Defamation Lawyer: Traverse Internet Law on Defamation. August 2010.

Defamation Lawyer Disclaimer
The facts are unproven allegations of the Plaintiff and all commentary is based upon the allegations, the truthfulness and accuracy of which are likely in dispute.


HANLEY-WOOD, LLC v. HANLEY WOOD, LLC and MUTUAL COMPANIES, LLC
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (WASHINGTON, DC)
1:10-CV-01167
FILED: 7/12/2010

Corporate “shakedowns” are becoming more prevalent as attackers develop a greater understanding and appreciation for the damage that can be visited upon businesses using virtually free tools on the web. No longer are mere words being used to attack. The tactics, strategies, and actions of alleged extortionists are absolutely amazing.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants have carried on an extensive campaign of corporate stalking. Plaintiff alleges a broad range of impersonations, financial demands, and defamation.

The lawsuit includes claims for trademark infringement and false descriptions, violation of the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, defamation, and unfair competition. Plaintiff requests damages in the form of declaratory and injunctive relief along with compensatory damages, statutory damages, fees, costs, and other just, equitable, and proper relief. Traverse Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1438.

Defamation Lawyer: Traverse Internet Law on Defamation. July 2010.

Defamation Lawyer Disclaimer
The facts are unproven allegations of the Plaintiff and all commentary is based upon the allegations, the truthfulness and accuracy of which are likely in dispute.


PHOTO EXCHANGE BBS, INC., ET AL. v. JONATHAN D. SHELINE, ET AL.
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO (COLUMBUS)
2:10-CV-00566
FILED: 6/17/2010

You would have to read through this entire lawsuit to get an appreciation as to the scope and extent of the alleged unlawful activity. The bottom line is that, for purposes of defamation, false statements that damage a party are legally actionable and create almost unlimited liability to the author.

Photo Exchange BBS is an adult website and the Defendants have allegedly carried on an incredibly extensive campaign of harassment and defamation against the Plaintiffs.

The lawsuit alleges defamation per se, defamation per quod, public disclosure of private facts, false light, misappropriation of each Plaintiff’s name and likeness, tortious interference with contractual relationship, tortious interference with business relationship, tortious interference with perspective and past economic advantage, copyright infringement, service mark infringement, false designation or origin, cyberpiracy, product disparagement and trade libel, intentional infliction of emotional distress, loss of filial consortium, intentional destruction of evidence, negligent destruction of evidence, and conspiracy. Plaintiffs request injunctive relief and that the Defendants be ordered to pay extensive punitive damages plus attorneys’ fees, costs and expenses, and other relief the Court deems appropriate. Traverse Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1434.