Cheerleader Fraudulently Obtains Court Order To Scrub Web Of Her Boyfriend-Beating Past

from the stupid-web-tricks dept

Paul Levy has tracked down yet another abuse of the court system to illegitimately erase factual news articles from the internet. The person behind the bogusly-obtained court order is Megan Welter, who achieved national fame and national infamy within the space of a few days back in 2013.

The case that we just entered involves Megan Welter, a young woman who achieved a degree of publicity success in the summer of 2013 with the story of how an Iraq war veteran had become a cheerleader for the Arizona Cardinals football team. A few days later, she learned how fickle the media can be: it got its hands on a less flattering situation: in a fit of jealous rage at her boyfriend’s communication with one of his exes, Welter called the police claiming that he was abusing her physically. But when the police arrived, the boyfriend persuaded them, through cellphone video as well as Welter’s own on-the-scene admissions, that it was Welter herself who was the assailant. The upshot was that Welter was arrested and charged, and that story, based in part on the boyfriend’s statements to the police, received national coverage in the print and broadcast media, as well as on various sports-related blogs and web sites. Many of these sites carried bodycam video from the responding police, plus the cell phone video that the boyfriend provided to the police; a few even linked to a detailed police report describing Welter’s own self-incriminating statements.

Despite it being almost two years past the statute of limitations, Welter engaged the services of Kelly/Warner LLC to file a defamation lawsuit. The complaint [PDF] contains nothing but conclusory claims about the supposed libel. (Basically, “false statements were made and were false.”) The complaint was accompanied by a proposed injunction, which included a list [PDF] of 107 URLs –including YouTube videos and a variety of other websites — Welter wanted delisted. But Welter still needed somebody to trigger this judicially-abusive chain of events. She, along with her lawyer, leaned on the ex-boyfriend.

The proposed stipulation included a signature line for Ryan McMahon, Welter’s boyfriend on the day of the controversial incident, and a paragraph in which McMahon purported to “admit” that the statements about Welter attributed to him in the various news stories were false.

McMahon signed the form, possibly after being misled by Welter’s lawyer. (Levy notes her legal rep said he had an email chain showing McMahon’s voluntary and knowing participation in the lawsuit, but refused to turn it over to Levy.) Welter’s lawyer used this single signature to attempt to nuke 107 pieces of content not created by McMahon. Obviously, as Levy points out, the lawsuit wasn’t filed to get her ex-boyfriend to shut up. It was filed to whitewash the unpleasant parts of her recent history.

The way to accomplish this was through a tricky manipulation of the well-established principle that injunctive relief extends to the “agents” of an enjoined defendant and, indeed, to others who connive with the defendant to propagate his wrongdoing. The stipulated injunction included several prohibitions of publication by “defendant’s” agents — in context, the “defendant” was plainly McMahon – but it defined the term “agents” as including anybody whose publication was “enabling” the publication of the 98 online articles based in part on McMahon’s contemporaneous statements, as well as nine YouTube videos (most of which were copies of TV stories) identified in the complaint. Moreover, McMahon’s admission included the proposition that “all or substantially all of the statements made in URL’s are false and defamatory.” And on that basis, all of the defendants responsible for those online articles, as well as the “agents” as broadly defined, were commanded to take them down. […] And, just in case they did not comply with these orders, the order called for Google and other search engines to take the URL’s identified in the order out of its database so that the content would not be searchable (here, again, the basic element of the fraudulent Richart Ruddie orders).

Even though numerous websites (including ABC News, CBS News, Sports Illustrated, and USA Today) were claimed to have published defamatory material, not a single one was listed directly as a defendant. The filing insisted all of these well-known sites — most of them carrying writer bylines — are only referred to as “unidentifiable” Does.

This internet-nuking order [PDF] should never have made it past a judge. But it did. Now Levy has filed a motion to vacate [PDF] on behalf of Avvo, one of the 98 sites listed in the attachment to the proposed order. It points out several flaws in the complaint and injunction, the first of which is the obvious statute of limitations violation. Beyond that, the complaint has numerous fatal flaws, including its failure to show how statements made by her ex-boyfriend to the police are somehow false now that she wants them scrubbed from the internet.

It appears Judge Patricia Starr isn’t bothered by the plaintiff’s questionable legal tactics. The only thing she finds irritating is this case’s potential to add to her workload.

Since we filed the papers late yesterday, I received a recording of the telephonic hearing. That recording makes Judge Starr look even worse. The only reason she called the hearing, she said, was that she was worried that the terms of the stipulation could keep the case on her docket longer than it had to be; she wanted to know whether that problem could be fixed. And she wanted assurance that entry of the order would be the end of the case. She evinced no concern about the free speech rights of the absent defendants.

Worse, this free speech-ignoring injunction-granting came after hearing from the single named defendant, who contradicted the claims made in the lawsuit.

McMahon was on the telephone, and he said, toward the end of the very short hearing, “Even though she did these things, I really believe that everybody deserves a fresh start. And if it ever happened to me, I would want someone to do this for myself. So I am okay with that. I guess that I hope she learns her lesson, and she takes care of it and doesn’t do it again.” So this state court judge had no compunction about issuing a sweeping injunction against nearly a hundred absent defendants even though the individual defendant, appearing without counsel before her, contradicted the “admission” in the stipulation that the URL’s were entirely or mostly false by saying, “she did these things.”

The court system can be abused by disingenuous plaintiffs seeking to erase their web pasts, but it shouldn’t be encouraged by judges who suspect something is off, but are more interested in clearing their dockets.

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 “Cheerleader Fraudulently Obtains Court Order To Scrub Web Of Her Boyfriend-Beating Past”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
26 Comments
Roger Strong (profile) says:

Re: Re: Live, love, cheer!

feminist judge

Huh…?

By the normal "treats women as fellow human beings" definition, how is that a problem? Or if you subscribe to the alt-right mythical "feminazi" definition, got a citation?

You appear to think that being a female judge disqualifies one from judging cases involving a) men and b) women.

That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: America

… or make rulings that they want to see, as opposed to what the public wants or even what a more strict interpretation of the law might call for, safe in the knowledge that unless they really screw up they will keep their job.

It’s not quite as simple as ‘elected judges = bad judges’, as both elected and non hold the possibility of abuse of position.

Bruce C. says:

Re: Re: Re:2 America

Something in the middle would be an improvement: say appointed for life but subject to a recall petition and election. That way they’re pretty much independent of the popular clamor – at least until they do something that pisses someone off so much they’re willing to go through the recall process.

Of course, in the current political environment, everyone seems to be pissed off about everything, so maybe it wouldn’t be an improvement after all… At least judges are still subject to the same disbarment rules that lawyers are, so if they really, really screw things up, that’s another route.

garthpool (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 America

Here is one consequence of allowing lawyers to regulate themselves:

“Study after study has shown that the current rules for professional conduct are not enforced. Misconduct is rarely perceived. If perceived, it is not reported. If reported, it is not investigated. If investigated, violations are not found. If found, they are excused. If they are not excused, penalties are light. And if significant penalties are imposed, the lawyer soon returns to practice, in that state or another. Lawyers constantly condemn the failure of the criminal justice system to deter crime for precisely these reasons – because of its alleged indifference, procedural niceties, or excessive lenience. Indeed, we know that the efficacy of social control varies even more strongly with the likelihood of punishment than it does with the severity of the sanction. Yet on both counts, especially the former, the professional disciplinary system falls far below the wholly inadequate standards of the criminal law. Lawyers can hardly present their travesty of a penal system as an effective deterrent.”

[“Why Does the ABA Promulgate Ethical Rules?” by Richard L. Abel, Connell Professor of Law, University of California at Los Angeles School of Law, 59 Texas Law Review 639, 1981]

Jeff Watterson (profile) says:

RE Kelly Warner Law Firm

Great article Tim. We’ve covered this law firm on a number of articles and have reason to believe that Megan Welter is the victim of their legal malpractice.

Please note these articles that outline some of the other issues that the lawfirm is facing:

http://usaherald.com/judge-colleen-french-maricopa-county-defrauded-attorney-aaron-kelly/

http://usaherald.com/arizona-attorney-daniel-warner-investigation-alleged-legal-fraud/

http://usaherald.com/aaron-kelly-law-firm-resorts-attacking-former-client-kellywarnerlaw-com-pattern-recognized/

We’ve created a petition to stop this law firm from committing any future legal fraud on the courts, please sign and share: https://www.change.org/p/arizona-bar-association-disbar-attorney-aaron-kelly-and-attorney-daniel-warner

That One Guy (profile) says:

Just quit

That recording makes Judge Starr look even worse. The only reason she called the hearing, she said, was that she was worried that the terms of the stipulation could keep the case on her docket longer than it had to be; she wanted to know whether that problem could be fixed. And she wanted assurance that entry of the order would be the end of the case. She evinced no concern about the free speech rights of the absent defendants.

I get that judges can be swamped with cases and might want to get through them quickly, but when they reach the point where their only concern is to clear cases off the dockets as quickly as possible, ignoring what those cases actually are or the damage they stand to cause, I think it’s time for them to look for another job.

Judges hold important positions in the legal system, with matching power that can easily cause harm. When one of them reaches the point where they don’t seem to care what harm might be caused by their actions they are no longer fit for the job, and need to step down and let someone else do it.

David says:

Everybody deserves a fresh start?

Even though she did these things, I really believe that everybody deserves a fresh start. And if it ever happened to me, I would want someone to do this for myself.

Uh, what? I think this judge deserves a fresh start on studying law. She seems to have forgotten that her job is to rule according to law, not according to her beliefs and wants. And "I would want someone to do this for myself": does she consider herself a judge or a hitman? She is not supposed to be doing things for people she sympathises with. That may, at times, align with her job. But it’s not her job.

Anonymous Coward says:

I seem to recall the story of a marine who complained to his superiors about spousal abuse, only to be laughed at. He later killed his wife, and no one is laughing now. Then again some guys and girls get turned on by such abuse, until it goes to far. If violence committed by this female causes her maiming or death, or that of another, the judge should need counsel.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published.

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...