"The Takedown Lawyer": Let's Help Marc Randazza Investigate A Scammer, Shall We?

Print This Post

You may also like...

125 Responses

  1. sorrykb says:

    Does this guy have any inkling that he's going up against the tag team from hell?
    Oh this is going to be good. I'll be watching and cheering you on, with popcorn.

  2. Jack B. says:

    re the "isanybodydown.com responds" link:

    I can only hope that when all is over and done with, "Is it because you found out I'm Irish?" becomes a meme.

  3. James Pollock says:

    Shouldn't tagging the "takedown lawyer" with UPL be a fairly simple task? Starting with the fact that the person who is IN a picture does not have a valid copyright claim against unauthorized distribution… it is the person who makes a photograph who has copyright. Thus, a DMCA takedown request would seem to be an inappropriate remedial action. Shouldn't a lawyer be expected to know the difference between a copyright claim and a privacy tort claim?

  4. Myk says:

    I work as a Public Defender for the State of New York. I’m a real attorney – not an ‘internet lawyer’. So should we take that to mean he's a cut above Charlie Carreon, Internet Lawyer™?

  5. Kevin says:

    Unless I'm missing something, he's claiming a total of 42 "clients", at $250 each, coming out to just over $10k… seems like a rather unimpressive amount of money for a guy to be willing to commit a felony over.

    I'm just saying – from a criminal competence standpoint, this seems like poor strategy.

  6. Dintley Titmeaning says:

    "…he's a cut above Charlie Carreon…"

    There is a vast amount of slime and filth slithering around the world that is several cuts above CC, IMHO at least. That's really not a measure of quality.

  7. Dan says:

    Free entertainment! My knee jerk hunch is that this is knucklehead is/was a law student, but not a member of a bar. I have the day off… a little searching may be in order.

  8. Dan says:

    Wow. A nearly coherent sentence. That's why you don't comment from an iPhone. Sorry, all.

  9. Looking forward to seeing this play out!
    One typo in the article… "I will look forward to Marc's description of that call, if it took place. Meanwhile, the polite face that 'Is Anybody Up?…'" I think you meant "Is Anybody Down?".

  10. tomblvd says:

    I'm just saying – from a criminal competence standpoint, this seems like poor strategy.

    He sees it as a growth industry.

    I hear he's big into real estate now also.

  11. Joe Pullen says:

    Trying to fuck with Randazza = very bad idea.

    Interesting note. Craig says he went to college with this phantom lawyer yet Craig does not appear to have either formally attended college nor does he have a college degree although he does state that he “networks” at Pikes Peak Community College. Whatever that means.

    His LinkedIn profile also states he is the admin for a dedicated server as well as the primary manager of hosting services for 5 clients – one of course being the fictional David Blade. He further states that his goals are

    To network and expand my business potential to become well-connected within my regional area. My long-term goal is to become one of the most well-connected and thus wealthy people in the world.

    I predict he may become very “well known” but not in the way he anticipated.

    I hope someone screenscraped the website before the “attorney” reference was taken down. Same for the masking of the ISP info.

    Will drop you and Marc a private note on what I’d need that is in your current possession to try to track this guy down. Consider me on the case.

  12. Bill says:

    Hmmm. Not that this has anything at all to do with MOST of the post, but since it may effect the mope, or possibly the lack of ponies, I'd be curious to hear your comments on the recent NY law requiring pro bono service for those going through law school. On the one hand pro bono is great, but to me at least, it seems like a bad thing to FORCE someone to do… feels like quality might plummet a bit from those less than interested in helping those who can't pay a premium.

  13. Ken says:

    Note second update.

  14. Grandy says:

    So, "pursuant to police contact and contact with the State Bar Association of Nevada," I hereby
    mock you.

    I heart Marc Randazza

  15. Ken says:

    Four offers of help so far by email. Lawyers, techies, and boots on the ground in relevant places.

  16. Scott says:

    Ken, You're the best. I too was craving some fraud investigation.

  17. En Passant says:

    Ken wrote:

    Ipka caught the details before Mr. Brittain clumsily attempted to anonymize hosting.

    Heh. Sometimes registration changes propagate slowly.

    See http://www.ewhois.com/takedownlawyer.com/

    Same guy appears to own about 18 domains. Among them:

    heygreatwebsite dot com

    719x dot com

    coloarts dot com

    iadx dot org

    For some schadenfreude: yourenotanon dot com

    Metalthief dot com ("Your Source For The Newest Metal Albums")

    bonespace dot com

    Gopenshockey dot com

    isanyoneup dot us

  18. David says:

    Sorry, guys, but that's still wire fraud. Face it — you're not independent. You're in a conspiracy with the site owner.

    I will transmit this information to Vladimir.

  19. Nicholas Weaver says:

    Craig and his partner Chance Trahan are, at this point, now nicely identified, linked, and shown as the operators of this scam.

    Some more details in my comment on Marc's site.

  20. Ken says:

    Note new update.

  21. Davey says:

    Conspiracy indeed! Takedownlawyer.com is registered to Craig Brittain. I'm almost convinced that David Blade is nothing but a sock puppet.

  22. AlphaCentauri says:

    What are the penalties for practicing law without a license on the internet and how many states can he be charged in?

  23. Kinsey says:

    Ken, I think you need to add a lil red cape to the Popehat icon.

  24. Nicholas Weaver says:

    Ken: Why are they so angry? Because they see the weather forecast for a Hurricane Sandy level of fecal storm coming to flood them in a storm surge of sewage.

    They saw what happened to Michael Brutsch just on the public side. But thats mild, since they now also know they are facing a potential tidal wave of legal complaints filed by laywers who are happy to work for free to see them bankrupted-for-life as an example for any who would follow, and also criminal charges should anyone want to push the issue.

    Oh, and at least for Craig, mommy might kick the loser out of the house if she finds out her son's "business"… Thanks anon-doxers…

    David: No duh, "David Blade" is almost certainly a fiction, I would hardly assume otherwise. But importantly, the dynamic duo behind this, Craig Brittain and Chance Trahan, left too many ties to their real life identities. They are identified, cited, and outed.

    And lets not let Chance off the hook, its clear Chance, not Craig, is running the web site itself since its Chance's vanity sites (his band, his android business) that are hosted on the same server.

  25. Grandy says:

    This is almost as good as the time that Ric "The Nature Boy" Flair and Randy "Macho Man" Savage teamed up to defeat Kang the Conqueror and Darkseid in Mortal Kombat.

  26. David says:

    @Kinsey And tights? Check his twitter feed.

    Edit: Oh, you said the icon….

  27. Ken says:

    That pic is going to follow me for the rest of my life.

  28. Tali McPike says:

    With the outage this morning I had a feeling something was going on.
    *Grabs Popcorn* This is gonna be good.

  29. Jason Summers says:

    I was already eating popcorn when I saw this post – so clearly I must continue to eat popcorn every morning in order to get more scam-investigation goodness :)

  30. Joe Pullen says:

    Why are they so angry about Marc going after "David"?

    I'm guessing (and about to take bets) that it is because Dave is actually Chance or Craig and they are beginning to realize if that is exposed one or both of them are going to be in deep shit with the law.

  31. Michael K. says:

    Ken, you should advertise on Marc's site offering to ask "your buddy" to take down negative posts about scamming douchebags for $250 a pop.*

    * Success not guaranteed

  32. Kevin says:

    So…. I couldn't help myself, I HAD to check out the site in question – i.e. the site-which-must-not-be-linked – just to see for myself and make sure the site's contents weren't being mischaracterized…..

    My god… it's WAY worse than Ken made it sound in the post. It's not just nude pics they post – many of them include the woman's PHONE NUMBER and encourage people to text (i.e. harass) them. And they have a FAQ kind of thing for "what to do if you're upset about your pics getting posted here" (paraphrasing), which actually suggests "getting back at" the person who posted your pics by posting THEIR pics! As a serious suggestion!

    Also, I didn't notice any DMCA contact info on the site, which means (caveat: IANL) that they don't even qualify for DMCA safe harbor, which would seem to put the lie to the cover story that the "lawyer" is just serving as a DMCA intermediary.

  33. Nicholas Weaver says:

    Looking at Chance's facebook page, his ninja attitude, etc, I suspect that the "David" correspondent is Chance, while the 'saneish' correspondent is Craig.

  34. Nicholas Weaver says:

    Which 5up suggested first, BTW. Credit where it is due.

  35. Ken says:

    I wonder how the critics of "doxxing" would react to this one.

  36. Nicholas Weaver says:

    Ken: Its not doxxing. Its called "Making life easier for the process servers". :)

  37. Waldo says:

    I also took a look at the website. They've got an entire section devoted to mocking women who have sent them emails begging, pleading, threatening, etc. for them to take down their photos and personal info. Many inform the site that they're being threatened and harassed and it's ruining their lives to have this private info posted. The emails are posted, including the women's email addresses. Since these women seem particularly motivated, I've taken the trouble to contact them and make them aware of Randazza's offer of pro bono legal services. I can't wait to see these clowns get legally ass raped by Randazza.

  38. Kevin says:

    Since these women seem particularly motivated, I've taken the trouble to contact them and make them aware of Randazza's offer of pro bono legal services.

    Genius!!! Can't believe I didn't think of that!

  39. Rob Crawford says:

    Curious that both of them use the exact same wording: "mitigated/mediated". I wouldn't expect that; I'd expect some variance.

  40. Kevin says:

    @Ken

    I wonder how the critics of "doxxing" would react to this one.

    I don't really see any clear pro-doxxing/anti-doxxing angle on this story, since really both sides (meaning us included) are engaged in "doxxing" here…. the scumbags are doxxing innocent women, and we're doxxing the scumbags.

    Doxxing is a weapon, and like any weapon it can be used for good or used for evil.

  41. JLA Girl says:

    @Grandy — I heart Marc AND Ken AND everyone else helping out for going after these guys. There's low, there's lower, then there's these bottom feeders.

    Question for my American lawyer colleagues: Are these jerkoffs under any criminal liability if any of the women have been assaulted as a result of their information being published on that site? Because it's probably bound to happen if it hasn't already.

    God, they're scum.

  42. Analee says:

    You know that screencap from The Simpsons of Homer in a movie theater with popcorn, looking excitedly at the screen?

    That is so me right now. GET THE SONS OF BITCHES!

  43. Jon says:

    I don't see there being the typical doxxing moral qualms…they're not being doxxed because of their freedom of expression but because they have a business model of harass a "mark" then have them pay to end the harassment, essentially.

    …and maybe doxxing is like spades: they broke suit now everyone can play the dox card…?

  44. I was lazy and just hit the "re-blog" button last night.

  45. flip says:

    Is it me or do these guys seem like they're looking for their own Facebook to make them millions?

  46. Nicholas Weaver says:

    flip: Oh yeah. Especially the "we want investors" pitches at gust.com and AngelList.

  47. Nicholas Weaver says:

    Oh, takedown the legal threats page only after one or more good samaritans notify Craig and Chance's victims about the numerous pro-bono lawyers looknig to make an example of Craig et al.

  48. Too late. I already emailed one and now I'm gonna see who I can get ahold of in the states Marc and Jordan are licensed in.

  49. Tali McPike says:

    Awesome. @Adam, I'm a stay at home mom with a ton of time on my hands. You give me emails and I can help you contact them if you want.

  50. Ken says:

    I'm really kind of hurt that we haven't made their "press" section yet.

  51. Sam A says:

    First of all, this is great stuff and I can't wait to see this ("these") guy ("guys") get what's coming to him. Secondly, now I've got some new exciting law blogs to follow! It's a win-win for everyone but Craig.

  52. Nicholas Weaver says:

    Hey, perhaps there CAN be bad press… :)

  53. Tali McPike says:

    @Ken why does it surprise me that a website such as this even has a "press" section? It seems to me in the porn, particularly the revenge porn, business "no news(/press) is good news(/press)"

  54. Waldo says:

    Oh, takedown the legal threats page only after one or more good samaritans notify Craig and Chance's victims about the numerous pro-bono lawyers looknig to make an example of Craig et al.

    Haha. Too late for them. I'd already emailed everyone who was on it before I posted the first time. I also have the page saved in case anyone at Popehat or Randazza needs it. I've also attempted to contact all the women listed in Nevada, Randazza's home state, but don't have time to contact all the others. Those asshats are in for a world of hurt!

  55. Jess says:

    @Waldo – crowdsource it.

  56. Nicholas Weaver says:

    Tali: The press section is rather dissapointing, its things like pointing to takedown hammer, their bounty system, etc…

    The only real press is braging that they got mentioned by the idiot who did the original "is anyone up".

  57. Stephen says:

    You haven't even made the "Hatemail, Legal Threats, Other Stuff Archive" yet. Clearly they don't update very often.

    Have you checked out the other tabs on the site? There is a job posting for a Content Acquisition Specialist requiring no experience – they will train you. However – "If you are or have ever been a member of law enforcement, any federal agency, etc. you are ineligible for this position and cannot contact us." Yeah, I'm sure that will stop them.

  58. Nicholas Weaver says:

    Stephen: The legal threats page has largely dissapeared down the memory hole, after all, they don't want the complainers to find out about the pro bono lawyers out looking for blood…

  59. flip says:

    @Nicholas Weaver

    I'd love to see these guys get trounced on "Dragons' Den".

  60. efemmeral says:

    @Waldo: I can help you.

  61. I've got CA and AZ covered. Still need FL, MA, PA, NJ.

    If you contact people:
    1. Make sure it's them.
    2. Be discreet. Many have boyfriends, husbands, etc. The best ones to contact are the couples who posted together.
    3. Send them to Randazza's site.

  62. Waldo says:

    Jess, if you're referring to the women who emailed him to complain, I've already contacted all of them, and since that page has now been deleted I don't think it's a good idea to publish their emails in connection with this mess. If you're referring to all the other women who have had their private info published on the site, then anyone who wants to contact those women can go to the site and find their contact info there. But, be warned, it's like stepping in a cesspool if you go there. This guy not only apparently duped women into sending him nude pics of themselves under the guise of responding to a craigslist personal ad, but he also did some investigation to get and/or conned them into giving him their real names, cell phone numbers, and facebook pages, which he proceeds to post in conjunction with their nude photos. By putting these together, he makes the pics searchable and thus effectively extorts the women into paying his fake lawyer persona to remove their info. If you go to the site and click on any of the victims, you'll find their contact info if you want to alert them and make them aware of Randazza's pro bono offer.

  63. Nicholas Weaver says:

    flip: I'm more looking forward to watching these sleazebags get dragged into court by a bunch of pro-bono lawyers who's objective is a massive, eternally bankrupting judgement as a lesson to anyone else who would try this scheme.

  64. Jack B. says:

    Are there any lawyers handling any Texas cases? I can help with contacting any victims in TX, even if it means I have to visit that toilet of a website.

    If there aren't any lawyers handling any Texas cases, let me know and I can make a phone call to someone who might be able to put me in touch with some attorneys in TX willing to do pro bono work.

    I can be reached at jlb_in_cc *at* throatpunch *dot* com

  65. Jess says:

    @Waldo – great. Agreed – the last thing they need are their emails plastered everywhere.

  66. Joe Pullen says:

    @Nicholas – I ran addresses for both of them – given what I found, I doubt either of them have any significant assets so it won't take much of a judgment to make the lesson stick.

  67. efemmeral says:

    @joe pullen

    Capital needed to create a scam? $$$
    Permanent poverty as a result? Priceless.

  68. Nicholas Weaver says:

    No question about it: Craig is living in mama's basement and Chance is not doing much better as his only jobs are either in joint with Craig or on his own.

    IMO, the point is not just to punish these two, but to make the lesson stick for all OTHERS who might try this scam. Which means getting a HUGE judgement, even if its never collectable.

  69. Jack B. says:

    I'm curious:

    Even if these guys don't have deep pockets, aren't there ways to get a settlement that hurts them in other ways?

    For example, I recall some dude made a bogus DMCA takedown request several years ago and as part of the settlement agreement (The EFF handled the case against him) he had to make a YouTube video stating — in essence — that he knew all along that bogus DMCA takedown requests were a no-no, but did it anyway, so therefore, he was obviously an enormous douche.

    It would be nice if these douches would have to make a domain — for example — whyconsentmatters.com or extortionisbad.com — and have the isanybodydown.com domain redirect to it. The site will basically be a confession and apology for their douchey behavior.

    Incidentally, I find the comments at the site to be far worse than the photos. From the few that I've read, they're pretty straight up about admitting that they get the photos by trolling the W4W section of Craigslist.

  70. Narad says:

    Analysis of email headers suggests that Craig Brittain is David Blade.

    Ooh, Romanian hosting. That's got "legit" written all over it.

  71. Alexander L says:

    Haha he just published a press release.
    I put it on pastebin incase you don't wanna generate the d-bag more views.

    http://pastebin.com/TL239S5v

  72. Nicholas Weaver says:

    Narad: I know. At first I worried that it would dead end when I was working on this last night. It was only the realization that Chance's band site was on the same server that gave me the insight into these two clowns and that they are based in the US and identifiable.

    I must admit I love that I was able to get both their linkedin profiles. I love linkedin… :)

  73. Ricolat says:

    Holy wow.

    Uh, they replied. Here's a copy/paste to avoid giving him any more traffic: http://pastebin.com/TL239S5v

  74. Joe Pullen says:

    Is it just me or has "Is Anyone Down" gone down? It's redirecting to a site called PunkBreak – unless I'm typing something in wrong.

    Agreed – LinkedIn is awesome. The CEO of PacificTel – the scam company behind the CardServices Telemarketing scams has his profile here http://www.linkedin.com/in/4stevehamilton

  75. Ken says:

    @JackB:

    Even if these guys don't have deep pockets, aren't there ways to get a settlement that hurts them in other ways?

    Well, I'm hoping that if there are any victims in the Central District of California, they'll ask for help, so I can pitch the case to the U.S. Attorney's Office.

  76. Kevin says:

    "If you are or have ever been a member of law enforcement, any federal agency, etc. you are ineligible for this position and cannot contact us."

    Ahhh, the good old "are you a cop? You have to tell me if you're a cop because if you don't that's entrapment" routine! The favorite fictional legal doctrine of the world's oldest profession. What an odd coincidence these guys are fans of it as well.

  77. Narad says:

    @Nicholas Weaver

    Yah, I see that I'm quite late to the party. I just read your last comment on the hosting at Randazza's blog. I'm surprised this ding-a-ling didn't try testing out whether he was going to successfully conceal the zeroth mail hop. Has anyone ascertained how the funds from the putatively "satisfied" extortionees were supposed to be delivered?

  78. Alexander L says:

    I found a victim in California that has been requesting to be put off the site.

    Google cache from the hatemail, legal section
    http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:PPIcc34wRWQJ:isanybodydown.com/2012/06/01/lalawallaby-yahoo-com-aka-myria-kellawan-writes-us/+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk

  79. Joe Pullen says:

    @Alexander -went to the link you posted – holy crap. This guy is digging so furiously he's about to find China. Is reminding me of Carreon. He is so deluded he thinks his talent (what that is I cannot understand) is somehow worthy of a 7 figure salary – facepalm. And then he trots out the Cox thing = instant loss of any credibility.

  80. Joe Pullen says:

    @Narad – a paypal account that is now no longer active.

  81. Jack B. says:

    Well, I'm hoping that if there are any victims in the Central District of California, they'll ask for help, so I can pitch the case to the U.S. Attorney's Office.

    Heh. That works, too. I'm guessing any settlements in that department won't be pony-related.

    @ Ricolat: Damn! Love how they make Crystal Cox out to be some sort of victim.

    Has anyone started a betting pool as to when Craig and Chance issue an "OMG!!! Will someone please make it stop?!?" post? I think will see it before Friday, for sure.

  82. Narad says:

    Is it just me or has "Is Anyone Down" gone down? It's redirecting to a site called PunkBreak – unless I'm typing something in wrong.

    Administrative Contact:
    Seminoff, Aaron isanyonedown@gmail.com

  83. Narad says:

    Sorry, didn't realize that would auto-link.

  84. Kevin says:

    OH….MY….GOD…. This latest response from him is just…… priceless. He actually manages to find a way to blame Barack Obama for this situation. Seriously.

    slowclap.jpg

    I'm gonna need more popcorn.

  85. Myk says:

    @Narad – try 'anyBODY' rather than 'anyONE'.

  86. Nicholas Weaver says:

    The site is still very live, just remember its "is anybody down" not "anyone".

  87. flip says:

    @Nicholas Weaver

    Oh I entirely agree. I was just enjoying the image of these wannabe entrepeneurs getting told that actually they don't know WTF they're doing and that no angel would go near them. The press release kind of proves my point.

    Seeing as how I am impatient, I made myself a nice little visual of the oncoming storm.

    The press release from them says:

    They transmitted them via Fair Use

    Yeah, I don't think they know copyright law either.

    I earn a modest living. I give all of my earnings to my family and to Chance, except for maintenance expenses for this website. Furthermore, I really hate this job and I do not do it for revenge, to hurt people, etc., I do it because Barack Obama is the second worst President in US history (second only to Jimmy Carter). The job market is really screwed up. A talented guy like me is easily worth seven figures or more in a good economy (if Randazza’s worth $2.5 million, I’m worth at least $8 million).

    Ok then. This is getting sillier and sillier.

  88. Narad says:

    The site is still very live, just remember its "is anybody down" not "anyone".

    The two seem to have had an exchange.

  89. somebody says:

    Oh no, he knows Ken's last name! Ken Popehat has been outed! This blog is doooooooomed!

  90. Ken says:

    Actually, as far as I can tell, despite the fact that I have posted it multiple times on this site, and that people link here all the time using it, and that easy Google searches find it, and even people writing about this event linking here today use it, he hasn't figured it out yet.

    Craig didn't come to being a scamming, extorting douchebag via rocket science.

  91. Myk says:

    What would the status of non-US residents be in any legal action? I haven't viewed the site but I imagine there are victims from many countries posted, not just American.

  92. somebody says:

    Yeah, he literally thinks that your last name is "Popehat." I'm still giggling about that.

  93. Jess says:

    This post he has up on his website and copied on http://pastebin.com/TL239S5v is so not good for him I don’t have the words.

    1. Marco Randazza’s claims are false. He has a history of lying, contradicting himself and attempting to extort money via copyright trolling. Visit DieTrollDie.com for information about his ‘legacy’. He has also in the past attempted to extort Crystal Cox, a self-identified lesbian blogger as well as numerous others. I am in the process of adding people to my legal team who can hardly wait for a rematch with Mr. Randazza. This includes numerous attorneys and co-claimants.

    I can hardly wait to see the spiffy legal team from lawyers-R-us because there is no way a decent attorney would touch this. Carreon anyone? Meanwhile, perhaps Craig should go back and re-read the definition for the word extortion. An offer to “pay off” an attorney who is representing someone else is extortion. Craig is not only thick, but he clearly has NOT obtained legal council because if he had, they would have told him to STFU.

    3. He offered us $2,500 for this website. I told him that his offer was way too low, especially in the wake of all of the attention we’re getting courtesy of the lies of Mr. Randazza. In the event that we were offered a fair deal, I would take it – but not a bad deal, sorry. P.S. Mr. Randazza makes upwards of $550/hour and his retainer fee is $25,000. That would make his annual income for 100 clients at least 2.5 million. $$$$$$$$$. I threw in the $$$$$$’s for fun.

    7. I earn a modest living. I give all of my earnings to my family and to Chance, except for maintenance expenses for this website.

    Yet this is the very same moron who claimed in his email to Randazza that he could “pay” Randazza “a lot more than whoever is paying you to chase a Red Herring, snowball-in-hell case.” So apparently the $25,000 retainer isn’t such an issue after all? What is it Craig – are you rich or poor?

    4. Everyone pictured on this website consented to appear on here. Anything else is total nonsense. They took the pictures themselves. They transmitted them via Fair Use. The submitters agreed to the terms of submission prior to sending them.

    While some of the women may have taken the pictures AND sent them in themselves, it is also clear several took pictures meant to be private that SOMEONE ELSE sent in. That does not imply either consent or fair use. I also highly doubt ANY woman consented to having her picture posted under the “herpes verified” tab.

    This cochroach deserves to get stepped on.

  94. Tali McPike says:

    I'm really surprised he hasn't been creeping around here Carreon style (then again he might be and has just enough sense not to, although I highly doubt it, since it would appear that he thinks Adam Steinbaugh is a real lawyer…its probably more likely that he has no idea this blog exists)

  95. John David Galt says:

    I'd rather go to fightcopyrighttrolls.com and investigate Marc Randazza.

  96. AlphaCentauri says:

    The site inexplicably had a good rating from mywot.com, with an extremely low confidence level. I've added my rating, and that should bring it down low enough that anyone with the browser add-on to get a prompt to look at the scorecard, where I've put a link to this thread.

  97. Jack B. says:

    Actually, as far as I can tell, despite the fact that I have posted it multiple times on this site, and that people link here all the time using it, and that easy Google searches find it, and even people writing about this event linking here today use it, he hasn't figured it out yet.

    Kevin Loweringthebar has already blogged about this. I can't wait to see Scott Simplejustice's take on the story.

  98. Jess says:

    @myself – An offer to “pay off” an attorney who is representing someone else is extortion.

    Geez my kingdom for an edit – actually bribe not extortion would be the better description.

    @Tali – My understanding is that Adam actually is a lawyer – new to the profession having recently passed the bar.

  99. Stephen says:

    @Ken

    Actually, as far as I can tell, despite the fact that I have posted it multiple times on this site, and that people link here all the time using it, and that easy Google searches find it, and even people writing about this event linking here today use it, he hasn't figured it out yet.

    Attach the Ex Parte pic as the sig of you next correspondence so he knows what he's up against. ;)

  100. Grandy says:

    I'd rather go to fightcopyrighttrolls.com and investigate Marc Randazza.

    Well, it beats having to think for yourself.

  101. Dan Weber says:

    "I run this site — that generates many death threats — under my own name. But a completely independent lawyer who gets things removed from our website against our will is afraid for his well-being because of our web site."

    Would a 5 year old believe this?

    PS I know I disagreed with you a lot over on the reddit thread. This post is giving me lots to think about. Craig is certainly trying to do maximum damage via doxxing. He needs people to want their stuff taken down so he posts as much personal info as possible.

  102. Tali McPike says:

    @jess, he did recently take the Bar (and I would assume pass) but his blog still has the disclaimer on it. And also this is what he had to say to me on twitter earlier yesterday https://twitter.com/goodreverend/status/263786492873289729

  103. Ken says:

    @Dan Weber:

    I appreciated you voicing dissent on that issue, Dan.

    As far as I can tell Reddit hasn't found this story yet, which surprises me. I'd be interested to know how it goes over there, in light of the strong anti-doxxing sentiment.

  104. TexasAndroid says:

    It's on Reddit now. I posted a link to this side of things, and someone else beat me by a whole 8 seconds with a post to Randazza's side of the saga. :) They are both now in the Technology subreddit.

  105. SA says:

    What, exactly, has been doxxed? The only thing I can think of that was not self-announced, in a public venue, was the Blake/Brittain connection. Or are we talking about the address and related info that might not show up on page 1 of a websearch?

    Craig's LinkedIn profile – which IMO certainly qualifies as a "public declaration" – lists:

    "Is Anybody Down" and "Hey, Great Website" as current employers/activities.
    His "wildoutwildout@" email address
    Company Website #1 – heygreatwebsite
    Company Website #2 – gonzojournal (previous employer through June 2012)
    Personal Website – facebook "craigpresents"

    He is an open-Connector/LION so doesn't control who Connects with him, but he does control the content for employment history, specialties, etc.

    IMO it's bragging, not doxxing, when they post this kind of thing under their real name, as part of a professional resume, in a professional forum. Now if he were posting under a pseudonym, and never mentioning the associations, things might be different.

  106. Dan Weber says:

    Craig was doxxing the women he had the naked pictures of (because his business model depended on causing them personal distress). Randazza then doxxed the fuck out of the fake lawyer who was asking for money to remove the pictures.

    That seems like a well-functioning universe for once.

  107. SA says:

    @Dan Weber: Ah OK. I thought it was a reference to doxxing of Craig himself. Thanks.

    For anyone: Lawyer jokes aside, here's a question from this Not-A-Lawyer: What makes what he has done illegal extortion, vs what the arrest mugshot sites do non-chargeable? Or put another why, why can he be charged with extortion, but the arrest shots aren't?

    My initial thought is that it's because the mugshots and arrest data are public information that anyone can obtain from government sources, vs the naked-photographs coming from private sources. But I'd like to hear from someone who does know what makes one merely scum and the other illegal scum.

  108. TexasAndroid says:

    Ok. There are now four threads on Reddit on this that I've found, including the one that I posted.

    http://www.reddit.com/r/JusticePorn/comments/12h5u1/marc_randazza_is_a_certified_badass/

    http://www.reddit.com/r/law/comments/12dsy9/have_you_been_scammed_by_wwwisanybodydowncom_or/

    http://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/12gzp3/believe_it_or_not_there_is_a_website_doing_both/

    http://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/12gzpf/popehat_and_randazza_declare_war_on_a_scam_website/

    The last one is the one I posted. The one in /Law was actually posted yesterday. And the next to the last one above, the one that beat me by 8 seconds in /Technology, is the one that appears to me to have the most likelihood to gain traction. It's already climbing well up the front page of /technology, and /tech is one of the default front-page subreddits.

  109. AlphaCentauri says:

    I don't know that posting nude photos and identifying information submitted by people's exes is illegal in the US, so long as the subject knew she was being photographed and consented to being photographed at the time. But someone who is a lawyer has to follow more stringent laws of ethics. Like using his real name in advertisements and only practicing in states where he is licensed and putting the interests of his client above her supposed adversary.

  110. Dan Weber says:

    SA, it feels as weird as the definition of blackmail. Blackmail is definitely illegal. If I ask you for $500 to not reveal embarrassing information, I'm guilty. However, I am otherwise free to publish the information, and you are otherwise free to offer me money to not publish.

    Obviously blackmailers try to hide in that loophole, where they suggest to you that they have information to publish, and hope you offer the money. It's a question for the courts just where the line is.

    I wonder if this guy ever sent out "solicitations" that their nude photographs were up on line and that they could get the pix taken down. This guy could be facing jail time for that.

  111. TexasAndroid says:

    Here's one more Reddit thread from yesterday. This one actually has a bit of discussion already going:

    http://www.reddit.com/r/law/comments/12eucz/revenge_porn_website_run_by_idiots/

  112. Ancel De Lambert says:

    Now now, Ken. Even if you were still a defense lawyer, and even if he were capable of paying the retainer, I'm sure you would still think twice about taking him. Seeing as he fails your first rule of law (vis "Shut the hell up,") and your second rule as well ("Shut the fuck up.")

  113. SJD says:

    >> I'd rather go to fightcopyrighttrolls.com and investigate Marc Randazza.

    >Well, it beats having to think for yourself.

    Cannot agree more (and I'm not being sarcastic).

  114. SJD says:

    We've already been thoroughly investigated numerous times and found to be free of any wrongdoing whatsoever.

    Haven't I heard the same kind of BS recently? Oh yeah:

    Steele says he’s unconcerned. Eight state attorney generals have called him about extortion claims. “Once I explain, they’re reassured,” he says.

    Different caliber – same scam.

  115. SA says:

    @Dan Weber – Thanks for the information.

    I don't know if he sent out "solicitations". I did find where "is_anybody_down" was tweeting new picture announcements with the photo URL, name, city, and sometimes a thumbnail of the photo itself. Twitter has suspended the is_anybody_down account, but the archive is still available on scraper and archival 3rd party sites.

  1. October 31, 2012

    [...] 2012 Marc Randazza is exposing a scam being run on a site called "Is Anybody Down". Ken White at Popehat has gotten in on the fun too.  The concept behind Anybody Down site is that angry exes submit nude pictures to the site [...]

  2. October 31, 2012

    [...] Read more… 823 more words First Amendment attorney Marc Randazza provides a forensic demonstration on how a real "take down lawyer" handles an online scam artist who is impersonating a lawyer and extorting his victims for a fee. See also, Marc's follow-up posts: isanybodydown.com responds! , More on operation "involuntary porn" and Still more on isanybodydown.com I also highly recommend Ken @ Popehat's companion post: "The Takedown Lawyer": Let's Help Marc Randazza Investigate A Scammer, Shall We? [...]

  3. November 2, 2012

    [...] an almost-coherent screed [PDF] threatening thunder and lightning on, inter alia, Randazza, "Ken Popehat," and myself, and proclaiming that he'd be worth at least $8 million if it [...]

  4. November 5, 2012

    [...] be pictured there.  If those pictured there consented to it, why would Craig and Chance concoct a fake lawyer to deceive people into sending money to get their own pictures [...]

  5. November 9, 2012

    [...] the NY state bar.   Craig and Blade claimed that he was operating under a pseudonym because of death threats, and Craig claimed that Blade was actually Eric Chanson (who owns a rival 'revenge porn' site), [...]

  6. November 11, 2012

    [...] I've been found out! What do I do now?! Share this:TwitterFacebookLike this:LikeBe the first to like this. [...]

  7. November 14, 2012

    [...] that Marc Randazza and Popehat are quick on the scent of a new scam operation, I figured I'd pile on — as I am wont to [...]

  8. November 29, 2012

    [...] has those featured on the site pay $250 to have their content removed from the site. Many others, including Ken White of Popehat and Mark Randazza, have raised obvious questions about the legitimacy of this service and have [...]

  9. December 29, 2012

    [...] me of those sites that posted nude photos and info then took money to get the pictures removed. "The Takedown Lawyer": Let's Help Marc Randazza Investigate A Scammer, Shall We? | Popehat __________________ My flickr picures are here [...]