An excerpt from Arnstein v. Stein Saks, PLLC, determined final week by New York County trial courtroom decide Judy Kim (at the moment being appealed) (you can too learn plaintiff’s Complaint and legal argument opposing the motion to dismiss):
Plaintiff alleges that defendants defamed him of their movement to dismiss an motion filed towards them …, Mark Goldberg v. Mark Rozenberg Esq. et al… (the “Bronx Motion”). The plaintiff within the Bronx Motion, Mark Goldberg, sued defendants for defamation primarily based on statements made in yet one more lawsuit, … entitled The Pure Sapphire Firm v Marz Rozenberg et al.
Plaintiff contends that, as a part of defendants’ movement to dismiss the Bronx Motion, they “gratuitously referred to [p]laintiff by title and included salacious statements relating to his previous conviction—accusing him of forgery and labeling him a ‘convicted felon’—with none connection to the problems or events in that case.” Plaintiff asserts claims for defamation and abuse of course of ….
“[A] assertion made in the midst of authorized proceedings is totally privileged whether it is in any respect pertinent to the litigation.” … Right here, defendants’ statements about plaintiff within the Bronx Motion had been pertinent to the movement to dismiss that motion. Whereas plaintiff was not a celebration within the Bronx Motion, defendant asserted that he was the principal of the Pure Sapphire Firm and, in that capability, employed Goldberg, and was a part of a coordinated marketing campaign of meritless actions filed towards defendants after defendants filed in Federal Court docket towards The Pure Sapphire Firm asserting violations of the People with Disabilities Act. This data is pertinent to, inter alia, defendants’ request for sanctions within the Bronx Motion. Accordingly, they fall inside the absolute litigation privilege, precluding the defamation claims asserted right here.
Even setting this apart, plaintiff doesn’t dispute the truthfulness of defendants’ statements about his felony conviction. As such, no defamation declare primarily based on this assertion lies…. “[T]ruth is an absolute protection to a defamation motion” ….
Neither has plaintiff acknowledged an abuse of course of declare. [Details omitted. -EV] Lastly, defendants’ request for sanctions is granted to the extent that plaintiff is enjoined from commencing any new litigation within the New York State courts towards any defendant herein with out acquiring prior approval from the courtroom. The file displays that such aid is critical “to stop use of the judicial system as a automobile for harassment, unwell will and spite.”
Here is a post on the unique forgery case; for extra on the broader sample of makes an attempt to fade on-line materials utilizing (amongst different issues) cast or fraudulent orders, see my Shenanigans (Internet Takedown Edition):
9 Months in Jail for Forging Court docket Orders Geared toward Vanishing On-line Materials
“Arnstein … submitted the counterfeit orders, which gave the impression to be legitimate on their face, to Google and requested that Google de-index the web sites containing the purportedly defamatory data.”
From a Justice Department press release put out last Friday, about a case you could have seen mentioned here and here:
Michael Arnstein was sentenced right now to 9 months in jail for conspiring to forge a federal decide’s signature on counterfeit courtroom orders that Arnstein submitted to Google to get unfavorable critiques about his enterprise faraway from Google search outcomes. Arnstein pled responsible on September 15, 2017, earlier than U.S. District Court docket Decide Andrew L. Carter Jr., who imposed right now’s sentence.
Manhattan U.S. Lawyer Geoffrey S. Berman mentioned: “Michael Arnstein’s blatant felony scheme to use the authority of the federal judiciary for his firm’s profit was outrageous. As Arnstein has realized, his makes an attempt to take away unfavorable critiques about his enterprise from Google search outcomes by forging a U.S. District Court docket decide’s signature could have labored within the brief time period, nevertheless it additionally earned him 9 months in a federal jail.”
In keeping with the allegations contained within the Criticism, the felony Data to which Arnstein pled responsible, and statements made throughout courtroom proceedings:
Between February 2014 and February 2017, Arnstein engaged in a scheme to submit counterfeit federal courtroom orders to Google, Inc. (“Google”) in an effort to get web sites containing unfavorable postings about Arnstein’s enterprise de-indexed from Google’s web search outcomes. In furtherance of this scheme, Arnstein and others cast the signature of a United States District Decide for the Southern District of New York on greater than 10 counterfeit courtroom orders. These counterfeit orders listed the web sites containing purportedly defamatory details about Arnstein’s enterprise and ordered the removing of such data from the web sites. Arnstein then submitted the counterfeit orders, which gave the impression to be legitimate on their face, to Google and requested that Google de-index the web sites containing the purportedly defamatory data.
* * *Along with the jail time period, Arnstein, 41, of Yonkers, New York, was sentenced to 3 years of supervised launch, the primary 5 months of which Arnstein should serve in house detention. Arnstein was additionally ordered to pay a superb of $20,000 and to carry out 200 hours of neighborhood service throughout his time period of supervised launch.
Mr. Berman praised the excellent investigative work of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the USA Marshals Service. He additionally thanked Google for its useful help on this investigation.
The prosecution of this case is being overseen by the Workplace’s Complicated Frauds and Cybercrime Unit. Assistant U.S. Attorneys Sheb Swett and Daniel S. Noble are accountable for the prosecution.
Here is an excerpt from an e-mail from Arnstein talked about within the criminal complaint:
[N]o bullshit: if I may do it another time I’d have discovered one other courtroom order injunction for removing of hyperlinks (most likely one thing that may be discovered on-line fairly simply) made adjustments in photoshop to point out the hyperlinks that I wished eliminated after which despatched to ‘removals@google.com’ as a pdf – displaying the courtroom order docket quantity, the judges [sic] signature – however with the brand new hyperlinks put in. google is not checking these things; that is the underside line b/c I spent $30,000 fuckin thousand {dollars} and almost 2 fuckin years to do what legit may have been carried out for about 6 hours of looking and photoshop by a man for $200., all in ONE DAY ….
I ought to notice that the Lumen Database was additionally instrumental within the prosecution.
