Jump to content

Ask Your VA   Claims Questions | Read Current Posts 
Read VA Disability Claims Articles
 Search | View All Forums | Donate | Blogs | New Users | Rules 

  • homepage-banner-2024.png

  • donate-be-a-hero.png

  • 0

Fw: Righthaven Copyright Troll Targets Pro-Veteran Groups And Advocates

Rate this question



  • HadIt.com Elder

Subject: FW: Righthaven Copyright Troll Targets Pro-Veteran Groups and Advocates

please run and circulate:


Apr 13, 2011

Righthaven Copyright Troll Targets Pro-Veteran Groups and Advocates

Righthaven LLC as Troll

U.S. District Judge John Kane: Courts will not be used as tools to exact settlements from intimidated defendants afraid of high costs of litigation and alleged liabilities

Righthaven LLC is a new business model that is organized to abuse the judicial process in its search for potential defendants to sue.

Now Righthaven is targeting veterans and advocates for veterans.

As reported by the Las Vegan Sun, Righthaven, “detects (alleged copyright) infringements, obtains copyrights to the stories at issue and then retroactively sues the alleged infringers.”

A very partial list of Righthaven lawsuits reveals a "sue-first-ask-questions-later," gutter operation run out of Las Vegas abusing its way to 100s and 100s of lawsuits the number of which appears to grow almost by the day.

From the Righthaven Victims Network:

Righthaven LLC -- a bottom feeding legal outfit -- has teamed up with the Las Vegas Review-Journal and the Denver Post [among over 100 media outlets] to sue 'mom and pop' websites, advocacy and public interest groups and forum board operators for copyright violations. The strategy of Righthaven is to sue thousands of these websites and counts on the fact that many are unfunded and will be forced to settle out of court. Most cases are being filed in a Nevada Federal Court and [according to Righthaven] must be fought in this jurisdiction.

From [the late and great] Larry Scott to the POW Network to a Gulf War trauma nurse veteran, Denise Nichols [whom Righthaven appears to be attempting to drive to her grave by inflicting stress through litigation], to Veterans Today, to Michael Leon, the list of veteran advocates and writers across the political spectrum under target is growing.

But so is the pushback against Righthaven, led by a federal judge.

The legal-politcal tide is definately turning:

From Joe Mullin at Yahoo Finance:

Court orders from [Tuesday] and Thursday make it clear that the judge overseeing the [Righthaven defendant Brian Hill's] case has great distaste for Righthaven’s sue-first-ask-questions-later business model. The problem for Righthaven is that the same judge—U.S. District Judge John Kane—is handling all 58 of the lawsuits the company has filed in Colorado. ...

Judge John L Kane of the Federal Court of the District of Colorado ruled 'against Righthaven stating his court will not be used as a tool to encourage and exact settlements from defendants who may be intimidated due to the high cost of litigation and potential liabilities. Thus cutting to the heart of Righthaven's business model.'

Righthaven is also targeting Veterans Today.

Veterans Today describes itself as "a journal representing the position of members of the military and veteran community in areas of national security, geopolitical stability and domestic policy .... the only independent, unaligned voice of its kind in America, accepting no financial support from any organization or individual, existing solely for educational purposes."

Reading between the lines of this shadowy group, best I can tell the site is run by ex-intel and ex-special forces American military personnel with a long reach into many spheres of intelligence, geo-political and international covert ops.

Reaching Veterans Today is like finding life on Mars, and Righthaven which has numerous suits pending against Veterans Today calls them in court documents, an "entity of unknow orgin and nature."

I'm guessing Righthaven just stepped into some deep waters with funny undertows.

In any event, here's an open statement to Righthaven: Nobody likes a scumbag.

And the Tenth Circuit of the United States District Court system really doesn't like you.

To offer the reader an idea of the duplicity of Righthaven, consider its claimed Venue [the legally proper place where a given case ought to be argued].

Righthaven asserts in one suit: "The United State District Court for the Southern District of California is an appropriate venue, pursuant to U.S.C. 28 §139(b)(2), because a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim for relief are situated in California.” [No 2:10-CV-01672-GMM-LRN filed 11/24/2010]

In a virutally identical suit served on another party, Righthaven asserts: "The United State District Court for the District of Nevada is an appropriate venue, pursuant to U.S.C. 28 §139(b)(2), because a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim for relief are situated in Nevada.” [No 2:10-CV-01672-GMM-LRN filed 09/27/2010]

Attorneys litigating in the federal court system are expected to be diligent about the facts presented to the Court. But this cookie-cutter nonsense litigating is absured on its face.

I'm no lawyer, but the above example of Righthaven simulateously claiming two veneus for the same complaint sure does appear to be a violation of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure III. PLEADINGS AND MOTIONS; Rule 11. Signing Pleadings, (b) Representations to the Court.

(b) Representations to the Court.

By presenting to the court a pleading, written motion, or other paper — whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating it — an attorney or unrepresented party certifies that to the best of the person's knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances:

(1) it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation;

(2) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or for establishing new law;

(3) the factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery; and

(4) the denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence or, if specifically so identified, are reasonably based on belief or a lack of information.

Posted by MAL at 8:58:00 AM

Email This BlogThis! Share to Twitter Share to Facebook Share to Google Buzz

Labels: David Kerr, Denise Nichols, fair use Righthaven LLC, internet troll, Judge John L Kane, Ken Bingham, larry scott, Michael Leon, POW Network.org, Righthaven LLC, Righthaven veterans, Righthaven victims

"Keep on, Keepin' on"

Dan Cedusky, Champaign IL "Colonel Dan"

See my web site at:



Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Answers 11
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters For This Question

Recommended Posts

This kind of stuff just angers me to no end. Some people will try anything for a buck. I have a friend who has a website, and was threatened with copyright infringement over a public domain article (government) with a link. It was from someone who had a similar website, who had copied and pasted the same article, trying to claim it as their own. Other than a threatening email, nothing more was made of it.

"It is a terrible thing, when you lose your train of thought and you only have a one track mind"... Me

96C2P/96F2P (old MOS designations)

97E2P/37F2P (new MOS designations)

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Leon's case was dismissed per entry yesterday but Denise -one of the best GW advocates in the country -is still having problems

with the lawsuit filed against her.

GRADUATE ! Nov 2nd 2007 American Military University !

When thousands of Americans faced annihilation in the 1800s Chief

Osceola's response to his people, the Seminoles, was

simply "They(the US Army)have guns, but so do we."

Sameo to us -They (VA) have 38 CFR ,38 USC, and M21-1- but so do we.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


GRADUATE ! Nov 2nd 2007 American Military University !

When thousands of Americans faced annihilation in the 1800s Chief

Osceola's response to his people, the Seminoles, was

simply "They(the US Army)have guns, but so do we."

Sameo to us -They (VA) have 38 CFR ,38 USC, and M21-1- but so do we.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • HadIt.com Elder

This makes me wonder: Who is really behind this one? Sounds familiar, doesnt it.


A Veteran is a person who served this country. Treat them with respect.

A Disabled Veteran is a person who served this country and bears the scars of that service regardless of when or where they served.

Treat them with the upmost respect. I do. Rejection is not a sign of failure. Failure is not an option, Medical opinions and evidence wins claims. Trust in others is a virtue but you take the T out of Trust and you are left with Rust so be wise about who you are dealing with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator

English, please? What, exactly, are the suing for, and on what basis? The use of the word Veteran? The color green?


The Earth is degenerating these days. Bribery and corruption abound.Children no longer mind their parents, every man wants to write a book,and it is evident that the end of the world is fast approaching. --17 different possible sources, all lacking verifiable attribution.

B.S. Doane College, Mgt Info Systems/Systems Analysis 2008

M.S.Ed. Purdue University, Instructional Development and Technology, Feb. 2021

M.S. Purdue University Information Technology/InfoSec, Dec 2022

100% P/T




Sleep Apnea

Some other stuff

B.S. Info Systems Mgt/Systems Analysis-Doane College 2008
M.S. Instructional Technology and Design- Purdue University 2021


(I AM NOT A RATER- I work the claims BEFORE they are rated, annotating medical evidence in your records, VA and Legal documents,  and DA/DD forms- basically a paralegal/vso/etc except that I also evaluate your records based on Caluza and try to justify and schedule the exams that you go to based on whether or not your records have enough in them to warrant those)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Create New...

Important Information

Guidelines and Terms of Use