Aspiring Actor Forges Court Order To Delist Content, Gets Busted By Judge, Forges Court Order To Delist Article About Contempt Charges

from the love-to-be-wrong-on-the-internet-all-the-time dept

Eugene Volokh (along with Public Citizen's Paul Levy) has made a cottage industry of sniffing out bogus/fraudulently-obtained court orders demanding the delisting of unflattering content. Much of this seemed to be the work of desperate reputation management "gurus," who had over-promised and under-delivered in the past. Abusing the DMCA process only goes so far. Sometimes you need to lie to judges to get things done.

Sometimes you just need to pretend you're the judge. Convicted sex offender Abraham Motamedi forged a court order awarding himself legal fees and the delisting of content indicating he was a convicted sex offender. When called on it, Motamedi claimed he had nothing to do with it while also claiming the order was legit. These two viewpoints cannot be resolved logically. If it was legit, Motamedi would have had to appear in court to obtain it. If it wasn't legit, then assertions otherwise won't suddenly make a nonexistent case appear on a Michigan court's docket.

Forgeries continue, as Eugene Volokh reports. A man who attempted to use a forged court order to vanish content from the internet appears to have doubled down.

In April, I mentioned two prosecutions for such forgeries, including a prosecution of one Garner Ted Aukerman, who was convicted of contempt of court based on a judge’s finding that he was responsible for “a fraudulent court order [that] has never been entered by [the] court”:

"Apparently Mr. Aukerman has taken [an] order setting the matter for hearing and deleted the middle section of that order in which he generated [in context, I think this means “inserted" -EV] the detail concerning the court’s findings and orders. A hearing was never held, those findings were never made and the order is completely fraudulent."

Then, Monday, I saw that someone had submitted a takedown request to Google, asking that it remove (among other things) my April post, a copy of the forged court order, and a court order from a different Ohio court that declared Aukerman to be a vexatious litigant and thus requiring him to get leave of court before filing lawsuits.

Perhaps no layperson understands the flow of legal documents quite like a vexatious pro se litigant. By "understand," I mean, has at least a passing familiarity with their general appearance and what they should contain. Still, even the most vexatious of litigants isn't going to be able to produce a fake court order targeting actual legal experts and get away with it.

Garner Aukerman apparently tried to muddle his judicial interlopment by trying to make the fake court order look like it was part of Aukerman's criminal prosecution. Aukerman's case has a sealed docket which makes it a little tougher to determine which of the several documents accompanying his takedown request doesn't belong. Unfortunately for Aukerman, his supposed delisting order confuses two legal issues in a way no real judge would.

The first part of the order provides for the sealing of criminal records after a certain amount of time has passed. This is legitimate. But the order goes on to demand the "sealing" of Volokh posts and posted documents about Aukerman's past bogus legal work, calling them "defamatory." Well, there are defamation cases and post-release criminal record expungement, but they aren't interchangeable and no judge is going to randomly declare some internet content to be defamatory for the hell of it while reminding a convict of his expungement rights.

Even if that part were struck, post-release expungement would only remove the government's official records pertaining to Aukerman's conviction. It has no power to demand the rest of internet participate in the expungement. There's no right to be forgotten law in the United States and, for better or worse, the internet tends to remember things long past the point the government itself has officially forgotten about them.

Volokh contacted the issuing court and discovered (to no one's surprise) the court hadn't actually issued this order. He also spoke to Aukerman, who claimed what he sent to Google was nothing more than a proposed order. Even if true, there's no point submitting a proposed order because no one's under any legal obligation to do anything until a judge approves it... unless the real point is to try to push one past Google's takedown review team and hope it doesn't notice the obvious fakery.

Hide this

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: abraham motamedi, garner aukerman, takedown


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • icon
    Stephen T. Stone (profile), 17 Aug 2017 @ 6:43am

    A man who defends himself has a fool for a client…and holy shit, this guy’s client was a complete dumbass.

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

    • icon
      Roger Strong (profile), 17 Aug 2017 @ 7:49am

      Re:

      A man who defends himself has a fool for a client…

      Here in Canada a man who defends himself is probably in the lower half of the income range and can't afford a proper legal defence.

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 17 Aug 2017 @ 7:42am

    Aukerman's case has a sealed docket which makes it a little tougher to determine which of the several documents accompanying his takedown request doesn't belong

    Things like this are an excellent reason to not overuse sealed dockets.

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 17 Aug 2017 @ 7:48am

      Re:

      How about not to use them at all.

      The moment that any part of government is allowed to keep things secret you have begun the the process of losing it.

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

  • icon
    That Anonymous Coward (profile), 17 Aug 2017 @ 8:29am

    Oh hey these other 50 guys tried this and got burned, but I'm smarter than them I can make it work.

    This mental process also qualifies them for a position with one of the **AA's.

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

  • icon
    Ninja (profile), 17 Aug 2017 @ 9:00am

    Carreon, is that you?

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

  • identicon
    Christenson, 17 Aug 2017 @ 9:19am

    PACER security

    This incident doubles down on the need for all court documents to be publicly available for free and properly secured.

    This shit gets real hard real quick when the order can be checked against the originating court for a wave of the mouse.

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

  • identicon
    Peerless, 17 Aug 2017 @ 10:31am

    His famous actress friends were being stalked and cyber stalked by an obsessed fan. The judge would not grant them a restraining order against the fan, but one was granted later. This guy threw himself on a grenade to do the job the judge, law enforcement, Google and MSN/Bing refused to do, to protect himself and the actresses. The case is sealed because the actresses are Lacey Chabert and her best friend Kaley Cuoco. Thank God Aukerman took the action he did to intervene and protect these women.

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

  • icon
    Kevin (profile), 17 Aug 2017 @ 1:10pm

    From the "order":

    ... [URLs] be removed from the internet along with the related search terms...

    How does one remove a search term from the internet?

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 17 Aug 2017 @ 2:07pm

    Logic error

    When called on it, Motamedi claimed he had nothing to do with it while also claiming the order was legit. These two viewpoints cannot be resolved logically.

    That view is logically consistent. It only becomes inconsistent given a third point: that the order is actually not legit.

    (Or do you mean that a person named in an order, by definition, has "something to do with it"? That seems pedantic.)

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


Add Your Comment

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



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Make this the First Word or Last Word. No thanks. (get credits or sign in to see balance)    
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Close

Add A Reply

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



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Make this the First Word or Last Word. No thanks. (get credits or sign in to see balance)    
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Special Affiliate Offer

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

This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it
Close

Email This

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