Skip to main content

Local Politician (in Illinois) Spends $35,000 to Track Down Internet Defamer

Long-ish article from The Verge about a local politician in Illinois who spent 4 years and $35,000 in legal fees trying to find out who defamed him online. 

 In December, 2011, a local newspaper posted an article online about said politician (Bill Hadley) seeking election to the local county board. An anonymous commenter on the article, "Fuboy", (I guess he's suggesting there should be spaces between the "f" and the "u" and the "boy") posted the following:
"Hadley is a Sandusky waiting to be exposed," a commenter called Fuboy had written. "Check out the view he has of Empire [elementary school] from his front door."
The Verge article goes on:
It was a rude but not unusual comment, in line with the ad hominem hostility often found in comments sections. But for Hadley, this comment crossed the line, and he set out to find the person behind it. His quest to unmask Fuboy set off a four-year legal saga that would send shock waves through Freeport's legal and political community.
The article is meant for the general public, so it goes into some basic details about how to find out someone's IP address, etc. Hadley hired a lawyer; different companies were subpoenaed; and companies don't like giving out user information unless ordered to do so by a court (if a company is going to reveal a user's identity, who wants to use them?). The Internet Service Provider that Fuboy used in accessing the Internet to make the comments was Comcast, so they had Fuboy's real info. 

 This "discovery" (evidence gathering) dispute went all the way to the Illinois Supreme Court. The Illinois Supreme Court said that Hadley had a viable defamation case, and Comcast was required to reveal the name and address of Fuboy. 

 Fuboy turned out to be a local state lawyer, a Frank Cook, who was an acquaintance of Hadley. Cook resigned his position after his identity was revealed. I would speculate his resignation wasn't exactly voluntary. So the case is proceeding against Cook. 

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Being Fired for Things an Employee Did On Their Own Time, Outside of Work: Legal or Not?

New York is an "at will" employment state, meaning that, in the absence of a contract, you can be fired at any time, for any reason, or for no reason at all, unless the reason is based on something like age, race, religion, disability, etc. (just a handful of categories). (Government employees have more protections than private-sector employees, such as First Amendment protections.) One of the few exceptions to the at-will employment rule is New York Labor Law §201-d. The statute is lengthy and has lots of caveats and qualifiers and defenses (for the employer). But the gist of § 201-d is that an employee can't be disciplined or fired (or not hired) for something they do on their own time, away from work, that is legal, and that is not against the employer's interests.  The statute and the reported cases mostly deal with "recreational" and "political" activities, and the cases can turn on whether something was a "recreational activity...
Post a Comment
Read more

Recent Case Developments: Employment Contract Enforceable Against Employer Even Though Not Signed

The plaintiff is a modeling scout. Defendant modeling agency decided to hire him as a modeling scout for $190,000/year, plus bonuses. An employment contract was prepared. One provision of the contact said that if the plaintiff were ever fired without cause, he would be entitled to 6-months severance ($95,000). The contract also said that it could be signed in counterparts. The plaintiff signed the contract on August 18, 2015 and emailed his signature to the modeling agency. One of the agency's board members emailed back, saying "Welcome aboard. We'll countersign over the next few days." But no one from the agency ever signed the contract. Nevertheless, the plaintiff began working as a modeling scout, and the agency paid him according to the contract. But after six months, the agency decided to terminate him, without cause. The agency then refused to pay him the $95,000 severance, and the plaintiff brought a lawsuit for breach of contract. The modeling agency m...
Post a Comment
Read more

Recent Case Developments: Contractor Entitled to be Paid For Extra Work Not Part of Original Contract

On September 12, 2013, the Town of Kent (Putnam County) entered into a contract with a contractor to build a sewer.  During construction, certain "conditions that were unexpected and unanticipated" arose, requiring the contractor to do "extra" work--things beyond the scope of work of the original contract. (The appeals court doesn't detail what this extra work was.) The contractor performed the extra work, totaling around $380,000 in additional costs. For reasons not stated by the appeals court, the Town refused to pay for this extra work, and the contractor eventually sued the Town in May, 2015.  The contractor moved for summary judgment in the lower court (a kind of mini-trial on paper), and the court awarded judgment in favor of the contractor for the $380,000.  The Town appealed, but the appeals court sided with the contractor, saying that even though this "extra" work was not within the scope of work of the original contract, the con...
Post a Comment
Read more