Zaiger's Lawyers Say He Won't Communicate;
Friends Say He's in Prison

Gangsta Monkey.  He's so hood.
Zaiger's Lawyers Say He Won't Communicate;
Friends Say He's in Prison
 by Susan Basko, Esq.

Brian Zaiger's friends, to use that term loosely, say he is in prison.  Zaiger's lawyers say he won't communicate with them.  How is he supposed to communicate if he is in prison?

Zaiger's lawyers in Monsarrat v Zaiger, who are Jay Wolman and Marco Randazza, say they must withdraw from the case. They also say there are 8 motions coming up for hearings, and that Zaiger will just have to handle them on his own or get himself a new lawyer.  LoL on all that happening if he is in prison.

Is Zaiger in prison? I could not find him in online inmate listings, but that doesn't mean much.  If anyone knows facts about this and wants to send them to me, please do.



Above are tweets dated April 21, 2018, an exchange between @eddotse, the twitter for Encyclopedia Dramatica, and @GangstaMonkey21:

@eddotse: Happy Birthday to our previous leader - @Zaiger.  Hope prison's working out for ya, fam.

@GangstaMonkey21: Is he in prison now and just going to be very soon?

@eddotse: Already is.

@GangstaMonkey21: fuck yea, dickhead deserves everything that happens to him.


Here is the Motion to Withdraw: (further below is the Affidavit that goes with this)




This is the Affidavit that supports the Motion to Withdraw.

Brian Zaiger Lawyers' Motion to Withdraw Jay Wolman Affidavit 130-1 by Sue Basko on Scribd

Encyclopedia Dramatica's Zaiger's Lawyers Quitting


  
 Encyclopedia Dramatica's Zaiger's Lawyers Quitting

In a motion for an extension of time in Monsarrat v Zaiger (See Below), the lawyers for Brian Zaiger, who are Marco Randazza and Jay Wolman, say they are going to file a petition to withdraw from the case.  They do not state a reason, but one common reason for lawyers to withdraw is when they are not being paid.  Another reason lawyers sometimes withdraw is if there is a fundamental disagreement between the lawyer and client on how the case should be handled.

This particular motion asks for a 30 day extension of time to give Brian Zaiger a chance to find a new lawyer or to get up to speed to represent himself pro se.  The motion states that there are 8 pending motions.  Whether a judge will allow these lawyers to drop out when their client is facing 8 upcoming motions remains to be seen.  First, they'll file a withdrawal motion and give their reasons.

Jonathan Monsarrat's Copyright claim was dismissed as being time-barred.  That leaves Zaiger's Counterclaims. 

Meanwhile, Encyclopedia Dramatica ownership has reportedly been taken over by Sibin Grašić of Serbia, @etfovac on Twitter.

The Encyclopedia Dramatic website has been down for about a week.  A tweet issued by the site 's account on May 5, 2018, states:

"Our Frontend host has booted us because of the "Offended" page, I'm working to setup couple of alternatives.  Would have notified y'all sooner, but - Twitter Jail."

Whether that is the actual reason for the site being down remains to be seen. Stay tuned and bring big buckets of popcorn.

Joy-Ann Reid and Jonathan Nichols: My Take

Television Static

Joy-Ann Reid and Jonathan Nichols: My Take  
by Susan Basko, Esq.

Everyone is weighing in on the Joy-Ann Reid and Jonathan Nichols debacle regarding someone who dug up possible old blog posts from many years ago possibly written by Joy-Ann Reid or possibly placed onto her old blog by someone else.  Everyone's weighing in, so I will, too.  I'm breaking this into several distinct segments.  I have included my own personal experiences with Jonathan Nichols, the person hired by Joy Reid to determine whether her blog was hacked.

Joy-Ann Reid's Blog Posts.  If the blog posts in question are in fact written by Joy-Ann Reid, I suggest it would be helpful for people to actually read the full posts in question, and come to your own conclusions.  The experiences and culture of an educated Black woman are different from the experiences and culture of any White person.  Maybe there are things to learn by reading the old blogs, but if you insist on jumping in to condemn, you won't learn them. It especially pains me when I see White men picking apart this Black woman.

"Hacking a Blog."  I have a whole lot of blogs.  I also have graduate education in making websites.  There are a few points that anyone should know if they are trying to decide if Ms. Reid's blog was accessed or "hacked":

1. Blogs are signed into from an email.

2. If multiple people have the password to that email, they can all post, edit, delete, etc.  They are given no notice of the actions of the other people.  More than one person can be logged into a blog at a time, working on things, and no notice is given to the others.  The blog treats simultaneous multiple log-ins from the same email account as being one person.

3. In addition, Blog posting rights can be given to multiple people from multiple emails.  If one person is accessing the blog, the others get no notice of this.

4. Blog posts can be made directly from email accounts, without going to the blog.

5. Blog posts can be given any date and they will fall into place automatically.  For example, a blog post can be made in 2018 and given a date years earlier, and it will fall into the correct place on the blog.  For example, today, I could create a blog post and have it post up on a date in 2015, and it would fall right into place.

6.  What is happening on a blog is not noticeable to the blog owner.  For example, I sometimes go over old blog posts and find that spacing has somehow changed on them over the years.  Sometimes the fonts and sizes have changed, too. I also find youtube video embeds that are no longer valid because the video has been removed.  I have also found pictures that have disappeared.  As for the idea of someone hacking to make fake posts --  If fake new posts suddenly appeared deep down on one of my blogs, I would not notice.  How would I notice?  I'd only notice if someone emailed me pointing it out to me.

Fake Blogs. I have been a target of a massive amount of harassment, including (but for sure not limited to): fake twitter accounts made in my name; clone twitter accounts made to look just like my accounts; antisemitic and harassment accounts made in my name (including by people who would now vehemently deny being involved in such things, though they "followed" these accounts and "liked" what they did; fake Facebook accounts using my name;  email accounts created using my name;  forum posting done using my name; whole websites and blogs set up using my name and used to post crap I would never post -- this is a favorite harassment technique of stalkers; domains in my name purchased by cyberstalkers, in my case, by Jay Leiderman and James McGibney and used to create smear websites against me, and even bizarre, wildly false court cases and filings made against me by those same two men, on and on and on.

BECAUSE of my experiences, I am certain that someone wanting to harass or discredit Joy-Ann Reid would use, as part of their arsenal, the creation of blog posts in her name.  Further, it has been my experience that the person "noticing" it or calling attention to it is often the one that created it.  That's been my experience several times, but not always.  The kind of people who create damaging fake stuff online want to make sure that their efforts do not go to waste.   "He who smelt it, dealt it," is a rather apropos aphorism regarding online smear campaigns.

Jonathan Nichols aka @wvualphasoldier.  In about 2012, I was set upon online by a whole crowd of hackers, cyberstalkers, defamation and smear artists, people looking for e-fame, and a whole lot of obnoxious idiots. Almost all of these people have finally stopped -- except for the max-weirdo cyberstalker of soccer moms and friendly grandmas, James McGibney.  But for years, day and night, I was attacked by the antisemitic hate group, Rustle League, and lots of people who were intrigued by their whole swastika-Nazi-harassment style.  The extent and horrors of the harassment and stalking are a story for another day.  This evolved into being harassed by ISIS members who were associated with the group through past hacking connections. The level to which these people have (and McGibney still does) harassed, lied about, smeared, stalked, cyberstalked, and terrorized me has harmed me tremendously.  One point that must be made is that I did not engage with these people, did not interact, and did nothing to them.  What's more, I am a very non-interesting person who tweets and facebooks such things as pictures of drinks I've made of fresh fruit. 

At a later date, I hope to write extensively about how online cyberstalker gangs form, the factors of mental illness and substance abuse that seem to be attracting these people to each other online, how they trust and follow people they have never met, and how avidly they go along with such things as antisemitism, racism, use of hate symbolism, obscenity, and foolish mockery and idiocy.  But that is for another day. Today, I am writing about my experience with Jon Nichols.

Around 2013 and 2014, @wvualphasoldier / Jon Nichols jumped into this fray of harassing me on Twitter.  His Twitter profile was a picture of himself dressed in an Army uniform.  He gathered around himself a group of hacker wannabes who, it seemed to me, were listening to him and were convinced that the things he did were legal and acceptable because he was this big Army computer guy -- or so he said.  I have no idea why Jon Nichols was harassing me in this way, since I did not know who he was and had never interacted with him in any way.  It seemed to me like he was trying to get his moment of e-fame.

Finally, I tweeted a Do Not Contact notice to @wvualphasoldier.  I had done this to several people and they all mocked it, but with most of them, it seemed to work, more or less.  They called it a Cease and Desist (C&D), which it was not.  It had different legal implications.  With a Do Not Contact, I was putting these people on notice that I did not want them to make contact to or about me, to simply leave me alone, which for most of them, seemed like an insurmountable task.  The legal point is that if they persisted, then if I made a criminal complaint, they could not claim that they did not know or were unaware that their contact was unwanted.  This made their trespassing of my social space "knowing."  That gives "mens rea" to their actions of harassing me.  "Serving" the Do Not Contact notice via Twitter made sense since these were all people about whom I knew nothing, and had no way to reach them other than on Twitter.  I could also tell when they received it and read it, because they would instantly begin making fun of it, tweeting about what an idiot I was, etc.  Then, I would delete the notice since it had done its job of giving notice.

At the time, I was writing answers to legal questions sent in by the public on a website called Law Q&A.  There, I answered literally hundreds of legal questions. It was a great useful site, but it is now closed.  Anyway, Jon (or someone acting just like him) sent in a question to Law Q&A asking if this notice sent via Twitter was valid.  The question was answered by a Criminal lawyer in New York State. His answer, posted on Law Q&A, was that the notice was valid and that the person who sent in the question seemed to be harassing.  Then, the same person sent in a variant on the same question, and the New York Criminal lawyer told the person again, the notice is valid and it seems like the question sender is the one doing the harassing and they should stop. 

By that time, I was fed up.  I was being harassed by this @wvualphasoldier Twitter account, who was using a photo of himself in an Army uniform to gain legitimacy with young Twitter followers, who were now also harassing me.  Reports to Twitter had no effect, of course.

Then, I thought about this situation.  How is it that a man in the Army has all day to sit on Twitter, harassing people?  I wondered:  Doesn't he have to be out doing a job or running around singing marching songs, or whatever it is that people in the Army do?  Granted, my knowledge of the military comes mainly from comedy movies, such as the old Bill Murray movie, "Stripes."  Despite my limited knowledge on the topic, it seemed implausible to me that the Army would assign a man to spend all day on Twitter coaching youngsters on how to harass others.

I decided to report this situation to the Army and to ask if it was a misuse of the Army uniform that @wvualphasoldier was using a photo of himself in his military uniform to gain legitimacy and lead others to harass me.  I thought contacting the Army might be a complicated process, but it turned out to be very easy.  Online, I found a website for the Army CID (Criminal Investigation Command) with an email for reports.  I sent them an email with a link to the @wvulalphasoldier Twitter account, which showed a photo of Jon Nichols in an Army uniform.  I sent them links to some of the tweets where he was harassing me.  I asked if this was okay by the Army that this man was using the influence of his Army uniform to gather young people into harassing strangers online.  The Army CID responded to me quickly.

The reply from the Army CID stunned me.  They told me Jon Nichols / @wvualphasoldier was not in the Army.  They also told me that no one by that name had worked with computers in the army.  I asked if maybe his name was spelled differently, and they wrote back to me and said they tried different spellings.

Immediately after my contact with the Army CID, the profile picture on @wvualphasoldier was changed.  The photo in the Army uniform was removed.  Jon put up a picture of himself in civilian clothes.  He also stopped harassing me.

I don't know what Jon Nichols' story is.  I have some working theories, but mostly I do not care since he is no longer harassing me. That is all I've ever asked of any of the people cyberstalking and harassing me --  just please, leave me alone.

If you are reading this, Jon, and you want to explain, please do.  I will be happy to post what you send to me.

I have once again written to the Army CID to ask those same questions I asked several years ago, to see if there was some mistake on their part.  I have not heard back yet.  If and when I do, I will share what they say, if appropriate.





Top 14 Twitter Mistakes That Led to the Mess

Birds Tweeting

Top 14 Twitter Mistakes that Led to the Mess

Twitter, which was known at the time as Twittr, began as a simple tool for communicating among one's working team or set of friends.  That went well until about 2011, when Twitter was deluged with new people who could not be trusted to be "social" on "social media."  Twitter was then overtaken by bands of marauders who went about trying to chalk up personal scores by seeing how many people they could intimidate and harass.  The infrastructure of Twitter, designed for polite groups of well-educated social peers, was not ready for this Carnival of Crazies.  Many mistakes were made, some are being rectified, but this has been a very long, slow process.  Twitter has possibly/ most likely/ been the source of more police complaints and more lawsuits than any other social media -- although Facebook is neck and neck in this race.

Top 14 Twitter Mistakes that Led to the Mess:

1. Twitter did not have in-line reporting.  In the early days of Twitter, making a report was a laborious and very time-consuming process that involved jotting down the URL of the offensive tweet, going to s special reporting form, and inputting the information.  More often than not, the page had glitches and did not work.  Then, after the users went to all that trouble, Twitter did nothing to help.

2. Twitter showed abuse reports to the abusers.  In the earlier days of Twitter, when reporting abuse, the person making the report had to sign a statement saying they were aware their report would be shown to the person they were reporting.  This was based on an ill-informed notion of allowing a person to confront their accuser -- an idea that is part of the U.S. Constitution with regard to criminal trials, but that has absolutely nothing to do with social media accounts.  Thus, when my life was threatened by someone in the Rustle League, I reported it to Twitter, the person was told, and they organized a massive attack against me by all their friends.  When my life was threatened by two members of ISIS, I skipped reporting it to Twitter and sent links immediately to the FBI.  Twitter allowed those death threat tweets to sit there for a long time and endanger my life, until the accounts were "suspended."

3. Twitter refused to simply delete Tweets.  Instead, Twitter would wait until the offending account had engaged in years of targeted harassment and degradation, and then would "suspend" the account, by which Twitter meant "close."  One of the people who harassed me incessantly, Jaime Cochran aka @asshurtmacfags, was the first person I ever heard of to have their account suspended by Twitter.  This was after literally years of shocking, day in and day out, hate tweets aimed at me by Cochran, and with me not responding whatever.  It would have been so much more productive if Twitter had simply deleted the abusive tweets as Cochran made them, instead of forcing me to endure years of defamation and harassment and Nazi-themed hate tweets.  By allowing the abuse and not nipping it quickly, Twitter presented itself as a playground for Nazis and psychos.  Cochran eventually came back on Twitter, and proceeded to harass and stalk others, which leads to yet another thing Twitter did not do until recently -- a hard ban of an abusive person from the service.

4. Twitter closes an account and calls it "suspended."  This misuse of the word "suspend" gives the user a false hope that their account will be restored.  It also makes Twitter novices not fear suspension, because it sounds temporary, like being suspended from high school.

5. Twitter intentionally allowed racist hate.  Twitter allowed users to post swastikas, the ISIS flag, antisemitic depictions, obscene photos, including the famous "goatse" pictures, etc.  Dick Costolo, who was Twitter CEO at the time, was so hell-bent on having a Nazi-friendly Twitter that he faced prison in France, rather than agree to turn over to the French government the account information of those posting antisemitic hate tweets. 

6. Twitter allowed use of TwitLonger.  This stupid app became the favorite of Twitter Crazies.  It allowed them to extend their abusive rants from 140 characters into whole paragraphs.  To make matters worse, Twitter claimed it had no control over the content posted by crazies using TwitLonger.

7. Twitter claimed it had no control over pictures.  In the early days of Twitter, pictures were hosted on an outside app, and Twitter claimed it had no control over the pictures.  Therefore, the abusive users filled Twitter up with obscene photos, racist and misogynist memes, and lots of other bad stuff.  Twitter now hosts its own pictures and makes it easy to report offensive pictures.

8. For a while, Twitter tried a system of "spam" reporting with automated account suspension.  By that time, Twitter had been overtaken by marauding antisemitic and racist hate and misogynist hate groups, and they had figured out that if they all ganged up and reported  as "spam" a tweet made by someone they were harassing, they could get that account suspended automatically and immediately.  Twitter apparently devised this as a reporting tool, but should have realized how it would be used.  Thank goodness that is now gone.

9. Twitter allowed antisocial gangs to form or operate on Twitter.  Groups such as Rustle League, GNAA, ISIS, Bullyville, Encyclopedia Dramatica, Doxbin, SETG, Gamer Gate, and others used (and somewhat still do use) Twitter to gang together and harass others.  The main difference is that now, their hate symbols are mostly banned, though from time to time, there will be an account with swastikas, links to Encyclopedia Dramatica, or other hate symbolism.

10. Twitter allows purchased followers.  Twitter seemed to encourage purchased followers by requiring users to have more followers than people they follow.  An easy way to make up that deficit is by buying followers.  Buying followers was also a way for accounts to boost their numbers to appear popular.  I mean, seriously, Katie Perry supposedly has the highest number of Twitter followers?  Does anyone even care about Katie Perry or know even one song she sang?  I know I don't.  In addition, harassers soon figured out that they could buy thousands of followers and have them dumped onto the account of someone they wanted to bother.  Purchased accounts are mostly fake profiles and usually contain bots.  Bots and malware came onto Twitter, riding in the big dumps of fake followers.  How did anyone think a big dump of fake followers would be released onto an account all at once, other than with malware guiding them?

11. Twitter allows clone accounts and mistakenly calls them "parody" accounts.  Harassers make Twitter accounts that look identical to one's account, and Twitter refuses to delete the accounts.  Twitter does not seem to know that "Parody" is an art form and also is legally defined and hard to accomplish.  A harasser making accounts that look like someone else's account and using those to shitpost is not parody.

12. Twitter was slow to implement hard bans of abusive users.  Some people simply cannot function in a social environment, and Twitter became home to many of them.  These people would have account after account suspended -- and they would pop right back up with a new account.  Twitter needed to implement hard bans much earlier on, and they seem to have accomplished this, more or less.  Even if it meant getting court orders to keep these kinds of people off Twitter, it would be worth it.  I can think of several highly abusive Twitter users who have had at least 10 or more of their accounts suspended.  Those people are not mistakenly or accidentally tweeting something inappropriate; their intention is to be abusive and they work hard at it.

13.  Twitter allows block lists.  This is still ongoing.  It is hard to say who is making these deceptive lists, but they are defamatory and are being used to block some activists from the very audience they would like to reach.  For example, John Cusack, the actor and activist, installed a block list that he was led to believe was of trolls.  Instead, the list contained almost all the major left wing activists who would most want to hear his message.  Who created this list and who "sold" him on it?  So many activists were so insulted, that he has lost much of his former fan base, all because he fell for a ruse. Since these lists are deceptive and defamatory, and seem to be run by people who are actually running a counter-agenda, they should not be allowed.  Instead, Twitter should work to remove the troll bots.

14. Twitter provides no way to report troll bots.  Have you ever noticed Twitter has no way to report a troll bot?  I have spotted quite a few of them -- mobs of 10 more more accounts tweeting the exact same abusive things at the same time -- and yet, there is no way to report troll bots.  Troll bots are a main form of attack that Twitter users have been complaining about for years, and yet there is no way to report one when we see it.


Swatted by the Lizard Squad - My Experience


Swatted by the Lizard Squad - My Experience
by Susan Basko, Esq.

Back in Fall of 2014, I was swatted, as it turned out, by a member of the Lizard Squad in the UK named Jordan Hunter or Jordan Lee-Bevan.  That serial swatter has been sentenced to 16 months in prison.  You can read more about him HERE and HERE and HERE.

Jordan Hunter was a white teenager with a thick Liverpool accent who pretended online that he was a Black ghetto gang member in Chicago.  He called himself GDK Jordie,  GDK meaning "Gangster Disciples Killer." This is his twitter account, @GdkJordie, that, until he was arrested, was filled with his nonsensical ideas of what a Chicago street gang member would tweet.   On Youtube, you can watch and hear a video of the last interview of GdkJordie, interviewed by DJ Akademiks.  DJ Akademics ran a Youtube show called Chiraq, which was about gun crime in Chicago.  DJ Akademics did not for a moment believe that GDK Jordie was from Chicago.  The interview is, by turns, hilarious and pathetic, as this British teen tries to convince the audience he is a ghetto gang dude.

UK law enforcement  described the swatting crimes as "communicating information which he knows or believes to be false to another person with the intention of inducing in him or any other person a false belief that a bomb or other thing liable to explode or ignite is present in any place or location," according to Section 51(2) and (4) of the Criminal Law Act 1977.

Most of the swats committed by Jordan Hunter were done by telephone.  Here, you can listen to the actual audio of a 911 call made by Hunter, as he sat in his bedroom of his mother's home in England, to a college in New York State in the U.S..  The call is preposterous, but the dispatcher seemed taken in by it, and safety measures had to be taken. The incident resulted in a huge police response.

The swat that Jordan Hunter committed against me was done using email sent to the list serves of multiple campuses of a very large university in the U.S.  I personally believe that Hunter made the swat for someone else that had been stalking and harassing me at the time.  If anyone knows about such a thing, I would like if they would let me know.

At the time I was swatted by this Lizard Squad member, I had been terrorized for quite some time by members of a nefarious online antisemitic hate and harassment group called the Rustle League, as well as by their associates in ISIS, and by other online malicious groups engaged in stalking and defamation and invasion of privacy, such as Bullyville/ ViaView, Inc., Encyclopedia Dramatica, and Doxbin.  I have made "a zillion" complaints to the FBI and they were working various angles already.  Thank goodness.  Thank goodness I had all those complaints on file, because when the swat went in against me, the officer in charge of the response looked up my name on the FBI database and saw that I had been the victim of all these cyberstalkers for quite some time.  Because I was already a known victim of cyberstalking, the officers were pretty sure the swat was a hoax, but they also had to make sure it was a hoax.

At the time I was swatted by this Lizard Squad member, I had already been stalked and harassed for years by the above named groups.  I then began receiving crazed emails from a lawyer connected to some of the groups.  This is a man I had no connection to and no communication with -- just a crazed stalker.  Then he filed a genuinely bizarre court case against me, making all sorts of wild allegations with no basis in truth.  He also put my name into other insane court filings in other cases where I was not a party, lawyer, or witness, -- cases involving people I never heard of before that.  I then received a voicemail from a male voice, taunting me about the crazed lawsuit filed against me.  Then, right on the heels of that, the swat was made, using my name in an emailed bomb threat sent to a major university.  All of these horrifying things were done to me one right after the other -- the crazy emails, the crazy court filings, the insane court case, the taunting terrorizing voicemail, and then the bomb threats made using my name, meant to swat and terrorize university campuses with over 75,000 students.  The bomb threat hoax was like the icing on the cake of a series of intense stalking episodes over a short period of time.  That is a whole lot of stalking and terrorization that has come my way -- and I wish I could say it is all over, but it is not.  Some of these same horrid people continue to own domains and emails in my name, to run defamation/ smear websites, to stalk my friends and family, to purchase private materials to post on their stalking sites, and on and on.  I long for justice against these menaces of society. I have patience.

How it went down:  It was a nice Fall day.  I went to teach my Entertainment law class.  That day,  I invited a dear friend and colleague from the music industry to join me in teaching the class.  The class went very well, and we both felt happy. When the class was over, we went out for lunch and some fancy craft beers.  Then I went home, where I was met by our security guard/maintenance man, who we had hired to fix little things around the place and carry a gun.  He was hired because I was (and am) being stalked and harassed and threatened by crazies from the internet.  I wanted to take a nap, so I told him he could leave, because I wanted no noise. He left, and I fell into a very deep sleep.

Three hours or so later, I woke up from my nap.  I puttered around a bit, drinking ice water and reading emails.  Then, I turned on my phone and found I had a voicemail.  It was from an officer at the Joint Terrorism Task Force, trying to contact me about a situation at this big university.   The Joint Terrorism Task Force calling me about a bomb threat they received.  Yes, that's right. A voicemail from an officer at the Joint Terrorism Task Force about a bomb threat at a big university.  The officer asked me to return the call directly or to call the FBI office in the town where the main campus was located, leaving both numbers in the message. Since I am aware that people spoof calls, I looked up the phone number for that FBI office and called.  (It was the same number that had been left on the voicemail.) The FBI phone was answered by an agent who seemed relieved to hear from me.  He knew my name and said they had been waiting to hear from me. I was patched on through to the officer from the Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF).

Let me tell you that waking up from a long nap to a voicemail from the Joint Terrorism Task Force about a bomb threat is a way to get a stroke or a heart attack. I shook for days afterwards.

I spoke with the JTTF Officer, who told me that a bomb threat had come in on their list serve.  The bomb threat used MY NAME and said I was upset and had put bombs on the campuses.  The Officer looked up my name on the FBI records and saw that I have been the victim of "tons of" acts of  cyberstalking and harassment, so they figured the bomb threat was a hoax.  But, they needed to check with me.  The multiple large campuses were on high alert and the University President was in his office, waiting to leave. They needed to make contact with me first, and everyone was getting impatient.

I assured the JTTF Officer that the bomb threats were certainly not from me, that it was someone hoaxing me -- which is what the Officers had already figured.  How much did those 4 or 5 hours on high alert cost them?  How much panic did this cause?  The multiple campuses involved have a total of over 75,000 students.  That is a lot of people to endanger by making a bomb threat hoax against them.

Being swatted further terrorized me.  I was already being terrorized by having domains purchased in my name that were being used to post lies about me, by having false court filings made by harassing stalkers, by having death threats made against me, and on and on and on.  Having this swat attempt made against me, in such a big dramatic way, resulted in more terrorization.  My life had been threatened by members of the Rustle League and by their two associates in ISIS -- so I was afraid terrorists would show up in person in my classroom or at my home.  I had my life threatened in detail by "Nachash of Doxbin," and had almost casual death threats tweeted at me by James McGibney of Bullyville/ ViaView, a known serial stalker who also owns a bunch of domains in my name and uses them to lie about me and post shocking defamation and invasions of privacy.  A bomb threat was made against me by yet another malicious person.  I received insane emails by a lawyer associated with some of these groups, in which he claimed that I, a lawyer and grandma from a loving family, who has never even gotten a traffic ticket, was a terrorist in a plot to kill him.  I had years of antisemitic and hate tweets, filled with the most vile garbage, launched at me by the members of Rustle League, Encyclopedia Dramatica, and Doxbin.  I was utterly horrified that one of these predators would show up in my classroom or at my home -- in person -- and attempt to kill me or the others there. That is, I guess, the whole point of these people terrorizing me in the first place.  They terrorize to instill fear and more terror.  And -- it works.  We victims of terrorization are not supposed to admit that the acts of terror frighten us or change the way we do things.  But this is not true.  Terror is terror, and it works for its purpose.   That terrorizing others is a sport for the people I have named is quite a bit more mysterious.  How were they raised that they lack in empathy, common sense, and even lack any fear of being caught and held accountable, is beyond anything I can understand.

We, the victims of acts of terror, are not supposed to mention the names of those who commit those acts of terror against us.   To that silence, I say, no more.  I am speaking out.  You are evil, engaged in evil acts, and I am speaking out.

To the assholes who have spent so much time and effort swatting me, making websites to lie about me, filing insane stuff in court --  Sorry, assholes, this swat was a "dud."  The FBI and JTTF were so onto you and what you do, they did not go trying to find me.  They did not stop classes or call in bomb squads.  They did not send police in SWAT uniforms.  They looked at my name and knew you and your online friends have spent years trying every possible method of harassing me.  They did not "question" me.  They called me and left a voicemail to say, "We think this is a hoax, but we need to make sure." They called me on the phone and asked me.  I said, "Yes, this is a hoax.  Sorry, I was out having lunch and then went home and took a nap.  My phone was off and sorry for the delay in listening to your voicemail."  That's it.  You did not get police or FBI running around.  You did not get bomb dogs sniffing.  You did not get tanks rolling up.  You did not get students being led out of class, their hands raised.  You did not get officers armed with rifles running around checking for bombs or snipers. You got people in an office making a phone call.

Make no mistake.  I was shaken.  I still am shaken when I think of being swatted, mainly because it is incomprehensible to me that people can be so casually evil.  I am shaken by the years of being stalked by crazies -- of having websites made in my name, being stalked intensely, being impersonated by people owning domains and emails in my name, by one person filing insane court filings against me, by constant hacking attempts, by having malicious people purchase my emails and recordings of my phone calls to place online as a means of stalking me.  I am shaken by having death threats against me posted on Twitter by various people, people with whom I have had no contact and to whom I never did anything.

So, I was swatted, the Campus police and FBI and Joint Terrorism Task Force determined it was a hoax -- then what happened?  I was asked to give a statement.  At first, there was talk of the FBI or the JTTF Officer interviewing me, and then I sent a long written statement, and it was decided that was good enough.  They already had many complaints from me and had already arrested numerous people based on my complaints. They knew I was credible.   I gave a written explanation of the years of cyberstalking I have endured and those I know are responsible, and those I suspect.  It's quite a list.  I let them know each person who has bought or owned a domain in my name, each person who has created a website, account, or email in my name.  I let them know about a bomb threat against me that someone had emailed to me.  I let them know about the crazy court filings and emails sent to me that included bizarre interpretations of my life and my relationships.  I let them know about the death threats and the bomb threats, the stalking, the attempts to "social engineer" my family and friends and even long-ago acquaintances.  I let them know about my emails being purchased and posted online by known long-time stalkers.  I let them know about my personal information being posted online, about the countless attempts to hack my financial and personal accounts.  I told them about the late night phone calls, the obscene photoshopped pictures, the Youtube videos created to be death threats and terrorization.  I had already reported all of that before, as it occurred.  I have had so many stalking and harassment crimes committed against me, that at times, I have had to make multiple reports in one day.  I had to take on an assistant to help make the reports, because it was taking up so much of my time.

When I saw the email that was sent in my name, the bomb threat made to the University campuses, I was not surprised.  It followed a false narrative that my stalkers have used for some time.  The theme, the lie, was that I was upset with my life and had nothing to live for, and would therefore bomb and shoot up a university. The reality, aside from the facts that I am a totally sane and peaceful and loving person, was that I was happy, out teaching my law students that morning, then eating lunch and drinking craft brews with a dear friend, and then home taking a nap.   The bomb threat email used proper grammar and spelling, which leads me to think someone besides Jordan Hunter aka Jordan Lee-Beven aka GdkJordie wrote it.  If you know who, let me know, please.

About a year after the swatting attempt, SEROCU raided the home where GdkJordie lives with his mother.  They seized his computers.  On his computer was found my name. It was then determined that he had made the bomb threats against the University campuses using my name.  I received this good news from the Officer at the JTTF via email and phone, along with a request that I make a victim statement.  The JTTF Officer in the U.S. emailed me the form used in the UK by SEROCU.  I had so much to say in the narrative section of the form that I added many extra pages.  I emailed it back in, no doubt giving them lots of material to work on.

For anyone that wants to call me a "snitch" or other such derisive terms -- I have made it clear all along that I report crimes committed against me.  In addition, I report crimes and potential crimes I know about that are against the public safety.  By now, all of my stalkers and harassers should realize this.  It's very simple.  If you commit a crime against me, I will report you.  Period. 

The SEROCU form asked if I would be willing to attend a trial. I said, "Yes," and hoped for a free trip to England.  That never happened, but the thought of it was the one bright spot in this otherwise dismal situation.

I also made it clear, in writing there on the SEROCU form, that I was not interested in the swatter being sent to prison, or getting a long sentence, but in stopping his harmful actions.  He and his friends, sitting in their bedrooms at their parents' homes, seemed to have no cognizance of the dangers and trauma they were causing to real world people.  They need to know they endangered lives.  They need to know that impersonation, swatting, stalking, hacking, and harassment are crimes that harm real people.  It was way too easy for them to think these were pranks or jokes.

As it turned out, the Lizard Squad members, in the UK, the U.S., and in Finland, have all received extremely light sentences.  They are mostly idiotic kids with undeveloped consciences that were led on by each other and by the e-fame of being in such a group.

I have other hopes.  I hope that some of my other stalkers, people who are old enough to know better,  are brought to justice.

I will never be made whole. The damage that was done to me will never be rectified.  That is the case with almost all crime victims.  Crimes are committed against us, and if we are lucky, the perpetrators are found, and sometimes they face the justice system.  The damage done to us as victims is never addressed.  We lose so much, and it is never brought back to us.  Years of my life have been made less because I have been, and continue to be, stalked and cyberstalked by malicious menaces.




Mark Zuckerberg Senate Testimony: My Review



Mark Zuckerberg Senate Testimony: My Review
by Susan Basko, Esq.

April 11, 2018.  Yesterday, I watched a good portion of Mark Zuckerberg, CEO of Facebook, testifying before the U.S. Senate.  The hearing lasted about 5 hours.  Each Senator was given a few timed minutes to speak and ask questions.  I missed the first part, so I  could not tell in what order the Senators were being called.  It did seem to be alphabetical or in order of seniority in the Senate.  Many of the Senators stated they are Facebook users.  Most of them did not seem to understand how things work, such as Facebook privacy settings, third party apps, Terms of Service.  The basic information that I hoped to get from the hearing was never addressed. These would have been my questions:

1. The app in question was a personality quiz.  Were the quiz answers that people gave included with the basic account information that was sold to Cambridge Analytica?

2. Do other quizzes and similar apps retain the answers given by those who take the quizzes, and are those retained alongside basic user information?

3. Are app/ quiz makers free to retain the answers and basic user info, if they do not sell it? Are they free to sell it?  Have other quizzes and apps sold the information?

 4. Has gathering of information of third party information gathering stopped, as Mr. Zuckerberg stated?  When did this stop?  The Facebook privacy settings showed this as still happening just about a week ago. By this, I mean, that when a Facebook friend uses an app, it gathers the information of unsuspecting friends, unless they opt out on privacy settings from allowing third party app collection of information.  Has this really stopped?

4a. Is it fair for Facebook to change users' privacy settings? For example, a few years back, I made the settings to not allow any third party app to access my information.  Then, I went recently and saw that the privacy settings had been changed and all my information was being made available, without my input or knowledge.  Why is Facebook changing the settings without my input or knowledge?

5. If a Facebook user has things set to private, such as their Friends list and their birthdate, is that information still harvested by apps and quizzes?

6. Regarding the personality quiz app designed by Aleksandr Kogan, did it harvest the user information of the friends of those who took the quiz?  Did it harvest the information of the "friends of friends" of those who took the personality quiz?

7. What was the name of the personality quiz?

8. It seems suspicious/convenient to me that Facebook automatically changed user's third party privacy settings to make all data available to third parties, even when we had previously opted out of third party sharing, and then there was this app harvesting and selling third party info.  Can you explain why the privacy settings regarding third party harvesting were changed automatically?

In my viewing of the Senate hearing, none of these questions were answered.  Instead, Senators fussed about the difficulty of reading the long Terms of Service or of not understanding they can delete any post at any time or of not understanding that Facebook has lots of privacy settings.  The questions of the interface between apps/ quizzes and user info, and the use of that information by the app owners were not ever made clear in the hearing.

Review of Mark Zuckerberg's performance during the hearing:  I thought he did incredibly well.  He was placed at a desk on the floor, all by himself -- a genuine hotseat.  Funny pictures online showed he was sitting on a thick cushion, a "booster seat," according to one meme.

Mr. Zuckerberg addressed each Senators as "Senator," rather than as "Sir" or "Madam," or by name. This was a very good move.  It showed sexual equality of the men and women Senators, and he did not need to worry about getting tripped up on any names.  Everyone was "Senator."

One Senator tried to strong arm Mr. Zuckerberg into backing a piece of legislation to extend the online child privacy act upwards to age 16.  This particular Senator seemed like he was trying to garner Mr. Zuckerberg's endorsement, right there in the hearing, of a piece of legislation he had not seen and that had not even been written.  Mr. Zuckerberg wisely and astutely did not agree to this, while remaining polite to the Senator.

A funny few moments came when Senator Dick Durbin of Illinois asked Mr. Zuckerberg if he would mind sharing what hotel he stayed at the night before.  Mr. Zuckerberg pondered, looked embarrassed, and then replied that yes, he would mind sharing that.  The question was a little set-up by Senator Durbin to show that there are some things we all want to keep private.

Mr. Zuckerberg wisely and honestly referred a lot of the questions over to his team, saying they would work with the Senators to provide answers and find solutions.  All told, Mr. Zuckerberg came across as a smart person, honest, and genuinely concerned with connecting people worldwide with their friends and families.  He also showed a concern for not providing a platform for such things as terrorism, violence, or bullying.  He referred to Facebook users as a "community."  Mr. Zuckerberg's wide-eyed enthusiasm of creating a worldwide community seemed to finally be informed with the stark fact that there are many bad actors with nefarious intent out there in the world.  A platform may be neutral, and while the vast majority of people will use such a platform to do good things, there are also plenty of people waiting to rush in and use it for bad purposes.   

One surprising moment came when Mr. Zuckerberg genuinely seemed to not know what Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act entails, and how being a "pipe," as he referred to ISPs, rather than a "platform," as he referred to Facebook, could change immunity under Section 230.  He repeatedly stated that Facebook is responsible for the content.  He also mentioned several times that Facebook is planning to implement AI (artificial intelligence) to root out bad actors or bad content, such as terrorism.  He also stated that Facebook plans to have 20,000 humans screening content in native languages.  He stated that much terrorism is language-specific and would take a human to understand the nuance of it.  

When break times were called during the hearing, many Senators left, making the room less crowded each time.  After the meeting closed, Mr. Zuckerbeg went around shaking hands with several of the Senators, and then was escorted out.  Mr. Zuckerberg may have left his notebook behind on the desk, because an AP photographer took a photo of Mr.Zuckerberg's notes and posted it online.  The notes were very basic and showed that he planned to keep his answers light, not technical, and to refer tricky questions over to his team.

All in all, I would give Mark Zuckerberg an "A" on his performance before the Senate.  It would have been an A+ if he had understood the questions about Section 230 of the CDA, or the legal differences between being an ISP and a content provider.  His lack of knowledge on this topic seemed genuine and perhaps his response does signal trouble with how Section 230 has been interpreted to mean that an ISP can have tort immunity if its users fill the site with defamation and invasions of privacy.  To me, it sounded like Mark Zuckerberg was saying that was not good enough for him, that he wants to provide a good platform that creates Community.  And maybe that should be the goal of all social media platforms, rather than hiding behind the legal immunity protections.

Copyright: How to Protect Your Visual Art


Copyright: How to Protect Your Visual Art
by Susan Basko, Esq.

Visual art is often copyright infringed these days, in large part because of online printing companies that allow art created by anyone, without properly vetting the source. There are several things you can do to help protect your visual art.

Examples of visual art protected by U.S. Copyright include (but are not limited to):

Advertisements
(visual / photography)
Architectural Works
Artwork (2D, 3D)
Blueprints
Board Games (visual aspects)
Buildings
Carpeting
Cartography
(maps / globes)
Cartoons, Comic Strips, Comic Books
Catalogs (visual aspects)
Craft Kits Drawings
Fabric Designs
Flooring Designs
Geologic Charts
Graphic Designs
Greeting Cards
Illustrations
Jewelry Designs
Labels (visual aspects)
Logos
Maps
Masks
Models
Paintings
Photographs
Posters
Prints / Reproductions
Product Packaging
Puppets
Scientific Drawings
Sculptures
Stationary
Stencils
Technical Drawings
Textile Designs
Toys
Vessel Hulls
Wallpaper
Websites
Wrapping Paper

HOW TO BEST PROTECT YOUR VISUAL ART:

1. Register Copyright with the U.S. Copyright office on each visual art work.  In some instances, registering a group of works as a collection is more affordable.  Registering each work separately and carefully providing a name that actually describes the content of the work, and giving solid contact information, goes a very long way in protecting copyright.  While copyright theoretically exists on any work that is creative and original and set into tangible form, the only way to make use of Copyright protections is to register the work with the U.S. Copyright Office.  Registration before the work is infringed or shortly after it is created is the only method that brings the possibility of statutory damages and attorney fees in case of an infringement lawsuit.  There is no substitute for Copyright registration. There is virtually no copyright protection on any work unless it is registered.

2. Put the Copyright sign onto the work.  That's the copyright symbol ©, followed by the first year of publication, followed by the name of the copyright owner. © 2018 Susan Basko   Having the copyright notice on your work gives notice and also removes any defense that the infringement was inadvertent.

3. Watermark the copyright symbol and name of the owner using a watermarking or tagging app, or by including it into the design itself.

4. License Information you provide must be crystal clear.  "The work must not be altered.  The artist's name must not be removed. No derivative works allowed without permission." Etc.

5. Periodically Check to see if your work is being infringed online, on social media, by online sellers, in stores, by art or photo licensing companies, by print-on-demand companies, elsewhere.

6. Send take down and removal notices. Learn how to do this.  The most potent way to tell someone to take down your art work is by providing the registered copyright information.  To be able to provide that, you need to first register copyright on the work.

7. Work closely with a lawyer who will help protect your copyrights.