A Cross-Complaint Is Rarely The Answer 0

I routinely hear prospective clients ask me whether they should file a cross-complaint in response to a SLAPP action. In most cases, they ask me this question because a previous attorney has advised them to do it. While filing a cross-complaint certainly escalates the litigation, it rarely serves the interests of the client.

So why do attorneys recommend such a course of action? Because they think that by raising the stakes they are shifting some of the risk of loss to the plaintiff. In most cases, however, this is wrong. First, what many attorneys don’t realize is that by filing a cross-complaint in response to a complaint, they may be subjecting their clients to the risk of an anti-SLAPP motion. Even if plaintiff’s motion turns out to be frivolous, the client will still have to pay his attorney to oppose it. And, the risk is not worth it since in most cases you can respond to a complaint with an ant-SLAPP motion and then file a cross-complaint (if necessary, warranted, and within the SOL) after the Court rules on the motion. 

However, if the the statute of limitations is running, or if the nature of the cross-complaint is such that the risk of an anti-SLAPP motion is low, it may be wise to file a cross-complaint. Otherwise, try to avoid it. So beware if someone is quick to advise you to file a cross-complaint.


Source: Adrianos Facchetti

Remove Names does work! 0

Our clients are still astonished when we get the removals as we promise, we understand your hesitation in trusting us but with our 100% money back guarantee you have nothing to lose except the derogatory post, article or comment. Give us a try.
Todays Testimonial from Jannah

 Remove Names really Removes Names!!!

“Removenames.com should be called savelives.com. Nick and his professional legal team are not only kind and friendly, they work diligently to remove negative as well as potentially life altering things written about you or someone you know. Nick whom I worked with had the posting down in a day and a half. He as well as this company have saved us a ton of time and grief. I cannot thank them enough!”

If you can use this as a testimony, please do so! Thank you so much again!

Source: RMN

A couple who was smeared online wins Lawsuit, the award is largest ever in an Internet Libel Case! 0

“The award is the largest ever assessed in an Internet libel case, the Leshers’ attorney, Meagan Hassan, said Tuesday.”

Here at RemoveNames we get asked 2 things every single day. “Can you tell me who posted this once you get it removed and can I sue the person who posted this about me. The answer to the first question is always a NO and the answer to the second questions we typically recommend to consult with local legal counsel. This article should shed some light on this question and we will start to refer our Remove Names clients to read this when they ask us this question in the future.

A tale of Internet Libel

FORT WORTH — First, a woman accused Mark and Rhonda Lesher and one of their employees of raping her.

Then, the same woman and her husband, along with two of their employees, instigated an online smear campaign designed to ruin the Leshers’ reputations, according to two juries.

On Friday, three years after a Collin County jury acquitted the Leshers and their employee of aggravated sexual assault, a Tarrant County jury awarded the couple $13.78 million in a libel judgment. The ruling sends the message that people have the freedom to write what they please online, but they can be held accountable.

The award is the largest ever assessed in an Internet libel case, the Leshers’ attorney, Meagan Hassan, said Tuesday.

The defendants — Shannon and Gerald Coyel, and Charlie and Pat Doescher of Kennedale, who worked for the Coyels — were ordered to pay shares of the award.

“This was clearly a vendetta,” Hassan said. “We originally sued 178 John and Jane Does, and it all came down to two IP addresses.”

A woman who identified herself as Pat Doescher on the telephone declined to comment Tuesday, saying her attorney had instructed her not to talk about the case. Gerald Doescher, the Coyels and their attorney could not be reached to comment.

Internet Libel Cases

According to the lawsuit, Shannon Coyel, a former client of Mark Lesher, who was then an attorney in Clarksville in East Texas, accused the Leshers and one of their employees of sexually assaulting her. The trial was moved to Collin County on a change of venue because of pre-trial publicity, and the jury acquitted all three on Jan. 15, 2009.

Meanwhile, scurrilous comments referring to the Leshers and their businesses were appearing on Topix, an online community bulletin board.

One comment that referred to Rhonda Lesher’s beauty salon said: “You get throwed, blowed, bit, sucked, Herpies, and your hair done all at the same place, ‘YUCK’!!!!!!!!” according to the lawsuit.

“During the criminal trial, Mrs. Lesher testified to the fact that these rumors and comments have changed her life, stating, ‘I will never be the same. You can’t imagine what it is like going to a grocery store and facing anyone who knows about these charges,’” the lawsuit stated.

The abuse grew so bad that the Leshers closed their businesses and moved away from Clarksville, where they had lived for more than 20 years, Hassan said. Mark Lesher now practices law in Mount Pleasant and Texarkana, and his wife has given up her salon.

Hassan said she and her legal partners compiled more than 25,000 instances of libelous online posts on Topix that accused her clients of engaging in sexual perversions and molestations, drug dealing and other criminal behavior.

But in court, they introduced only 800 of the worst, Hassan said.

“No one who has ever read the comments has argued that they were reasonable or rational,” Hassan said. “This is a good case to show just how bad things can get online.”

The case was tried in Tarrant County because one of the IP addresses was at a residence in the county.

The McClatchy Co., which owns the Star-Telegram, owns an 11.25 percent share of Topix.

Internet Slander and Libel

The case shows that those who libel others online and rely on Internet service providers or hosting companies to protect their identities are out of touch with the times, legal scholars said.

“I think you are starting to see a real disconnect between perception and the legal and technical realities,” said Brian Holland, a law professor at Texas Wesleyan University. “The illusion of anonymity is not technically correct because they have a way to trace you, and it’s not legally correct because the courts will not always back you up and you might not be aware of the proceedings.”

Topix initially fought a subpoena for the Internet Protocol addresses of the people posting comments about the Leshers, but a judge forced the company to hand over the information, Hassan said.

Many service agreements that Internet service providers use, and that most people do not read, prohibit the posting of anything that is libelous or slanderous, said Peter Vogel, a partner at the Gardere law firm in Dallas.

“This case proves that you just can’t say bad things about someone without any consequences,” Vogel said. “I never put anything in an e-mail or posts that I would not want a jury to see.”

Source: RMN

Google as Judge AND Jury! 0

Google as Judge AND Jury: RemoveNames.com Explains How Search Engines Could Ruin your Reputation by Bringing Up your Past.

With the internet operating as an open forum, many people are shocked to find disparaging information about them online. However, what can be done to prevent Google from playing Judge and Jury for someone’s future?

Googling one’s own name is commonly seen as a fun activity. However, more and more people are finding that what should be a quick Internet search results in a long and stressful journey as they try to get shocking revelations about their personal lives offline and away from the public domain.

“Many sites have now been set up to allow people to openly name and shame people,” says Amanda Carroll from RemoveNames.com – a site responsible for removing derogatory, untruthful or hurtful comments from the web and restoring clients reputations.

She continues: “These sites are run as professional services, so often appear at the top of Google when searching for someone’s name. With some of these sites allowing the poster to add the accused’s full name, location and place of work – many are finding that just one entry can wreck their personal lives, friendships and even jobs – even if the information is untrue.”

It’s easy to see how an exaggerated account from an angry ex-lover could have negative consequences should an employer, friend or new partner Google an individual’s name. However, with the Internet as sprawling as it is, can anything really be done?
Amanda and her company have all of the answers.

“Many steps can be taken to remove the details. We always use our legal team to liaise with the site and request removal of the information. If this doesn’t work, or if the site administrators cannot be found, we’ll call in our team of Search Engine Optimization specialists and they’ll use the latest in web technology techniques to ‘bury’ the information deep within Google, so that it can’t easily be found just by searching for the person’s name.”

It’s not just regular individuals looking to restore and protect their good name either. Amanda admits that her company has worked with professional sportspeople, celebrities and even global politicians to remove potentially harmful information from Google’s search results.

“The potential exists for anyone to have their good name tarnished online, even if the information about them is totally false. What’s worse is that there are sites actively encouraging it, with some allowing users to vote for ‘Cheater of the Day’ based on their location,” explains Amanda.

However, while the juicy, intimate and embarrassing details of someone’s last relationship can easily be exposed for everyone to see, it appears that Google doesn’t actually have the final say in that person’s future, as long as they take action.

To find out more about online internet reputation management, as well as techniques that can be used to protect your name, please visit:


About RemoveNames

RemoveNames.com is a Reputation Management Boutique firm specializes in removing and suppressing negative comments, posts and articles about their clients in an affordable, fast and confidential manner.

There are many websites out there that allow articles, postings and comments from anyone and if someone has another person trying to sabotage them, they can succeed easily by anonymously posting derogatory comments on the internet.

These comments then pop up and get listed in Google, Yahoo, Bing and the major search engines if someone types in a name or business name. This can drastically effect that person, their business or family if the comments are negative and destructive in nature.

RemoveNames are search engine experts. The company works its magic to make sure destructive comments and posts are buried and not visible to anyone who may be searching for a person’s name or business. They have many clients who have been turned down for loans, jobs and even divorces have been initiated due to these terrible things anyone can post.

Contact Information:
Amanda Carroll
Tel: 1-866-848-2022

Source: RMN

How to read a consumer review 0

At least 2 or 3 times a week I get a call from an anguished business owner about a negative review on the internet. Sometimes it’s on Yelp, other times it’s on other sites like Citysearch, Ripoffreport, or Avvo. Negative reviews can be extremely damaging to a business, but in many cases, it’s best not to get too upset about them, unless they appear credible and they are defamatory. Even where a claim may be actionable, it’s best not to sue for a variety of reasons that I’ve discussed previously on this blog.

But something I haven’t written about yet is how you, as a potential consumer, should read a review. In other words, what should you consider in order to determine whether a review is to be trusted or not? After all, we all know that many businesses (affiliate marketers, in particular) write shill reviews in order to make it appear like they have a great reputation. Some of them even write malicious reviews to destroy their competition. So how do we know which reviews to trust?

Here are a number of guidelines to consider when you’re reading a consumer review. Some of these are common sense, but as the old saying goes, I’ve found that common sense isn’t so common.

1. The “Gestalt” – the first thing I look at is the whole of the business’ internet reputation. I look at multiple review sites to see what the general trend is. Not surprisingly, if most of the reviews are fairly positive, that’s a good sign. But I go beyond this. What do the positive reviews have in common? What do the negative reviews have in common? If positive reviews repeat certain things about the business I generally view this favorably, unless the language and sentence structure is so similar as to draw my suspicion. In addition, if the company has no negative reviews I look at this with a bit of skepticism. While it’s possible that they have no unsatisfied customers, it’s more likely that they’re either fairly new or that they’re using proactive methods to keep customers from making reviews, or to suppress reviews they don’t like with SEO methods. But really, at the end of the day every business will and should expect to have a handful of negative of reviews. Every business owner has encountered the unreasonable or unhinged customer. And every consumer has come in contact with a business owner who just doesn’t care.

2. The Language – I tend to look at the grammar, punctuation, and other similar characteristics of a review too. Is it well-written? If the review is badly written or is in ALL CAPS, then I tend to give it less credence. Why, you may ask? It’s because I think people who write well tend to think well too. There are exceptions, of course. And people who use ALL CAPS in their reviews are often emotionally fired up. I tend to look at those kinds of reviews with an extra grain of salt. While their review may be 100% true, I’m more likely to believe a review that seemed to have been written by a cool and calm customer.

Also, is the language of the post specific? If the post is vague, general, or contradictory, this is a red flag for me. It tells me a few things. First, that it could be a post from a jealous competitor who is attempting to disparage the competition (not altogether common in my experience). Second, it’s a disgruntled customer who will never be satisfied and may be seeking to exact revenge on the business owner. Or third, and worse, it is a person who may be emotionally disturbed or who is attempting to extort the business owner. Sadly, this happens.

3. The number of reviews – This is an obvious one. If the vast majority of reviews are positive and there are only one or two negative reviews, this is a good sign. The opposite is also true.

4. Anonymous online reviews – It’s very easy to take potshots at somebody when you think there are no consequences. It’s much more difficult to put your name on a statement, especially a negative or a controversial one. For this reason, I find that anonymous posts on the whole are less credible. There are exceptions, of course.

5. The reviewer – the last thing I look at is the reviewer. Has this person posted multiple negative reviews about different businesses on a number of sites? If so, this is a major red flag. Most people do not post reviews on the internet at all. Even fewer post multiple negative reviews about different businesses. This suggests to me that the person may have emotional issues, unreasonable, or is simply a malicious individual. Or worse, that the person is a professional extortionist, which is a growing problem.

It is inevitable that most, if not all business owners will deal with a negative online review at some point. You simply can’t make everyone happy, no matter what you do.  





Source: Adrianos Facchetti