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

Recent Cases: Appeals Court Reverses Lower Court in Slip and Fall

In a decision issued on March 18, 2015 , a New York appeals court reversed a lower court decision dismissing a slip and fall case. The plaintiff was a 12-year-old boy. He was injured when he slipped and fell on "loose and broken pieces of asphalt" as he was running towards an ice cream truck near an Ikea store in Brooklyn. There were two interesting things about the decision. First, like many slip and fall cases, the case turned on constructive notice--how long was the loose/broken asphalt on the ground before the accident so that the defendants should have seen it and corrected the dangerous condition? The appeals court said the defendants failed to show when they last cleaned or inspected the area, so they did not establish lack of constructive notice. The more interesting thing is that apparently the boy told staff at the hospital where he was taken that he tripped over his shoelaces. The defendants found this in the hospital records and basically said, "Ha! He di...
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

Know Your Rights: New York's Consumer Protection Statute

Under New York law, there are several ways that consumers can recover damages (money) or other relief against businesses that ripped them off, deceived them, or otherwise treated them improperly. One of these ways is New York's Consumer Protection Statute (General Business Law § 349). Under GBL §349, a consumer can sue a business if he or she can show that the subject act or practice (1) was consumer-oriented; (2) was misleading in a material way; and (3) the consumer suffered injury as a result of the deceptive act. If successful, a consumer can recover their actual damages (money they lost), their reasonable attorney fees, and "treble" (triple) damages up to $1,000 (if the business acted willfully and knowingly in deceiving the consumer). The $1,000 cap on treble damages needs to be eliminated. It is no deterrent to businesses behaving badly. 
Post a Comment
Read more