Lawyer Trying To Trademark Bitcoin Threatens Techdirt With Bogus DMCA Takedown

from the no-monkeys-this-time dept

I guess if you're already trying to misuse trademark law, why not also experiment with misusing copyright law? Divorce & criminal law attorney Michael Pascazi was recently featured on these pages for his highly questionable attempt to trademark "Bitcoin," despite the word being in common usage around the world without any connection to Pascazi. Pascazi jumped into our comments with an extremely dubious explanation for his actions, which was quickly responded to by an actual IP attorney who told him he was wrong. Either way, we had a second post discussing Pascazi's reasoning, and why we believed his trademark theories were incorrect. Pascazi, once again, chose to engage in our comments, somewhat mockingly.

That all took place on July 7th & 8th. Apparently, over that weekend, Pascazi decided he wasn't happy with our reporting or how those discussions went, and decided that he was going to misuse copyright law to try to cause some trouble for us. He sent both us and our webhost a DMCA takedown notice demanding that we take down his "copyrighted works" that were posted on our site (despite the fact that the content he's claiming copyright over isn't actually hosted on our, or our web host's, servers -- a slight technical detail that would be obvious to most observers looking at the page). Actually, he goes a bit further than that, trying weakly to extend the DMCA and copyright law to act as a censor for content he apparently does not like:
I request that you immediately take down the offending works [and] issue a cancellation message for the specified postings...
And what are these "offending works?" Well, looking at the DMCA notice (full notice embedded below), he appears to be claiming that both the header and the footer from his law firm's legal correspondence, as well as the header of Magellan Capital Advisors LLC, are copyrights held by him. If you don't recall, Magellan Capital Advisors was supposedly Pascazi's "client," in the attempt to trademark Bitcoin, and a letter sent from Magellan with the header in question was available on the USPTO website as Pascazi's "evidence" for Magellan's use of "Bitcoin" in commerce. You can see this part of the DMCA notice identifying "the works" here:
Yes, Pascazi appears to be threatening us with a copyright infringement claim for posting two documents on corporate stationery of firms he apparently controls, in which he claims copyright over the headers and (with his law firm) footer of that stationery. I do wonder if the content presented is even copyrightable at all, and whether or not Pascazi has bothered to register them. Most of the header and footer appears to be made up entirely of factual information for which there is no copyright. I certainly don't see enough originality in the content or the presentation to establish a valid copyright. There are the logos in the headers to each page, but one would think that would be covered by trademark, rather than copyright, and there's clearly no violation of trademarks in accurately showing the logo of companies we are discussing.

Even if, somehow, somewhere, Pascazi can get a legitimate copyright on the content in question, he still has no valid legal claim against us. Considering Mr. Pascazi's somewhat confused take on trademark law when it came to Bitcoin, I'm wondering if Mr. Pascazi is simply unfamiliar with the very basics of fair use within copyright law -- and the fact fair use must be taken into account before issuing a DMCA takedown notice.

Needless to say, we believe that we are not infringing the "works" in question in any way, shape or form (and even question whether or not there's a valid copyright at all here) and will not be taking them down, despite Mr. Pascazi's attempt to bully us with a blatant legal threat in the form of a DMCA takedown message. Our lawyer is currently in touch with Pascazi and has been trying to explain all of this to him, while reviewing the potential problems one might face when issuing a bogus DMCA takedown. Since we don't suffer bullying lightly, we also wanted to post this info publicly, so people are aware of what's going on.

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • icon
    Harrekki (profile), 19 Jul 2011 @ 11:13am

    Come on, Pascazi.....

    Dare ya to post something now :)

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 19 Jul 2011 @ 11:14am

    Our lawyer is currently in touch with Pascazi and has been trying to explain all of this to him

    If even half of this is true, and I don't doubt that it all is, he sounds like the kinda guy you couldn't convince the sky was blue.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Ikarushka (profile), 19 Jul 2011 @ 11:15am

    That's one of those shitty logos those who have no taste whatsoever put on their stationary. No surprise they can't secure serious clients. To my observation absence of taste in logos comes together with overall unprofessionalism of an "enterprise".

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    John William Nelson (profile), 19 Jul 2011 @ 11:16am

    We need a few good test cases for going after attorneys fees

    The DMCA has a remedy for folks who have to deal with false DMCA takedowns. It doesn't get used enough, I think. Damages plus attorney fees are nothing to sneeze at.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 19 Jul 2011 @ 1:09pm

      Re: We need a few good test cases for going after attorneys fees

      Which makes Captn. Patent, wonder if he's also versed in the dark art of bankruptcy law? ...

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Poster, 19 Jul 2011 @ 11:18am

    Hmm. Sounds like somebody needs a good SLAPP in the face.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 19 Jul 2011 @ 11:23am

    18 USC § 512(f)

    18 USC §512:
    (f) Misrepresentations.— Any person who knowingly materially misrepresents under this section—
    (1) that material or activity is infringing, or
    (2) that material or activity was removed or disabled by mistake or misidentification,

    shall be liable for any damages, including costs and attorneys’ fees, incurred by the alleged infringer, by any copyright owner or copyright owner’s authorized licensee, or by a service provider, who is injured by such misrepresentation, as the result of the service provider relying upon such misrepresentation in removing or disabling access to the material or activity claimed to be infringing, or in replacing the removed material or ceasing to disable access to it.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Designerfx (profile), 19 Jul 2011 @ 11:28am

      Re: 18 USC § 512(f)

      yeah, but nobody's willing to sue for copyfraud, even though that's what this is.

      proof again that people expect others to just magically buckle with the slightest of legal threads.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      ComputerAddict (profile), 19 Jul 2011 @ 11:42am

      Re: 18 USC § 512(f)

      The problem lies here:
      Any person who knowingly materially misrepresents under this section
      This guy truly thinks he holds exclusive rights over the mere mention of anything he says or does.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        chris (profile), 19 Jul 2011 @ 12:06pm

        Re: Re: 18 USC § 512(f)

        This guy truly thinks he holds exclusive rights over the mere mention of anything he says or does.

        so ignorance of the law is no excuse, but delusion is a valid defense?

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Nicedoggy, 19 Jul 2011 @ 12:15pm

        Re: Re: 18 USC § 512(f)

        The other part says "or by mistake", if he put out that claim and it is found to be in error he will be liable for damages.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          ComputerAddict (profile), 19 Jul 2011 @ 1:23pm

          Re: Re: Re: 18 USC § 512(f)

          " was removed or disabled by mistake or misidentification"

          IANAL, but I dont think sect B really apply here since the content was never "removed or disabled". If mike wants a bigger payout he'd need to turn those posts off.

          It actually sounds like if the content provider disabled the wrong article/video/content then the content provider is liable for damages against that copyright holder.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Robert Doyle (profile), 19 Jul 2011 @ 2:26pm

        Re: Re: 18 USC § 512(f)

        Were I in court with this idiot I would feel obliged to point out to the judge that this person passed the same bar examine he did - which would be considered an institutional requirement of knowledge. We don't let doctors say 'oops, I didn't know you need oxygen to live' so why should we let lawyers say 'oops, I thought I knew the law.'

        "My bad" isn't a valid excuse for this kind of action.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          btr1701 (profile), 19 Jul 2011 @ 3:54pm

          Re: Re: Re: 18 USC § 512(f)

          > Were I in court with this idiot I would feel
          > obliged to point out to the judge that this
          > person passed the same bar examine he did -
          > which would be considered an institutional
          > requirement of knowledge.

          The ABA Canon of Ethics requires attorneys to verify all legal claims by researching the relevant law before sending demand letters, filing claims, arguing cases, etc.

          It's per se malpractice not to.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 19 Jul 2011 @ 1:02pm

      Re: 18 USC § 512(f)

      So he is either committing a crime by falsely reporting Tech Dirt or he doesn't understand the law he is trying to apply. Aren't either of these grounds for disbarment in New York state?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 19 Jul 2011 @ 11:24am

    An image can be simultaneously protected by copyright and TM

    FYI

    I'm by no means commenting on the merits of Pascazi's claims or whether the logos themselves are actually copyrightable, but the fact that they might be protected by TM doesn't foreclose them from being protected by copyright law.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Mike Masnick (profile), 19 Jul 2011 @ 11:33am

      Re: An image can be simultaneously protected by copyright and TM

      As has been pointed out elsewhere, it appears the logo of the law firm comes from istockphoto: http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-9874330-lady-of-justice.php

      Meaning it's unlikely that he holds the copyright interest here.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 19 Jul 2011 @ 11:44am

        Re: Re: An image can be simultaneously protected by copyright and TM

        As I said, I was not offering an opinion on whether the logos are actually copyrighted or copyrightable.

        I was responding to the following sentence in your post that seemed to suggest that the fact that something might be protected by TM might preclude its having copyright protection:

        There are the logos in the headers to each page, but one would think that would be covered by trademark, rather than copyright, and there's clearly no violation of trademarks in accurately showing the logo of companies we are discussing.


        Not trying to be snarky...just pointing out something that is somewhat of a popular misconception.

        My favorite part about this guy is the fact that his law firm's website has page devoted to "World Time Clocks" lol -- http://www.pascazilaw.com/World_Time_Clocks.html

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Capitalist Lion Tamer (profile), 19 Jul 2011 @ 11:51am

          Re: Re: Re: An image can be simultaneously protected by copyright and TM

          Well, for what it's worth, Magellan doesn't have any valid trademarks associated with it, or for that matter, any copyright claim either as far as this search shows:

          http://www.seravia.com/trademarks/world?r=1&q=o%3A%22magellan+capital+advisors+llc%22+ magellan+capital+advisors+llc

          Here's more on the abandoned trademark (which has no ship in it):

          http://www.trademarkia.com/magellan-capital-77155490.html

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            John William Nelson (profile), 19 Jul 2011 @ 11:58am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: An image can be simultaneously protected by copyright and TM

            Trademarks need not be registered to be valid. There are two types: registered and common law. (Plus a third, registration on the secondary register, but it operates like common law.)

            But there are more reasons why Trademark is not an issue. See my comment on the difference between trademarks and copyright below (or above, if viewing non-threaded comments).

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 19 Jul 2011 @ 12:26pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: An image can be simultaneously protected by copyright and TM

            Neither copyrights nor trademarks need to be registered to be valid.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          HothMonster, 19 Jul 2011 @ 12:29pm

          Re: Re: Re: An image can be simultaneously protected by copyright and TM

          wow that site is just too much. The basic, i am still learning html style, frames. That fuzzy ass logo in the corner which looks like an out of focus picture from a 1 megapixel cell phone camera is great. Ugly ass background with too much contrast between the white center that bothers the eye. The picture of him with the american flag background is priceless. Do you think parcazi had his nephew design the site or was it like a 9th grade class project? I mean what kind of budget do you think he had for that site 3 dollars? He does seem to spend a pretty penny to get positive reviews posted on yahoo and the like.

          I see the law firm has managed to submit 6 articles for publication in the last 5 years, so bravo on that.=

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          BearGriz72 (profile), 19 Jul 2011 @ 8:38pm

          Re: Re: Re: An image can be simultaneously protected by copyright and TM

          ROFLMAO
          Asset Protection - Offshore Activities

          Pascazi Law Offices has a Special Interest in Asset Protection, Offshore Banking,
          Offshore Entity Formation, U.S. Reporting Compliance, and Defense of IRS, and U.S.
          Department of Justice Criminal & Civil Investigations and Prosecutions.
          +2 Scammer rating right there!

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          nasch (profile), 20 Jul 2011 @ 9:48am

          Re: Re: Re: An image can be simultaneously protected by copyright and TM

          "I was responding to the following sentence in your post that seemed to suggest that the fact that something might be protected by TM might preclude its having copyright protection:

          'There are the logos in the headers to each page, but one would think that would be covered by trademark, rather than copyright, and there's clearly no violation of trademarks in accurately showing the logo of companies we are discussing.' "

          The sentence you quoted doesn't actually say that things can't be covered by both trademark and copyright. It simply says that this particular thing might be covered by trademark, but probably not copyright.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        ChurchHatesTucker (profile), 19 Jul 2011 @ 11:47am

        Re: Re: An image can be simultaneously protected by copyright and TM

        Wow. Remind me not to use istockphoto. Those are terrible.

        I mean, "My niece has an artistic flair" terrible.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        NotMyRealName (profile), 19 Jul 2011 @ 12:59pm

        Re: Re: An image can be simultaneously protected by copyright and TM

        Is it just me or is the cropping of
        http://www.pascazilaw.com/sitebuilder/images/Courtroom_Photo-150x110.jpg
        on the main page suspiciously close to the watermark on the original, stock, image?
        http://www.jupiterimages.com/Image/royaltyFree/78431481#Header

        just thought I'd point out a little hypocrisy...
        lets see how long it stays like that now:)

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      John William Nelson (profile), 19 Jul 2011 @ 11:56am

      Re: An image can be simultaneously protected by copyright and TM

      You're right, but copyright protection works in different ways than trademark protection. Disney has a trademark on the word Disney. However, I can write the word Disney all I want and it won't violate trademark.

      If I start trying to sell something using Disney to identify my business or product, then I run into problems. This is because trademark protects source identification, it doesn't protect expression.

      I've written about the unique nature of trademark law as the consumer's IP law here: http://www.lextechnologiae.com/2010/11/07/the-consumers-ip-law-a-review-of-trademarks/

      I've also written in-depth on the trademarking process in a TLDR post on the Bitcoin trademark issue here: http://www.lextechnologiae.com/2011/07/15/bitcoins-trademarks-and-a-roadmap-for-the-bitcoin-communit y/

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Richard (profile), 19 Jul 2011 @ 12:49pm

      Re: An image can be simultaneously protected by copyright and TM

      but the fact that they might be protected by TM doesn't foreclose them from being protected by copyright law.

      Generally speaking things that are snappy enough to be covered by trademark are regarded as too small for copyright - so, although technically things could be covered by both , in practice they are usually mutually exclusive - see for example this UK FAQ

      Logos couldbe covered by both - but the logo here is a stock image.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    ClarkeyBalboa (profile), 19 Jul 2011 @ 11:24am

    Good on ya Mike for not backing down, and for posting this for everyone to see. When dealing with bullies, going public can be a great way to shut down their tactics.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 19 Jul 2011 @ 12:22pm

      Re:

      Soon he will be able to replace CwF stuff with "PfmL" (Pay for my Lawyers). Mike does seem to be racking up a fair bit of legal flack right now, one or the other will take him to court and leave him whining for a lack on money to work with.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Dave, 19 Jul 2011 @ 1:36pm

        Re: Re:

        You inadvertantly make a huge point against copyright here. Even if the claims are completely groundless it still takes money to fight them. Or are you suggesting that the standard practice when faced with abuse is to just roll over and take it?

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          ClarkeyBalboa (profile), 19 Jul 2011 @ 2:24pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Just another thing that is wrong with the current system. It can be incredibly expensive for the average person to defend themselves in court, so lawsuits can become a very powerful tool for lawyers or monied people/corporations to leverage against the average joe.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Nicedoggy, 19 Jul 2011 @ 9:08pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            That is why if justice is about justice and fairness, all expenses should be calculate as a percentage of ones income and not fixed at a price point, so if it is hard for the little people it will be hard for the people with lots of money.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        btrussell (profile), 19 Jul 2011 @ 1:45pm

        Re: Re:

        An Industry that is flourishing without the protections of copyright.

        Wait....What?

        Is this a precedent?

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        techflaws.org (profile), 19 Jul 2011 @ 10:01pm

        Re: Re:

        one or the other will take him to court and leave him whining for a lack on money to work with

        Which is as convincing as AC's weak attempts at trolling, LOL.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Gwiz (profile), 20 Jul 2011 @ 9:22am

        Re: Re:

        Soon he will be able to replace CwF stuff with "PfmL" (Pay for my Lawyers). Mike does seem to be racking up a fair bit of legal flack right now, one or the other will take him to court and leave him whining for a lack on money to work with.

        Your wishful musings are somewhat revealing about you.

        Thoughtful logic and common sense are the enemies of spin doctors everywhere. Is that why Mike and the popularity of this site scare you so much?

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Paul L (profile), 19 Jul 2011 @ 11:30am

    Oooh! He has a patent pending as well.

    "System and Apparatus for the Transmission of Cell to Cell
    Communications Utilizing the Internet"

    http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=/n etahtml/PTO/search-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PG01&s1=pascazi&OS=p ascazi&RS=pascazi

    Is he looking to break in to patent trolling as well?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Harrekki (profile), 19 Jul 2011 @ 11:58am

      Re:

      Femtocell?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Paul L (profile), 19 Jul 2011 @ 12:09pm

        Re: Re:

        There is a lot of prior art covering this that dates back far earlier than femtocell technology.

        This filing actually reminds me of the same type of shenanigans that's going on with the Bitcoin trademark.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 19 Jul 2011 @ 12:51pm

      Re:

      Most likely. I wonder how Microsoft would appreciate him trying to patent troll on their turf with their newly aquired skype, or any of the other app/smart phones that provide voip from your phone..... hmmmm

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      mantoast (profile), 19 Jul 2011 @ 4:11pm

      Re:

      His patent attempt has been rejected three different times for obviousness. Rather than re-write the claim to get past the prior art, He (or his lawyer) argue that, and i quote, "no suggestion to combine the references." What made that even more amusing beyond the incompetence of that argument is that the prior art cited actually disclosed that something similar to the second piece of cited prior art may be used.
      While I am not a lawyer, I have been involved in the patent process for several years now. His attempt to get his patent through is laughable and most likely futile. hmmm, just like his bitcoin gambit.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 19 Jul 2011 @ 11:31am

    God it's nice to see a company that doesn't just back down when facing the threat of legal action. Mike is always posting about people settling because it is a lot easier than fighting. I'm glad that when he is faced with similar threats that he stands for what he believes in. Bravo!

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    A.R.M. (profile), 19 Jul 2011 @ 11:33am

    TD's looking at this from the wrong perspective. It's now $1500 richer, right? This the statute awarded for false DMCA take-down notices.

    Though, good luck trying to collect. Consider it a donation of education.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 19 Jul 2011 @ 11:36am

    "There are the logos in the headers to each page, but one would think that would be covered by trademark, rather than copyright"

    Unfortunately, one is often wrong.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Mike Masnick (profile), 19 Jul 2011 @ 11:39am

      Re:

      Unfortunately, one is often wrong.


      Again, I find it difficult to see how there's a copyright interest there, especially as at least one logo is from a stock photo site (and is still available for licensing), and I wouldn't be surprised to discover the other one is as well.

      The point stands. I doubt there's any copyright here.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 19 Jul 2011 @ 11:45am

        Re: Re:

        It didn't seem obvious to me which (or that any of) the images on the link you posted earlier were the same as the lady justice logo.

        Anyway, he may or may not own a copyright in any of the material for one reason or another, but "trademark rather than copyright" certainly isn't that reason.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 19 Jul 2011 @ 11:58am

          Re: Re: Re:

          It's a good thing Intellectual Property laws aren't confusing or else we would have a real mess on our hands.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Hephaestus (profile), 19 Jul 2011 @ 11:39am

    Have you sent this to http://www.chillingeffects.org/ yet?? Also what is the other site of bogus DMCA takedowns?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Jesse (profile), 19 Jul 2011 @ 11:41am

    Cyberbullying

    I think this counts more as cyberbullying than the traditional type.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Paul L (profile), 19 Jul 2011 @ 11:54am

    Mr Pascazi's history is most interesting...

    Michael Pascazi, a lawyer and entrepreneur from New York, has slapped telecom giant Verizon with a class-action lawsuit, seeking to claim a total of $US20 billion in damages for the firm's alleged violations of federal wiretapping laws. The lawsuit claims that the company collaborated with the US government to violate these laws by handing over personal phone data without obtaining search warrants.

    Laywer + Entrepreneur = Class Action Lawsuit

    So who is this Michael Pascazi? He was once president of a firm called Fiber Optek, which in 1999 won a US$4 million contract to construct a fiber-optic infrastructure along from Hartford, Connecticut to Springfield, Massachusetts. Fiber Optek attempted to purchase the failed Global Crossing company in 2002 before going bankrupt itself, a victim of the dotcom implosion. Pascazi went on to study law. He also claims to be starting a biotechnology company, although details about this are scarce.

    Source: http://arstechnica.com/old/content/2006/02/6222.ars

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 19 Jul 2011 @ 12:01pm

    Mike Masnick is clearly against America, and freedom.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Capitalist Lion Tamer (profile), 19 Jul 2011 @ 12:02pm

    Copyright?

    This is the only thing I can find linked to Michael S. Pascazi:

    http://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?SC=Author&SA=Pascazi%2C%20Michael%20S alvatore%2C%201960-&PID=JAoeuKW3J7MNolEfDWxmIpAjnI5p&BROWSE=1&HC=1&SID=6

    It's a market analyzer written in BASIC. From 1982.

    I can't find anything else under Pascazi Law or Magellan Capital Advisors. Magellan brings up the phone book and Pascazi Law draws a qualified blank.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 19 Jul 2011 @ 12:03pm

    The more he does, the more he makes a fool out of himself and shows how little he knows about the law. This lawyer should go back to the hole he came from, before he permanently destroys his career and reputation as a lawyer.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      HothMonster, 19 Jul 2011 @ 12:36pm

      Re:

      "This lawyer should go back to the hole he came from, before he permanently destroys his career and reputation as a lawyer."

      I think thats a good reason for him not to go back to his hole

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Spaceboy (profile), 19 Jul 2011 @ 12:12pm

    If he puts as much energy into his law firm as he does his website, he's about 10 years behind the curve.

    http://www.pascazilaw.com/

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Father Once Said, 19 Jul 2011 @ 12:19pm

    When I was in 3rd grade and I was getting picked on my father told me, "If someone pushes you, you push them back just hard enough that they won't want to push you again." After that I never had a problem with bullies again.

    Glad you had your lawyer "explain" the potential implications of issuing a false notice.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Pitabred (profile), 19 Jul 2011 @ 12:20pm

    Grammar nazi

    Totally off-topic (I have nothing to contribute to this discussion), but "stationery" and "stationary" are two separate things. One is a noun, the other is an adjective.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      :Lobo Santo (profile), 19 Jul 2011 @ 12:25pm

      Re: Grammar nazi

      So, is "my stationary stationery" is correct?

      '-P

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Gracey (profile), 19 Jul 2011 @ 12:29pm

        Re: Re: Grammar nazi

        No, "my stationery is stationary" would be correct (if you mean is my paper stable)

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          HothMonster, 19 Jul 2011 @ 12:42pm

          Re: Re: Re: Grammar nazi

          it could be "my stationary stationery never moves"

          the stationary stationmaster keeps my stationery stationary at his station.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            Richard (profile), 19 Jul 2011 @ 2:13pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Grammar nazi

            Stationary and stationery ARE essentially the same word. The use of stationery to denote paper products comes from the "London Company of Stationers" who sold paper (and later became printers and publishers) at fixed (stationary!) places in the vicinity of Old St Pauls Cathedral in the City of London.

            They are also the people who we have to "thank" for copyright!

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        rpstrong (profile), 20 Jul 2011 @ 7:38am

        Re: Re: Grammar nazi

        If you lay it down, and it lies there, then the stationery is stationary.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      David Muir (profile), 19 Jul 2011 @ 12:40pm

      Re: Grammar nazi

      The easy way to remember this: paper has an 'er' in it and stationery is the paper while stationary is the adjective for unmoving. Thus, 'my stationary stationery' is a valid phrase for your unmoving paper.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Mike Masnick (profile), 19 Jul 2011 @ 12:49pm

      Re: Grammar nazi

      Totally off-topic (I have nothing to contribute to this discussion), but "stationery" and "stationary" are two separate things. One is a noun, the other is an adjective

      Oops. Not so sure that's grammar, rather than spelling, but fair 'nuff. Fixed.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    John D (profile), 19 Jul 2011 @ 12:37pm

    Someone should sue him....

    I can name at least ten nail salons that use that exact font!

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 19 Jul 2011 @ 12:44pm

    Hmmm... IP lawyer vs Divorce lawyer... That should be as fun as Godzilla vs Mothra...

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Trails (profile), 19 Jul 2011 @ 12:45pm

    Gets Popcorn

    So Mike, you're going to be posting your lawyer's letter to him? This is like textual thunderdome, two lawyers enter, one lawyer leaves...

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    DandonTRJ (profile), 19 Jul 2011 @ 1:45pm

    I am never more proud of being a Techdirt reader than when you personally stand up to legal bullies. Good on ya', Mike.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Ryan, 19 Jul 2011 @ 2:44pm

    Would be funny if...

    This would be a lot funnier if he weren't wasting people's time and money with this crap in the middle of a financial crisis. I would be quite sad if he *ever* got another client. Caveat emptor, I guess.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    GeneralEmergency (profile), 19 Jul 2011 @ 3:27pm

    I feel sorry for Michael Pascazi.

    I just looked at his website.

    He must be blind or mentally impaired.

    Poor Michael.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Booshington Jones, 19 Jul 2011 @ 4:17pm

    Scroll all the way to the bottom ...

    For this particular gem.

    "Past performance is no guaranty of future success."

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 19 Jul 2011 @ 4:23pm

    A quick Google search shows other law firms that used the exact same template for their sites. My initial thought was that he used the Lady Justice logo from the template, but the istock photo is a closer match.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 19 Jul 2011 @ 4:29pm

    Sorry, been awhile since I've used HTML tags. Here's the (hopefully working) Google link.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    dacoinminster, 19 Jul 2011 @ 4:31pm

    Post official complaints

    His website says "Attorney Pascazi is a member of: The American Bar Association, The New York State
    Bar Association, and The Dutchess County Bar Association."

    If you want to do something, try complaining to each of these organizations about his behavior:

    http://www.nysba.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Contact_Us
    http://www.dutchesscountybar.o rg/contact

    http://www.americanbar.org/utility/about_the_aba/contact.html

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      The Devil's Coachman (profile), 20 Jul 2011 @ 5:35am

      Re: Post official complaints

      Why waste time complaining to the other crooks practicing law in NY? The best way to deal with attorney malfeasance is the Tony Soprano way. It always works. There is no appeals process. All outcomes are final. The cost is reasonable. The satisfaction is priceless.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    RickDC (profile), 19 Jul 2011 @ 4:35pm

    iStockPhoto

    I've just emailed iStockPhoto to ensure that Mr Pascazi has purchased the images in question - if you notice from the letterhead, the image has just been cutoff before the watermark.

    My guess is, sorry, my opinion (before I get accused of libel!) is they were borrowed from istockphoto without their permission.

    We'll have to wait and see!

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Paul L (profile), 20 Jul 2011 @ 6:17am

    Re: I'm a Scammer

    You forgot to mention that Jack Thompson was your hero.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 20 Jul 2011 @ 1:22pm

    After just reading these comments I would really like to know why he thought it would be a good idea to come at us, i mean really dude? A bunch of random people from the internet just took him down like 10 pegs. Got some serious butt hurt issues.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 21 Jul 2011 @ 3:24pm

    False DMCA takedowns can carry not only civil penalties, but also criminal ones. The notices are sent under penalty of perjury.

    http://targetlaw.com/consequences-of-filing-a-false-dmca-takedown-request

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Use markdown for basic formatting. HTML is no longer supported.
  Save me a cookie
Follow Techdirt
Insider Shop - Show Your Support!

Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.