Our Response To The Latest Ridiculous Legal Threat Against Us: Milorad Trkulja Can Go Pound Sand

from the damn-it-feels-good-to-be-a... dept

As we’ve noted, we regularly get legal threats, some of which are more serious than others. Sometimes we ignore them entirely, and sometimes we feel the need to respond. Depending on the situation, sometimes we respond privately. Sometimes we respond publicly. The more ridiculous the threat, the more likely we are to respond publicly — and I think the latest holds up as one of the most ridiculous legal threats we’ve seen. It comes from Milorad Trkulja, who is also known as Michael Trkulja, and who lives in Australia. Trkulja made some news a few years back when he (somewhat surprisingly) successfully sued both Yahoo and Google for hundreds of thousands of dollars, because when people did image searches on a variety of phrases related to things like “Australian criminal underworld mafia” sometimes a picture of Trkulja would show up. Apparently, Trkulja was actually shot in the back a decade ago by an unknown gunman. And somehow, for whatever reasons, certain websites included pictures of him along with enough keywords that the search algorithms at both Google and Yahoo would return his photo in such searches. We wrote about his victory over Google back in November of 2012, pointing out how ridiculous it was that an Australian court said you could sue search engines because image search happens to pop up your image along with actual gangsters.

Anyway, after we wrote about the case, as happens on Techdirt, people commented on the story, including one anonymous comment from someone who, in a totally offhand way, claimed that “Trkulja’s a gangster, too.” The actual content of the comment, as you can see was actually to clarify some of the misconceptions — including who “Tony Mokbel” is (a well-known Australian gangster) and responding to the author of the post, Tim Geigner’s (admittedly weak) sarcastic joke that Australians fight with machetes, rather than guns.

Now, it appears that Trkulja just found out about this comment (more on how in a moment) and has sent off a fairly massive 54-page document to both myself and to Google with a series of increasingly hilarious demands — including that we respond by 4pm today (he does not designate in what time zone — not that it matters). The letter is, well, you kinda have to read it. It is full of misspellings, along with typographical and grammatical errors of all kinds. For someone who claims to have consulted a lawyer before sending the letter, you’d think he’d consult someone who could proofread his letter as well. No such luck, apparently.

It starts out by claiming that it’s “Not for publication” but that’s totally meaningless. You send it to us, we can absolutely publish it. Free speech means something here in the US.

It then includes a recitation of some “facts” about certain Australian organized crime individuals, followed immediately by this:
I’m not an expert on Australian law, but I’m pretty sure that’s totally false. I believe that he’s either referring to his own earlier case, or (more likely!) the dreadful recent decision in a South Australia court, concerning one “Janice Duffy.” Duffy, as we’ve discussed, sued Google after she became quite upset that a Ripoff Report post mocking her was a high result on her name (what is often left out of this discussion was that Duffy went to Ripoff Report first and posted fake posts to attack a psychic website where she felt she had been connected to a psychic who provided her with false information, and the supposedly “defamatory” content on the site was someone referring to Duffy as a “psychic stalker”). The ruling in that case did not say that Google is automatically liable for any defamatory content online, but rather, in this specific instance, Google could be found as the “publisher” of some defamatory content, based on the way that Google chose to display that content. I disagree strongly with the decision as is, but even if we accept it at face value, it does not say what Trkulja is claiming.

Oh yes, speaking of Duffy, it felt… odd… to receive a legal threat from Australia so soon after discussing the Duffy decision — especially given that Duffy had not only just yelled at us online, but had also been going off on some bizarre rants and outright threats against some individuals who expressed an opinion suggesting that the ruling in favor of Duffy was troubling.

So, it didn’t come as a huge surprise that Trkulja then admits he only found out about our post and the comments… thanks to Duffy, who is apparently a “family friend” of his.

If you can’t read that, it notes that the “matter in paragraph 14” (which is the comment I mentioned above) “come to my attention when my family friend Dr Duffy from South Australia send me link that you have been defaming me as from 2012.”

From there, he notes:

I complains is an article authored by you and posted to the “Techdirt” website situate at https://www.techdirt.com (“the website”)….

Well, I’m really not quite sure what to do with that information, because almost everything in it is wrong, but we’ll get there. From there, he mentions that he spoke to an Australian defamation lawyer, and suddenly shifts oddly from the first person to the third person — possibly copying what someone told him, though it’s not at all clear from the text of the letter. The key point: he claims that comment is defamatory and that Techdirt is liable for it. This is wrong on a variety of levels — but we’ll get there as well.

Then, we get to the “demands.” It starts with a demand for Google. They are apparently supposed to delist Techdirt entirely because of a single comment that Trkulja falsely believes is defamatory. Also, it could be read as to be asking Google to block me personally from Google’s website. Or something. Also, he wants Google to block some other websites. No reason or explanation is given.

Then there are demands for me that include identifying the anonymous “subscriber,” delete the comment, the post and anything ever mentioning Trkulja. Oh, and I should fork over a bunch of money:
These demands are then repeated again on the next page in slightly different language. And numbered instead of lettered. No idea why. Then there’s a demand that we respond by December 1st, 2012. Yes, 2012. I’ll assume that’s a typo.

Then there are a ton of screenshots that I assume are “exhibits” of some sort. They include my Twitter page for no clear reason. And also the Techdirt profile of the author of the original article, Tim Geigner, and, for reasons unknown, Tim’s Amazon author page. He also refers to Tim as “Darknight aka Timothy Geigner” while I think most of our regulars recognize that Tim is better known as “Dark Helmet” in our comments….

Okay, so that’s the situation. Now, the response: we’re not going to do any of the demanded things. For a whole variety of reasons. Let’s go through just a few, because this post is getting too long already and if I had to respond to all of the ways this letter is wrong, none of you would still be reading.

  1. First up, not that it really matters, but the statute of limitations is one year in Australia, as it mostly is in the US as well. Under some circumstances, it can apparently be extended to three years, but (oops) that comment was published on November 13, 2012. The statute of limitations is up. Sorry.
  2. The comment isn’t defamatory. The reference claiming you’re a “gangster” is totally innocuous. It’s a trivial throw away comment on a blog post that no one would notice. Trivial comments are not defamation in Australia (or the US for that matter).
  3. The other lines that you seem to complain about are opinions not statements of fact. The reference to the “gun” was a response to Geigner’s joke in the post about machetes, not to anything involving you. Opinions are not defamation. Things unrelated to you are not defamation of you.
  4. Also, we’re a US company with no presence in Australia, so your threats are pretty pointless.
  5. Even if you could convince an Australian court with some sort of wacky legal argument, we’re totally protected from such judgment thanks to the SPEECH Act.
  6. Free speech, dude.
  7. We have no “subscriber” named Anonymous Coward. That’s the designation given to anyone who comments without logging in.
  8. We didn’t publish the comment. An anonymous user did. We’re not liable for it. If you have any legitimate complaint at all (and you don’t), it’s with an anonymous user who posted a trivial comment three years ago, rather than us or Google.
  9. Even if none of the above is true: what the fuck? NO ONE is finding a comment buried deep below a blog post about your legal victory and suddenly saying “oh, well that proves that Trkulja was a gangster.”
  10. Wait, what’s so terrible about being called a “gangster” anyway? To many people it’s a compliment or something to brag about.

That’s enough of a response. There are tons of other possible responses, but in short: we’re not doing a damn thing in response to this ridiculous threat. You have no case whatsoever and complaining about this is ridiculous. It may be time to find a hobby or something, Mr. Trkulja, because poorly written and ridiculous legal threats to foreign entities aren’t doing you any good.

Filed Under: , , , , , , , , , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Our Response To The Latest Ridiculous Legal Threat Against Us: Milorad Trkulja Can Go Pound Sand”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
162 Comments
Anonymous Coward says:

I’m betting he’s demanding that response by December 1st, 2012 so that he can try to claim that his letter was within the statute of limitations when he throws this example of incoherent rambling at a judge. That he took this long to go to court in response to your exceedingly late reply is just evidence of his saint-like patience.

Or it’s a typo because he uses the numpad while otherwise typing a letter instead of the number keys like a normal person. I think my interpretation is funnier.

Anonymous Coward says:

…refers to Tim as “Darknight…most of our regulars recognize that Tim is better known as “Dark Helmet” in our comments…

The proper response would be to ship this guy a case of that Dark Helmet beer that Mr. Geigner wrote about some time ago. With a message that this is more than he deserves.

(I looked for a link to that story but it appears to have wrapped out.)

Another Anonymous Commenting Person says:

To the Gangster Trkulja

Dear Milorad (Michael) Trkulja,

In order to stop being referred to as a gangster, it would help stop threatening people. Although as a Techdirt reader, I want you to keep it up, because I truly enjoy reading the articles and reading your sloppy and meaningless legal threats, it makes my day pass more enjoyably and give me a good laugh.

Thanks,

Another Anonymous Commenting Person

Anonymous Coward says:

Dear Mrs/Ms/Mr Milord,
This is the subscriber Anonymous Coward, and I officiously take back my statement that Trkulja is a gangster. He is actually a petty and sensitive fraudster that likes to perform show tunes with various domesticated amphibians. That and dull sex acts.

It is these amphibians that are the actual gangsters who have, through the psychic medium of Dr Duffy, forced me to submit these facts to the world wide internets against my will. Google was witness to this and will back up my statements with a self driving car.

Please obliviate techdirt.com of any guilty associations with my infernal commentry and I will send you a 1/2 penny to cover your legal fees, you gansta you.

Sincerely and in perpetuity,
AC

Anonymous Coward says:

Dear Mrs/Ms/Mr Milord
I’m a Nigerian Prince who has a large inheritance coming my way . If by chance you can forward ten thousand dollars via western union to this web site I can immediately send you a check for one million dollars .
Please do not hesitate as I’m sure you would like the cash and if some one else sends the ten thousand dollars before you , they will get the one million dollars .So don’t delay send today

Thank you
Nigerian Prince

David says:

You wish.

It starts out by claiming that it’s “Not for publication” but that’s totally meaningless. You send it to us, we can absolutely publish it. Free speech means something here in the US.

It means that this article follows right after the one titled “Judge In FBI Case Was Forced To Redact His Mocking Of FBI’s Ridiculous Arguments” which happens to be about the court case of Nicholas Merril who fought 11 years in the U.S. legal system in order to be allowed to publish a “NS letter” sent to him.

“Free speech means something here in the US.” is a Humpty Dumpty claim:

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”
“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”
“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—that’s all.”

Now let Humpty Dumpty speak with the voice of the acting Attorney General and you get the drift.

Lisa Westveld (profile) says:

Let’s rhyme if I mat be blunt,
This Milorad Trkulja is totally a c**t!
Trying to get Techdirt plucked
but Milorad Trkulja is totally f***ed.

Well, just sharing my opinion here. A guy who makes these kinds of threats isn’t a gangster anyways. He’s just a pathetic moron. If he gets shot in the back again, no one would cry about it, I think.

Anonymous Coward says:

Regarding your comment “Then there’s a demand that we respond by December 1st, 2012”, I don’t see that in screenshots. There is a lot mention of November 13th, 2012 when the comment was made, but the last paragraph is the “deadline” of December 1st, 2015. I don’t see anything about a 2012 deadline. Or maybe I’m blind, who knows.

Mike Masnick (profile) says:

Re: Re:

Regarding your comment “Then there’s a demand that we respond by December 1st, 2012”, I don’t see that in screenshots. There is a lot mention of November 13th, 2012 when the comment was made, but the last paragraph is the “deadline” of December 1st, 2015. I don’t see anything about a 2012 deadline. Or maybe I’m blind, who knows.

Page 9 of the attached document.

Wendy Cockcroft says:

Re: "family friend"

Apparently I’m the leader of a lynch mob or something for merely jerking my thumb at what she actually did and daring to opine on it.

Internet users, be sure to ACT and you’ll be fine:

A – Avail yourself of information on internet use, etc., from reputable websites like Techdirt
C – Conduct yourself in a manner that reflects the way you wish to be perceived online
T – Turn off the internet and find something else to do if you find you simply can’t resist lashing out at people you find annoying.

Wendy Cockcroft says:

Re: Re: Re: "family friend"

Right. All of the above is freedom of speech. Notice that I’m not rolling around banging my fists on the floor, squealing like a baby about those mean ol’ people saying nasty things about me on the internet.

Nor have I resorted to petty name-calling because I can’t make a cogent argument.

I’ll leave all that to you, dear.

Kronomex (profile) says:

The man is an idiot! I’d like to know the name of the lawyer that “helped” him write the travesty. Sounds like he’s run out of money and thinks this will top up his coffers. Tony Mokbel is a “Convicted Murderess” (bottom of page two in the pdf), so when did he have the operation? If any court takes the document seriously it will only prove that it is as big a cretin as Trkulja is.

Aussie Anon says:

My apologies to TechDirt Regulars for the following language, but it’s best to speak the native tongue when dealing with idiots down here…

Trkulja; Shut the f**k up ya f**king wanka, it’s f**king c**ts like you that make me f**king ASHAMED to be born Australian with family going back to the First f**king Fleet.
It’s f**king bad enough we’re getting shat on by ex-govo wanks like Hellstra, trying to live in the modern digital age (15 years let alone 30 years is too f**king old for a phone exchange for internet users, especially rural ones!), but f**king c**t wanks like you are f**king giving the c**twaffles in Canberra the fuel to f**k over our rights and freedoms both online and on the street.

F**k’s sake mate, every f**king time you pull c**p like this by trying to f**king hide your f**king past you just KEEP BRINGING THAT F**KING PAST BACK INTO THE F**KING SPOTLIGHT, ya f**king wank.

And to the c**t Duffy, the same goes to you, ya f**king c**t.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

What is actually heard:

Trkulja; Shut the beep up ya beeeeeep, it’s beeeeeeep like you that make me beep ASHAMED to be born Australian with family going back to the First beep Fleet.
It’s beeep bad enough we’re getting beep on by ex-govo beep like Hellstra, trying to live in the modern digital age (15 years let alone 30 years is too beep old for a phone exchange for internet users, especially rural ones!), but beeeeeeeeeep like you are beep giving the beep in Canberra the fuel to beep over our rights and freedoms both online and on the street.

beep sake mate, every beeep time you pull beep like this by trying to beep hide your beep past you just KEEP BRINGING THAT beep PAST BACK INTO THE beep SPOTLIGHT, ya beeeeeeep.

And to the beep Duffy, the same goes to you, ya beeeeeep.

Now say the above with a broad and course accent with the appropriate buzzer sounds added.

Aussie Anon says:

Re: Re: Re:

Nah, I say “Canberra” when I mean the bulk of the populated ACT, and ACT when I mean the whole territory (such as when listing off the States/Territories).
Technically, I should say something like “Over near Civic”, but only those who’ve been to/lived around Canberra would really know what I mean without cracking open Google Maps or Wikipedia.

Anonymous Coward says:

And now on: Natures great mysteries!

“Oh come and take a look at this! What beauuuutiful specimens. These are the species Moronis Idiotas, or in the common tongue: Gangster Wankers.
Look how they fall down and are now trying to take the food from the other animals who witnessed it.
It is a wonder we keep seeing these Idiotas, because as you see, they now dig holes so deep that they can’t get up again and they will eventually die of starvation.
One has to wonder how Wankers evolved into this, but one thing is for sure: being an idiot is in the Wankers nature.”

Australian observer (user link) says:

Techdirt is lining Trkulja's pockets

Why is comment 35 ‘flagged’? Does freedom of speech only extend to mere mortals, not the great Masnick?

Anonymous Coward, Dec 1st, 2015 @ 1:24pm
Hey Mike, ever considered going through life not being a total douche?

RE: “We’re not liable for it. If you have any legitimate complaint at all (and you don’t), it’s with an anonymous user who posted a trivial comment three years ago, rather than us or Google.”

Under Australian law Google is liable.

RE: “Even if none of the above is true: what the fuck? NO ONE is finding a comment buried deep below a blog post about your legal victory and suddenly saying “oh, well that proves that Trkulja was a gangster.”

Well if the comment on the 2012 post wasn’t actionable this post and the comments most certainly are. Of course, it won’t cost Techdirt anything. Trkulja will just sue Google. That is a real responsible way to put a case for free speech-not!

Just Another Australian Observer says:

Re: Techdirt is lining Trkulja's pockets

To AO

Why is comment 35 ‘flagged’? Does freedom of speech only extend to mere mortals, not the great Masnick?

Cause, those who flagged don’t want to listen to the ravings. That is their freedom of speech. Has nothin to do with TechDirt. You can still read the post as it is just been hidden not removed.

JAAO

That Anonymous Coward (profile) says:

1 – Do we understand why I call them odd little upside down people now? While there are exceptions, OHAI G!, there appear to be more nutters there.

2 – Mike tweeted about a threat, I jokingly replied but managed to foresee this coming from Oz. Imagine my shock she wasn’t the source but somehow still involved.

3 – Anyone else shocked to see Duffys name attached? IIRC there was talk about her working with someone offering reputation management services one might think that she is using her “win” to drum up more people to hop on the bandwagon and publicize any “results” as evidence she is vindicated once again and you can be to for a fee.

We are going to end up seeing more and more of this type of stupid. RTBF is gaining traction because people only want the world to have a carefully curated view of them, altering reality to make that happen. With everyone “googlestalking” everyone else for jobs, relationships, etc. there is this cottage industry in trying to get things removed about past “indiscretions” ignoring that it would be far more useful to do good moving forward and not keep highlighting that past issue over & over & over. In obsessing over that, they do new things that get reported on and focus more views on the past they fighter harder to hide, drawing more attention to the past, so they fight harder to hide, drawing more attention…

I’m not proud of everything in my past, but I don’t spend my time trying to make reality blackhole it. I do however judge people who find a bad event on my timeline to obsess over it while ignoring everything else. Judge me on my worst day, you’re not worth my time… and it is your loss to pass me over, because I am so much more. Shame these people seem to let 1 event define them & refuse to move on.

Whatever (profile) says:

Great story, but a couple of points:

The lack of a “presence” in Australia isn’t exactly a defense. As your website is made available to Australian people, there is always a chance that a court will still find that you can fall under their laws in certain circumstances. This argument could be strengthened if it could be shown that your gear shop sold t-shirts or access to Australians (ie, you did business with Australians in Australia).

Also, the argument about who published the comment would be on your side if you are in the US (because of Safe Harbour) but may not hold legal water outside of the US.

I don’t think this guy has a legal chance in hell, but then again, how many people have won against Google?

btr1701 (profile) says:

Re: Judgement

there is always a chance that a court will still find that you can fall under their
> laws in certain circumstances

That’s why Masnick cited the SPEECH Act. Our Congress passed a law protecting us from judgements in foreign courts for speech that would be protected by the 1st Amendment if “spoken” here in the US.

So yes, an Australian court might find in favor of this Trkulja idiot and award him damages, but that judgement would have no legal effect in the US and he would never be able to collect it.

Whatever (profile) says:

Re: Re: Judgement

Yes, but when it comes to the internet, international law is still in it’s formative years. While I think Techdirt is correct to tell him to pound sad, some of the defensive points raised may not hold water on a site that markets and sells access and gear to Australians.

I don’t think it would happen, but smugly standing behind US laws isn’t the safest bet. Being right and being able to prove it would be better. Since the Australian courts have already sided with this guy once against one of the biggest companies in the world, he may in fact have enough of a case to work it.

btr1701 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Judgement

but smugly standing behind US laws isn’t the safest bet.

Again, I will point out that even if he prevails in Australia and obtains a judgement, that’s only half the battle. A foreign judgement must be submitted to a US court for enforcement and collection. In this case, if he submits his foreign judgement, the US court will rule it’s unenforceable per the SPEECH Act and he will be left with no way to legally collect his money from the US resident/citizen.

G Thompson (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Judgement

Here read this article by an eminent Australian QC on why Australian defamation laws are absolutely not going to be allowed under your Speech Act because there are NON, NADA, ZIP protections for publishers in any way shape or form in this regard. No s230 counterpart or anything..

Trkulja is in the Aussie vernacular.. ‘pissing up a rope’

btr1701 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

It’s called the internet. The website is not specifically blocked in Australia,
> thus it is available to Australian people.

Putting a website up on the internet does not make me subject to the laws of every nation from which it can be viewed.

If it did, I could be prosecuted by Germany for putting a swastika on a web page; I could be prosecuted by Saudi Arabia for blasphemy if I say Islam isn’t the one true religion; I could be prosecuted by the UK for “being racially offensive” for cracking an off-color joke.

I don’t lose the my right to free speech in this country merely because I conduct my speech on the internet.

Milorad Trkulja (user link) says:

I admit it all

My name is Milorad Trkulja and I am a Melbourne gangster and criminal who likes to extort money by suing search engines for defamation.

I also like to con lawyers out of money by not paying them legal fees which I get from the search engines and pocket myself.

I will sue anyone who has money so don’t say anything nasty about me unless you are poor. I might even sue you anyway and take your house or car or your first born daughter if she is pretty and can earn a few dollars for me (he he he).

Speech Act doesn't apply (user link) says:

Nope, speech act doesn't apply

maybe to Techdirt but not if a corporation does business in Australia like Google

besides, they paid him once if the media is correct

I’m no lawyer but I think that is why Google didn’t file a notice of acting in his latest court case but unless they file he is entitled to a summary judgment and if they don’t pay and the media get a hold of it Google will look very bad especially since they don’t pay their fair share of tax here

safe to say you lot have fixed the problems of time limitation and one little comment in the above because this is now on the front page of a search for his name

well done

That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: Nope, speech act doesn't apply

safe to say you lot have fixed the problems of time limitation and one little comment in the above because this is now on the front page of a search for his name

If they didn’t want the matter to be front and center all over again, then they shouldn’t have sent laughable legal threats/demands to a site known for making legal threats against them public. Five minutes of research could have saved them from shooting their own foot, but as it stands they get to enjoy the crowd, and they have no-one to blame but themself.

Ryunosuke says:

Lets all jump on this bandwagon

Milorad Trkulja – How do you even pronounce this name, but that aside, I think we should all say Milorad Trkulja as much as possible in relation to this article because Milorad Trkulja is an asshat. Let’s totally screw up google’s search and totally go full Streisand effect on Milorad Trkulja and possible some other words in the same post and comments. Milorad Trkulja obviously does not know (at least US) law and the ridiculousness of Milorad Trkulja tops some of the claims by our own Govt officials.

However, Milorad Trkulja. Just because I Milorad Trkulja is just a weird name and should be at the top of ANY google search result.

Roaming Aussie (user link) says:

Whatever he/she said

Re: Whatever he/she said

Whatever raises good points. It is never a good strategy for a pawn to put the King in danger because that has a way of coming back to bite.

The blog post and comment that is the subject of this article may not succeed in a defamation court but this one certainly will. Since it is on page 1 of Google and read by Australians Trkulja arguably has a good case and is probably printing it all out as each comment is posted with one hand and using a calculator to add up damages with the other.

Australia has a cap on defamation damages but the legal costs from Trkulja’s recent win and that of the other recent Australian case must be into 7 figures.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/vic/VSC/2015/635.html?stem=0&synonyms=0&query=Trkulja

Then of course there is the ‘saving face’ and ‘plugging the leak’ issue for Google in not only Australia but in the rest of the common law countries.

Techdirt may think in can afford not to care because of the communications decency and the libel tourism acts but a recent US decision in a case against that infamous website RipoffReport.com found against the website due to the way that it solicits content.

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2428558/vision-security-v-xcentric-ventures.pdf

The castle is no longer so secure.

It is not smart to be a pawn that opens the castle gates to an enemy for its own amusement and compromises the King’s position.

G Thompson (profile) says:

Re: Re: Whatever he/she said

>>What, pray tell, in the blog post is defamatory?

As far as I can tell, nothing at all..

Though the Victorian Supreme Court in regards to Defamation cases could read (and normally do) totally different.

Though as your learned counsel would no doubt explain to you (waves at Marc) this whole post is actually nice, succinct and could probably do with more snark. 🙂

Not unlike the defense pleading in this recent Queensland (another state of Australia) case of defamation where the plaintiff lost.. [ here’s the article] [here’s the hilarious defense pleading(pdf).. I lost it at “BS reality” in headings]

Though this from the judgement shows that the Streisand Effect is also alive and well in Oz too 😉

“The plaintiff also seeks vindication through an award of damages for the so called “grapevine effect” which concerns the natural and probable result of the original publication… The plaintiff points to the fact that after he filed his claim the matter was referred to in newspaper reports, professional journals and on a website that has a received more than 4000 hits. He says he is devastated and humiliated by these developments. In this case the “grapevine effect” is limited because, as noted earlier, the circumstances of the original publication were such that the natural and probable result was that it would be confined to the plaintiff, Sally and Jarrad.

It was the plaintiff who, by making the claim, called in an airstrike on his own position.[emphasis added]”

G Thompson (profile) says:

Re: Re:

This is an interesting statement on his behalf, and leads one to make interesting hypothesis about collusion between two separate parties that absolutely have axes to grind towards Google et.al.

I wonder what Ms Duffy’s response to this factoid is.

Note: it could be totally Bullshit and/or quite innocent. But hey if it looks like a duck etc.. etc.. (it’s probably made of wood)

G Thompson (profile) says:

It seems that Mr Trjulja went and saw “The Senior Australian Defamation QC” (what ever the flying fuck that is) who advised him that [at 17] “the posting is of and concerning to my reputation” (sidenote: any SC/QC who is advising a client, especially considering the barrister/solicitor structure, of this specificity needs to be instantly slapped with an ethics violation and/or struck off)

Maybe he should of seen a real one first. I don’t know maybe one who is actually a QC, a member of the Victorian Bar, a Senior Fellow of the Melbourne Law School. Who is also the esteemed author of three editions of The Law of Defamation and the Internet (2001, 2005 and 2010) and of Collins on Defamation (2014) which are tomes used by all Australian solicitors, law schools, and barristers.

Maybe the same one who just recently (27th November 2015) wrote this article about ‘Paddling in the backwater: Australian courts and online defamation

Personally I love this line:

Defamation judgments from Australian courts are unenforceable in almost all circumstances in the United States.

Maybe Mr Trkulja should take that advise and not be thought of absolutely as a complete and blithering moronic egotist who has a few kangaroos loose in his top paddock by all and sundry WORLDWIDE now.

Oh and Milorad, or Michael, or as I now will call you “Wanna be yobbo”… I’m Aussie.. bring it on 😉

JustMe (profile) says:

I complains!

“Hat you will forthwith” continue “Posting Permanently” these amusing pieces! I would have actually enjoyed reading a full and lengthy response, but I had fun with this one.

Re: Comment 35. It was flagged by the community, not by Mike or his team, because it adds nothing to the discussion. Insult Mike all you want but don’t complain when people downmod the comment.

Monday (profile) says:

WTF indeed.

what the fuck?” indeed.

David Bowie wrote as Tin Machine something something about shit… oh yeah, I can’t read shit anymore, and well, I couldn’t. I couldn’t get through #4 because this thug can’t FUCKING SPELL let alone check his grammar.

I also think that if Anonymous Coward is going to ruin it for everyone else, you should ban this member, give the aforementioned member the door prize and hand Him (the Royal sense) over to the Gangster because the thug is really s̶e̶r̶i̶a̶l̶, I mean really serious and knows the law really really awesomely – I got all tingly like just reading his first veiled threats….

I wouldn’t want to be in TechDirt‘s shoes right now, ‘cuz that’s like one of the more serious takedowns threats I’ve seen posted here.

So, what is TechDirt going to do about this Gangster and his threats? Do you think he means to cause physical harm? 😀

David M says:

Oh god not THIS guy!!

He tried to sue me and my message forum a few years ago when someone was talking about him. The guy said that just calling someone something does not make it true and then called this asshat a “free-ranged chicken” because obviously that made it true.

He then tried to sue us for calling him a free ranged chicken.

I told him to pound sand and have never heard from him again.

oh god not you too (user link) says:

Re: Oh god not THIS guy!!

“He tried to sue me and my message forum a few years ago when someone was talking about him. The guy said that just calling someone something does not make it true and then called this asshat a “free-ranged chicken” because obviously that made it true”.

Yes, he tried the same thing with me – trying to sue because of something I said that wasn’t even directed at him.

So since Techdirt will protect me let me say what I really think!

Milorad Trkulja is lower than a snakes asshole and makes up defamation cases, doesn’t pay his lawyers, and then tries to deny that he is a criminal. Well extortion is criminal and that is what he does – extorts money out of unsuspecting and innocent people.

I bet his pal Duffy is not much better and is trying to extort Google.

The both should be locked up for their crimes.

Darren M. Meade (profile) says:

DUFFY DID ATTEMPT TO EXTORT GOOGLE WITH HER BUSINESS PARTNER MICHAEL ROBERTS

To be clear this is nothing personal against Janice Duffy There’s no hate, no call for violence Nothing of the sort It is simply the calling out of a painfully misguided woman whose vision of the internet, hacking & free speech—at best—insane. And—at worst—dangerous, although she really needs to go on a diet.

Here is a link to when her business partner DBA Page1me, Badforpeople, Ripoff Report Victims, Rexxfield , Authorized Statement

Attempted to get Google to pay them for an SQL hack.

https://www.slideshare.net/darrenmeade1/google-tip-off-offer-deadline

http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2012/01/20/google-cide-online-reputation-managers-can-wipe-from-web.html

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...