US Marshals Ordered To Seize Righthaven Property 120
An anonymous reader writes "Troubled times ahead for Righthaven, as Ars Technica reports that the U.S. Marshals have been instructed 'to use "reasonable force" to seize $63,720.80 in cash and/or assets from the Las Vegas copyright troll after Righthaven failed to pay a court judgment from August 15.'"
take their servers and router (Score:5, Insightful)
and sell them at sheriff's auction.
Re:take their servers and router (Score:4, Funny)
and sell them at sheriff's auction.
Ooo. Lemme know when the auction is. Then I can share the secrets with /. =)
It's a victory, small, but a victory no less.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:take their servers and router (Score:4, Insightful)
Massive need for confidentiality perhaps?
Re:take their servers and router (Score:4, Insightful)
First, you need some significant in-house resources just to connect a few hundred computers to the internet. Those aren't free. Notably, that would include routers, as the Grandfather suggested. Second, we cannot allow client data to be outside our control -- that would endanger confidentiality. In Illinois (and in every other state, I guarantee) attorneys are responsible for retaining and protecting client information -- including things like draft memos and attorneys' notes -- from access by any third party without client permission. That's why, for example, I couldn't use google-docs when I was running a solo practice. Even though I could lock access to the documents so only I could view the document, google's privacy policy (at the time I have not verified) gave them the right to view documents in their system. It is -my- responsibility to protect my client's information from search and seizure by the Gov't or a police agency. By entrusting my data to a datacluster, I could lose control of client data and not even know until I get hit for breaching the rules of professional conduct.
That's just two of the reasons its good to have in-house hardware. I haven't even dipped my toe into how useful leases are for defraying or reducing tax liability, and the myriad other more financial driven reasons why I might want to have an internal IT team.
Warning: the above is not legal advice. You are not my client. If you have a question, seek an attorney licensed in your state, not the ramblings of a lawyer on
-GiH
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In Illinois (and in every other state, I guarantee) attorneys are responsible for retaining and protecting client information -- including things like draft memos and attorneys' notes -- from access by any third party without client permission.
How far does that duty go? If some thief knocks down my reasonably secure door and steals my reasonably secured filing cabinet, am I on the hook? Where's that go with computerized files? If a reasonably secured filing cabinet is just the cheapie you can buy at Staples
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Cool. Thanks for the info.
Seems like a place someone who knows what they're talking about could make a few bucks.
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting. So what happens if a law office gets raided by the U.S. Marshals and they take the servers that have your clients' confidential files on them? (Assuming that the clients had nothing to do with the raid.) What happens to those files? Could the receiver of the hardware simply wipe the hardware with impunity? I'm guessing that actually viewing the contents of said files would be a majorly bad idea.
Re: (Score:2)
Still
Re: (Score:3)
Holy shit, is this Righthaven storyline the most satisfying nerd storyline of the last half-century or what? This is even better than SCO! I just can't believe that justice has rained down so hard in this case.
Re:take their servers and router (Score:4, Insightful)
Much as I love the image of the police carting out Righthavens office furnature while some guys in suits quietly weep in the corner.. I imagine all the real assets are long gone, and the actual guys behind it all safely out of the way. Righthaven will go under.. and then re-emerge as a different LLC and keep right on trucking.
Not saying this isn't awesome, but lets not delude outselves to the nature of these trolls.
Re: (Score:2)
Righthaven will go under.. and then re-emerge as a different LLC and keep right on trucking.
It will re-emerge as something named Goodharbor or Righteousdefenders or Correctangels or some other bullshit.
Re: (Score:3)
Hiding assets as you suggest would elevate this from a civil matter and bankruptcy into a criminal matter and prison. Courts don't like being taken for fools like that, and there are so many people eager to pound Righthaven that they won't escape that easily.
Re: (Score:1)
Oh God yes.
I wish I could see them get raided.
Re: (Score:2)
Awww.. geez.. I drive right by them everyday to/from work.. Perhaps I'll stop by on the way home today, and do a Simpsons Nelson "HA HA" on their sorry asses... And an aside to their webguy: What a crappy website...
For others in Las Vegas, its:
Righthaven LLC
Conquistador Business Park
9960 West Cheyenne Ave, Suite 210
Las Vegas, NV 89129
(702) 527-5900
Re: (Score:2)
A pity... (Score:5, Insightful)
The cyclically-evicted members of the poor are all too familiar with the treatment; but we don't give it to the arrogant nearly as often as would be socially useful...
Re: (Score:2)
Sadly, they may have viewed this as a calculated risk, taken many times, and lost only once... I wonder if the actors behind Righthaven are really hurt by this loss at all?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:A pity... (Score:4, Interesting)
IANAL - I believe the legal language is something along the lines of 'The corporate veil (or shield) protecting agents of the corporation from judgements and legal action can be pierced if the agent in question has performed the offending actions while significantly outside the scope of the agent's duties with the employing offending organization.' Basically, it protects employees from personal lawsuits for actions taken by the corporation when the employee was acting as an agent of the corporation in performance of his/her/their job duties, when those duties are in compliance with their stated scope of their duties and those duties do not directly violate the rule of law. So, can't sue a CEO directly for when his towing company accidentally repossesses your car, causing damage - can only sue the corporation. If the CEO was using his towing company to steal cars, then you can 'pierce the corporate veil' and charge him/her directly.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
From: http://whynevada.com/commercialrecordings/legaladvantagescorps.asp [whynevada.com] for more info on Nevada Corporations.
Re: (Score:2)
IANAL, but it seems to me that suing someone over something you don't own could be considered fraud.
Re: (Score:2)
Very much not a lawyer, but I thought that was kind of the whole point of incorporating... turning the business into a seperate entity with it's own assets and protecting the owner.
Personally I think this sucks in situations like this. Righthaven will just die, and spring up as something else and keep right on going..
Re: (Score:3)
True, but the courts have determined rules for "piercing the corporate veil" as it's known - the best known reason is if the whole purpose of a company was to commit fraud. Because the point of
Re: (Score:3)
Right. And to put a finer point in it, let's say you own a single share of a publicly traded company. If that company gets sued into the stone age and the owners are liable, that includes you even though you had nothing to do with whatever they got sued for. Making the corp a separate entity makes corps largely possible. Without that, investors would be hard to find (I am NOT giving you $money if that means my risk is up to and including my full net worth) and getting people to start companies at all wo
Re:A pity... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Um, no, it's not that easy. Any court would rule that the "new" business is just the old business and allow whatever lawsuits to proceed.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe if Righthaven acted as their agent.
This. (Score:2, Interesting)
I used to know a guy that had become a millionaire using the "calculated risk" model.
He created bunch of B2B "information" and "benefits" products that were really just marketing copy in large volumes. He'd pay online contract workers $pennies to create both the marketing and the essentially nonexistent/useless product that amounted to a website with a login and a search box (that didn't show results for much of anything) and a lot of graphics of people playing golf and enjoying themselves and sitting and d
Re: (Score:2)
It's disgusting how doing nothing but scamming people can net them more money in a few years than I'll see in a life time. They don't know how to do anything but talk and chase money.
And worse yet, if they do make a mistake, they are untouchable, their company is several layer
Re: (Score:3)
Nope, I'm sure they will just register a new LLC with a different name and keep on trucking as before. They just busted a couple guys here in Madison for fraud; him and a friend were locksmiths and it turned out they had registered something like thirty different corporations over the last 10-15 years. They would rip people off and when it finally seemed like they would actually have to pay for their actions, that corporation would fold and disappear and a new one would spring up in it's place not long af
Re: (Score:2)
'S a good point. The company is finished. Let's stop concentrating on that, and go after individuals for the rest of the funds. I know, incorporating is supposed to protect them from that, but there ought to be some way in egregious instances like this.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. You start holding the board of directors and Executive Officers criminally liable for the actions of the corporation. The purpose of these positions is to keep watch over the corporation and make sure the corporations is doing everything nice an legal. When the entirety of the Corporation is corrupt, you must go after the people running it.
I understand "limited liability", but criminal negligence is not a liability it is a lifestyle.
Re: (Score:3)
...but some days watching those who would crush others with the force of law having their stuff dumped into the street...
You're confusing seizures and evictions. In a seizure ("attachment" in legalese) they load it onto a U-Haul and take it to a nice storage facility to await auction ;-)
Retribution (Score:4, Insightful)
but some days watching those who would crush others with the force of law having their stuff dumped into the street and sold off is just satisfying
Retribution does satisfy the primal urges, but it doesn't help me all that much (as a member of this society).
I want to be able to search a database of scumbags - their name, dob, and known mailing addresses, so I can avoid ever getting into a business transaction with them. The US Marshalls stealing their copy machine doesn't actually help society in any meaningful way.
Retributive justice is deeply ingrained in human society, but we have the tools to progress beyond that now.
Re:Retribution (Score:5, Insightful)
It is almost certain that any such database would end up in the hands of someone who should be in the database.
Re: (Score:1)
The US Marshalls stealing their copy machine doesn't actually help society in any meaningful way.
It IS useful if you can get the hard drive from that photocopier. Its true that there might not be a single important thing on it. But any legal document that got photocopied...
Re: (Score:2)
The hard drives in copiers don't work that way. Copies/normal print jobs aren't stored on the hard drive, but in memory. When you send a job with retention, or send it to the document server, it is stored on the hard drive. Document server stuff would typically be form letters and the like, but the retention jobs might be interested. Unfortunately, all modern copiers encrypt the hard drive, so you aren't likely to get anything off of it.
Re: (Score:2)
I want to be able to search a database of scumbags - their name, dob, and known mailing addresses
You should be able to find what you want in their corporate filings.
The US Marshalls stealing their copy machine doesn't actually help society in any meaningful way.
Seized assets are used to satisfy the judgement, which is a benefit in my opinion.
Re:Retribution (Score:4, Interesting)
"Retributive justice is deeply ingrained in human society, but we have the tools to progress beyond that now."
The assumed conclusion is that something else will produce better results against determined opponents!
Retributive justice is the only deterrent to logical people that also deals effectively with those it does NOT deter. It compels, rather than "asks for", some degree of obedience. It can be used to destroy those who harden their neck and will not obey.
Qaddafi feared no law. He was killed. That's "retributive justice". He won't act again because he has been deleted. He had no qualities making his preservation desirable, but the example of his death is a nice reminder to others that they shouldn't shit on their people beyond tolerance.
"I want to be able to search a database of scumbags - their name, dob, and known mailing addresses, so I can avoid ever getting into a business transaction with them."
Boycott IS retribution, of the mildest most weakling sort.
White collar criminals should be thrown in with vicious convicts who will abuse them, with the goal of frightening others into compliance with the law. Such "financial predators" are as bad as armed robbers, so put them together.
Re:A pity... (Score:5, Insightful)
Righthaven didn't even own the copyrights to the files they were suing about. I doubt they have much else. What really needs to happen is disbarment of their legal staff.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
I heard of a lawyer getting disbarred once, back in the 80's.
He was already in prison for murder and other issues.
Sometime after the Seattle P.I. ran a series of stories people began wondering about his status and the (I imagine) embarrassment it was causing seemed to be what led to his disbarment.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
As were Jack Thompson [wikipedia.org], Laurence Canter [wikipedia.org] (of "Green Card Lottery spam" fame), and Morbo's good friend Richard Nixon. Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] lists a number of others who suffered the same fate.
There seems to be a pattern here. (Score:1)
The pattern is no how criminal these people are.
The pattern (in my personal opinion) is that these folks caused great embarrassment to the bar.
It seems to me that being a great big known criminal is okay, just don't make the news.
--
Even then, after it all blows over, you can get back in.
Re: (Score:1)
The lawyers probably won't be disbarred, but they very easily could face Rule 11(c) sanctions. [cornell.edu] Last week I saw a federal judge make an unprepared young attorney read Rule 11 into the record (despite the fact that all of the Federal Rules are considered "in the record"). He was definitely crying while he did so.
Re:A pity... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
So, let's throw the cheap suits in jail and... wait, you meant clothes, didn't you?
Re: (Score:3)
You're probably right - but a precedent has been set. Next step, is to find some legal means to get into the pockets of the primary shareholders, and/or the parent corporation. I certainly HOPE that some bright, imaginative young lawyer can find a way to do so. THAT precedent would be the best thing to happen in a long time!
Eye For An Eye (Score:5, Funny)
Take their domain, computers and women!
Re:Eye For An Eye (Score:5, Funny)
Well, we could find a use for their domain and computers, but what would we do with their women?
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Well, we always need cooks and secretaries.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, wit!
Re: (Score:1)
Hear their lamentations, of course ;)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
...but what would we do with their women?
Hedley Lamarr: You spare the women?
Taggart: Naw, we rape the shit out of them at the Number Six Dance later on.
Hedley Lamarr: Marvelous!
Ahhh... 70s humor. They don't make 'em like that anymore.
Re:Make an example out of them (Score:5, Insightful)
Really?
1. Set up shell company.
2. Shake down people for easy money
3. Pay yourself lots of money immediately.
4. Let shell company go bankrupt.
5. Profit!!!
No question marks. This formula will be repeated over and over. Probably by the same people.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Really?
1. Set up shell company.
2. Shake down people for easy money
3. Pay yourself lots of money immediately.
4. Let shell company go bankrupt.
5. Profit!!!
No question marks. This formula will be repeated over and over. Probably by the same people.
You should probably read up on the case a little more. For one thing, in order to pursue the cases they ended up having to transfer actual ownership of patents/copyright to Righthaven. ALL the intellectual property is potentially up for seizure if they don't have enough other assets to cover. Those companies are shitting themselves right about now.
Setting up a shell company like that is fraud, textbook almost. It doesn't shelter anything, and could open the actors up for even more liability and possible cri
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Make an example out of them (Score:4, Insightful)
Can you cite where the copyrights were transferred to them?
As I recall that was the whole point of the issues to begin with, was that they were suing without ownership.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I will be very amused if a third party that's friendly to fair use ends up owning the IP of a trollish company that willingly licensed the IP to Righthaven...
Re: (Score:2)
It's worth noting that without limited liability, this maneuver would not be possible.
A similar idea, one that I'm sure has been used many times:
1. Get a large business loan for an LLC. (This is the hard part)
2. As head of the company, give yourself a nice large bonus, which you stash in the Cayman Islands.
3. Bank tries to recover the money from the company, but can't go after you due to it being an LLC.
4. Retire to Fiji.
Re: (Score:2)
This would look on the face of it to be fraud on the part of the directors, in which case limited liability no longer applies and the bank can go after the directors directly.
That doesn't stop flight with cash in the pocket as a possibility. I remember years ago that the owner of my wife and I's first apartment managed to get a few million bucks in loans from some banks in what was basically a real estate scam. When it became clear that the whole con was coming down due to a real estate crunch, he and his
Re: (Score:2)
That's why most banks will require a personal guarantee from the owners of a small corp/LLC.
they're in vegas? (Score:2)
I could pay them a visit. What would you /. ers do? Egg 'em?
Re: (Score:2)
A few good whacks with Mjolnir would suffice.
Re: (Score:3)
It's a transliteration. There are a half-dozen "correct" spellings. If you're going to be a pedant, at least bother to make sure you're correct.
Re:they're in vegas? (Score:5, Funny)
go down to the local drug store, pick up a piece of posterboard, and put it on a stick (protest-style).
print out/draw/whatever a giant-sized version of nelson muntz from the simpsons pointing a finger at the onlooker with a giant "ha-ha" balloon next to him. stand outside their offices for an hour or two as their shit is getting thrown in the street.
for extra epic ironic insult win, get a friend to get another giant posterboard placard, and stand next to you. His placard should have an arrow pointing at yours and simply read "Copyrighted images used on these placards are protected by fair use laws of the United States."
Re: (Score:3)
Scarlet Letter (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Dihydrogen Monoxide. Lots of it. Don't watch TV and assume you know what you're talking about. You're probably looking for acetone peroxide [wikipedia.org].
DISCLAIMER:you're an idiot if you make the later by reason of legality and physical danger and an absolute moron if you try for the former by reason of the obvious.
Re: (Score:2)
That's acetone peroxide. You've been watching too much NCIS [imdb.com].
This victory is relatively insignificant (Score:3, Insightful)
This victory is relatively insignificant compared to the massive corporate extortion schemes from the likes of MPAA/RIAA, tech companies, and other industry giants, that go unabated.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but it does continue to set precedence which is what we direly need lots of. Once enough precedence is set, the courts will have more of a foundation to stand on when throwing these bum's cases out the window.
The term is precedent, the plural is precedents. Precedence is a completely different thing. Sound almost the same, but the meanings are totally different.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Good answer. :)
empty victory (Score:2)
The people behind Righthaven must have known this would have a high probability of happening, and prepared to cast off the company when they had gotten what mileage they could out of it. So we have the pleasure of seeing the name disappear and some rented furniture thrown out into the street, but they'll just try again elsewhere. This is but a small battle in a large war. On the other hand, we *did* win this one, and some celebration is probably in order.
Righthaven? (Score:2)
I want to see the lawyer lose his ticket.
Not good enough (Score:2)
We've crushed our enemies, now we need to see them driven before us and hear the lamentations of their women
Peice The Corp Veil (Score:1)
only one (Score:2)
There's only one fitting comment:
Bwuahahahahaha!!!
Re: (Score:2)
How date they enlist the police to seize all this property over a civil matter. Oh wait this is someone we hate unlike the piratebarry guys? Oh, never mind. Woot for justice!
...this is taking place on American soil. The Pirate Bay stuff happened in Sweden, where they were heavily influenced by the American government. Incidentally, being a politician and succumbing to foreign influence is a pretty big crime in Sweden.
Re: (Score:2)
They didn't get US Marshals to seize property based on the court judgement - as yes, that is a civil matter. However, a civil judgement has the weight of law behind it to enforce it, which Righthaven ignored, or failed to obey in regards to the court judgement - which was cause for the judge to issue an order to secure the property to force compliance, as well as issuing a contempt charge (most likely). The goods weren't 'seized' as such, only secured so that a trustee could be appointed to sell them to s