General Discussions

**brickfish** · 09-28-2007, 09:58 AM

Hello

My first post and hopefully this is the correct place for it.

The situation regards a client of mine. Earlier this year he split from his business partner, who went on to set up a competing company.

No problem there, but my client has just discovered that his ex-partner's site makes an untrue claim about him and the reasons for the split. It doesn't name my client or his company, but within his community it is open knowledge that the claim refers to him as his ex-partner had no other business interests.

My client is also finding that potential customers approaching him from outside the community are also often aware that he is the person being referred to on his ex-partner's site.

He would like to have the comments removed, however before discovering the comments, his ex-partner was arrested and is currently remanded in prison in the UK prior to being tried on 15 counts of child abuse.

It's believed that he was acting as a one man band and all attempts to make contact with his company via the contact details on the site and the site's registered address have failed to elicit a response. Customer enquiries are also going unanswered.

The domain of the ex-business partner's site (a .com domain) is not due to expire for another year and is hosted with a Californian company.

Is there anyway that my client can seek to have the comments removed from the site without the assistance of the site owner?

Many thanks in advance.

**KML9870** · 09-28-2007, 11:29 AM

Unless the ex-partner paid for long-term hosting up front the site probably won't be up for long. As soon as the hosting company realizes they aren't getting paid any longer they will no longer host it. Short of that your friend can attempt to contact the hosting company directly via email and plead his case.

**Michel Samuel** · 11:36 AM

Tell your client to write a letter detailing the comments, the problems they have caused and that he wants the comments removed. (First paragraphe)

Then detail that he will take action and seek damages. List everyone and anyone that is involved in this. IE: Hosting company, registrar, webmaster, etc. (Second paragraphe)

End the the letter on a professional note and set a deadline. (Third paragraphe)

Send a copy of the letter to his 1) advocat, 2) spouse/common law (any close family member) and 3) C/O the prision he is in.

Make it all registered letters. That way someone is required to sign for them. Keep the receipts from the act of registering.
This will demonstrate to any legal system you have made reasonable attempt to contact the persion directly responsible.
And that you have attempted to find a reasonable solution.

Keep a copy for yourself.

Now after that....
Photocopie the letter several times. You have some more people to send it to.
They are:
1) The hosting company
2) The registrar.
3) Webmaster, etc.

You will have to type up one more letter.

In the second letter tell them who you are, the problem and you have enclosed a copy of the first letter. (First paragraphe)

Then tell them that in the event of any legal action they will be named as a party to this event. And you will seek legal settlement from all NON-COOPERATIVE parties connected to this affair. (Second paragaraphe)

End on a professional note with how you can be contacted for further dialogue. (Third paragarphe)

Hope it helps...
If not...
Call an advocat.

**Learning Newbie** · 09-28-2007, 02:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brickfish

No problem there, but my client has just discovered that his ex-partner's site makes an untrue claim about him and the reasons for the split.

You aren't going to like this question, but it's important. Did they make factually untrue claims that you can prove false, or did they paint the situation in a way you don't like? One is libel and the other is life, not censorable.

If he's in prison, he'll fail to pay his hosting bill sooner or later and the page will go down of its own accord.

**ADAM Web Design** · 09-28-2007, 05:03 PM

What John said. Unless there's something potentially libellous (i.e. "my old business partner has a criminal record for sexually harassing women in the workplace" when he doesn't) vs. insulting (i.e. "my old business partner is a [SNIPPED]"), or unless the business partner stole/leeched content from other sites, there's nothing that can be done.

Even if he did do either, part of that will fall on the shoulders of the hosting company and their terms of service. They may allow "freedom of speech" and allow anyone to say what they want (this is most common among adult hosts and hosts who allow for racial pride sites, among others).

**Michel Samuel** · 09-28-2007, 05:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ADAM Web Design

What John said. Unless there's something potentially libellous (i.e. "my old business partner has a criminal record for sexually harassing women in the workplace" when he doesn't) vs. insulting (i.e. "my old business partner is a [SNIPPED]"), or unless the business partner stole/leeched content from other sites, there's nothing that can be done.

Even if he did do either, part of that will fall on the shoulders of the hosting company and their terms of service. They may allow "freedom of speech" and allow anyone to say what they want (this is most common among adult hosts and hosts who allow for racial pride sites, among others).

I hate to break this to you and I can't quote on the United States laws. However I can comment on canadian and british law. (95% the same)
But just because something is true and verifiable does NOT mean you are free to publish it print it.

The legal system acknowledge that people make mistakes and has a right to redeem themself to a "honourable status" within their circle of influence.

Therefore even if something is 100% true...
If the facts are used with the extent purpose of defaming an individual or reputable body...
The entity using the information is coupable of an offense.

In layman's terms...
There is a difference between

a) Using facts in a factual matter or as justification to an action or opinion.
b) Using facts to gain advantage over an another or to place them at a disadvantage.

**Learning Newbie** · 09-28-2007, 05:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Michel Samuel

The legal system acknowledge that people make mistakes and has a right to redeem themself to a "honourable status" within their circle of influence.

Therefore even if something is 100% true...
If the facts are used with the extent purpose of defaming an individual or reputable body...
The entity using the information is coupable of an offense.

In the United States at least it isn't a crime by any means to say that the president did truthfully use cocaine.

**Michel Samuel** · 09-30-2007, 02:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Learning Newbie

In the United States at least it isn't a crime by any means to say that the president did truthfully use cocaine.

Cocaine...
This explains much.

If he had some wine he would just want to light candle and have conversations about existance.
If he had some bedo he would just and to make some sex.

But with cocain you must talk to god and search for hidden bombs.

**ADAM Web Design** · 09-30-2007, 06:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Michel Samuel

I hate to break this to you and I can't quote on the United States laws. However I can comment on canadian and british law. (95% the same)
But just because something is true and verifiable does NOT mean you are free to publish it print it.

The legal system acknowledge that people make mistakes and has a right to redeem themself to a "honourable status" within their circle of influence.

Therefore even if something is 100% true...
If the facts are used with the extent purpose of defaming an individual or reputable body...
The entity using the information is coupable of an offense.

In layman's terms...
There is a difference between

a) Using facts in a factual matter or as justification to an action or opinion.
b) Using facts to gain advantage over an another or to place them at a disadvantage.

I've been living here for 30 years, and that's the first I've ever heard of that. I've also seen countless cases where people have published factual information about others that cast negative aspersions upon them, so I find that hard to believe.

Where did you read that or learn that?

**swiftmed** · 09-30-2007, 08:10 PM

unfortunately mate, i think unless the person who owns the site manually removes it, or their hosting is cancelled or expired, there is no way to remove it....unless you know a good hacker of course

**dansgalaxy** · 10-01-2007, 11:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by swiftmed

unfortunately mate, i think unless the person who owns the site manually removes it, or their hosting is cancelled or expired, there is no way to remove it....unless you know a good hacker of course

which of course would be erm illegal *shifty eyes*

dare i say it but have you tried to guess his password, often if you know someone their passwords are easy

**Michel Samuel** · 10-02-2007, 04:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ADAM Web Design

I've been living here for 30 years, and that's the first I've ever heard of that. I've also seen countless cases where people have published factual information about others that cast negative aspersions upon them, so I find that hard to believe.

Where did you read that or learn that?

You have a private message