Ex-wife drives her husband to commit suicide and now claims his note is her intellectual property. You’ve got to be fucking kidding me.

24 Apr

Monster woman

I’m pulling this story from AVfM (with permission) to bring to your attention a truly tragic case of family courts gone absolutely mad.  But before I get into it, I want to address a particularly fraught issue:  identifying the wife.

 

Her name is known, and many of her contact points have been published widely across the internet.  This woman is, in my mind, an absolute monster, but having said that, I will not be publishing any contact information about her.  A comment containing her details made it through moderation last night, and was removed by me today.  I would like to explain to the commenter who posted exactly why I am refusing to reveal the ex-wife’s identity.

Dear Anon,

 

You posted a message on my blog about a truly tragic case of a man abused by his wife so thoroughly, he ended his own life.

 

While I happen to agree 100% that the presence of despicable laws and corrupted family court systems obliges NO ONE to use those things, I cannot agree with publishing XXXX’s contact information.

 

The truth of the matter is that she has done something so heartless, so evil, so awful, that she is very likely at great risk of harm.  That is what tends to happen to monsters.  They are destroyed.

 

As you well know, from this case and others, those of us who publish her contact info, should that lead to harm, will be held accountable.  Once again, XXXX will be the victim, absolved of all responsibility for what she has done.

 

We are not going to change an entire culture by destroying one monstrous woman.  If anything, we will end up painted in a very bad light for aiding and abetting any harm that comes to her.

 

I understand your rage, anon, I truly do.  

 

I hope you understand my decision to refuse to publish XXXX’s information.  Please know you are more than welcome to post information about the case, but it must not include any identifying details.

 

Ultimately there is no justice to be had for the husband.  He’s dead.  Our primary concern is for those who still live.  Slaying this monster of a woman is likely to hurt our ability to help those men.  It won’t help.

 

We need to keep focused on the living and mourn our dead.  

 

JB

 

 

Here is the story:

 

Does a wife who may have driven a husband to suicide with the assistance of our corrupt family court system, then have a legal right to claim copyright — of his suicide note?

 

According to attorney Rachelle E. Hill, of Bean, Kinney and Korman, and a judge, that is precisely the claim. Their lawyer has written the offices of A Voice for Men to demand that we remove a post from the forums containing the note.

 

It is not going to happen.

 

The text of the note was posted to our forums months ago. We considered doing a feature story on it at the time, but opted not to because we had no credible corroboration that the story was factual.

 

Attorney Hill, her law firm, and the suicide victim’s former wife have now resolved that matter to our satisfaction. The demand letter itself is sufficient for us to believe that the following note is genuine.

 

The love that my daughter and I shared was truly special. She is a such a sweet, kind and gentle spirit. I am so sorry that I will not be there to see her grow into a beautiful woman. It absolutely crushed me to not be in her life over the last three years. I worked very hard as a father to build her confidence and self-esteem. She is smart, funny and considerate, but she didn’t know it yet. I pray that she realizes her strengths and her confidence in herself will continue to grow. I love you dearly, [name redacted].

My son [name redacted] was just entering Kindergarten, when I lost access to him. He is gregarious, outgoing and a great athlete. He is smart and fearless. He could have just as much fun by himself as he could with other kids. Even the older boys in our neighbourhood wanted to play with [name redacted]. It absolutely breaks my heart that I will not be able to help him grow into a man. I love you to, [name redacted]. I miss you both so much.

My identity was taken from me, as result of this process. When it began, I was a commercial real estate broker with CB Richard Ellis. I lived by the Golden rule and made a living by bringing parties together and finding the common ground. My reputation as a broker was built on my honesty and integrity. When it ended, I was broke, homeless, unemployed and had no visitation with my own children.

I had no confidence and was paralyzed with fear that I would be going to jail whenever my ex-wife wanted. Nothing I could say or do would stop it. This is what being to death or ‘targeted’ by a psychopath looks like. This is the outcome. I didn’t somehow change into a ‘high-conflict’ person or lose my ability to steer clear of the law. I’ve had never been arrested, depressed, homeless or suicidal before this process. The stress and pressure applied to me was deliberate and nothing I could do or say would get me any relief. Nothing I or my attorneys said to my ex-wife’s attorney or to the Court made any difference. Truth, facts, evidence or even the best interest of my children had no affect on the outcome.

The family court system is broken, but from my experience, it is not the laws, its the lawyers. They feed off of the conflict. They are not hired to reduce conflict or protect the best interest of children, which is why third parties need to be involved. It should be mandatory for children to have a guardian ad litem, with extensive training in abuse and aggression.

It is absolutely shameful that the Fairfax County Court did nothing to intervene or understand the ongoing conflict. Judge Randy Bellows also used the Children as punishment, by withholding access for failing to fax a receipt. The entire conflict centered around the denial of access to the children, it was inconceivable to me that he would use children like this. This is exactly what my ex-wife was doing and now Judge Bellows was doing it for her.

To all my family, friends and the people that supported me through this process, I am so sorry. I know my reactions and behavior throughout this process did not always make sense. None of this made sense to me either. I had no help and the only suggestion I got from my attorneys was to remain silent.

At first, I did what I was told, remained silent and listened to my attorneys. Then after I had given my ex-wife full custody to try and appease her, I learned about Psychopathy and emailed Dr. Samenow about my concerns and asked him for help. Of course, I was ignored. As the conflict continued, I was forced to defend myself. When that didn’t work, I thought I could get the help I needed by speaking out. There is no right or wrong way to defend yourself from abuse. Naively, I thought that abuse was abuse and it would be recognized and something would be done. I thought speaking out would end the abuse or at least get them to back off. It didn’t. When no one did anything they were emboldened.

I took my own life because I had come to the conclusion that there was nothing I could do or say to end the abuse. Every time I got up off my knees, I would get knocked back down. They were not going to let me be the father I wanted to be to my children. People may think I am a coward for giving up on my children, but I didn’t see how I was going to heal from this. I have no money for an attorney, therapy or medication. I have lost four jobs because of this process. I was going to be at their mercy for the rest of my life and they had shown me none.

Being alienated, legally abused, emotionally abused, isolated and financially ruined are all a recipe for suicide. I wish I were stronger to keep going, but the emotional pain and fear of going to court and jail [because of exorbitant child support] became overwhelming. I became paralyzed with fear. I couldn’t flee and I could not fight. I was never going to be allowed to heal or recover. I wish I were better at articulating the psychological and emotional trauma I experienced.

I could fill a book with all the lies and mysterious rulings of the Court. Never have I experienced this kind of pain. I asked for help, but good men did nothing and evil prevailed. All I wanted was a Guardian Ad Litem for my children. Any third party would have been easily been able to confirm or refute all of my allegations, which is why none was ever appointed to protect the children or reduce the conflict.

Abuse is about power and control. Stand up for the abused and speak out. If someone speaks out about abuse, believe them.

Please teach my children empathy and about emotional invalidation and ‘gas-lighting’ or they may end up like me.

God have mercy on my soul.

[name redacted by me]

 

This link will give you a copy of demand letter, which like the suicide note, has the children’s names redacted.

Letter.

Within that document we note that an Arlington County, Virginia judge has ruled that [redacted by me], the widow of this suicide victim, is authorized to seek reasonable legal remedies to force a large number of websites, where this information has already been made available, to remove the information in question.

We reject the notion that our publication is in violation of copyright laws, and that the suicide note is not covered by fair use statutes.

We also believe, given the horrific state of our family courts, it is in the compelling public interest that his final words be published and disseminated as robustly as possible.

The chief responsibility of A Voice for Men is advocacy for men who have been trampled in precisely the ways outlined in this tragic note, and to do whatever is within our means to address the disproportionate suicide rate in men, especially as it relates to high conflict divorces.

If what [redacted by me] said in his final note is true, and we have no reason to believe that what amounts to his dying words are less than that, then what this threatened legal action represents is an attempt by his former wife to chase him down – even into the grave – to issue the final and complete edict for his silence in the face of horrendous abuse.

It is an act which will also probably eliminate any chance those children ever have to know how their father felt and what he was thinking before taking his own life.

I will gladly take residence in my own grave before I comply with that kind of agenda.

Paul Elam

Publisher, A Voice for Men

 

This story is one that needs to be made a topic of urgent national conversation.  Far too many men and children suffer when vindictive women, backed by courts that automatically give preference to the female parent, are allowed to carry out agendas shaped by ideologies and biases, not an interest in justice.

 

We desperately need to have this conversation without bringing harm to this particular woman, not because I believe she is not ultimately responsible for her actions, but because vigilante justice is never an acceptable solution.  It might feel good, but it does nothing to change the formal laws that will simply continue to be exploited to harm men and children unless challenged directly.

 

Please help spread this story, but please, please do not participate in sharing or publishing the ex-wife’s name or contact details.

 

That will do far more harm than good, and more importantly, it won’t bring a dead man back.

 

Nothing will.

 

JB

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

50 Responses to “Ex-wife drives her husband to commit suicide and now claims his note is her intellectual property. You’ve got to be fucking kidding me.”

  1. David Rabinovitz April 24, 2014 at 19:04 #

    JB – I enjoy your postings though I read them sparingly. Friends say my face distorts and worry that it propels me back to the depths of my divorce nightmare. Please consider removing Chris’ last name. A simple Google search leads one to his identity and that of his children.

    http://www.legacy.com/obituaries/washingtonpost/obituary.aspx?pid=169166767

    Like

  2. Jeremy April 24, 2014 at 19:18 #

    Hidng behind laws and police is what women do. That is not an insult, it’s a truth of existence.

    Boldly doing what should and must be done, damn the personal cost, is what men do. That is not so shameful in moderation, that is a man’s role.

    As such, yes this woman should suffer consequences from men. She should be pumped-and-dumped for the rest of her life.

    Like

  3. judgybitch April 24, 2014 at 19:19 #

    I will do that David, and thank you.

    Like

  4. acethepug April 24, 2014 at 19:43 #

    Dear God. How can such monsters live among us and be DEFENDED as this woman certainly will be (not here, but you KNOW she will be protected by certain types)?

    I pray this man found the peace in death he never did in life, and I pray for his children, too.

    Like

  5. Jennifer April 24, 2014 at 19:58 #

    Sounds like my filter caught the same message. I agree. This story needs to be shared without the ex-wife’s info. Thank you for putting it out there.

    Like

  6. LostSailor April 24, 2014 at 20:00 #

    JB, I absolutely agree with not posting direct personal information about people no matter how monstrous they are, as well as blocking/editing out identifying information about the children.

    I’m not sure I agree with removing Chris’ last name. Not only because information about him and his ex is easily discoverable on Google, and therefore already in the public. No, the more important reason I would leave Chris’ full name up is that if you read the demand letter sent by the ex-wife’s lawyer, you may note that it not only includes a DMCA copyright take-down demand, it also asserts that the ex has a right to control use and or posting of the dead man’s name. And your removal is playing right into that.

    Let’s be clear. As I commented at AVfM, if you closely read the demand letter and the attached court order (which the demand letter misrepresents) you’ll see that this isn’t just a case of removing a potentially damaging suicide note. It goes far beyond that. The court order doesn’t actually address copyright–it can’t since it’s a state court and only cites state law and copyright if Federal. No, the court order merely asserts that the ex, as administrator of Chris’ estate (how the hell did that happen?), she has the authority to wind-down and/or remove Chris’ presence on the Web, including removing any blogs, posts, comments, Facebook activity, tweets, etc. that Chris ever made. Note the list of sites included: Google Drive, Scribd, Facebook, Yahoo Groups, Wikipedia, Reddit, and most ominously, Archive.org, host of the Wayback Machine archive, essentially the memory of the internet.

    While I want to stress that the court order specifically says this pertains to information that the deceased has posted online on any website- or social media account and that the ex is allowed to wind down andremove any website posts orother onlineactivity by the decedent

    The lawyer and the ex are trying to use some slightly ambiguous wording to assert the authority to remove anything written about Chris and that they have control over “authorized” use of even his name. Both are patently absurd, but a lot of people will fall for it. The intent to me is obvious. The ex has managed to engineer his physical removal from the planet, now she’s trying to completely wipe away any mention of him in the collective digital world. She’s trying to make it almost as if he never existed.

    It’s one thing to admirably refrain from participating in doxxing and admirably protecting children. But it’s another thing to participate in removing a man’s memory from the world. They don’t control use of his name, and his death is a matter of public record and no court can order you to stop writing about it. If this woman’s details are easily discoverable online, I’m sorry, but that’s her problem. I’d suggest restoring Chris’ full name.

    As for the copyright issue, there’s a chance that she has a claim. However, a take-down notice isn’t a court order. If someone believes they have a valid fair use claim on the material (and there’s a very good argument for that, especially since what AVfM and you have posted is not the complete text of his note), they can simply ignore the take-down notice. And they should. Now, they can go after the IPS and hosts of the blog and get action (since the DMCA notice system is essentially a “safe harbor” mechanism for the ISPs and hosts), but that, too, can be contested.

    The only other recourse they have is to actually file a Federal copyright infringement suit. A separate one for each blogger who posted the note. And that’s only for those that are located in the U.S. The DMCA has no power outside the borders and they’d have to sue in a foreign jurisdiction. All of that is very expensive to do.

    So the legal threats are really just that. Fairly empty threats. If the ISPs/hosts don’t play along, it’s highly unlikely that the ex will do anything but skulk back to her evil lair…

    Like

  7. judgybitch April 24, 2014 at 20:02 #

    Well now I don’t know what to do!

    Anyone else want to chime in?

    Like

  8. javaloco April 24, 2014 at 20:07 #

    Should probably remove David’s link, also.

    Like

  9. patriarchal landmine April 24, 2014 at 20:11 #

    “As you well know, from this case and others, those of us who publish her contact info, should that lead to harm, will be held accountable. Once again, XXXX will be the victim, absolved of all responsibility for what she has done.”

    far too late for that. she’s the victim by default. posting or not posting her contact info will not change that.

    Like

  10. LostSailor April 24, 2014 at 20:16 #

    Sorry, didn’t mean to put you on the spot.

    I just find efforts like this to control what people write and post to be rank intimidation and bullying. After all, lawyers ain’t cheap. And there are ways to be honest and ethical when writing about delicate subjects.

    Like

  11. LostSailor April 24, 2014 at 20:21 #

    Well, the link is to a mirror of Chris’ Washington Post obituary, which seems pretty safe. The link in the obit to Chris’ blog show that the blog has already been scrubbed.

    And there is nothing in the law preventing anyone from linking to content, especially if the claim is that the linked content is infringing someone’s copyright. The link itself is in no way an infringement.

    Like

  12. Ferrum Itzal April 24, 2014 at 20:31 #

    Amazing. I’ve tried typing a response about five times and keep having to erase it when I step back and read it. I’ve felt a lot of the same frustration that he cites in his letter and it’s a day-to-day thing for me. I will say this, though.

    You council talking about the issue and spreading the gospel. I think that’s a rather typical response from a thinking woman because that’s how women try to deal with problems. Women don’t do well with open, honest physical conflict so they try to talk it out before violence erupts.

    As you’ve noted countless times, however, men have an instinctual need to protect what is theirs. Their mate, children and home. But how do they protect them? You cannot protect with happy songs. You cannot protect with bouquets of flowers. The only way you can protect is with violence.

    Men are instinctually violent creatures. It’s as hard-wired into us as talking is in women. It’s at the very core of our being. I would cite Jack Donovan’s excellent essay “Violence is Golden” . http://www.jack-donovan.com/axis/2011/03/violence-is-golden/

    Men are certainly capable of using words. Shakespeare, Sun Tzu, Musashi and Machiavelli – all men and all were great with words.

    What I think women need to remember, though, is that men aren’t just good with words. Throughout our long history, men have proven time and again that they are truly exceptional at violence.

    Like

  13. judgybitch April 24, 2014 at 20:40 #

    Oh, I think you’re absolutely right, Ferrum, and my intention is not to bang the violence = bad drum at all.

    This woman is a fucking poster child for “person who needs to die”, but the implications would be deeply counterproductive, I think.

    And I would replace “violence” with “brute force”. Men are good at brute force.

    Which explains why we have roads, buildings, bridges – basically our entire physical infrastructure.

    Men built it.

    Both sides of that sword are sharp, though.

    This one particular instance is a good one for words, not blades.

    Like

  14. javaloco April 24, 2014 at 20:50 #

    Wasn’t thinking infringement, more the doxxing material in the obit as referenced by JB. The original commenter suggested removing the guy’s last name, yet the link points right to his last name.

    Like

  15. judgybitch April 24, 2014 at 20:52 #

    The doxxing issue is definitely troubling but I believe there is a lot of merit to the argument that we should not be helping the wife erase his name.

    Like

  16. LostSailor April 24, 2014 at 21:31 #

    Understand about infringement. But you can’t doxx a dead man and it is his obit, published in a major national newspaper, so it’s not exactly private information, nor did Chris, when he did blog, blog anonymously.

    To my understanding, doxxing is the practice of publishing identifying information about someone (usually some kind of rival or opponent) who blogs, comments, or otherwise wished to remain anonymous for the purposes of intimidating or silencing them.

    In this case, Chris’ ex and their children are not really participants in a conversation but posting identifying material could result in harassment of the ex and perhaps potential danger to the kids. So I support not posting that information. However, that information is publicly available. The ex is identified in court documents (public records) that were distributed by her lawyer, presumably with her permission or at her request. She’s not anonymous. Even then, I agree that an ethical blogger will still refrain from posting that information directly. If that information is readily available, you can’t stop other people from looking for it, though hopefully they’ll act responsibly.

    Chris, however, is dead. He can’t be doxxed. Indeed, he’s being erased. So, I think posting excerpts of things he’s written or articles about him are perfectly fine.

    Like

  17. ARoss April 24, 2014 at 21:59 #

    If that is in fact her “intellectual property” shouldn’t she be charged with manslaughter considering she’s inadvertently admitted to causing his death?

    Like

  18. Goober April 24, 2014 at 22:12 #

    Remember kids!

    If violence isn’t the answer, you’re asking the wrong questions!

    Like

  19. Goober April 24, 2014 at 22:14 #

    No. Jesus Christ, no…

    I would absolutely hate to see what even well-meaning bureaucrats and prosecutors would do with precedent that you can prosecute somebody for someone else’s suicide.

    Fuck me running, that would be a nightmare.

    No matter how good it would feel to bend the rules just this once, for this one case, you have to step back and think about what you’re asking for.

    Like

  20. Ferrum Itzal April 24, 2014 at 22:39 #

    Violence and brute force are synonymous, JB. One might sound kinder than the other, especially when tied to the visual of building civilization, but brute force is still violence.

    Brute force rips the door from it’s hinges and violence walks through.

    Both sides of the sword are indeed sharp, but women have forgotten that. They’ve been able to use words (laws and the media) to drum their message into the public consciousness. Words are a woman’s bailiwick. The sword is ours.

    The ex-wife did what she did because she had no fear. The judge backed her up because he had no fear. The lawyers could care less because they had no fear.

    A wise man once said that an armed society is a polite society, but I would argue that it wasn’t the arms that made people polite; it was the promise of violence. It wasn’t some detached, far off threat of possible harm somewhere down the road. No. The arm was a visible sign of the man’s willingness to do real violence right-here-right-now.

    That promise of personal accountability has been removed by generations of words, the laws and the media denouncing and demeaning anything remotely violent. In this case, all of the antagonists knew that they wouldn’t be held accountable in the most personal and primal way. No fear.

    “This one particular instance is a good one for words…”

    And so the next one and the one after that….. just like the thousand that preceded.

    What I would suggest is that women get together and talk about what a ‘war on women’ would really look like. The majority of men are not some dapper Jean Luc Picard that can be reasoned with even when he’s half Borg. That’s Feminism 101, and it’s a lie.

    No, 99% of men, the masses that have made up every great army the world has ever seen, are more akin to Bruce Banner. Quiet, competent and completely invisible…. until you push the wrong fucking button.

    “Don’t make me angry. You wouldn’t like me when I’m angry.”

    Like

  21. Alex April 24, 2014 at 22:46 #

    don’t names fall under trademark anyways? i think it was one of your comments on the AVfM site saying that names couldn’t fall under copyrights, so trademarks seems like the logical next step

    Like

  22. javaloco April 24, 2014 at 23:02 #

    I am totally misunderstood and it will take too many words now to clarify myself 😉

    Like

  23. LostSailor April 24, 2014 at 23:18 #

    Personal names do not fall under copyright (neither to titles of books for films, for that matter). But they don’t fall under trademark, either, since trademarks (or service marks) are words, phrases, logos, etc. that are used in commerce and are intended to prevent consumer confusion about a brand. Most trademarks are fairly narrowly construed within an industry. For example, you couldn’t operate a business (or trademark the name) of a burger stand called Wendy’s, but you could have a business (an probably trademark) with the name Wendy’s for a nail salon, since the two offerings are unlikely to be confused (though the burger chain would certainly try to stop you).

    Besides, to assert a trademark claim, you have to register it and show that you’ve asserted a trademark in commerce over a period of time. That’s actually the difference between the ™ mark and the ® mark. The first is just a notice that someone is asserting a trademark, the second is notice that the trademark has been approved by and registered with the copyright and trademark office.

    Okay, probably too much information. I’m a geek, what can I say…

    Like

  24. LostSailor April 24, 2014 at 23:28 #

    The “suicide note” is not her intellectual property, it’s the property of Chris’ estate. She just happens to be the administrator/executor of the estate and can assert a claim on behalf of the estate.

    The fact that it conveniently dovetails with her own interests is just a coincidental further injustice…

    Like

  25. Anthea April 25, 2014 at 02:26 #

    Wait, why is SHE the executor of Chris’ (God rest his soul) estate?

    Like

  26. Paul Murray April 25, 2014 at 05:05 #

    The Streisand Effect strikes again.

    Like

  27. comslave April 25, 2014 at 05:40 #

    With regard to the doxxing issue, I will say this. We tend to think nothing of the sex offenders registry because most people believe that the recidivism rate among sexual predators is high enough to justify continued vigilance. I believe that women who use the family court system to destroy men will tend to do it over and over again. It is because we de-value men that her interests are protected over the interests of men she may harm. We all know that a sex offender registry will and already has lead men to getting murdered as citizens take the law into their own hands, but society’s concerns outweigh their right to safety. Men should equally be warned not to have anything to do with this woman. Her name should be known, not to harm her, but so she can be avoided at all costs.

    Like

  28. alcockell April 25, 2014 at 09:03 #

    CHRIST! That is Orwellian!
    “Posterity will never hear of you, Winston. You will be lifted out of the stream of history….”

    Like

  29. Eric April 25, 2014 at 09:53 #

    “The text of the note was posted to our forums months ago.”

    Given that Chris Mackney posted the note on the AVfM forum, I would think that disposes of any property dispute. Setting aside the oddity that his ex-wife is the administrator of his estate, I don’t believe that status gives her authority to retroactively take back Chris’s publication of his letter at AVfM anymore than she can take back gifts Chris gave away or items he sold. I don’t know the workings of copyright law, but it makes sense that she has authority to permit or deny future publication. I doubt she can deny prior publication that Chris authorized and indeed initiated while alive. I even doubt that Chris, if he were alive, would have the law on his side to demand AVfM remove his letter after he posted it.

    It is a novel use of copyright law. I’d be curious to see how a judge would decide the case.

    Like

  30. Eric April 25, 2014 at 10:01 #

    That is strange. I don’t believe that an estate would default to a divorced spouse. Maybe he left everything to their children, which brought her into play as their guardian? I don’t know how that works.

    Like

  31. Spaniard April 25, 2014 at 13:00 #

    In Spain, men abused by their wives and raped in courts don’t commit suicide, they kill their wives.

    Like

  32. Ferrum Itzal April 25, 2014 at 17:10 #

    I’m pretty sure I remember that being done already. A young girl being bullied at school and on the internet…. killed herself, but left a note that named names. The bullies were busted for something.

    And that gay guy that killed himself at Harvard (?) after his roomie secretly filmed him with his lover. I don’t know that he was ever charged with a crime, but he did face prosecution from the school as well as in the court of public opinion.

    Personally, if there’s evidence to show that you were driven to the bridge that you jumped off, whoever was driving should be held accountable. How is it a crime to aid and abet a theft or murder, but it’s not a crime to push someone to the point where suicide is their only option?

    If nothing else, the judge in this case should have thought long and hard about the ramifications of his decision. He didn’t. No GaL for the kids. Court-levied financial ruin for the father. What could he have thought would be the logical outcome? Murderers don’t get as harsh a sentence.

    Like

  33. Fred Flange moons goodnight April 25, 2014 at 17:43 #

    Co-sign with Lost Sailor and amplify: If Mackney sent the note himself, he authorized publication. Plus his suicide is a matter of legitimate public interest (news). Moreover, if the note was made part of his estate proceedings, or was sent to the Court before he died, and is in the court record, then Guess What! It is a pleading, a public record, which can be quoted at will (unless they were smart enough to have it sealed). The reason we have the secret canons of Scientology is some law firm working for them made the mistake of appending them to a federal court pleading without sealing the document – which made them a quotable Public Record, a filing in a court case. Same here.

    Also want to amplify that since both your side and AvFM are Canadian, no suit can lie against either site in the USA. No jurisdiction there, and just being published on the Web does not convey it. The ex-Mrs. must come to Canada to do anything, and sue under international treaties and copyright law. Now that sounds ominous, and if there was real juice behind the threat it would be scary. But to bring that kind of firepower isn’t cheap. Tens of thousands at least. Attorneys fees are NOT guaranteed unless you win and no lawyer – even this one from VA – would do such a case on spec on their own dime to find out. Put simply, you have no need to worry because, as I like to say, “Mr. Green is not in the Courtroom.”

    Like

  34. LostSailor April 25, 2014 at 19:27 #

    Well, it’s not the host that gets sued (normally), it’s the poster who is actually infringing, but they, too, still have to sued in their country. And the poster has rights under the law, and if the notice or case is found materially lacking, the poster can collect damages.

    I’m please to see that WordPress has a very balanced policy in that they will remove potentially offending content, but follow the correct procedure of allowing the poster or blogger to challenge it and will go to bat for them if the initial claim is found to be flawed or in bad faith.

    I don’t want to derail here, but while these notices are often filed indiscriminately (mostly by large entertainment companies) and many sites take the easy way out of just yanking the content, if a blogger or poster fights back, they can often get it restored. Actually suing someone for copyright infringement is rare, expensive, and very difficult for especially individuals to do.

    Mostly they rely on bold claims and scary words to intimidate people. They don’t expect anyone to resist…

    Like

  35. Eric April 25, 2014 at 21:50 #

    I don’t believe a ‘demand’ letter qualifies as a notice. A notice is a procedural step in a court case. This ‘demand’ letter might well be included in the fact record of a possible future court case, but in and of itself, it carries no more official authority than a demand made directly by the client.

    Reading the attached court order, I’m not clear what additional power it actually grants to the ex-wife to ‘wind down’ Chris’s net presence retroactively that she didn’t already hold as the administrator of his estate.

    Again, I don’t know copyright law or estate law for that matter, but it seems to me that if this case were to go to court, this action if approved would set a major precedent.

    Like

  36. Eric April 25, 2014 at 22:25 #

    I’ll add that a defamatory/libel-based claim likely would have more legs than a copyright/property-based claim, but while full scrubbing removal may be a normal remedy for the latter grounds, it may not be a normal remedy for the former grounds.

    Again, if this case ever reached court, it would be fascinating and precedent setting.

    Like

  37. LostSailor April 26, 2014 at 00:18 #

    I’ve called it a “demand” letter, but not in necessarily a strict legal sense. I did it because the letter contains other claims, but still includes the elements of a DMCA notice, so it covers both. I’m not a lawyer, but I’ve dealt with copyright and trademark issue for many years. The part of the letter that asserts a privacy claim is outside the DMCA.

    The court order doesn’t give any additional power, it just confirms the power the executor of the estate already had.

    This isn’t really any precedent, it’s just a standard lawyerly letter with overblown threats…

    Like

  38. Orphan April 26, 2014 at 01:35 #

    @Ferrum Itzal and Spaniard

    Some men love to kill. Some men learn to be OK with killing. Not All Men Are Like That. In fact, most men are not like that. Most men would rather be killed than kill another man. They are even more reticent to kill a woman. A friend of mine has the data.

    As I recall, it was WWII. As the men stormed the beaches, the Army documented that over half of the men deliberately fired over the heads of the Germans. They would rather be killed under fire than kill the then enemy. My friend then quotes the song line, “I would rather be a hammer than a nail.” Most men would rather be the nail that gets pounded till it is buried in the wood than kill someone.

    Like

  39. Eric April 26, 2014 at 02:30 #

    Right – the letter is just a letter. It’s not a procedural step for a court case. I meant if the estate and copyright-based claim went to court and was approved that would set a major precedent.

    Like

  40. Ferrum Itzal April 26, 2014 at 02:54 #

    It’s pretty sad that you think that, Orphan. It’s easy to say one thing on a survey and then change your mind drastically when a real situation crops up. Most people will never have to get violent at all.

    Cops and security men go to work every day with the knowledge that they might have to fight for their lives that day. Do you think they’re going to just sit down and let the bad guy win?

    As for WW2, again the numbers don’t work. If most men would rather die than kill, who killed all those guys on both sides? Yea, you might see them firing “over the heads of the enemy”, but you’re not taking into account that they didn’t have a clear shot at any particular opponent. Putting up a “wall of lead” is a common tactic that forces the other side to keep their heads down or risk catching that odd angry bullet. This gives you time to move or select a target. To an observer on a ship, well out of the way, it might look like they weren’t trying to kill someone, but perspective is everything.

    If “men” would rather die than kill, that applies to the germans, too. And that means that all the guys that did die were either shot by those few willing killers on both sides, or just caught the odd round. Does that sound reasonable?

    Every guy has violence in them. It might take a lot to bring out, but it’s there. It’s the heat that keeps us warm as we’re slogging through another miserable day in the coal mine.

    Like

  41. Eric April 26, 2014 at 03:43 #

    If I was an American soldier in WW2 and found out my fellow soldiers were deliberately missing the enemy, I’d be very upset, because they would be increasing the probability of death for me and other soldiers, not just themselves.

    Like

  42. Luke April 26, 2014 at 06:39 #

    The classic book on this subject is “On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society” by David Grossman.

    One snippet: the “most soldiers won’t fire their weapons during combat” observation was mostly turned around by Vietnam, thanks to different training. (Think of how Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold used the video game “Doom” to learn economy of fire, doing single headshots like professional killers and moving on to the next target.)

    Like

  43. alcockell April 26, 2014 at 21:46 #

    It’s a bit like when Ryan Giggs tried to sue Twitter… oh THAT was a laugh…

    Like

  44. Jim April 26, 2014 at 22:06 #

    “Cops and security men go to work every day with the knowledge that they might have to fight for their lives that day. Do you think they’re going to just sit down and let the bad guy win?”

    the question is, who are the real bad guys?

    Like

  45. Jim April 26, 2014 at 22:07 #

    I guess some of them weren’t thinking of it that way. They should have but that’s easy for me to say.

    Like

  46. Orphan April 27, 2014 at 05:18 #

    “Cops and security men…”

    I think I saw this story on one of the TV cop ride along shows. The cops chase and finally stop a car. The woman driver gets out and points a gun at the cops, who are maybe 30 feet away. They hold fire even though they risked being killed at that range. Later they find out it was a cell phone, not a gun. Sometimes cops would rather risk death than kill.

    If I understood right, in training, cops are told someone with a knife is dangerous at a certain distance. I thought cops often shot after the person was well inside that “safe” distance.

    Not all cops are like that.
    http://freetheanimal.com/2013/10/skokie-michael-boyfriends.html

    “As for WW2, again the numbers don’t work.”

    A few comments down Luke references David Grossman’s book. That may be where my friend got his information.

    “Every guy has violence in them.”

    Charlton Heston, and others have said, “You will get my guns ‘from my dead, cold hands.'” Yet who tries to kill the people who support “gun control?” Or the people who kill fathers?
    http://www.thomasjamesball.com/blog/archives/category/self-immolation

    I do not see men ordinarily being willing to kill. I do not think anyone will try to kill Chris’s ex, her lawyer, the judge, her Father, or anyone connected with his being abused to death.

    Men are able to learn to kill. They can get into domestic violence. To me it seems to be a rare thing, and it requires a lot to get a man to that point. For most men, I believe they would rather kill themselves than anyone else.

    Like

  47. desperada57 April 27, 2014 at 17:42 #

    I could write long paragraphs of what she should suffer now, and I think most people would agree. Unfortunately, none would change the corrupt court system and may even end up making her some kind of fucking martyr. For my part, I’m tweeting, facebooking, anything I can do to get this story out.

    Like

  48. desperada57 April 27, 2014 at 17:46 #

    Reblogged this on My Blog and commented:
    Just when I thought things couldn’t get any worse. Stupid me.

    Like

  49. bruce wyse April 28, 2014 at 04:28 #

    While the suicide is tragic, where is the documentation? The guy should have assigned Paul Elam as executor and given him ALL the paperwork to be permanently posted.
    Even so all the court records are public, put then up and let her squirm.

    Like

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. Ex-wife drives her husband to commit suicide and now claims his note is her intellectual property. You’ve got to be fucking kidding me. | Manosphere.com - April 24, 2014

    […] Ex-wife drives her husband to commit suicide and now claims his note is her intellectual property. Y… […]

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: