"First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they fight you. Then you win!"  Mahatma Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi


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.

The case "Reza Ganjavi vs. Jeremy C. Smith, Todd Tipton, William Jennings, et al.": here's the last complaint I filed with the Federal Court. (click to read). .

Here are some other filings in California and Illinois Federal Courts: (click here to read the filings).

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: http://home.datacomm.ch/rezamusic/litigation.html.
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 safer tool.

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 Ophee

Other comments:

"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 guitar."

"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."



 PERSON 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:

"I 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 experience.

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 the world!

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 subject.

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, should be the dominant norm in the cyber-world just as they are in the real-world. Thank you <name snipped> for your cooperation. Reza.

"I know you took great care not to drag me in by mistake, and I appreciate that."  Person 2

On 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

had 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:

First Amended Complaint in California

On 14 April 2006, the first amended  complaint in California was a still filed pro-se (without a lawyer):

Reza 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:

Second Amended Complaint in California

The 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

I 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.

Here’s the full filing:


Original Complaint in Illinois

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.   

I 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.

By 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.

Additionally, 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

Here’s the full filing:


First Amended Complaint in Illinois

On 11 September 2006 I filed an amended complaint in Federal Court in Chicago:

Reza Ganjavi vs. Jeremy C. Smith, Cindy Smith, Todd Tipton, William D. Jennings, Deloitte Consulting LLC, Deloitte & Touche USA LLP, DOES 1-10.

I brought in the defendant from Minneapolis and the defendant from Texas into the suit in Illinois. The causes of action were the same as the original complaint.

Here’s the full filing:


Second Amended Complaint in Illinois

Second Amended Complaint in Illinois

On 29 December 2006 I filed the second amended complaint in Federal Court in Chicago:

Reza Ganjavi vs. Jeremy C. Smith, Cindy Smith, Todd Tipton, William D. Jennings, Deloitte Consulting LLC, Deloitte & Touche USA LLP, DOES 1-10.

Here’s the full filing:

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:

By this time I had voluntarily dropped Deloitte from the case because they proved to me that they had no legal responsibility in the attacks.

Additionally, 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

Daliah 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 entries:

17 Dec 2009

[Journal entry: 17 Dec 2009: Daliah Saper Lied]

I 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 false].

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:


18 Dec 2009 - 2

And another one on the same day once I cooled off a bit:

“Daliah, 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.

You 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:

I 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.

Video in question shows up on your main webpage:


and on



"The recording of October’s Seminar at Saper Law about online defamation is now available for viewing!"

Reza Ganjavi

18 Dec 2009 - 4


Hope you're well too.

Your 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

Anybody 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

It 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 this case.

Misrepresenting the case through a material lie

You 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 that knowledge.

Unbelievable opinions and cheap shots

You 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 our history.

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

Once 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).
21 Dec 2009


Just 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.

As 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 your website.

Reza Ganjavi

21 Dec 2009

Let 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
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.

23 Dec 2009 – Retraction Completed

I followed up again.

Later 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 get it.

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 out there.

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 learn.

Reza Ganjavi

[MESSAGE FRAUDULENTLY ATTRIBUTED TO REZA GANJAVI AS THE AUTHOR] wrote in message news:da18f093f428d1fc4dc8913cb4aaccc1@mixmaster.it...>> "Reza Ganjavi (www.rezamusic.com)"  <snipped: my email> wrote in message > news:YUhgi.212$dN5.82@nntpserver.swip.net...>> on this <rest snipped>

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 someone!

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 chances."

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 started.

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.


20 dec 2004

> 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.

"You've got nothing, all talk, empty threats."


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
are bluffing.
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 to trace.


Dec 20 2004, 7:21 pm

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.

> <snipped>

You’re entitled to that opinion of course. I respect freedom of speech

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.