
Suspicious court cases, missing defendants, aim to get webpages taken down - ohjeez
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/10/10/dozens-of-suspicious-court-cases-with-missing-defendants-aim-at-getting-web-pages-taken-down-or-deindexed/?postshare=6791476107006382&tid=ss_fb&utm_term=.0143e0970aee
======
tlb
Good work by the WaPo for getting to the bottom of this.

This shows an important reason why court proceedings should be openly
accessible _at scale_. Lawyers can spread legal DOS attacks out across
jurisdictions, where individual judges would have a hard time discovering the
pattern. Allowing citizens to do large scale pattern matching will uncover
such things.

~~~
stcredzero
The courts, justice system, and police are _horrible_ by the standards of
information access in the 21st century. If you are a victim in an incident, do
you know how long it takes to get a copy of the police report? 10 business
days. So it's entirely possible that someone who has a hearing for a
restraining order, who may not realize that it may be in their interest to
have a copy, to be caught flat-footed. And the personal experience of getting
it may well be pretty bad as well. The clerk seems to talk to you like you're
some scum -- as if you were the perpetrator. (And yes, I was polite, and yes,
she knew I was the victim.) The reason for the delay -- they have to redact
the private information of the assailant. How in the world does that take them
10 days? On top of all that, they insist that you bring correct change. Also,
you will note that there is the typical bureaucratic nonchalance bordering on
hostility in the lack of customer service. No attempt at greeting or showing
you are noticed or matter in any way. No air of politeness, but even an
undertone of contempt -- and that's being perhaps way too charitable. My
overwhelming suspicion -- as someone who went to an Ivy League school -- is
that I was being treated as "yet another brown person," and that if one of my
classmates with a different appearance was present, they would have been
treated differently. (Though they still would have had to wait 10 days to get
a redacted copy of a sheaf of papers.)

And that's just one example. Such horribleness is all over those systems. I
had a hearing get moved 40 miles away -- apparently en-masse because of a
computer system change -- with no notification to myself or my lawyer. I
didn't even find out about that until we showed up. Sure, the US system is
fantastic compared to other places in the world and justice during the middle
ages. However, there's still a lot to it that's horrible.

EDIT: The takeaway from this article, my experience, and from many accounts of
the justice system in the US, is that it is good on the large contexts of the
world and history. However, it's still capable of cruel and arbitrary effects
that run drastically counter to reality. Many of these effects come as myriad
little "bites" or as if one is fighting a current. And the direction of these
effects is strongly influenced by perceived socioeconomic status and race.
This is still not up to the point of "good governance."

~~~
Fiahil
> My overwhelming suspicion -- as someone who went to an Ivy League school --
> is that I was being treated as "yet another brown person,"

Isn't that the way it's supposed to be? It's an old concept: In the eyes of
the law, people don't get special treatment depending on their social status.

~~~
PhasmaFelis
Did you miss the part where they were treated worse because of their skin
color?

~~~
blackbagboys
Yes, because that part wasn't there, just the parent's unsubstantiated
suspicion that racism was the likeliest explanation for an unpleasant
experience in dealing with low-level government bureaucrats.

~~~
stcredzero
Be more careful in your reading. There is a certain way that people talk to
someone they view as considerably inferior. The fact that people working in a
place so quickly shift into that mode, even when it's at odds with the facts
of the particular situation, is a very strong indicator that some sort of
prejudice is at play. Whether or not it's racism, it's certainly not
compatible with good governance.

------
jdmichal
I know there's a few lawyers here. Assuming that these lawsuits were filed
against non-existent defendants, and that the agreements from these
"defendants" were actually written and submitted by the plaintiff -- What's
the realistic punishment here? Would these false documents be sworn
statements, and if so, would that put perjury on the table?

~~~
rasz_pl
Prenda Law took >6 years and nobody is in prison, what makes you think this
will be any different?

~~~
dragonwriter
> Prenda Law took >6 years and nobody is in prison, what makes you think this
> will be any different?

Well, for one thing, Prenda Law controlled the entities (or they were
completely fictional) that were the plaintiffs in its cases, whereas the
"reputation management firms" here are apparently filing cases with their
reputation management clients as named plaintiffs which the clients apparently
don't know about and don't approve, and object to once they are actually made
aware of them. And they use the results to influence third parties besides the
defendants, and the defendants aren't generally doing something that they want
to hide from attention.

From the appearance of what is going on here, there are lots of reasons to
think that this scam could blow up much faster on its perpetrators than Prenda
Law measured from the first time someone noticed something funny going on.

~~~
thaumasiotes
> the "reputation management firms" here are apparently filing cases with
> their reputation management clients as named plaintiffs which the clients
> apparently don't know about and don't approve, and object to once they are
> actually made aware of them

That's quite a leap from "don't want to take the fall".

------
JoshTriplett
A particularly interesting buried lede in the article:

> And the possibility of such shenanigans bears on the Hassell v. Bird
> litigation that is now before the California Supreme Court: The issue there
> (see here and here) is whether takedown injunctions can actually be made
> legally binding on Internet platforms, rather than just being something that
> platforms choose whether to follow. The questionable nature of many such
> injunctions is reason to further insist that platforms not be legally bound
> by them.

That would be a major win, if successful.

~~~
defen
> whether takedown injunctions can actually be made legally binding on
> Internet platforms, rather than just being something that platforms choose
> whether to follow

If they're not legally binding, what incentive do Internet platforms have to
follow them? It seems like it adds work and overhead; so what strategic or
economic or other goals would following non-legally-binding injunctions
further?

~~~
dragonwriter
> If they're not legally binding, what incentive do Internet platforms have to
> follow them?

Third-party injunctions of the type at issue here (third-party in that the
internet platform is not a party to the case) are _usually_ followed by
platforms to remove or deindex content because the existence of the third-
party injunction provides more basis than a simple request to suspect that a
direct lawsuit against the search company would also result in a direct
injunction (which would be obligatory, in any case.)

------
ChuckMcM
Wow, I kind of expected one of the Prenda Law lawyers to be behind something
like this. It makes perfect sense, you have people with money who want their
past or actions to be somehow erased from discovery, and you have people who
will come up with creative ways to achieve that and thus give themselves
access to that money.

But the really interesting thing is to watch how people react when something
they used to be able to "get away with" is made impossible through technical
means. Whether it is speed limiters on CPUs, copy protection on media, or
poorly monitored traffic intersections.

~~~
kaffeemitsahne
_> speed limiters on CPUs_

What?

~~~
david-given
From the old mainframe days, when you bought machines by, basically
subscription --- you paid for a support contract and the hardware was usually
provided as part of that.

Different grades of support contract gave you different classes of machine,
but frequently all the hardware was the same, just with bits disabled. If you
upgraded your contract, they'd send a tech round who would flip some switches
inside and, say, double your clock speed, or enable some more CPUs, etc.

~~~
DiabloD3
Aka the IBM model.

------
OliverJones
What a nightmare for the takedown-request teams at the online companies! Abuse
of the court system is going to be very expensive and time-consuming for them
to assess.

Contempt of court or perjury prosecutions of the originators of some of these
fraudulent lawsuits might serve as a deterrent. A little jail time goes a long
way.

~~~
wyager
Innocent people should not be on the hook for the fact that the system is so
broken that people can sue non-existent parties.

It's fine if the courts make mistakes sometimes, but if they're too
incompetent to correctly use the powers given to them, those powers need to be
scaled back to a level commensurate with the courts' abilities.

~~~
Thrillington
And what do you propose to replace them?

~~~
wyager
Why replace these functions of the court? Forced content removal has no place
in a free society.

~~~
CPLX
> Forced content removal has no place in a free society.

How about we post a very convincing article on what appears to be a respected
local newspaper site claiming that you've been arrested for sexual relations
with an animal, conduct some solid SEO on it, and then send you out into the
job market?

Perhaps you'd revise your views on this subject. Libel and slander are ancient
common law principles for good reason.

~~~
jessaustin
This outlandish scenario reads to me like, "won't somebody _please_ think of
the children?"

How could a normal person inspire such behavior? Having inspired it, what
normal person could receive a satisfactory remedy through the courts? (Many
people would _seek_ that, but they'd often be disappointed...)

Besides, this scenario only takes one step. Think it through a bit further.
_If_ such bizarre attacks become common, they'll lose their power because
they'll no longer be believed. That would be a much better world than one in
which lawyers must be hired every time an unsatisfactory restaurant review is
written.

~~~
CPLX
There's nothing hypothetical at all about using scandalous or embarrassing
information about regular people to generate revenue.

Some examples:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mug_shot_publishing_industry](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mug_shot_publishing_industry)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prenda_Law](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prenda_Law)

------
pasbesoin
I hope we will start criminalizing such abuses of the legal system. And not
just the plaintiffs, but their lawyers.

Lest this nation "founded on law" become, by extension, a nation (further)
founded on corruption.

Civil cases deserve and need to remain civil. But blatant and deliberate and
self-serving abuse of the system -- here perhaps including perjury and a form
of libel -- should, in extremis, cost people their freedom, their licenses,
and their membership in civil society.

I'm mindful of the need for room for civil protest and other forms of law
breaking. The law does need to be challenged and refined -- constantly.

I'm not sure how to draw the line between e.g. those two (as well as in other
distinctions). But, something needs to be done, or our legal system is going
to be reduced to simply another arena for power plays, devoid of other
integrity.

P.S. I'm mindful that extreme abuses already are criminal. But enough abuse
goes unchecked, that either the line needs to move, or enforcement needs to be
more active and thorough.

The legal profession needs to better consider that it is not exceptional, it
is like any other institution: If you don't keep your own house in order, you
will fall.

------
WhitneyLand
Meet the con man behind most of this, Richart Ruddie. Notice how he includes
Stanford in his username, and also lists it on his profile, when it looks like
he just watched E145 on youtube.

[https://linkedin.com/in/richartruddiestanford](https://linkedin.com/in/richartruddiestanford)

Also some of the previous trouble he's been in:

[http://structuredsettlements.typepad.com/structured_settleme...](http://structuredsettlements.typepad.com/structured_settlements_4r/2015/02/richart-
ruddie-sued-for-conspiracy-and-deceptive-trade-practices-in-2012.html)

------
lightedman
I smell perjury, filing false instruments, fraud, and libel. This is going to
be great.

------
jxramos
Could be an interesting opportunity to archive these "banned" websites and
create a new site off of these cases. Pretty crazy abuse of power. Makes me
think about the further shift away from print media, before libel and
defamation were primarily ran via printed newspaper and what not. Now the
focus shifts online.

------
jerf
Another interesting angle to ponder is what this could do to websites hosting
open comment sections on the web. Already a bit under fire for having low
quality in many cases, I could see a lot of places taking down their comment
sections if it's also going to open them to litigation. It doesn't take many
lawsuits before the benefit the comment sections may be bringing is
outweighed.

I say this without judgment as to whether that would be good or bad; just
musing about the second-order consequences.

~~~
Senji
We'll just move to a P2P comment system which is implemented as a browser
addon and adds a comments section to any website.

------
seomint
Black Hat Lawyers? I hope they get nailed.

------
itsmemattchung
I had no idea that one could submit legal documents to Google, requesting de-
indexing on specific pages. This tactic, apparently, is quite common.

------
tehwalrus
Isn't this plainly criminal, as in Perjury, on behalf of the people filing
suits?

------
prdonahue
Would be interested to see if any of these lawyers have connections to
Reputation Defender[1] or any of the similar companies in this space?

1 - [https://www.reputationdefender.com/](https://www.reputationdefender.com/)

~~~
Sanddancer
It seems like it. The woman who the Post is mentioning, Kathy Glatter, has a
rather white-washed google presence, marred only by the article on her
behavior, which quite likely is rather linked at the moment.
[http://www.davisenterprise.com/local-news/north-davis-
parent...](http://www.davisenterprise.com/local-news/north-davis-parent-
responsible-for-gate-petition-forgeries/)

------
wmeredith
This is next level blackhat SEO. With perjury and disbarment at stake.

------
gnarbarian
Legal hax

