Response to Take Down Letters from Ligatt Security AttorneyLigatt Security's attorney sent a letter to Ligattleaks domain holder as well as Wordpress. Both sites immediately reacted to the letter. 1&1 informed Ligattleaks and asked us to take action. Wordpress just shut us down. This is our response.
By: ligattleaks.org We are in receipt of a PDF copy of your e-mail dated February 4, 2011, sent at 6:16PM on Friday afternoon. We received this from 1and1 on February 7, as you did not send us a copy directly, despite our e- mail address being public. First, you say that “[our] domain name has and continues to be used on websites operated at , formerly ”. Your use of technical terms is confusing and inaccurate. “blogs.ru” “ligattleaks” or virtual host names. Please use accurate terminology so there is no confusion regarding the nature of your complaint. If your firm would like guidance or technical training on such matters, we’d be happy to discuss our consulting rates. Your use of ‘our client’ is confusing; do you represent Gregory Evans, Ligatt Security employees or both? Most legal notices of this nature explicitly state that it is a law firm initiating the communication and clearly state who they represent. You state that we display confidential information, personal information and proprietary information of Gregory Evans, Ligatt Security employees and Alston & Bird. For each article we publish, we attribute the source of our information. In each case, the “confidential / proprietary / personal” information comes from a *public* web site, typically pastebin.com. Please note our emphasis of ‘public’ there, as the material we are republishing has already been published at least once before, therefore already made public, to the public. If you could please site a specific URL where we have published something that was previously confidential, that may better help us understand the nature of your complaint. Or, if that is your entire complaint, then perhaps we could offer some simple legal advice, despite not being lawyers ourselves? If you think back to Mr. Mtima’s comp law class at Howard, a plaintiff has no privacy rights regarding matters that are already public. We cannot be held liable for republishing information that is already publicly available. We understand you may choose to take further action against us if we do not comply. However, you sent the mail to someone other than us on Friday at 6PM, after accepted business hours. You gave us one business day to meet your demands without notifying us of said demands, and without giving us proper time to consult a lawyer should we feel the need. This absurd deadline is generally indicative of a law firm that has a strong desire and no legal merit on their side. Your last paragraph fully demonstrates that you have no clue what you are talking about, and it makes us sad. If you believe the only way to stop your client’s confidential information from being abused is to shut ‘ligattleaks’ have not addressed the fact that thousands of posts (tweets) on twitter.com discuss the matter, that hundreds of e-mails from your client have been published on pastebin.com, that seven different torrent trackers currently offer the entire archive of the mail, that a couple dozen other websites have discussed this incident, that the Tech Herald has written an article on the content of the e-mail and that several other groups are currently reading the e-mails to show the public additional criminal activity of your client Gregory D. Evans. In short, we have done nothing illegal or immoral. You have no legal foundation to make these demands of us, and you have not represented yourself as a competent law firm. If you would like to address any of these issues and send another letter, we’d be receptive to any communications and consider your requests with all due respect they deserve. Thank you for your time, Larry Lamonte Spokesperson, LigattLeaks End
|
|
