Recent Law School Grad Sues Twitter Because Someone Made A Parody Twitter Account

from the it's-a-feelony! dept

Another day, another wacky legal complaint. This one, first spotted by Eric Goldman was filed by a recent law school grad, Tiffany Dehen. She's fairly upset that someone set up a parody Twitter account pretending to be her that portrayed her in an unflattering light. So she has sued. For $100 million. And she's not just suing the "John Doe" behind the account... but also Twitter. Oh, and also the University of San Diego, because she's pretty sure that someone there is responsible for this account (she just graduated from USD's law school). Oh, and according to the exhibits that Dehen put in her own lawsuit, the account is labeled as a parody account.

The lawsuit... well... it doesn't reflect well on the University of San Diego law school and its ability to prepare lawyers. I don't know if the law school didn't teach Ms. Dehen about California's anti-SLAPP law, but she's likely about to get a quick post-graduate lesson about it. I won't even get into the reasons why this is unlikely to be defamation (parody, people, parody...), but the fact that Twitter and USD are included... is pretty nutty. Twitter will get out of the case pretty damn easily under Section 230 (does the University of San Diego law school not teach Section 230?!?). And, of course, there's this, which kind of speaks for itself:

If you can't read that, it says:

Additionally, it should be noted that Tiffany Dehen's real twitter account consists of posts supporting the elected President of the United States, not Adolf Hitler, the socialist communist dictator from Germany. The fact that John Doe used Tiffany Dehen's real name and linked the fictitious Twitter account to Tiffany Dehen's real name and linked the fictitious Twitter account to Tiffany Dehen's real account by retweeting Tiffany Dehen's posts shows that John Doe acted with actual malice and negligence.

Huh? I'm still stumbling over "socialist communist" that I'm already having difficulty figuring out how parodying someone is proof of "actual malice and negligence."

As for Twitter's involvement, here's what Dehen thinks makes Twitter liable:

Plaintiff requests to enjoin Twitter, Inc, jointly and severally, the social media website which allowed this disparaging speech to stay broadcast to the world, costing plaintiff potentially millions of dollars in future earnings. Twitter was put on notice on January 30, 2017, and as of Feb 1, 2017, the false twitter account was still posted, even after Tiffany Dehen put Twitter on notice. The process Twitter adheres to is absolutely ridiculous and should be looked at as well and Plaintiff claims the process Twitter has in place to review defamation is unconstitutional.

Hooo boy. Where to start? Let's just skip over the awful run on sentences and note, again, as we did above, that Section 230 makes Twitter categorically immune from this lawsuit. I'm still at a loss as to how any lawyer today could file a lawsuit and not be aware of the basics of Section 230. Even without Section 230, Twitter would easily get out of this lawsuit. Notice that she cites no actual laws on the books or caselaw to back up this claim? She gives the company a grand total of two days of notice? And then I didn't know that "absolutely ridiculous" processes (which she doesn't actually seem to understand or describe) are illegal. I'd like to know the statute that says "absolutely ridiculous" policies for dealing with parody accounts are illegal, because, man, that would be useful. Oh, and "unconstitutional." Wha....? This is just... so, so awful. The University of San Diego law school should be ashamed.

Oh, right, about USD Law. Why is it a defendant? Beats me.

Plaintiff requests to enjon University of San Diego because of the fact that as seen in Exhibits 34 and 35, it appears as though there is a high probability John Doe is an University of San Diego student or alumni since the photo used to make the swastika headband, as shown in Exhibits 3, 4, and 5, is Plaintiff's profile photograph on LinkedIn. University of San Diego should be liable as well due to a prior matter that was not resolved appropriately by University of San Diego which led to USD acting recklessly, or at the very least negligently, to allow this matter to arise.

So... it sorta feels like perhaps Ms. Dehen thinks that "enjoin" means "make a party to the case" rather than the actual meaning, which is to have the court stop the party from doing something. Is it truly possible that someone can graduate from law school without knowing what enjoin means? Also, as for the rest of that paragraph, what is even going on? I keep reading it, and trying to understand why the fact that a LinkdedIn photo was used somehow makes it obvious that it was a USD student. Because she doesn't explain it at all, if you actually bother to go to the exhibits, it appears she's implying, without saying, that because LinkedIn tells her that some people from USD Law School visited her profile (among other people from other places) that's her proof. That's... not quite how it works.

And... even if it is a USD student, so what? That doesn't make USD liable.

And then the unexplained "prior matter"? Who graduates from law school and thinks that's how you put something into a complaint?

Oh, and then there's this:

Further, on the way to Federal Court in Downtown Sand Diego to file this complaint, Plaintiff was involved in a collision on the I-5 Freeway headed South, which resulted in neck and back pain for which Plaintiff is now seeking medical attention. Please see Exhibit 39.

So... um... it sucks that you were in a car accident. That's no fun. But what the hell does that have to do with the lawsuit? Why is that in here? And if she was on her way to file it when the accident happened, does that mean after the accident (in pain and all) she stopped to add this totally irrelelvant paragraph to the "complaint"?

Again, I'm not even going to go into why this account almost certainly isn't defamation, but among her evidence that this meets the "statutory malicious defamation claim" (?!?!) is this:

John Doe's fault in publishing the statement amounted to substantially more than just negligence. John Doe's meticulous planning of potentially creating a fake Facebook account in which he sought to befriend Plaintiff on social media (Please see Exhibit 38) and gain access to additional information, coupled with the time involved in setting up a false Twitter account, as well as downloading, altering, and reposting plaintiff's images, shows more than just the defendant's fault in publishing the statement. John Doe's deliberate actions amounted to much more than just mere negligence, but more so proves malice, an element of criminal crimes.

That's... quite a paragraph. But I just want to point out that this is (1) a civil lawsuit and (2) she says that this is an element of "criminal crimes." Criminal. Crimes.

Finally, I'm no lawyer, but I read and write a lot about court cases, and I can't recall ever seeing a legal complaint written in this manner. It doesn't seem to match with any typical legal complaint format that I've ever seen. It doesn't name any laws. And, I hate to give her any ideas, but normally when people make these kinds of questionable legal attacks on parody claims, they at least try to throw in an ill-advised publicity rights claim. Perhaps that wasn't taught at USD? Anyway, the 3-page "brief" (as she calls it) is then followed with another 20 pages of "exhibits" which are mostly screenshots that she seems to think proves a point, but as noted above, require anyone looking at them to make giant leaps and inferences to even figure out what her complaint is actually alleging.

And yet, she argues that John Doe, Twitter and USD should pay her $100 million because this parody account is "damaging to plaintiff's name, especially in this crucial juncture of her life where she is applying to California bar admittance and looking for a legal job in San Diego."

I think free speech lawyer Ari Cohn sums this one up nicely:


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • icon
    That Anonymous Coward (profile), 3 Feb 2017 @ 2:03pm

    sometimes you need to cull the weak ones from the herd...

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 3 Feb 2017 @ 2:11pm

    This is going to be worse for her than anything that they could possibly post on the parody account.

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 3 Feb 2017 @ 2:16pm

    For some reason, I think we just witnessed the birth of a copyright/patent/ADA troll lawyer.

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

    • icon
      Vidiot (profile), 3 Feb 2017 @ 2:24pm

      Re:

      I think we just witnessed the birth of a screenplay! Someone call that young blonde comedienne... the one who always plays the dopey airhead...

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

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 3 Feb 2017 @ 2:41pm

        Re: Re:

        Reese Witherspoon wouldn't want to associate herself with this moron.
        This student is doing more to undermine her degree and reputation than any amount of parody ever could. I wouldn't be surprised to discover that she is the creator of the parody account as well based on her other leaps of logic that she seems to make.

        I wouldn't be surprised to find a new lawsuit only she is going to find that she is the defendant and the reputation of the school is at stake.

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 3 Feb 2017 @ 2:21pm

    No child left behind

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

  • icon
    sorrykb (profile), 3 Feb 2017 @ 2:27pm

    um......

    Are we sure that this lawsuit wasn't filed by whoever's running the parody Twitter account, in attempt to further damage Tiffany Dehen's reputation?

    ...

    (I know the more likely answer is "No, she's just that ignorant and has never heard of the Streisand Effect", but I've been told I'm too negative, so this is me desperately trying to latch onto something to preserve a scrap of faith in humanity.)

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 3 Feb 2017 @ 2:43pm

      Re: um......

      If it were filed by the owner of the parody account, that would actually be something that would open them up to being hit with real legal action.

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

      • icon
        sorrykb (profile), 3 Feb 2017 @ 3:13pm

        Re: Re: um......

        And she is now apparently tweeting about the lawsuit from her real account, so there goes my theory.

        It's not some awful vindictive person trying to destroy her, it's just Dehen herself... having a public meltdown and ruining her future prospects, live and right in front of our eyes. *sigh*

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

        • identicon
          Alan, 3 Feb 2017 @ 5:25pm

          Re: Re: Re: um......

          But her "real" twitter account is equally unverified. I'm not ruling out the possibility that both twitter accounts and the complaint were all created by the same person, as a sophisticated scheme to defame the University of San Diego Law School and/or to defame a real-but-unaware-of-any-of-this person named Tiffany Dehen.

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

          • identicon
            Cowardly Lion, 4 Feb 2017 @ 3:45am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: um......

            This is the way I was thinking. It's a downright risky strategy, but if you really wanted to damage someone's reputation this is as fine a way as any.

            It shows a damn sight more imagination that leaving flyers all over her home town: "Tiffany Dehen will empty your ballsack for just $3!!! Phone xxx-xxxxx"

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

            • identicon
              Wendy Cockcroft, 7 Feb 2017 @ 5:59am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: um......

              As I've said any number of times: where reputation is concerned it's your own behaviour that makes or breaks it. When people say things about you it makes other people curious and they check you out, as sorrykb did, to see what's really going on there.

              When a reputation-wrecker/drama troll tried to trash my good name online I just kept doing what I usually do. Result: yes, the negative stuff is there but people go there, check it out, then look at the other links to articles, etc., about me. I know this because if I Google my name, the details move around. This can only be due to people checking me out and being more interested in some things than others, i.e. my creative background than the politics.

              If Tiffany had any brains (assuming this is really her), she'd back away from this then get on with her life. She might find people pointing and laughing at her for a long time but she can counter that with, "But I've learned my lesson and I won't be doing that again."

              I wrote this post to help people in her situation: http://on-t-internet.blogspot.co.uk/2015/11/how-to-resurrect-your-reputation-five.html

              She would do well to read and heed it.

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

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 4 Feb 2017 @ 2:39am

          Re: Re: Re: um......

          She is just awaiting the phone call from Peter Thiel, so that she can become his pet attack dog.

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

  • icon
    orbitalinsertion (profile), 3 Feb 2017 @ 2:42pm

    The disorganized thinking, paranoia, and linking unrelated things... i don't know how she got through school unless it is all memorization and she barely passed. It is one of those cases that make me wonder if she needs help, in which case i would feel bad mocking her.

    On the whole "lawyers don't seem to get Section 230, etc.", i sometimes wonder if it is a matter of throwing crap at a wall and seeing what sticks. If there are enough bad rulings, the law essentially changes. So between useful idiots and some who are probably calculating to make case law by bringing these stupid suits, they are trying to chip away at our rights. (No i am not implying a vast conspiracy, but it sounds rather paranoid now that i have said it. It's just how some sorts of people operate.)

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

    • identicon
      Chuck, 5 Feb 2017 @ 9:51am

      Re:

      The same way more than half the college students in America get through: Adderall and last-minute studying twice per semester.

      Seriously, the notion that any majority of America's college grads are even remotely intelligent is just plain wrong. US Colleges now really test only two things: 1) do you have money (or credit you can ruin, employers don't care which) and 2) how much bitchwork can you turn in in a given 4-year period. College hasn't been about creating intelligent, well-rounded members of society since the 60's. Maybe 70's.

      And people wonder why we keep issuing so many H1B visas for people from Indian collages. This is why, guys. It's not because they're cheaper. It's because they're SMARTER.

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

  • icon
    orbitalinsertion (profile), 3 Feb 2017 @ 2:43pm

    P.S. Ari Cohn, you are sooo sued.

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

  • icon
    David (profile), 3 Feb 2017 @ 2:52pm

    How was the draft written?

    I suspect a box of Crayola crayons were deployed.

    Unsuccessfully.

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

  • identicon
    AnonCow, 3 Feb 2017 @ 2:59pm

    My immediate question was: "Why would someone go to all this trouble to poke fun at her?"

    Then I read the article.

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

  • identicon
    David, 3 Feb 2017 @ 3:02pm

    Is this a parody lawsuit?

    "Adolf Hitler, the socialist communist dictator from Germany". Socialist and communist survivors of Nazi death camps would have a few choice words to say about that. And while we are at it, Hitler was born in the Austro-Hungarian empire, though not exactly fond of it.

    I think I understand why her name was chosen for that parody account. That way it can be handed over to her while preserving continuity.

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 3 Feb 2017 @ 3:31pm

      Re: Is this a parody lawsuit?

      Alt-right logic. If Hitler was bad, and socialists and communists are bad, then Hitler must have been a socialist communist.

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

      • icon
        afn29129 (profile), 3 Feb 2017 @ 4:45pm

        Re: Re: Is this a parody lawsuit?

        If A=B and B=C then A=C divided by 2

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

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 5 Feb 2017 @ 8:04am

        Re: Re: Is this a parody lawsuit?

        Actually NAZI was National Socialist, and Hitler like many a tyrant claimed he was a socialist.

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

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 5 Feb 2017 @ 11:07am

          Re: Re: Re: Is this a parody lawsuit?

          Actually NAZI was National Socialist, and Hitler like many a tyrant claimed he was a socialist.

          No. Hitler claimed he was a National Socialist. The term "National Socialism" was an attempt to create a nationalist redefinition of "socialism". National Socialism was actually a far-right form of fascism, despite what some neo-Nazi apologists may try try to claim.

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

        • identicon
          David, 5 Feb 2017 @ 11:08am

          Re: Re: Re: Is this a parody lawsuit?

          He would not have locked people into KZs for being socialists and communists then, would he?

          Hitler did most definitely not consider himself a socialist and was strictly against most socialist core tenets, such as the communalization of resources.

          The etymology of "Nationalsozialismus" is not quite trivial and of course originated in an attempt of coining an expression best suited fishing for voters (and non-voters). But it only made use of the _term_ Sozialismus as a word/catchphrase rather than as an ideological underpinning.

          Actual socialists were interned and murdered like communists in Nazi times. Calling Hitler a "Sozialist" would have been very bad for your health.

          So please dear Mr Anonymous Coward, do your homework next time round. The "Sozialismus" in "Nationalsozialismus" was only ever used for confusing politically illiterate people into blatantly bad assumptions, just like it worked that way for you.

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 3 Feb 2017 @ 3:53pm

      Re: Is this a parody lawsuit?

      I have an anecdote on the topic that I doubt I can do justice, but I'll try;

      I have a close family friend who among a great many of the things she has done, she did some fairly extensive interview of ex-communist Polish Leadership after the Solidarity and 1989 elections. (And I would probably make her very ashamed to realize now that I've started typing that I know very little about later-half of the 20th century Polish history.)

      One things she found as she went through this was that none of the senior leadership- civil, military, etc- were actually ideologically communist. Sure, you can assume a few might have been trying to cover the metaphorical ass and deny actually being supporters, but none. And these weren't middle-management types; one of these people was the second in command of the Warsaw Pact, would have had his finger on the button (metaphorically) in a hypothetical WWIII.

      The obvious question, "Why?" Why in God's name would you climb so high in- and then maintain- a system and organization that you lived in terror of? Why did you even become a communist in the first place if you never supported the ideology?

      The one she asked this of in particular went, "Oh, well, that's easy." (Quoted like dialogue, but all paraphrasing a much better storyteller than I.)

      You see, he'd fought the Russians back in the invasion of Poland. Been captured, sent to a gulag in Siberia, and that was that.

      Then when Germany invaded the SovUnion, the Russians passed around an opportunity for ex-Polish military personnel to form up into 'volunteer legion' Russian battalions to fight Germany.

      He declined. In his words, "I didn't want to fight for Russia, I wanted to fight for Poland."

      He was released and proceeded to travel, without ration or travel card, all the way across Russia on foot or what transportation he could beg, borrow, or secure. (Apparently "I want to go fight fascists" was a pretty compelling line.)

      Somehow accomplishing that, he finally reaches Poland and joins up with the first underground movement he runs into- a Communist one.

      "Okay," she goes, "But why did you join the Communists? You just said you never liked them, and had extensive reason to dislike them."

      "Looking around and seeing what the fascists were doing, and the atrocities being committed... and looking around at what the communists were doing, and what atrocities they were committing... Yes, I would pick the communists every time."

      That's a bit of a long tangent for what's basically a one-off line, but it just boggles my mind how frequently I've seen people try and claim Nazis were communists or socialists on account of their name. Presumably, they believe eastern asia is full of democratic republics controlled by their citizens too.

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 3 Feb 2017 @ 4:43pm

    I hope she wins her lawsuit. People need to realize that this is a form of cyber-bullying and it needs to stop. Simply creating a fake account and calling it a parody doesn't protect you under fair use.

    It would be akin to me creating a fake Mike Masnick account, call it a parody account, and say unflattering, offensive or demeaning things about Mike Masnick.

    I simply don't buy the excuse that just because someone calls it a parody account affords the person who created it any protection under the constitution. There are limits to what the constitution protects you from and I believe the courts are going to start looking at these type of lawsuits with a very fine and strong mirror.

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

    • icon
      orbitalinsertion (profile), 3 Feb 2017 @ 6:15pm

      Re:

      Her lawsuit doesn't even make sense, so good luck.

      Fair use has absolutely nothing to do with this whatsoever. Acknowledging it is a parody is simply for those too busy or ignorant to recognize parody and opinion. They are flat out stating that there are no factual claims involved. Which is completely a defense against libel. More to the point, they are saying to the audience, never mind to courts, that Ms. Dehen isn't actually tweeting these things.

      In general, it could be a bullying tactic. I don't see the specifics here indicating how it is bullying. But parody is commentary on the person or work parodied. Maybe she is also a bully. Maybe this is counter-speech on her positions. Her lawsuit seems like one a bully would file. Bullying rising to the level of a crime is another thing entirely.

      It would be akin to me creating a fake Mike Masnick account, call it a parody account, and say unflattering, offensive or demeaning things about Mike Masnick.

      Yep. Which you can do. You don't even have to make a reasonable parody of his positions.

      I believe the courts are going to start looking at these type of lawsuits with a very fine and strong mirror.

      Yes i hope they do look in the mirror.

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

    • identicon
      Flint, 4 Feb 2017 @ 2:37am

      Re:

      You are Tiffany Dehen and I claim my $5.

      Either that, or you were is the same classes as her as your grasp of the case is about on the same level.

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 4 Feb 2017 @ 12:45pm

      Re:

      Actually the first admendment does just that. Go nuts Mr Mxyzptlk.

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 3 Feb 2017 @ 4:54pm

    Is it truly possible that someone can graduate from law school without knowing what enjoin means?

    Yes.

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 7 Feb 2017 @ 7:53am

      Re:

      I have a friend that went to the state university of a southern state, and Yale for law school. He said that he had a law professor flat out tell them that their most difficult challenge was over. They were accepted to Yale. He was turning in first year papers a few weeks before graduation. So, yeah, I'm with you on believing it.

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

  • icon
    JoeCool (profile), 3 Feb 2017 @ 5:29pm

    Wrong reason to sue USD

    She should be suing to get her tuition and fees back because they CLEARLY didn't teach her a thing!

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 3 Feb 2017 @ 7:17pm

      Re: Wrong reason to sue USD

      You can't force knowledge into the brain of someone unwilling to learn. She is willfully ignorant and if this is actually her, has done more damage to her reputation than any parody account ever could merely by filing this atrocity.

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

      • identicon
        David, 4 Feb 2017 @ 1:12am

        Re: Re: Wrong reason to sue USD

        Probably she had a platinum level tuition where the Dean muscled all her teachers into letting her pass the exams and the "parody" account was put up by one or more of her teachers in order to deflect harm from the profession nevertheless by giving herself a way to prove herself, like Euathlus.

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

  • icon
    Jef (profile), 3 Feb 2017 @ 5:29pm

    Don't forget this:

    "Plaintiff requests to enjoin Twitter, Inc, jointly and severally, the social media website..."

    "Jointly and severally" liable means that together, the parties owe a single amount in damages, and if some cannot pay, the rest must cover the whole thing (not just their portion). So:

    1. You cannot have a single party "jointly and severally" liable for anything, because it's about how multiple parties owe money.
    2. You can't "jointly and severally" enjoin something, because it's about how multiple parties owe money.

    So the six words "enjoin Twitter, Inc, jointly and severally" contain at least two more legal errors. Honestly, I didn't try too hard to parse the rest.

    Good times.

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 4 Feb 2017 @ 8:13pm

      Re:

      Yes but that "jointly and severally" stuff might sound all legalicious to a judge who gradumacated from USD like Tiffy (claims to have done).

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

    • icon
      The Wanderer (profile), 5 Feb 2017 @ 7:27am

      Re:

      I'd guess that the "jointly and severally" is meant to refer to the fact that Twitter is both a single entity (the company) and a collection of entities (the people who make up the company) - i.e., this is an attempt to pull in the actual people behind the decisions she's objecting to, in addition to the company whose name is on those decisions.

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 3 Feb 2017 @ 6:19pm

    While I doubt she'll prevail against twitter, since they are a service provider (with protection under 230), I think the court might allow her to proceed against the person who created the account. There's just a fine legal line here and I believe that the account holder may have crossed it.

    With Cox being held liable for copyright infringement committed by its customers, it may be a hard fight, but there's also a chance that her complaint against the account holder and against twitter could stand a chance of moving forward.

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 3 Feb 2017 @ 9:42pm

      Re:

      There's just a fine legal line here and I believe that the account holder may have crossed it.

      And I believe that unicorns may be real.

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 3 Feb 2017 @ 6:40pm

    Fresh out of school and ready to make her mark on the world ..with a splat.

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

  • icon
    Anon E. Mous (profile), 3 Feb 2017 @ 6:57pm

    I rank this filing with Patriick Zarrelli and his filings to various State Bar's and the Police.

    https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20151113/10265632812/we-have-criminal-charges-patrick-zarre lli-claims-he-filed-against-our-writer-theyre-not-what-he-thinks.shtml

    Maybe Ms.Dehen should consider hiring Zarrelli's reputation Management company to save the day for her, Old Patrick has done wonders for his clients

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

  • icon
    Anon E. Mous (profile), 3 Feb 2017 @ 7:01pm

    Looking at this comment that Ms Dehen made on Twitter

    https://twitter.com/tiffanysundevil/status/827538097856319490

    I believe explains some bad ass lawyering on her part and explains the first rule of holes.

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 3 Feb 2017 @ 7:22pm

    Glowing recommendation for the USD law school right there. Lots of book learning, but not a clue at all how any of it applies to the real world. The sad thing, very sad thing, is that I see the same thing coming out of our public school system every year.

    They're coddled, fed a lot of bull and propaganda they can't even remember from one year to the next while teachers are hamstrung from teaching factual history (insert political cause of the year), math (too hard & they'll never use it), literature (religious fanatics banned the books from the library), biology (for heavens sake don't even *mention* gonad!), civics and law (don't teach kids how the government functions, they might learn how to change it), proper grammar and vocabulary (too hard, who needs written communications skills anyway?!), social skills (god forbid they run into people with different points of views than their parents hold or learn how to deal with bullies). On top of that there are routine budget cuts for teacher salaries and relevant course materials while spending on athletics increases.

    Is there any wonder that someone that allegedly graduated from a public institution can't function in the highly communications oriented profession of law? The unfortunate thing... I'm not at all surprised with the quality of education displayed.

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

    • icon
      Anon E. Mous (profile), 3 Feb 2017 @ 7:47pm

      Re:

      Unfortunately now education with all the funding cutbacks and the herd them in and out as quick as possible has really left a lot of graduating students from High School not having any real plan about furthering their education nor ready to enter into the workforce.

      Not to mention you have those who graduated by the skin of their teeth and cant pursue secondary education due to the fact they cant meet the educational requirements to enter into post secondary institutions which means they either enter the workforce with minimal prospects or they end up going into a secondary education institution that offers degrees that mean zip in the real world and are all about getting that student enrolled for the loan money and if said students gets anything out of education wise would be nothing short of a miracle.

      It is a sad reality that a lot of students are not going to fare better in the job market because of the get them in and out mentality.

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

    • icon
      sorrykb (profile), 3 Feb 2017 @ 8:05pm

      Re:

      Is there any wonder that someone that allegedly graduated from a public institution can't function in the highly communications oriented profession of law? The unfortunate thing... I'm not at all surprised with the quality of education displayed.

      USD is private.

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

      • icon
        gingerjet (profile), 4 Feb 2017 @ 8:47am

        Re: Re:

        Not only is it private but its highly regarded and sought after school in many disciplines (although I can't speak to its law program)

        But the arguments presented here that somehow USD is a problem because ONE individual made it through its program without having a clue are silly. Based on that metric every school in the nation would have to shut down.

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

    • identicon
      Skip, 27 Feb 2017 @ 10:45am

      Re:

      University of San Diego is a private university, not UCSD.

      Perhaps some research would do you good before you go on and on about not functioning.

      On that note, she is NOT indicative of USD Law graduates.

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

    • identicon
      Steff123, 14 Mar 2017 @ 10:20pm

      Re:

      Anyone that puts themselves through college and stands up for themselves is far from unintelligent. She is a recent grad J.D. and deserves a lot more credit. I think she is actually very intelligent, and the fact that the education system or lack there of is being correlated on the basis of a compliant that she wrote to protect herself is not helpful, and frankly not the point here. she has been stalked and threatened so she needed to take action quickly and is not going to stand by while someone out there is targeting her.

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

  • icon
    Koby (profile), 3 Feb 2017 @ 7:23pm

    Socialist Communist

    >>Huh? I'm still stumbling over "socialist communist" that I'm already having difficulty figuring out how parodying someone is proof of "actual malice and negligence."

    It seems to be fashionable nowadays to equate Republicans with Nazis. Most modern Republicans abhor Nazi ideals, considering that Republicans are unabashedly capitalist. In case you didn't know, Nazi stands for nationalist SOCIALIST. It's essentially the opposite of what Republicans believe, and many believed in the 1940s that Nazis and Communists were closely aligned.

    While this lawsuit is certainly ill-advised, it perhaps does bring up an interesting question: Can someone slander another person, if the slander makes no sense as parody, and still use the "oh I meant it to be parody" as a defense? If so, have we discovered a loophole by which anything can be claimed about anyone else? Simply create a second account, slap on a parody tag, and unlimited-spech away?

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

    • identicon
      History 0000, 7 Feb 2017 @ 11:48pm

      Re:

      Wrong!
      Nazis were Fascists.
      Fake News sites like right wing media (Fake/Fox News, Gasbag Radio/Fake News, Breitbart Fake News).Confuse these terms all the time because either they don't know/don't read history or even worse they try to make the Nazis and Fascists out to be leftists..But, that is clearly factually and historically inaccurate...Nazis were far right wing Fascists as was Mussolini of Italy and Tojo of Japan all Allies in the far right wing Fascist Axis Powers..

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 3 Feb 2017 @ 7:25pm

    She's getting in on the fun - this is clearly a parody lawsuit.

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

  • icon
    Anon E. Mous (profile), 3 Feb 2017 @ 8:44pm

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

    • icon
      sorrykb (profile), 3 Feb 2017 @ 9:35pm

      Re:

      She can't be real. How could she be real?
      Her account is almost indistinguishable from a troll's.
      goddammit, Poe's Law.

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

      • identicon
        David, 4 Feb 2017 @ 8:10am

        Re: Re:

        Man, she makes Palin look like Noether.

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

      • icon
        orbitalinsertion (profile), 4 Feb 2017 @ 6:17pm

        Re: Re:

        Parody account holder defense rests, thankyouverymuch.

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

      • icon
        Anon E. Mous (profile), 6 Feb 2017 @ 5:25am

        Re: Re:

        Looks like Ms.Dehen has been trying a little damage control and has been going back and deleting all her tweets in regard to this lawsuit and her record time in writing her complaint and her working on drafting a second complaint.

        I have to wonder if Ms.Dehen knows that once you put this out there it is hard to contain it afterward especially with resources like the Internet Wayback Machine.

        One would have to assume that the sound thinking that went into drafting and filing the original complaint and the publicity her filing has received was not part of her plan, so much that She is deleting tweets in hopes that the criticism of her writing of her complaint and the tweets that followed would temper down the response to it and make it fade away, isn't really going to work like that.

        If I were in her shoes I would get that complaint she drafted and filed withdrawn and before Twitter files a response, otherwise she might be headed for expensive lesson about litigation.

        Mind you the defendants counsel may take pity on Ms.Dehen and not ask her to bare their costs, but then again no one has to take pity on her either because they were named in her complaint

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

        • icon
          Almost Anonymous (profile), 6 Feb 2017 @ 9:09am

          Re: Re: Re:

          Tiffany, meet Barbara. Barbara, meet Tiffany.

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

        • identicon
          Alan, 6 Feb 2017 @ 10:47am

          Re: Re: Re:

          It's hard to imagine any defendants responding unless a summons is served, or a pre-service subpoena is approved.

          At this point, not only has no summons been served, but technically the complaint hasn't even been filed. Dehen failed to cough up the $400 filing fee, so her complaint has only been "lodged" pending disposition of her motion to proceed in forma pauperis.

          In other words: she appears to still be well short of passing the point of no return, as far as incurring legal liability goes. On the other hand, her reputation and employability in the legal field may already be gone for good.

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

  • icon
    lars626 (profile), 3 Feb 2017 @ 8:46pm

    Twitter

    Check out her twitter:
    https://twitter.com/tiffanysundevil

    I am not doing business with any firm that hires this moron.

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 4 Feb 2017 @ 6:08am

    She hasn't even passed the bar? That explains a lot. If this case is any indication of the quality of her future work, she shouldn't even bother. Her law school education was completely wasted. She should have majored in communications like all the other air-headed bimbos.

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

    • identicon
      David, 4 Feb 2017 @ 6:27am

      Re:

      She should have majored in communications like all the other air-headed bimbos.

      She probably confused communications with communism and did not want to become a second Hitler.

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 14 Mar 2017 @ 10:36pm

      Re:

      Why would you discourage anyone for furthering their education and putting themselves through law school and graduating JD?

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Cowherd, 4 Feb 2017 @ 7:00am

    They saw a lawyer representing himself has a fool for a client.

    And apparently, sometimes a fool for a lawyer, too.

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

  • icon
    WillSee (profile), 4 Feb 2017 @ 8:56am

    Criminal Crimes!

    She'll win in a gallop, these were Criminal Crimes instead of Legal Crimes!

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

  • icon
    nasch (profile), 4 Feb 2017 @ 9:20am

    Twitter was put on notice on January 30, 2017

    Here are some other things that are on notice.

    https://youtu.be/6um0wueOOfw?t=1m55s

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

  • identicon
    Ped_EkSing, 4 Feb 2017 @ 10:34am

    Just Brilliant!

    Brilliant, just brilliant!
    A PARODY lawsuit over a PARODY Twitter account!

    I just wonder what kinda point he/she/they are trying to make.

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

  • identicon
    someoneinnorthms, 4 Feb 2017 @ 10:50am

    She is further evidence that it's time for Jesus to come back. Or the 13th imam to appear. Or whatever your eschatological end-game of choice might be. I think she may not be the one at fault for her character flaws. She was raised to be a special, unique snowflake. That's what she became. Hard to blame her for that. With a generation of snowflakes aging into adulthood, though, we are going to see them proliferate as they start reproducing (if they reproduce at all, being special and unwilling to share the attention). One only sues over something like this if one feels undeservedly "special." It's a slippery slope leading to a murkier future by the day. I fear for society

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

    • icon
      sorrykb (profile), 4 Feb 2017 @ 11:49am

      Re:

      a generation of snowflakes

      Before dismissing an entire generation based on this very foolish person... Have you forgotten that your own generation -- in its youth -- was also derided as selfish and entitled? This same accusation has been leveled by older generations at probably just about every generation in history. And to a certain extent, it's true.* Age and experience tend to moderate this, but not always. (Note the current U.S. president, as well as a great many people who were born into or stumbled upon wealth and power.)

      Maybe she's just selfish. Maybe she's ill. Maybe she comes from a very privileged background. But I'd be hesitant to chalk this up to some nonsense about "special snowflakes" or whatever.

      *It's also true that youth can be very generous, thoughtful, diligent, etc.. even while being somewhat self-absorbed. It's a human sorta thing.

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

  • icon
    Monday (profile), 4 Feb 2017 @ 12:41pm

    The USD is the real Victim here...

    "Hooo boy. Where to start?"

    You've got a good start. No Child Left Behind about sums it up...

    This is a tragic start to a career that hasn't started. Where does Dehen (Die Hen) get her figures from? I suspect it is the same Self-Entitled, Inflated sense of worth, and Ego - on all levels - that routinely pisses me off every time I leave my House, and has led her into this morass wherein she is about to ghost any future, and future earnings. I would also like to add that this sounds like something @realDonaldTrump would have posted to his own Twitter at three o'clock in the morning... while taking a dump...

    Dehen is a Moron plain and simple. If anyone (remember Corporations are People too - also Trump's words), the U of San Diego is the victim here. They have obviously convocated a student whom hasn't a basic grasp of the English language.

    jus' sayin'

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

    • identicon
      Wendy Cockcroft, 7 Feb 2017 @ 6:06am

      Re: The USD is the real Victim here...

      I meet people like her all the time. Is there a factory churning 'em out somewhere?

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

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 7 Feb 2017 @ 1:00pm

        Re: Re: The USD is the real Victim here...

        > Is there a factory churning 'em out somewhere?

        It's called a snow machine. It blows out snowflakes. The result is a snow job with a lot of flakes.

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

  • identicon
    Kronomex, 4 Feb 2017 @ 2:22pm

    I see ridicule, parodies and digs (subtle or otherwise) at her for some time to come. To paraphrase, badly, a certain piece from Beethoven:

    Dumb dumbdumb dumb!

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

  • icon
    Monday (profile), 4 Feb 2017 @ 9:50pm

    U.S. Code § 230 - This is some awesome stuff!!!

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 5 Feb 2017 @ 4:34am

    That's supposed to be $USD. Obviously a typo in the complaint

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

  • identicon
    legalese, 17 Feb 2017 @ 9:09pm

    "Notice that she cites no actual laws on the books or caselaw to back up this claim?"

    You actually don't really need to cite legal authority for allegations in a pleading. You don't even need to formally list out that all the elements of a violation are met.

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

  • identicon
    Jim Cathcart, 23 Feb 2017 @ 4:45pm

    Tiffany's lawsuit

    Here is the answer folks, Ms. D is actually Lindsay Lohan in disguise. Read this: http://gawker.com/220081/lindsay-lohans-whole-entire-crazy-spam and tell me you don't see the eerie and terrifying parallels.

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

  • icon
    tiffanydehen (profile), 22 Apr 2017 @ 2:26pm

    HELLO TECH DIRT

    Dear Tech Dirt,

    I am reaching out to thank you for the publicity.

    I am proud to say I graduated law school from USD, but have not yet taken the bar because of ongoing malicious harassment including, but not limited to, stalking and terroristic threats. This was due to my political views and vocal support of Donald J. Trump during and after the election.

    I was targeted at USD Law for standing up for the American values we share, and it’s affected my ability to work and study for the bar. I was even interviewed by the FBI about the parties who were harassing me.

    I already filed a 150 page complaint in District Court for the Southern District of California, and my suit has made local and national news. I am reaching out to my fellow Trump supporters for donations so I may retain expert counsel and pay for related expenses.

    Please find additional information on my website: www.tiffanydehen.com

    Thank you for your generosity and keep making America great!

    Best Regards,

    Tiffany Dehen J.D.
    USD | ASU | KKG

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

  • icon
    tiffanydehen (profile), 22 Apr 2017 @ 2:28pm

    Oh and PS

    Feel free to let me know what you all think about the way I handled CDA 230. ; )

    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
Techdirt Gear
Show Now: Takedown
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.