment.

Landmark Education is a for-profit company engaged in the business of making "education programs" available to the general public and corporations, on subjects including communication, time management, and productivity. Its basic program is "The Forum" -- a three day/one evening seminar directed at "enhancing communication, creativity, and productivity for participants." Participants in the Forum may and are urged to take additional seminars given by Landmark and to recruit new participants for Landmark programs.

Rick Ross runs nonprofit websites, www.rickross.com , www.culteducation.com, and www.cultnews.com, through his non-profit entity, the Rick Ross Institute of New Jersey. The websites provide information to the public about cults and other controversial groups. On the website, Ross solicits contributions and sells his books and multimedia materials. Ross also operates a for-profit business "de-programming" the victims of cults, which is advertised on his sites.

Ross included Landmark on his list of organizations refered to as "controversial groups, some called 'cults," which included organizations such as the Aryan Brotherhood and Al-Qaeda.

Visitors to Ross's sites posted various anonymous "visitor comments" critical of Landmark that allegedly gave the impression that Landmark's programs are cult-like and present risks of physical or mental harm to participants. Other comments accused Landmark of "hypnotizing" and "braninwashing" participants, attempting "cult recruitment" and "mind control." Others indicated that the Landmark Forum "used bright fluorescent lighting with no windows, didn't allow food or drink in the room, and required such long hours," and that participants in the Landmark Forum who wanted to leave were met with "guilt, manipulation and implied threats" and those who did leave were "harassed" by Landmark representatives seeking to convince them to return. The sites contained a disclaimer displayed at the bottom of the visitor comments pages indicating that "the Rick Ross Institute, its Advsiory Board and/or Rick Ross do not necessarily endorse or support any of the views expressed within the documents, articles, reports, and testimonies archivied within this website, with the exception of those specifically so attributed."

Ross's sites also posted anonymously authored "personal stories" detailing unpleasant experiences that befell the authors or someone close to them during their participation in one of Landmark's programs. Some of these personal stories had provacative titles, including "This cannot be healthy emotionally" and "Landmark Education destroyed my life -- from the Forum to the psych ward." These personal stories included statements to the effect that Landmark's programs make a "deliberate assault on your mind," are a "form of mind control," and have "cult attributes."

The websites also hosted a number of articles by third-party authors concerning Landmark, with titles like "Brain Wash," "Mindbreakers," and "Microsoft Paid for Culty Clinics," which had been previously published in other publications.

Additionally, visitors to the websites' forum sections, writing under psuedonyms, posted a number of critical comments accusing Landmark of mind control, brainwashing, and the like. The websites posted rules relating to the forums, stating "the moderators of this forum will attempt to keep all objectionable messages off this forum, but it is impossible to review every message. All messages express the views of the author, and neither the owners of this forum, Cult Education.com, Rick Ross.com and/or developers of bulletin software, will be held responsible for the content of any message."

Ross's websites also included links to other websites containing negative content relating to Landmark. The links were accompanied by a disclaimer: "The Rick A. Ross Institute, its Advisory Board and/or Rick Ross do not necessarily endorse or support any of the views expressed within the linked websites listed at the Links page of this website."

At the time of the lawsuit, apparently a search for "Landmark Education" on Google produced Ross's websites on the results list.

Ross also allegedly made several statements to the news media radio shows, indicating that certain of Landmark's methods were "cult-like" and that participants of Landmark's programs had suffered negative mental health effects.

In June 2004, Landmark sued Ross and the Ross Institute in United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, asserting claims of product disparagement, tortious interference with ongoing and propspective business relations, trademark disparagement under the Lanham Act, consumer fraud and unfair competition under New Jersey law, and prima facie tort.

Ross and the Institute filed an answer in September 2004 without moving to dismiss. In it, they asserted various defenses, including that the statements were statements of opinion, the fair comment privilege, and lack of actual malice.

The details are not clear, but Landmark appears to have voluntarily dismissed the case in December 2005.

In August 2005, Software Development and Investment of Nevada ("Software Development"), a Nevada corporation in the business of "internet advertising and internet placement optimization" under the name Traffic-Power.com, sued Aaron Wall and an unknown number of anonymous users of Wall's blog for libel and misappropriation of trade secrets. At the time of the suit, Wall was a Pennsylvania resident and a blogger who wrote about search engine optimization on his blog, "SEO Book.com."

According to Software Development's complaint in Nevada state court, a number of unknown persons disseminated information about its marketing strategy and solicitation procedures over the internet. These unknown persons allegedly posted this proprietary information on Wall's blog and other "publicly available areas of the internet."

The complaint also alleged that Wall and his anonymous co-defendants published false and defamatory statements about it and its business over the internet. The complaint did not specify any statements, but an opinion from the federal district court during the litigation identified the following statements that Software Development contended were defamatory:

• a statement that Software Development is among a group of people that Wall considered "fraudsters and hucksters";
• a statement that Software Development's website had been "banned by the search engines";
• a statement that Software Development used "idiotic high pressure salesmen" to sell its "shit services";
• a statement that Software Development's services "suck";
• a statement that people who buy Software Development's services get "screwed"; and
• a statement that Wall would "need to shower at least 6 times a day" if he worked for "a company as dirty" as Software Development.

Wall also allegedly linked to other sites that made disparaging comments about Software Development. Software Dev. & Inv. v. Wall, No. 2:05-cv-01109, slip op., at 2 (D. Nev. Feb. 13, 2006).

In September 2005, Wall removed the lawsuit to federal court. He later moved to dismiss, and the federal court dismissed the action in February 2006, holding that it had no personal jurisdiction over Wall. Software Dev. & Inv. v. Wall, No. 2:05-cv-01109, slip op. (D. Nev. Feb. 13, 2006).

In its order, the court concluded, among other things, that Wall's blog was "passive" despite the ability of reader's to post comments. Id. at 3. The determination of a website's "passive" or "active" character is important in the legal analysis because the more "active" a site is with respect to a state's citizens, the more justification there is for that state to assert personal jurisdiction over it. The court also concluded that there was no evidence that Wall had "expressly aimed the offensive communications at the Sate of Nevada, knowing that the communications would cause harm to Plaintiff in Nevada." Id. at 7. The court never reached the CDA 230 issue.

In its order dismissing the case, the court gave Software Development permission to file an amended complaint, but Software Development did not do so, and the case was dismissed for want of prosecution in June 2007.