Ryan Jerz :: Reno Blogger, Reno Blog

Fun, conversations, and occasional journalism from Reno, Nevada
Also, a small-town hick just looking for his five minutes


Misc: Terri Patraw: the update

If you’re new to what’s been happening to me, here is everything that I have so far. I posted a tongue-in-cheek comment on a news story and added my own bit of fact to it. What started with threats to me has now become me getting dumped by my web host. I’ll add comments after.

  • Original post – February 14, 2008. This was totally innocuous. I was kidding around, but also telling the truth. She asked me to take the post down, I refused, and that led to the next item. What I said referred to her threatening posters on Wolf Pack Chat with lawsuits when they said things about her.
  • Her letter to Wolf Pack donors – March 14, 2008.I got this letter as part of a series of six or so emails that I later posted. She told me to post this after I talked with her on the phone. The phone call came after several unsolicited emails from her, which started on March 4, ranging from anger and lawsuit threats to asking me to meet her for coffee. I agreed to post this letter in hopes that we could go our separate ways. Pay close attention to the comments. They are what prompted me to post the next entry.
  • The full experience – at that time – March 25, 2008. This is everything I had to that point. I also explain what my thinking was. I believe in full transparency. I was willing to be done with Terri Patraw after I posted her letter. I didn’t want trouble and wasn’t going to invite it, but my thinking is laid out in this post. I did it because I started getting anonymous comments from the same IP address that all of her emails had come from. The comments were nasty and said things that nobody should have gotten away with, especially in light of the IP information. My phone blew up that day and I received several more emails. More of that in the next post.
  • The aftermath – April 6, 2008. This is the story mostly of why the last post was such an important one. It includes the story of the day I posted all of the information leading up to the whole experience.
  • My latest – April 26, 2008. Domingo Rivera is the lawyer who is sending me and others letters on her behalf. He should be held just as accountable for this as she should. The two of them attempted to shut me down with threats of a defamation suit that included zero mentions of a provable lie by me, and then they threatened my web host with a suit if they did not shut me down. These are people who are using threats and intimidation to stifle free speech.

There is more to the story. Yesterday, I was informed by my web host, Joyent, that they were going to stop access to my site. They were doing it in response to a letter from Domingo Rivera on behalf of Terri Patraw stating that I had violated the DMCA by posting her emails. It’s ludicrous. Even the Joyent CEO said as much, but they were not willing to stand up for a small client. I was told that since I am only a $15/month customer, it wasn’t worth the hassle. I understand that position from a business standpoint, but I would love to know how much per month is enough to not hose a longtime customer by giving in to intimidation and extortion tactics.

More should be said about how I operate. Read carefully to know where I’m coming from:

Nothing I posted was ever requested to be kept private. Several things I have not posted were requested to be kept private. From the start, I have been the person operating above board here. I have a long-standing policy with myself that I will not post something that someone says I should not, even when I have every right to do so. I have not posted anything under a name other than my own. I also identified myself as a journalist at the very beginning of the phone call I made to Terri Patraw. She had absolutely no reason to believe the call was not on the record. Posting any of her emails—even the ones she has asked not to be published—is well within my rights as a journalist who is being threatened with a lawsuit by a public figure.

That’s the story, as it stands and can be told right now. I still have emails and voice mails that I will not publish due to her requests. I want to, but I am doing everything I can to be honorable, which I think will help in the end.

Update

Please see this post for the latest.


tags: copyright, defamation, domingo rivera, lawsuits, terri patraw
posted by Ryan Jerz on 04/29/2008

Comments

Kristie Wells, Apr 29, 11:13 AM #:

Ryan, we are not ‘hosing’ a long time customer. In fact, David Young (our CEO) even offered to host you for free for a couple of months at another carrier to help you get through this ‘mess’. I thought that was a great offer, and a sure fire sign of us trying to support you – our customer. http://twitter.com/davidpaulyoung/statuses/798950040

The fact of the matter is if we ignore the DCMA order, we will end up in court. This means a lot of time and money ($5k minimum) spent on our side. We are trying to strike a balance. I think David’s offer does just that.

I hope you understand that.

Ryan Jerz, Apr 29, 11:24 AM #:

Kristie,

You hosed me. You guys gave me a weekend’s notice. If you had informed me when you got the first letter this could have been resolved. I appreciate the offer very much, but the bottom line is that you told me to hit the road because I’m small time. And you empowered bullies who are abusing the law. You guys know that, but “it’s not worth the hassle.” I disagree, but what choice do I have?

Bob B., Apr 29, 12:34 PM #:

Gotta agree…you’ve been hosed. Paying for a couple of months of hosting is nothing if the next host shuts you down after being threatened as well.

Jim, Apr 29, 12:58 PM #:

Ditto. Hosed. But I can see the dilemma from both sides – doing what is right against unethical legal tactics/abuse of the legal system is expensive … a price most companies whose mission is solely profit are not willing to pay. That’s why it works. That’s why lawyers (and a lesser extent their clients) get away with it.
Maybe the lawyers who are new to the digital arena should realize that people like you can switch hosts every day if they want, and even go overseas – and each bunk cease-and-desist letter is lost billable hours. It may cost you time, but at least it is costing them (translation: their clients) money.

Ryan Jerz, Apr 29, 01:48 PM #:

I don’t think the focus should be anywhere near Joyent. I’m upset that they caved, for sure, but the focus needs to be on the people that forced their hand. Like Jim said, it’s the people who think they can bully others who are the problem. Terri Patraw and Domingo Rivera are the problems here.

Also to Joyent’s credit, they referred me to an offshore host that has a reputation for backing clients in DMCA cases. The problem was that I couldn’t read a word on their site and wouldn’t sign up without know what I was agreeing to. The whole thing is unfortunate, but my anger is much more toward the people who think they can stifle free speech more than anyone else.

Jimmy K., Apr 29, 08:48 PM #:

I suggest that you file a DMCA counter-notification. If you truly believe that the stuff targeted by the takedown notice is non-infringing, the DMCA provides a formal statutory way you can tell Joyent that. They then pass that info onto the complainant, and if they don’t bring a lawsuit against you (not Joyent) within a couple of weeks, the law tells them to put the content back on the network. If the correct procedure is followed, then Joyent still gets the full legal protection of the DMCA and is not liable for any infringement. Any lawsuit and resulting legal battle will continue to involve you just as it would have otherwise, but Joyent will be safe. I’m guessing they’d still have the right to cancel the account if their terms allow them to do that, but their motives for doing so would be greatly reduced. If you want to probe the gray area here, talk with a lawyer.

More info here:

http://www.chillingeffects.org/question.cgi?QuestionID=132

Web form to generate a customized counter-notification:

http://www.chillingeffects.org/dmca/counter512.pdf

Link to the actual law:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/512.html

Final note: I’m not a lawyer and therefore this isn’t legal advice, so confirm with your own lawyer if you want that kind of formal assurance. However, I have spent a lot of time looking into these issues so I consider myself a well-informed layman. There’s lots of information online for you to verify this to whatever level of satisfaction you want, including the applicable law itself.

nevadagirl, Apr 30, 07:32 AM #:

Seems like your’e being hosed and bullied errrr harrassed. Oh my gosh, but that was “In my opinion”. I feel like my hand is being slapped just writing that.

Wolfy, Apr 30, 07:38 AM #:

Dude,

I don’t think you need a confidentiality note at the bottom of your email to expect that it’s private. Email is private, and if you post it w/o permission, you get the shaft, and you deserve it. If she’d wanted to comment publicly she could have. It’s not your call. I use email to quote people all the time. But I ask permission and give people a chance to reiterate for the record. Might not be legally required, but it seems like the decent thing to do.

-M

Bob, Apr 30, 07:53 AM #:

Ryan,

Two points:

1. At least people now know that if they have something remotely controversial on your site, Joyent is NOT the place to host it. Perhaps, had they taken a stand, and been open and public about it, the $5k may have been made back in publicity and outpourings of support. Instead, Joyent is now immortalized as spineless asshats.

(I wonder if you’ll be featured in Joyent’s April newsletter (http://www.joyent.com/news/newsletter/)? Also, Joyent’s About Us page is especially inviting: “We give out Joyent t-shirts to any customers (real or prospective) that visit us at our headquarters. We will also offer you a fine whiskey, a glass of Pernod, or for you lightweights…a good old bottle of water. Yeah, we are cool like that.” Maybe you could organize a Reno Baby march on Joyent for a glass of Pernod as the Grand Prize, or for those who are even bigger wusses than Joyent, some Sausalito spring water. (Are there any springs in Sausalito?)).

2. It’s pretty funny that Patraw hires a CyberDouche who contradicts his own self-aggrandizing posts on his site. Since truth is the ultimate defense in cases of defamation, taking on Patraw as a client is clearly just an exercise of using legal tactics to bully people into submission.

This post is particularly spicy, especially with the typo at the end:

“If you ignore or defy the letter, they would likely have to file a lawsuit to stop you. By now, they might have spent tens of thousands of dollars and you have spent zero. If you or your attorney can think of good ways to poke holes in their arguments, you have the financial upper hand. If your attorney prepared the letter and it was ignored, you must be prepared to go into a full battle…. at this point, you must be ready to pull all the stops and bring financial pain to you opponent. Thats [sic] what we do…”

In the words of “S Thomas,” “You go girl!”*

Word.

*Chronicle of Higher Education, “Coach’s Whistle-Blower Lawsuit Against U. of Nevada at Reno Is Dismissed.” March 22, 11:15 PM.

Ryan Jerz, Apr 30, 11:10 AM #:

Wolfy,

Privacy and copyright are completely different. Perhaps it was rude to print the emails, but I would say the claim to bad manners belongs with Terri Patraw, who has a degree in journalism (amazingly) and seems to have skipped her First Amendment classes. Threatening to sue someone to the point it requires retaining legal counsel tosses aside all claims to moral superiority on whether or not something is private. If she didn’t want it published, she should have been courteous enough to not harass and bully people.

josie_lentox, Apr 30, 02:11 PM #:

This is crazy. Emails do not fall under the copywright jurisdiction. AT ALL.

I am incensed that Joyent wouldn’t fight this small battle now to set a precedence for their company later.

I am incensed that this woman is spending this amount of time on this. Maybe if she would dedicate this equal amount of time to her actual career (instead of mixing up everyone else’s kool-aid), she would still have a job)

Doesn’t she realize she will be in debt for years to pay all these legal fees and no athletic director in their right mind will hire her now?

Best wishes, let us know how we can help, if at all.

bethany, Apr 30, 03:42 PM #:

I find it interesting that one of her initial arguments was that her reputation is all she has and she is mad that Google searches bring up negative coverage of her. But rather than let those negative results get buried, she’s keeping this at the forefront. Um, seems to me she’d get much further in her supposed goal of clearing her online name by just letting this whole thing go.

In the meantime, I smell a book in the works for you. I hope you’re keeping good notes on this because it’s a perfect case study for bloggers! Can I have an autographed copy when it comes out? I wonder if Terri realizes that she’s making herself the subject of a potentially well-known First Amendment vs. blogger case? That’ll do wonders for clearing her name!

-Dave, May 1, 08:29 AM #:

From the Cyber Lawyer’s own website: “Internet Defamation occurs when someone posts a false factual negative statement on the Internet.” I suppose he could argue that your characterization of Patraw as a “bully” is untrue, but he’d have to be a miracle-worker in jury selection to convince 12 people of that. The characterization gets more and more apt with every letter and lawsuit the Dynamic Duo sends out.

Ann Onn, May 1, 11:32 AM #:

Chilling effects, indeed. Your experiences are making me even more paranoid than I was already. I think lawyers have motives other than squelching open discussion, but that is the effect they have.

I think all/almost all Web hosts have you agree not to offend anyone when you sign up with them. It’s just business to them, and apparently it’s not cost-effective to defend freedom of speech.

I hate to see anyone in the situation you’re in.

Mad As Hell, May 17, 06:11 PM #:

Hello Ryan Jerz,
You could be a good journalist yet you call people names and bully people yourself. Hmm, is this contradictory? Why do you assisinate peoples reputation when you do not know them. You think your cute, funny, and sarcastic. But your caustic comments are not funny and do hurt people. You hide behind the “journalistic” right and First amendment but that does not allow you to defame people. So, to give you a taste of your own medicine, I have hired a private detective to dig up some great material regarding you and your personal life. I will make sure this is on blogs and sites throughout the internet over time. Let the parade of horribles begin!

Ryan Jerz, May 17, 06:21 PM #:

Glad you’ve decided to contact me again, “Mad As Hell.” All I’m doing is stating facts and detailing the bullshit you’re putting me through, but you know that. If it hurts, knock it off. Lose Domingo Rivera, lose the threats, stop trying to shut me down through third-party channels, and go the hell away. But as long as I have news to report, I’ll report it. It’s not rocket science. You’ve shown an ability to learn by your now using anonymouse.org, but you can’t seem to figure out that every single time you send a letter or leave a comment you give me something new to comment on myself.

ed adkins, May 17, 06:27 PM #:

Seriously, Terri (the last commenter). Judging from the picture on your recently started blogs, you’re a relatively attractive chick, and yet you’re acting like someone who hasn’t been laid in like, years.

My advice is just go out & have some fun- meet some drunk dude who has no idea how batshit insane you are & blow off some steam.

You must preview before commenting. So make sure you've hit both the preview and submit buttons before you leave. It's tricky because your comment will look like it's already been posted, but it hasn't. So, if you want your comment to count, make sure you hit the button.