Re: 10/4/00 - [TVCP] Complaint: Michael Zwebner vs. John Does Anonymous Foundation, Inc. and Does 1 through 100
Stephen F. English, OSB #73084
E-mail: steve.english@bullivant.com
Renée E. Rothauge, OSB #90371
E-mail: renee.rothauge@bullivant.com
BULLIVANT HOUSER BAILEY
A Professional Corporation
300 Pioneer Tower
888 SW Fifth Avenue
Portland, OR 97204-2089
Telephone: (503) 228-6351
Facsimile: (503) 295-0915
Attorneys for Plaintiff
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
MICHAEL ZWEBNER,
Plaintiff,
v.
JOHN DOES ANONYMOUS FOUNDATION, INC., a ________________ corporation, and
Does 1 through 100,
Defendants. Civil No.
COMPLAINT
JURY TRIAL REQUESTED
Plaintiff MICHAEL ZWEBNER("ZWEBNER" or the "Plaintiff"), brings his COMPLAINT and causes of action, as more fully set forth herein, against the Defendants JOHN DOES ANONYMOUS FOUNDATION, INC., a
non-profit Oregon corporation, and Does 1 through 100, and alleges:
I. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
1. This Court has jurisdiction over plaintiff’s claims pursuant to 28 USC § 1332(a)(1), in that the amount exceeds the sum of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs and is between the citizens of different states.
2. Venue is proper in this District under 28 USC § 1391(a)(1) and (c). The Defendants reside or have transacted substantial business or other activities in the District of Oregon. In addition, the acts or omissions giving rise to plaintiff’s claims have been carried out in whole or in part in this District.
II. PARTIES
3. Plaintiff Michael J. Zwebner is a dual citizen of Great Britain and Israel and maintains homes in each country. He has considerable business interests in the United States and Canada. He has been the Chairman of Talk Visual Corporation ("TVCP"), a public company with the trading symbol "TVCP," since September 1998.
4. On information and belief, Defendant John Does Anonymous Foundation, Inc. ("John Does"), is an Oregon non-profit corporation conducting business or other activities in Oregon.
5. Defendants Doe 1 through 100 are individuals acting in concert with Defendant John Does (collectively "Does") for the purpose of publishing malicious false and defamatory information about Michael Zwebner in order to, among other things, injure him personally, both physically and financially.
III. BACKGROUND
6. Plaintiff Zwebner is a dual citizen of Great Britain and Israel and has considerable business interests in the United States and Canada. He has been the Chairman of TVCP since September 1998.
7. Defendant John Does owns, operates and maintains the internet site "John Does.org," accessible through the web address "www.John Does.org."
8. At all times relevant to the allegations of this Complaint, Defendants provided information through the Internet and other interactive computer services through various message postings and chat rooms.
9. Defendants publish information on the site John Does.org. Defendants edit, control and author the content of the information published on John Does.org.
10. Upon information and belief, material submitted by users of John Does’ message boards is transmitted to computers around the world.
IV. THE DEFENDANTS’ USE OF THE INTERNET TO DEFAME AND INJURE ZWEBNER
11. The Internet is a global array of computer networks accessible all over the world. Use of the Internet as a conduit of information has exploded as more and more people have signed up as Internet users. There are now many millions of Internet users worldwide. The Internet has become a social and commercial force of immense importance, where information can be immediately posted and relayed throughout the commercial world.
12. Throughout the Internet, there are dozens of "stock talk" bulletin boards, news groups, and chat rooms. Included among these is John Does Anonymous. Individuals have posted hundreds of thousands of messages to these bulletin boards. These posts are read by people around the globe.
13. People who post on bulletin boards are not required to disclose their real identities or whether the information they are disseminating is accurate. They may thus hide behind a shield of anonymity believing they can fabricate and intimidate with no risk of repercussions.
14. Each of the Defendants, using at least one and probably more aliases, acting in concert with each other, in a malicious effort to injure plaintiff Zwebner, have posted false and defamatory information about Zwebner on the Internet, including in particular the John Does Anonymous message boards.
15. The Defendants either knew the statements they posted on the Internet regarding Zwebner to be false or otherwise made them with reckless disregard as to the truth of the information and with the intent to harm Zwebner.
16. As explained further below, Zwebner has repeatedly notified Defendants through the Internet and otherwise that the information they are disseminating is false. Defendants nevertheless persist in smearing Zwebner’s name and reputation, for their own purposes, through the publication of malicious falsehoods and innuendo over the Internet.
17. On or about April, 2000 John Does published untrue statements about Zwebner ("Defamatory Material"), attached hereto and fully incorporated herein as Exhibit "A."
18. Upon information and belief, the JDC Board and the JDA Board are sites created and controlled by John Does.
19. On April 19, at 8:53 p.m. EDT, a does defendant, using the alias InternetZorro, published numerous false and defamatory statements about Zwebner including the following:
(a) Mafia link of the bankrupt about to make millions from Lottery deal
(b) MAFIA LINK: Girlfriend Gia, and "Sonny" and Tina Franzese
(c) Zwebner, 44, has massive debts on both sides of the Atlantic and has been accused of threatening business rivals with violence.
(d) The disabled British born businessman, a polio victim, fled Britain 6 years ago leaving his wife behind after the collapse of his Land Development Corporation with debts between 600,000 and 1.5 million.
(e) Late in 1993 a New York court issued a permanent injunction against him after hearing evidence of threats against a lawyer acting for a rival firm.
20. In publishing such statements, the Defendants defamed and intended to defame Zwebner. By their natural and ordinary meaning, and/or by way of innuendo, the said words meant, were intended, and were understood to mean that Zwebner had fled Britain for the USA for the dishonest purpose of evading massive debts which he had incurred in Britain; that while in the USA Zwebner had probably become involved in gangsterism and organized crime through links with the Mafia; and that as part of his sinister business dealings in the USA Zwebner had unlawfully threatened business rivals with violence.
V. PLAINTIFFS’ ONGOING PAIN, HUMILIATION, SUFFERING AND EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
21. The cumulative effect of the dissemination of these false and misleading representations regarding Zwebner has resulted in direct harm to him, his reputation, and his business relationships, contracts and dealings. It has precipitated the loss of time and attention to Zwebner’s business responsibilities and occasioned unnecessary legal fees and expenses.
22. The Defendants, through their malicious dissemination of false and misleading statements about Zwebner, have caused Zwebner to incur significant direct consequential damages including attorneys fees, consultant fees and expenses, lost employment time and other such damages.
23. The Defendants, through their dissemination of false and misleading statements about Zwebner, have harmed Zwebner’s reputation and his relationships and dealings.
24. The Defendants, through their malicious dissemination of false and misleading statements about the Zwebners, have caused Zwebner pain, anguish, and emotional distress.
25. The Defendants’ conduct directed at Zwebner was knowing and willful, warranting an award of double or treble damages and attorneys fees and costs.
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(DEFAMATION)
26. Paragraphs 1 through 25 are incorporated as if fully set forth herein.
27. The Defendants published the malicious, false and defamatory statements described above on the Internet, intending that they reach as wide an audience as possible, both in the United States and internationally.
28. The Defendants’ malicious, false and defamatory statements described above constitute libel per se as they are words tending to injure a person in his trade or business, many of which directly or indirectly charge Mr. Zwebner with criminal conduct.
29. The Defendants negligently published the malicious, false and defamatory statements described above concerning Zwebner causing him to suffer damages in an amount to be proved at trial.
30. The Defendants published the malicious, false and defamatory statements described above with knowledge that the statements were false, or with reckless disregard as to whether they were false, causing plaintiff to suffer damages in an amount to be proved at trial but in no event less than $10,000,000.
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS)
31. Paragraphs 1 through 25 are incorporated as if fully set forth herein.
32. Defendants, through their dissemination of malicious, false and misleading statements about Zwebner, engaged in extreme and outrageous conduct.
33. Defendants’ dissemination of malicious, false and misleading statements about plaintiff was intentional or, at a minimum, reckless.
34. Defendants, through their dissemination of malicious, false and misleading statements about Zwebner, have inflicted severe emotional distress upon Zwebner.
35. As a result of Defendants’ conduct, Zwebner has been damaged in an amount to be proven at trial, but in no event less than $10,000,000.
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(FALSE LIGHT INVASION OF PRIVACY)
36. Paragraphs 1 through 25 are incorporated as if fully set forth herein.
37. Defendants unreasonably publicized or caused to be unreasonably publicized the information concerning Plaintiff contained in Exhibit A to this Complaint.
38. The information Defendants so publicized or caused to be publicized was false and defamatory.
39. The false and defamatory information Defendants so publicized or caused to be publicized placed Plaintiff before the public in a false or objectionable light.
40. The false or objectionable light in which Defendants so placed Plaintiff was highly offensive to Plaintiff, and would be highly offensive to a reasonable person.
41. Defendants acted with actual malice in publicizing or causing to be publicized false and defamatory information about Plaintiff, as alleged in this Claim, in that Defendants did so with knowledge of, or in reckless disregard as to, the falsity of the information and the false light in which Plaintiff would be placed.
42. The false and defamatory information about Plaintiff publicized or caused to be publicized by Defendants as alleged in this Claim, has been seen or heard by thousands of persons.
43. As a direct and proximate result of the acts of Defendants as alleged in this Claim, Plaintiff has been held up to ridicule, hatred, and contempt, and has suffered injury to his reputation, personal humiliation, emotional distress, and mental anguish in an amount to be proven at trial, but in no event less than $10,000,000.
FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(INJUNCTION)
44. Paragraphs 1 through 23 are incorporated as if fully set forth herein.
45. Plaintiff continues to suffer embarrassment and humiliation because Defendants have not removed the defamatory and false statements from the Internet.
46. This ongoing defamation, harassment and embarrassment should be terminated.
47. Plaintiff does not have an adequate remedy at law for the statements that continue to be posed on the Internet.
48. Plaintiff requests that this Court enter a permanent injunction requiring Defendants to take all steps necessary to remove the offending and defamatory information published by Defendants from the Internet.
WHEREFORE, plaintiff requests that this Court grant the following relief:
(a) Judgment for compensatory damages in the amount of $10,000,000, together with interest thereon, at legal rate;
(b) Judgment for costs incurred herein, including attorneys’ fees to the extent allowed by law;
(c) For injunctive relief requiring Defendants to take all steps necessary to remove the defamatory information published by Defendants from the Internet; and,
(d) Such other and legal equitable relief as this Court may deem just and proper.
PLAINTIFFS DEMAND A TRIAL BY JURY AS TO ALL CLAIMS SO TRIABLE.
DATED this 2nd day of October, 2000.
BULLIVANT HOUSER BAILEY
A Professional Corporation
By
Stephen F. English, OSB #73084
Renée E. Rothauge, OSB #90371
Attorneys for Plaintiff
mindspring.com
See also: mindspring.com |
