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

Insurance Companies Trying to Gag Superstorm Sandy Victims?

As reported in several news articles ( this one  is free), in the aftermath of superstorm Sandy, engineering firms were hired by insurance companies to inspect the homes of people making claims for flood damage.  There have been allegations that two of the engineering firms, U.S. Forensic out of Louisiana, and GEB HiRise out of Uniondale, forged property damage reports in order to deny claims. The NY State Attorney General is investigating those allegations and wants to talk to the homeowners.  At the same time, there are about 1,800 lawsuits in federal court involving the insurance coverage claims. A three-judge panel is trying to expedite resolution of the cases.  Last week it was revealed that one of the insurance companies, The Standard Fire Insurance Company, which is a subsidiary of Travelers Insurance, drafted language in a settlement document saying that any homeowner who accepts a payout of their claims cannot cooperate with the criminal invest...
Post a Comment
Read more

Recent Case Developments: Court Finds Breach of Contract of Oral Agreement/Loan

In November, 2014, plaintiff and defendant agreed that the plaintiff would loan the defendant $200,000, and the defendant would pay him back in 4 installments of $50,000 over the next year. The defendant made the first 3 payments (totaling $150,000), but not the last payment. The plaintiff then sued for breach of contract for the remaining $50,000. There was nothing in writing, just an oral agreement. It appears that as soon as the defendant served his "Answer" to the "Complaint", the plaintiff moved for summary judgment (a kind of mini-trial on paper). The evidence included the cancelled check for $200,000 and the records of payments totaling $150,000. The appeals court held that, although there was nothing in writing, the oral agreement was enforceable as a contract and held that the plaintiff had proven his breach of contract claim.  The defendant had argued it was too early in the case to decide such a motion, that more evidence needed to be gathered (called...
Post a Comment
Read more