"First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they fight you. Then you win!" Mahatma Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi
NOTICE OF CYBER STALKING, CYBER BULLYING, FORGERY AND OTHER VIOLATIONS that Reza Ganjavi has been a victim of.
You should doubt the authenticity of everything you read
on the interenet
which has been attributed to Reza Ganjavi as the author -- even if it
looks like Reza Ganjavi authored it because some fraudsters have forged
his writings (motive: jealousy: they couldn't stand the success of his
CDs, and other juvenile, dirty motives which all seem to stem from the
sickness of envy at Reza Ganjavi's success, and prejudice because of
his Middle Easter origins, and stupidity in thinking they can't get
caught) To be sure, you can confirm authenticity of anything you wonder
about which is attributed to Reza Ganjavi by emailing (info at
rezamusic dot com).
I, Reza Ganjavi have been a victim of a very serious case of cyberstalking, cyber bullying, and other
offenses by a few classical guitarists! I pursued, found and prosecuted
litigation against the stalkers, all of whom settled the case before it
proceeded to trial.
Many internet postings were fraudulently authored and published using
my name, and I suffered a number of other offenses by a group of
guitarist/stalkers whom I had no choice but to sue in the court of law
after giving them plenty of warning and plenty of chances to stop their
violating my rights (e.g. the right to have a my reputation not
tempered with, the right to live peacefully without getting harassed by
an anonymous cyber stalker, etc. etc.), etc., stop stealing and abusing
my identity (name, email etc.), stop publishing things I never wrote
under my name, and so on and on, and remove their fraudulent posts.
This crap wasted a few years of my life while I was dragged into it and
had no choice but to fight it because if I hadn't, those fraudulent
messages would remain online and cause a lot of serious trouble now and
in the long-haul, and there was no telling when these guys would stop
-- they had already broken many laws and didn't seem to care. Maybe
they thought my pleas for peace were a sign of weakness, maybe they
thought since I spend a lot of time in Switzerland I could not pursue,
find, and prosecute them in the US, or who knows, but all such
assumptions were false. I did pursue them, choicelessly, found every
single one, and dealt with them with civility and law, and not at the
level of the fight they picked.
The darkest chapter of my life was the litigation I had to pursue
against a few guitarist attacked online:
Looking back, it had a positive side. Aside from the personal level of
having put an end to those abuses, and the reward in having caught the
offenders who tried very hard to remain anonymous, other victims of
cyber stalking and online offenses know they don’t have to be victims,
and other offenders, specially those who abuse their rights to speak
anonymously know they can be caught, and for people in general to know
that the internet is a very dangerous place, and for legislators to
know they still have a lot of work ahead of them to make internet a
The lawsuit has been settled before going to trial and the arduous task of cleanup of
the fraudulent and defamatory postings continued for a long time and is continuing.
In the USA and many other countries anonymous cyberstalking is a crime.
Some snippets are presented below. More information may follow.
keep in mind all these filings deal with the periphery issue of jurisdiction. A lot of
time was spent by the defendants arguing about jurisdiction while at
every juncture through the process I was pled with them to work with me
to end the case. I was ready to drop the case at any time if they were
willing to abide by a few basic things such as a stipulated injunction,
and above all, sincerity.
It is common sense that argument over jurisdiction will eventually lead
the case to be tried in the proper court. I was mis-advised about a
requirement for diversity jurisdiction and I was also mis-advised about
one of the subject matter jurisdiction causes of action. Therefore the
Federal court had no jurisdiction over the case. I was ready to take
the next step to file in State Courts of IL, MN, and TX. Just before
that filing all defendants settled the case.
To see a few miscellaneous filings such as the periphery arguments over
jurisdiction, as well as the original complaints from
California and Illinois, as well as other items, click here.
The original pleadings in California were filed Pro-Se (without a
lawyer) based on my own research and a "little help from my friends."
The Chicago filings were also to a large part composed by myself but my
attorney also helped.
A few of the defendants that settled early on published statements that you can see below, in this page.
Comment about Reza Ganjavi's investigative skills to track anonymous defendants:
(and this was in days when cyber law was not so advanced -- it's much
easier today to catch such defendants than it was back then in 2005).
"Should things progress beyond this silly trolling, I would have to
borrow Reza's tracking techniques to find out for sure. As Reza clearly
demonstrated, one cannot hide forever behind a screen name". Matanya
"Hi Reza, Thanks for your message. I am very impressed by your account
because not only did you end your harassment, but you treated the
cyberstalkers far more kindly than they treated you."
"congratulations on your triumph. I'm glad it all turned out ok. I hope
the whole experience hasn't dampened your enthusiasm for classical
"still amazed you perserved to the end you got on your several legal excursions. Well done!"
"fascinating! I admire the energy to take the time to tell the
story- I really believe in the fundamental value of things being
in the story conveyed- it's how the worth and value are carried beyond
the personal experience...."
DEFENDANT 1 issued this public apology after we settled the case. The
settlement included but not limited to a monetary payment and
retraction of the offensive and problematic posts. I am posting this
here just as a lesson to whom it may concern that cyber offence does
not pay, that there are laws that govern conduct whether on the
internet or not and the internet can not be used as a shield to protect
one from the consequences of violating other peoples' rights.
DEFENDANT 1's public statement:
"I wish to take this opportunity to offer an apology to Reza Ganjavi
for statements I have posted in the past that have crossed over the
line. Some of these statements were made in an attempt at humor without
regard to what impact it would have on Reza. Some were in response to
postings that at the time I thought were done by Reza, and I now find
out that someone had used Reza's name and email to make those postings
fraudulently. For any statements that Reza took offense or exception to
I apologize. Reza and I have settled the matter, and will not comment
on it presently beyond this statement."
PUBLIC APOLOGY OF DEFENDANT 2
2 was real smart. Once caught he surrendered and we settled the case
before he was formally named as a defendant in the case. Settlement
included but was not limited to a monetary payment and retraction of
the offensive messages. He made the following statement and stopped
using the screen-name from which he posted offensive material (my
response below was also posted together with his statement).
PERSON 2's public statement:
wish to take this opportunity to offer an apology to everyone whom I
humiliated, insulted, and offended by statements I have posted in the
past under the pseudonyms "Troy II", "Troy Donaghue II", that contained
vulgar language and crossed the line of decency. In particular I
apologize to Reza Ganjavi for numerous incidents of verbal abuse to
which I subjected him through posts I responded directly to him or to
his faked screen name which was masqueraded by someone else. I made
those implied or direct statements without regard to their offensive
nature and their consequences.
Recently Reza Ganjavi unfolded the identity behind my screen name
through his technical know-how and determination. I was caught with my
hand in the cookie jar but what followed was a very profound
Think about the damages he could have done to someone who had hurt him,
but he chose not to do. Reza had all the capability to make me feel
miserable, but instead he chose NOT to take revenge and dealt with me
as a kind human to another. For that I'm forever grateful. He had the
control to turn an adversary situation into a friendly one, and that
generated an incredible amount of goodwill. He won me over, many times
over, if not as a friend then as a fan, with his strength,
determination, and grace.
His willingness to forgive and to work out the conflict was the most
important factor that changed my whole attitude about him. It's the
positive aspects of him that changed the whole thing. I knew he was
upset and angry, but somehow he showed his heart through instead of
taking revenge. That is one of the characters, you have to hear me out
on this, that is rare and most valuable. I wish that all freaking
politicians have that character so we can extinguish all the wars in
This saga which I truly regret has now become one of my invaluable,
well-learned lessons in humanity. I built a virtual world with those
nasty posts and was drawn to an illusion that I have all the power in
the world. However, the biggest lesson for me through this is probably
not about right and wrong - we learned all that in grade school, but
it's about the ability to forgive. I have gone through tough times in
my life, and the most unforgettable thing to me is the goodwill and
generosity extended to me from helping hands. Reza was a helping hand,
and I will not forget that.
Just two weeks ago I would never have thought in a million years Reza
and I could have a conversation about this subject. Today, I listen to
his music, and I have a strong conviction that his music should be
heard by more music lovers. Things changed, don't they? Again, for any
statements that Reza or others took offense or exception to I sincerely
apologize. Presently, Reza and I will not comment further on this
NOTE From Reza Ganjavi: I found <name snipped> to be a sincere
good person who
had made some mistakes like we all do as human. His good character
became evident through his childlike surrender and feeling of remorse
when he was caught. I appreciate the fact that he worked diligently to
make the wrongs right by retracting the offensive messages and
cooperating on the other aspects of a formal peaceful settlement. I
truly believe he has changed for the better and I am happy to have him
as a new friend.
I think a big lesson in this for all
internet users is that anonymity
which in most civilized countries is a
cherishable right should not be
abused and that the internet should not be
used as a façade behind
which to conduct vulgar activity. We are moving to a
day and age where
the internet plays a bigger and bigger role in our lives
and the world
and it is of utmost importance that civility, law and order,
the dominant norm in the cyber-world just as they are in
Thank you <name snipped> for your cooperation.
"I know you took great care not to drag me in by mistake, and I appreciate that." Person 2
9 December 2005, without a lawyer (pro-se), I sued the defendants, in a
62-page filing, for breaking twelve different laws. In legal language
the alleged claims which constitute the basis of a lawsuit are called
“causes of action”.
The first pleading which I filed in the Federal Court in California:
Reza Ganjavi vs. DOES 1 through 10, Douglas Carlson, William Jennings, Todd Tipton
the following causes of action. These are the best I could come up with
for this filing. Ongoing research allowed for refinement of the causes
of action as reflected in the subsequent pleadings (i.e., the amended
complaints in California and the pleadings in Illinois Federal Court).
1. Identity Theft, 18 U.S.C. § 1028 2. Violations of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125 3. Invasion of Privacy: False Light 4. Defamation Per Se 5. Defamation 6. Invasion of Privacy: Appropriation of Name or Likeness 7. Negligent and Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress 8. Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage 9. Unfair Competition 10. Infringement of Copyright 17 U.S.C. § 501 11. Transportation of Obscene Matters 18 U.S.C. § 1462 12. Injunctive Relief
Here’s the full filing: http://ganjavi.freezoy.com/cyber_law/Reza_Ganjavi_vs._Todd_Tipton,_Jeremy_C._Smith,_et_al-CA-09-12-2005-Original-Complaint.pdf
First Amended Complaint in California
On 14 April 2006, the first amended complaint in California was a still filed pro-se (without a lawyer):
Ganjavi vs. Jeremy Smith, Todd Tipton, William Jennings, Douglas
Carlson, DOE1 – “John Ed Gore”, DOE2 – “Rosa”, DOE3 – “Cybertroll
Administrator”, DOE4 – “Cyber Troll”, DOES 5-10.
By this time I
had identified a key defendant who lived in Chicago and named him in
the suit, as well as replacing some of the DOE’s with other nicknames
of the defendants I was still trying to identify. At that time, it was
clear to me who some of these anonymous defendants were but I still did
not have the solid legal proof. I had indications to believe they were
the same people who were already named in the suit.
The causes of action were:
1. Identity Theft, 18 U.S.C. § 1028 2. Violations of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125 3. Invasion of Privacy: False Light 4. Defamation Per Se 5. Defamation 6. Invasion of Privacy: Appropriation of Name or Likeness 7. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress 8. Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress 9. Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage 10. Unfair Competition 11. Infringement of Copyright 17 U.S.C. § 501 12. Transportation of Obscene Matters 18 U.S.C. § 1462 13. Intentional Misrepresentation 14. Negligent Misrepresentation 15. Injunctive Relief
By this time I had learned that I could also sue the defendants for a common law tort, Misrepresentation.
Here’s the full filing: http://ganjavi.freezoy.com/cyber_law/Reza_Ganjavi_vs._Todd_Tipton,_Jeremy_C._Smith,_et_al-CA-14-04-2006-FirstAmendedComplaint.pdf
Second Amended Complaint in California
second amended complaint in California was the first filing that had
Fred Douglas’s name on it the lawyer, and it was filed on 2 June 2006:
Reza Ganjavi vs. Jeremy C. Smith, Todd Tipton, William D. Jennings, DOES 1-10.
An important development here was that I dismissed the defendant in California after we entered into a settlement agreement.
1. Forgery 2. 17 U.S.C. § 106A: Attribution and Integrity Rights 3. Violations of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125 4. Invasion of Privacy: False Light 5. Defamation Per Se 6. Defamation 7. Invasion of Privacy: Appropriation of Name or Likeness 8. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress 9. Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress 10. Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage 11. Unfair Competition 12. Infringement of Common Law Copyright 13. Intentional Misrepresentation 14. Negligent Misrepresentation 15. Injunctive Relief
did extensive research on Identity Theft and although my name and email
website (enough identification material) was used without my
authorization, I felt this was not quite the right cause of action. I
asked many lawyers what best constitutes this act. In this filing I
called it Forgery. Also Fred found the Federal claim “Attribution and
Integrity Rights” but later on I realized that the fine print that this
does not apply to websites was neglected.
Being an IP lawyer, Fred also helped me refine the Copyright claim and change it to a common law copyright.
On 3 August 2006 I filed a complaint in Federal Court in Chicago with help from a lawyer in Chicago, Khoi Dang-Vu:
Reza Ganjavi vs. Jeremy C. Smith, Cindy Smith, Deloitte Consulting LLC, Deloitte & Touche USA LLP, Deloitte & Touch Corporate Finance LLC, DOES 1-10.
made a decision to file this claim due to the limitations on tolling of
the statute of limitations, a legal concept which I had studied and
researched in depth, which allowed me to “toll” the statute of
limitations upon a timely refilling in another court, and Illinois was
the natural choice since the defendant who had been dismissed in
California for lack of personal jurisdiction, lived in Illinois.
this time, I was also advised to go after his employer, Deloitte, since
he used their equipment and network to carry some of the attacks and
for other reasons discussed elsewhere in this book (search for
Deloitte), for Vicarious Liability and Negligent Enablement.
I sued the wife of the defendant in Chicago because I had reasons to
believe she had a hand in some of the attacks.
The claims were as follows:
1. Forgery 2. 17 U.S.C. § 106A: Attribution and Integrity Rights 3. Violations of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125 4. Invasion of Privacy: False Light 5. Defamation Per Se 6. Defamation 7. Invasion of Privacy: Appropriation of Name or Likeness 8. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress 9. Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress 10. Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage 11. Unfair Competition 12. Infringement of Common Law Copyright 13. Intentional Misrepresentation 14. Negligent Misrepresentation 15. Vicarious Liability 16. Negligent Enablement
On 29 December 2006 I filed the second amended complaint in Federal Court in Chicago:
Ganjavi vs. Jeremy C. Smith, Cindy Smith, Todd Tipton, William D.
Jennings, Deloitte Consulting LLC, Deloitte & Touche USA LLP, DOES
Here’s the full filing: http://ganjavi.freezoy.com/cyber_law/Reza_Ganjavi_vs._Todd_Tipton,_Jeremy_C._Smith,_et_al-IL-second_amended_complaint.pdf
Third Amended Complaint in Illinois
On 9 February 2007 I filed the third amended complaint in Federal Court in Chicago:
Reza Ganjavi vs. Jeremy C. Smith, Cindy Smith, Todd Tipton, William D. Jennings, DOES 1-10.
Here’s the full filing: http://ganjavi.freezoy.com/cyber_law/Reza_Ganjavi_vs._Todd_Tipton,_Jeremy_C._Smith,_et_al-IL_third_amended_complaint.pdf
this time I had voluntarily dropped Deloitte from the case because they
proved to me that they had no legal responsibility in the attacks.
I presented a 28 point Factual Allegations section and the following
claims including a new claim I found: Civil Conspiracy:
1. Violation of Attribution and Integrity Rights (17 U.S.C. § 106A) 2. False Presentation in violation of the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (15 U.S.C. §1125) 3. Invasion of Privacy: False Light 4. Libel Per Se 5. Libel 6. Invasion of Privacy: Appropriation of Name or Likeness 7. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress 8. Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress 9. Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage 10. Unfair Competition – Common Law 11.
Unfair Competition -- Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business
Practices Act, IL ST CH 815 § 505/1 et seq. 12. Infringement of Common Law Copyright 13. Intentional Misrepresentation 14. Negligent Misrepresentation 15. Trade Libel (Disparagement) 16. Civil Conspiracy
December 2009 – Lawyer’s Lie
Saper, the attorney for the defendants in Illinois, has apparently
become an expert in this field and is now conducting seminars, one of
which is about online defamation. The video of her seminar was on her
website when I saw it in December 2009. I wrote the following journal
17 Dec 2009
[Journal entry: 17 Dec 2009: Daliah Saper Lied]
can't believe the Chicago attorney, Daliah Saper, stood there in front
of people in her "October’s Seminar at Saper Law about online
defamation" and lied about the case: “Reza Ganjavi vs. Jeremy C. Smith,
Todd Tipton, William D. Jennings, et al."
She said, for example,
talking about back then:: "all these people are anonymous to each other
– they don’t know who each other are -- they just know each other by
their handles". That's a flat out lie. The clients she represented in
my case knew very well who I was. They had seen my website, saw my
postings using my real name, one of them had called me on the phone
before, one of them had sent me personal email before, and the other
one also sent me personal email during the course of the attacks.
Furthermore, those who set up fraudulent website, used my email address
and real name to post thing, knew exactly who I was. So her statement
is a lie and sets the stage perfectly for her next statements which I
could not believe my ears when I heard them. Here's an attorney talking
about one of her cases in front of the camera, bringing justifications
for the same kinds of acts which later her seminar condemns as against
the law, and says things like, it was just high school humor, and other
crap like that.
I like to know how she would feel if somebody
went on a widely read, international newsgroup, used her name, her
email address, and wrote a message sympathizing with terrorists. If she
considers this crude act which can put someone's life in danger, as
humor, I am speechless. I don't know what kind of humor they used in
the high school she attended, but I hope, every high school in the
world considers it a criminal offense to write a note to someone using
another person's identity, threatening to kill them. That is not funny,
but a felony. And these are just two examples of the kinds of things
that were done to me. And she takes cheap shots at the case, which I
find very unprofessional since her client settled this case with me,
about the motives, and suspicion on why I filed it pro-se, which again
can not be further from truth. [she claimed I filed pro-se because no
lawyer wanted to have their name on the case, but that is absolutely
I have sent her a formal notice to retract her video which lies about a horrendous case of attacks which I was a victim of.
[Journal entry: 23 Dec 2009] Daliah
Saper got the defamatory part deleted from her seminar video (which
incidentally was on Defamation) on her website. It was a very
distressful few days once I found out about her video. I am happy she
complied. I was not looking forward to having to take legal action on
the matter but having those false remarks online was one of those
things that I absolutely would not have tolerated. It was good of her
to act quickly to end the saga. A few emails I sent her follows.
18 Dec 2009 - 1
I sent a very strong message to Daliah demanding an immediate retraction of the video. Here’s a part of it:
WOULD YOU LIKE IT IF SOMEBODY POSED AS YOU USING YOUR EMAIL AND
SUPPORTED TERRORISM? AND YOU STAND THERE TELLING THOSE PEOPLE YOUR
CLIENT WAS JUST MAKING FUN OF ME…. ALSO YOU LIE THAT THE PEOPLE ONLY
KNEW ABOUT EACH OTHER THROUGH THE HANDLES. YOUR CLIENTS KNEW VERY WELL
WHO I WAS….”
18 Dec 2009 - 2
And another one on the same day once I cooled off a bit:
I am looking forward to hearing from you on this subject. You need to
pull down this video or edit out your cheap shots and lying about my
case. Thanks for your cooperation. It's clear to any viewer upon a few
minute search of your site that this is about the hell your defendants
put me through, so this is you lying about my case, and taking cheap
shots after your defendants settled the case. I can't believe this.
can email me back or leave a detailed message on <snip> and tell
me what you plan to do about this. I have no idea what to make of this
and makes me very confused, as untruth always does.”
18 Dec 2009 - 3
And a more formal one on the same day:
formally request that you retract your video or portions which pertain
to my case immediately because in it you lie about the case and you
should know, being a lawyer, specially preaching about defamation on
the same video, that that is not good for you at all, and it's terrible
and damaging for me.
"The recording of October’s Seminar at Saper Law about online defamation is now available for viewing!"
Signed: Reza Ganjavi
18 Dec 2009 - 4
Hope you're well too.
notion that you didn't call me by name is meaningless: In the video you
mention Guitarist Switzerland California Illinois Guitar Google and
describe the case (how many counts were filed, how it was filed, etc.).
Search on your website
You mention my name and the case
on your website 2 times. All a person has to do is to search your site
for one key word and find the case you're referring to.
Search on Google
Let's assume nobody can make the link by taking the facts on the video and going to your website's search button
can find out exactly what case you're talking about by entering a
simple search command using as simple as three key words from the
information you gave plus your name.
Duration of a lie is irrelevant
doesn't matter if it's 1 minute out of 5 or out of 500. That's the same
argument you made saying there are so many postings on a newsgroup, one
doesn't matter. Well it does. As you said on the seminar yourself "10
years later" it can be pulled out -- these bloody records are permanent
and one is enough to destroy someone (speaking in principle regarding
duration). You still haven't told me how you'd feel if just one of a
100 post is done using your name, your email, sympathizing with
terrorism or insulting blacks, or other such remarks of your clients in
Misrepresenting the case through a material lie
lie on the video. You misrepresent the case. You lie that none of these
guys knew each other. This case the case at a very different level and
in a false light. These guys knew who I was and targeted me because of
Unbelievable opinions and cheap shots
have NO idea why I started the case pro-se. But you take a cheap shot
that probably no lawyer wanted their name on the case, Ok, that's your
opinion and you're entitled to it. I think it's cheap specially given
I also consider it sad and unbelievable that you
think this was high school humor when you know very well and documented
by the very remarks of your clients that they were out to destroy my
reputation and career and mind -- you know that very well unless you
didn't read the 90 page evidence document and the rest of evidence
provided. Let me not say more right now. You can have that opinion and
are entitled to it but it's unbelievable a woman as seemingly classy
and educated has such a judgment.
Cease and Desist and Retraction
again, I formally request that you stop misrepresenting the case,
expressing opinions about the case which are not true without checking
them to your best ability, and most importantly, retract your
defamatory statement immediately. The most pragmatic way to retract
this is to either pull the video down, or edit it and take out the
section where you talk about the case entirely or partially. I have
done video editing and can see that the cut can be very clean. You
already describe a case before my case to demonstrate your point about
jurisdiction. Discussion of motive, and false circumstances you
describe are easily pulled down. You can state facts and opinions but
the misrepresentation has to be cut out. If you need help with this I
am willing to give you tips.
I really hope you cooperate to put
this behind us. I need to spend my time on much important things -- for
God's sake. But I will absolutely not tolerate this and you should know
me well enough by now.
Yes, I appreciate our friendly past and
your help in settling the case a few years ago (only to hear you say
these things years later -- it blows my mind). Regards Reza 21 Dec 2009
FYI, I've had a hell couple of days and last 3 nights I had nightmares,
and been extremely nervous because of your lying and misrepresentation
of the case, after having wasted several years of my life as a result
of the "high school humor" as you phrase it which I am sure you and I
both know the jury would not think of it as high school humor once they
saw the evidence. I am not sure what you gain by making these
statements or the legal implications given the fact that you still
represent one of the defendants in the case (I have to check on that),
but I do know your own statements are illegal and I demand once again a
quick retraction of your false public statements about the case.
a friendly gesture to help you with the retraction I can offer to edit
the video for you if you Overnight a DVD or manage to get me a download
(e.g. ftp). Meanwhile, I expect you to immediately remove the file from
Regards Reza Ganjavi
21 Dec 2009
me know your decision on this subject immediately and urgently.
It is an extremely damaging and distressful situation and it's hellish
going into the holiday period with the burden of this situation and
what it may lead to. Thank you Reza ------ Please tell her to call me immediately. This is extremely urgent: <>. Please let me know if you do this or not. ------ Please
relay the message that she should give it PRIORITY to tell me what
she's planning to do about this immediately via email or call <> Thank you. ------ “Please tell your
webmaster to pull this defamatory "defamation seminar" video down
immediately until Daliah comes back from vacation and decides if she
wants to edit it.” 22 Dec 2009
“Anxiously waiting for the
answer. To my mind there are just two options: 1) remove it
completely 2) edit it and put it back
online. In either case, I like you to remove it immediately
specially if you're on vacation or busy with other things then take
your time with editing it. For your webmaster/editor, it's 5 minutes
work to delete it. Regards Reza”
23 Dec 2009 – Retraction Completed
I followed up again.
that day I got a notification that the video section was deleted. I
sent her a thank you note and also stated in it how disappointed I was
to get the impression that she apparently really believes the stuff she
said on that video and wondered if she really believes ½ of it. It’s
one thing to try to defend a defendant as a job, it’s another thing to
stand next to someone who clearly, according to his own statements, had
much different intensions and motivations than just “high school humor”
and then call it just that.
I also wondered whether she really
wanted to go in front of the jury and missed that opportunity and so
now trying to bring the arguments in front of her other audiences? But
the case is over and anyway I don’t think she would have had any luck
convincing the jury that her client was just joking by using another
person’s identity without authorization (first and last name, website,
email) to call blacks the “N” word or sympathizing with terrorists.
UPDATE: JUNE 27, 2007 -- I posted the following:
A message was fraudulently posted today which was attributed
to me as the author,
and included sexual insults etc., which I never wrote. [a second
fraudulent message was posted on the same day (attributed to me as the
author) by the same party who posted the first message, making
anti-semitic remarks and accusation of homosexuality on my behalf (I
have never made anti-semitic remarks and I am not homosexual).] The
right to write and speak anonymously (including on the internet), in
the US is protected by the 1st Amendment via a supreme court decision,
and as such is an implied constitutional right. However, as with other
rights they are not absolute and are lost when abused.
The person below, who has identified himself as a typical
anonymizer screen name posted a message today which contained a text
which was attributed to me -- a text which I never wrote. Now in the
physical world if you write a letter and sign it as your neighbour and
put his name and address as the author on top and bottom of the letter,
and send it out to people or publish it in a local newspaper, what
would you think that would be considered? Would you have broken any
laws? I'll leave the answer to your imagination.
Now, it just happens that many of the same laws that govern the
physical world, also govern the internet -- at least that is the
direction that cyber-law has been evolving in. But many people don't
People have rights, and to violate those rights is uncivil behavior.
A couple of years ago, a few people acted uncivilly by publishing
things I had not written as my writings by mis-quoting me as the
example below, using my email and name to publish things that I did not
write -- such as insulting black people, sympathizing with terrorists,
and threatening to kill someone, and an array of other violations. They
mostly used screen names and tried to abuse their right to anonymous
speech. But they were sloppy and left a ton of electronic footsteps. I
warned them a zillion times to stop their abusive activity, to retract
their fraudulent posts, and to work with me to correct the wrongs
they've done but they were hard headed and left me with absolutely no
choice than to pursue the matter in the court of law. Having grown up
around law (with a number of judges and lawyers in the family) I
dreaded and tried to avoid legal action because I know how draining it
would be -- I had heard far too many horror stories about cases that
took decades and far plenty of advice over the years to avoid
litigation at all costs. I believe people can and should resolve their
differences peacefully. But I was left with absolutely no choice for
many reasons including the fact that there were numerous fraudulent
records out there that were damaging presently and could also hunt me
in the future and I need a court order to get them cleaned out, and
there was absolutely no telling how far these villains would take it.
One day they were sympathizing with terrorists using my name -- do you
realize how dangerous that is -- and how contrary it is to my
philosophy of life -- or uttering racial slurs -- all these things that
I would never think let alone say -- and there was no telling what the
next fraudulent act would be and what kind of consequence it would
have. They had taken out all stops in their attempt to assassinate my
character and in their petty minds eliminate me from the classical
guitar world -- so that God forbid, another best selling CD would not
get produced by someone who happened to be born in Iran though he lived
longer in the US than there, and someone who didn't have a degree from
a conservatory and didn't participate in silly competitions and who
received hundreds of pages of complements from people including
thousands of non guitarists for his CD's and guitar playing which did
not meet the defendants' standards of good guitar playing. Do you see
how sick this is? Everybody that I know who's heard the details of this
case absolutely could not believe this could ever happen -- that
people, guitarists, would be willing to cross the line of decency so
much as they did and to carry this bullying abusive fraudulent violent
behavior against me.
The first positive outcome of that action were subpoenas that went to
the service providers of the abusers and one after another I got these
few people's names, and sometimes from more than one source as some of
them used multiple services. A couple of these people were smart and
settled the matter peacefully quickly. They were remorseful and
realized they had done something wrong. And I totally worked with them
on very favorable terms to end the matter because I felt they were
sincere and that they had learned something from their mistake and
worked with me to clean up the abusive posts. But their degree of
violations were far milder than the remaining defendants with whom I
continued to plea, to also work with me to end the matter but they were
too obstinate and uncooperative. So the matter continues in court and
will hopefully go to jury trial and we'll let the jury look at the huge
body of hard evidence I have against the defendants and make the right
decision. One of the defendants contacted a top notch freedom of speech
lawyer in response to a subpoena that I had served his ISP to get
his name. The lawyer contacted me and said, look, you're making some
very strong allegations; do you have evidence to back up your claims
with? I showed him the evidence I had and apparently he decided not to
file or not to advise client to file a motion to quash the subpoena,
another-words, he apparently felt there was enough grounds for me
to obtain the person's name and that the person had lost his right to
remain anonymous. You can imagine how this person felt once his
identity was revealed. A huge lesson for anyone that thinks they can
abuse others and remain anonymous -- the real lessons are yet to come
as the jury will decide what it will be.
Today I see that this abusive activity has continued. Someone posted a
message that has a paragraph which I never wrote and it is explicitly
attributed to me as the author, and it contains lies and self insulting
text. So, for the record, I did not write the message below (only first
couple of lines are reposted here). But that fraudulent message remains
This time around the abuser used an anonymizer service, governed by the
laws of The Netherlands, to hide his or her identity. Some people never
I warned the defendants many times - over and over - before
resorting to litigation. I wanted to exhaust all peaceful
options first and not rush into a legal battle.
On January 6, 2005 I posted this message to the board. The board was
the only way I had to communicate to this particular defendant who was
at the time still anonymous - I had some hints about who it might be. I
knew that he lived in Minneapolis because his ISP had told me that much
when I reported the abuses to them. The following was addressed to two
of the nicknames he had used: Rosa and John Gore to forge my writings,
post things I had not written - and I had evidence the same person had
taken on my identity, using my first and last name, email, and website
URL to post messages including one in which he threatened to kill
Reza Ganjavi (www.rezamusic.com)
"Tomorrow is Jan 7. Monday morning I will start proceedings if you
don't remove the messages you forged. You wrote quoted replies under my
name which were not written by me. I will have another check on Monday
morning before getting the ball rolling. You're very unwise if
you don't recall those messages and kick off a legal war. Very
unwise. Write to me if you have any doubts. I've given you plenty of
A response was posted by a screen name, within 1/2 a day saying:
"...But you won't [proceed], because you are bluffing. Make sure to
reference case numbers. Hilarious. You are so full of shit."
In what language do you tell someone you're not bluffing?! Anyway, the message did not get through, and the rest is history...
This was just one example of such a communication. I begged, pleaded,
did everything under the sun to get them to retract and stop, but at
the end, I was left with only one choice. A dreadful choice. A
nightmare of a choice. A choice that any wise person could look ahead
to and see that it is several years of wastage of time money creativity
friendships, etc. etc. - but nevertheless it was not a choice. It was a
choiceless matter. If I had done nothing, fraudulent records would be
left online forever, replicated and duplicated, and used against me,
and would destroy the result of every good value I had ever stood for
or worked hard at. To make matters worse, it seemed that when I
pleaded, the attacks got worse. Apparently my pleading for peace was
read as a sign of weakness. In a litigious society this is not
surprising. It is in my personal and cultural background to not
counter-attack when attacked without first exhausting all peaceful
options. Bush didn't act that way. He rushed into war and as a
consequence, the world stability and economy has been damaged. Oil has
soared, dollar has lost over 30% of its value. Don't get me
I saw it coming. The start of a very dark chapter - perhaps the darkest
chapter in my life - and it was going to be so in their lives too --
they had elected so.
> I give you a few weeks. Meanwhile I am getting my
> ducks in a row in case you're stupid enough to want to fight. That fight
> won't be a verbal one here on the NG. It will be law against the lawless.
> I am dead serious.
In Dec 2004 I could
see the darkness of a long litigation up front if they did not stop. I
pled again and again to stop and retract their fradulent messages and
stalking. They must have taken the pleading as a sign of weakness or
didn't believe me because they continued.
On Dec 21 2004, early on in this sage, a key defendant wrote:
"HILARIOUS. Has to be wrong because I am not that person. The more
knowledgeable you try to appear the more foolish you look. You have
absolutely no idea what you are talking about, and you know it because you
Keep it up, its pretty funny."
On 28 Dec 2004 I wrote:
"I know more than you think. I also know where you live."
He wrote: "I don't even have an internet account, dumb ass. Blow me."
Well it turned out that he did have an internet account, and the same
one from which he stalked me, and the same account that I was able
Dec 20 2004,
I asked the cyber stalker to please stop his actions. “…delete your old
posts and avoid a fight. I do not wish to fight you but will if I absolutely have to. I
owe it to decency
to ask you again and again to stop and reverse your wrong
action. You still have a chance.
On Feb 21, 11:39 pm, "John Rimmer" <jdr...@sbcglobal.nte> wrote:
> I thought the video was funny. I DO NOT think the pain caused > on Reza for the false posts was funny.
John, your statements are not ambiguous but hypocritical. Your saying the essence of it was parody was not referring to the video but to the attacks. Now you're saying the offences were not funny but before you called them a parody. I don't know how it is in Texas but in my neck of woods this is double-talk. I assume your latter talk is the one you really feel in your heart and the former one was just a cheap shot.
I guess you just answered my question on how you would feel if someone played that "parody" on you. I bet you would not like it a bit and surely won't find it funny if 10 years later the same person who forged your identity could pull up a fraudulent record with your name on it as the author, if you did nothing about it. That shit can get people killed. I don't see any parody in it at all. And if you had no way of knowing how far the attacks would be taken once the attackers had crossed all lines of decency, civility, and law? You would not have any parody to laugh about then.
If, for example, a kid gets kicked in the school yard by a bully for fun because the bully is mentally disturbed, for prejudice if the kid's skin color is different, for jealousy because the kid is smarter, for attention because the bully's psychologically empty, for comradeship because the bully's lonely and has no social life, or for whatever other sick motive there may be, can you call that a parody because the bully or the guy watching are having fun with it while to the guy getting kicked it's no fun or parody at all?
Then you move on to a discourse on motives. I suggest since you keep saying you don't know but still make so many empty assessments, to read the filings and educate yourself a bit about the case before making judgments about it.
You’re entitled to that opinion of course. I respect freedom of speech fully.
Here are what a few other people have said about the same website you hate: http://home.datacomm.ch/rezamusic/comments_website.html
> and, as that played out in his posts
What do you mean exactly? How did it "play out" in my posts. Show me one post where I said my website is great or I am great or my playing is great or something similar to that. The website is a quick job and technically very elementary – instead of improving it I had to waste time fighting cyber stalkers, subpoenaing and arguing their ISP, one guy’s employer, a news server, and so on, filing court papers, etc. because I had no other choice (counter-attacking which technologically I was very capable of doing was not an option because I refuse to break the law).
I never bragged about the website so how does it play in my posts – it doesn’t and again, you’re full of it -- if you're calling a signature link in posts, or links to some files on the site, there are many people in this and every other newsgroup who post a link to their site and there is nothing indecent immoral unethical or illegal about it. Please stop your sympathy for the attackers, or trying to justify their actions. Some of them have admitted publicly themselves that they were wrong. You can find those statements on top section of this file: http://ganjavi.freezoy.com/misc_filings.html
And even if you were right, does promoting a website within terms and conditions of your online service provider and target forum, or expressing an opinion, provide grounds for an attacker to break the law? The answer is clearly no.
Regards, Reza www.rezamusic.com
COPYRIGHT NOTICE: ALL AUDIO AND VIDEO RECORDINGS, WRITINGS,
COMPILATION, AND OTHER WORKS BY REZA GANJAVI ARE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT
LAWS. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.