San Diego YouGotPosted Lawsuit: Opposition To Roy and Amy Chanson's Motion To Dismiss

13cv1238
i
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Randazza
Legal Group
3625 S. Town Center
Drive, Suite 150
Las Vegas, NV 89135
(888) 667-1113

Marc J. Randazza, Cal. Bar No. 269535
Christopher A. Harvey, Cal. Bar. No. 261986
RANDAZZA LEGAL GROUP
3625 S. Town Center Drive, Suite 150
Las Vegas, NV 89135
Telephone: 702-420-2001
Facsimile: 305-437-7662
ecf@randazza.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff,
, through her mother,

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

, a minor, through
her mother ,

Plaintiff,

vs.

ERIC S. CHANSON, an individual;
ROY E. CHANSON, an individual;
AMY L. CHANSON, an individual;
KEVIN C. BOLLAERT, an individual;
BLUE MIST MEDIA, LLC, a limited-
liability company of unknown origin,
d/b/a YOUGOTPOSTED,

Defendants.
Case No. 3:13-cv-01238-CAB-BLM

Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo

PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION TO
DEFENDANTS ROY AND AMY
CHANSONS MOTION TO
DISMISS PURSUANT TO RULE
12(b)(2); MEMORANDUM OF
POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN
SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION

Hearing Date: Nov. 15, 2013
Time: 3:00 p.m.
Place: 221 W. Broadway, Suite 4165,
San Diego, CA 92101
Location: Courtroom 4C

Action Filed: May 28, 2013

Case 3:13-cv-01238-CAB-BLM Document 17 Filed 10/29/13 Page 1 of 20

13cv1238

ii
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Randazza
Legal Group
3625 S. Town Center
Drive, Suite 150
Las Vegas, NV 89135
(888) 667-1113

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. INTRODUCTION..........................................................................................1
II. STATEMENT OF FACTS............................................................................2
III. LEGAL ARGUMENT...................................................................................3
A. THIS COURT MAY EXERCISE GENERAL JURISDICTION OVER DEFENDANTS
BECAUSE YOUGOTPOSTED/UGOTPOSTEDS CONTACTS ARE SUBSTANTIAL AND
CONTINUOUS AND SYSTEMATIC. ...........................................................................5
B. DEFENDANTS ROY AND AMY CHANSON ARE SUBJECT TO SPECIFIC PERSONAL
JURISDICTION WITHIN CALIFORNIA.......................................................................7
1. Defendants Roy and Amy Chanson committed an intentional act by
publishing Plaintiffs lewd and lascivious photos on the Internet. ...................8
2. Plaintiffs causes of action arise from Defendants Roy and Amy
Chansons activities directed at California. ........................................................... 11
3. This Court may reasonably exercise jurisdiction over Defendants Roy
and Amy Chanson. ............................................................................................................. 12
IV. CONCLUSION.............................................................................................15


13cv1238

iii
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Randazza
Legal Group
3625 S. Town Center
Drive, Suite 150
Las Vegas, NV 89135
(888) 667-1113

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Cases
Ballard v. Savage, 65 F.3d 1495, 1498 (9th Cir. 1995) ............................................8
Bancroft & Masters, Inc. v. Augusta Natl, Inc., 223 F.3d 1082 (9th Cir. 2000).5,11
Brayton Purcell LLP v. Recordon & Recordon, 660 F.3d 1124 (9th Cir. 2010) 3, 11
Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783 (1984) .................................................................8, 10
Corporate Inv. Bus. Brokers v. Melcher, 824 F.2d 786 (9th Cir. 1987) .................13
Cybersell, Inc. v. Cybersell, Inc., 130 F.3d 414 (9th Cir. 1997) ...............................8
CYBERsitter, LLC v. P.R.C., 805 F. Supp. 958 (C.D. Cal. 2011) ...............3, 4, 8, 12
Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408 (1984)...........4, 6
Hirsch v. Blue Cross, Blue Shield, 800 F.2d 1474 (9th Cir. 1986) ...........................5
Newport Components, Inc. v. NEC Home Electronics, Inc., 671 F.Supp. 1525 (9th
Cir. 1987) ...............................................................................................................5
Panavision Itnl, L.P. v. Toeppen, 141 F.3d 1316 (9th Cir. 1998)..........................11
Pebble Beach Co. v. Caddy, 453 F.3d 1151, 1154 (9th Cir. 2006) .....................3, 11
Perkins v. Benguet Consolidated Mining Co., 342 U.S. 437 (1952).........................6
Rio Props., Inc. v. Rio Intl Interlink, 284 F.3d 1007 (9th Cir. 2002)....... 3, 8, 11-12
Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co., 374 F.3d 797 (9th Cir. 2004) ..........5, 8
Sinatra v. Natl Enquirer, Inc., 854 F.2d 1191 (9th Cir. 1988)...............................13
World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286 (1980)...........................5
Yahoo! Inc. v. La Ligue Contre Le Racisme Et LAntisemitisme, 433 F.3d 1199 (9th
Cir. 2006) (en banc) ...............................................................................................8
Statutes
18 U.S.C. 2251 .......................................................................................................2
Cal. Civ. Code 3344 ...............................................................................................2
Rules
Cal. Code Civ. P. 410.10....................................................................................4, 5
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2) ...................................................................................1, 3, 15

13cv1238

1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Randazza
Legal Group
3625 S. Town Center
Drive, Suite 150
Las Vegas, NV 89135
(888) 667-1113

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
Plaintiff ( ), through her mother, ,
hereby files this Opposition to Defendants Roy and Amy Chansons Motion to
Dismiss Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2), based on the following:
I. INTRODUCTION
This is a child pornography case. The victim is a California resident (as are
many other victims of the Defendants revenge porn website).
1
The perpetrators
are spread across multiple states, but aimed their relevant tortious conduct at a
child who lives in California, who felt all of the harm in California, who suffered
here and has a right to seek redress in California. Some of the defendants in this
scheme, including those that filed the instant Motion to Dismiss, demand that the
victim travel to them in order to seek redress. Meanwhile, members of the
conspiracy are scattered about the country, from Arizona to Illinois to New Jersey,
with the only established focal point of Californiawhere the Defendants
designated a Digital Millennium Copyright Act agent, where Defendants listed
their address in registering the website, where Defendants listed their trademark
registration, and where Defendants have targeted and solicited their business.
Accordingly, the Chansons argue that the proper course of conduct for their victim
would be to file lawsuits in multiple jurisdictions, where it would be more
convenient and comfortable for the child pornographers. While the Chansons may
find it inconvenient to be held accountable for their actions in California, they
well knew that they were victimizing California residents and causing harm in the
Golden State. In this contest of who should be inconvenienced?, the choice is
between a child and child pornographers. The choice is clear.

1
A revenge porn website is one that publishes a persons nude photos on the Internet
without the persons consent. See New York is Working on a Revenge Porn Law that
Would Be Tougher Than Californias, SFGate.com, Oct. 7, 2013 found at
http://www.sfgate.com/default/article/New-York-Is-Working-On-A-Revenge-Porn-Law-
That-4876543.php (last visited October 29, 2013).

13cv1238

2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Randazza
Legal Group
3625 S. Town Center
Drive, Suite 150
Las Vegas, NV 89135
(888) 667-1113

II. STATEMENT OF FACTS
On May 28, 2013, Plaintiff filed a Complaint alleging multiple
violations of 18 U.S.C. 2251, et seq., and Cal. Civ. Code 3344, pertaining to
the sexual exploitation of children and related violations of California law against
the named Defendants. Defendants Kevin Bollaert, Eric S. Chanson, Roy E.
Chanson, Amy L. Chanson, and Blue Mist Media, are jointly, severally, and in
concert with one another, and are engaged in the commercial distribution of child
pornography. See Complaint, ECF #1-1 at 2. Defendants conduct their enterprise
electronically, using computer servers and equipment across the country.
Defendants monetize their sites through advertising revenue and other currently
unverified sources of income.
2

In addition to posting the photos online, Defendants also engage in a form
of stalking. They identify the subjects of the photos by their full names, their
hometowns, and link to their personal Facebook pages. See Complaint, ECF #1-1
at 2. This compounds the injury for each victim, because Defendants specifically
target each person, with precision focus, and ensure that the brunt of the harm
takes place right smack dab on their front doorstep. Visitors to Defendants
website search for victims photographs by clicking on a link for the
corresponding state of residence. Those who wish to submit photos to the website
must fill out a form containing the identifying information of the victim. The
identifying information, such as name, location, and Facebook page are required
prior to the photos being posted, encouraging the outing and ongoing harassment
of the victims and rejecting anonymous photographs. Id.
Defendants purposefully directed their activities at this particular child,
with the precise knowledge that she lived in California, and with the precise

2
This likely includes a scheme where Defendants are the sole providers of image removal services
for their website, wherein they will remove the names and nude images of individuals from their
website who choose to pay a substantial fee. The site, called Changemyreputation.com is suspected
to be owned by the Chansons, and this fact will be explored in discovery.

13cv1238

3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Randazza
Legal Group
3625 S. Town Center
Drive, Suite 150
Las Vegas, NV 89135
(888) 667-1113

knowledge that she would suffer harm in California. See ECF #1-1 at 5. On
Defendants website, YouGotPosted/Ugotposted, Defendants tagged and
categorized the photos by the residences of the photos subjects, and specifically
targeted Plaintiff (a California resident) and dozens of other Californians.
Visitors to the website click on the name of each state and view nude photos
featuring males and females by location, prominently identified by full name and
hometown. By their own admission, Defendants Roy and Amy Chanson
knowingly and actively participated in the posting and editing of the photos and
the subject websites. See Decl. Green 9-15. Because Roy and Amy Chanson,
in partnership with the other Defendants, directed tortious activities at the State of
California with actual knowledge that Plaintiff (and frankly all of the Defendant
enterprises California victims) would feel injury there, this Court should exercise
personal jurisdiction over them.
III. LEGAL ARGUMENT
This Court may exercise personal jurisdiction over Defendants Roy and
Amy Chanson. When faced with a motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(b)(2), a plaintiff need only make a prima facie showing of jurisdictional facts
to defeat the motion. Brayton Purcell LLP v. Recordon & Recordon, 660 F.3d
1124, 1127 (9th Cir. 2010); Rio Props., Inc. v. Rio Intl Interlink, 284 F.3d 1007,
1019 (9th Cir. 2002). Uncontroverted allegations in the complaint must be taken
as true, and conflicts between the facts contained in the parties affidavits must
be resolved in [plaintiffs] favor. Rio Props, 284 F. 3d at 1019. In sum, all
disputed facts are resolved in plaintiffs favor. CYBERsitter, LLC v. P.R.C., 805 F.
Supp. 958, 967 (C.D. Cal. 2011), quoting Pebble Beach Co. v. Caddy, 453 F.3d
1151, 1154 (9th Cir. 2006).
Courts evaluate the propriety of personal jurisdiction over a non-resident
defendant based on whether such an exercise of jurisdiction satisfies the

13cv1238

4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Randazza
Legal Group
3625 S. Town Center
Drive, Suite 150
Las Vegas, NV 89135
(888) 667-1113

requirements of the applicable state long-arm statute and comports with federal
due process. CYBERsitter, 805 F. Supp. 2d at 967 (internal quotations omitted).
Californias long-arm statute provides that jurisdiction is proper on any basis not
inconsistent with the Constitution of this state or of the United States. Cal. Code
Civ. P. 410.10.
Defendants motion to dismiss contends that this Court cannot exercise
personal jurisdiction over them because they were not affiliated with the
YouGotPosted site and that the site is now shut down. However, they still caused
or allowed to cause the tortious actions to occur against Plaintiff while they acted
on behalf of their son when the website was live. If it is actually true that Roy and
Amy Chanson decided to disassociate themselves from the website after they
were sued for their actions, that should not offer them any comfort. If it did, this
would provide quite the convenient blueprint for child pornographers go ahead
and publish child porn until you get caught, then after you are sued, just drop the
site like a hot potato, act like it never happened, and escape all liability without
further ado. That is not the state of the law. Jurisdiction is proper here, whether
arising under general or specific jurisdiction.
General jurisdiction arises when the cause of action does not arise out of or
relate to the [foreign defendants] activities in the forum state. Helicopteros
Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408, 414, 415 n. 9 (1984). In
contrast, specific jurisdiction is relevant where the defendants contacts with the
forum state give rise to the cause of action asserted against him or her.
CYBERsitter, 805 F. Supp. 2d at 967.
YouGotPosted/UGotPosted has significant contacts with the state so as to
approximate a physical presence in California for exercising general jurisdiction.
Roy and Amy Chansons acts are substantially connected to the forum state, and
the Courts jurisdiction over them would be reasonable; in fact, a contrary result
would be most unreasonable.

13cv1238

5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Randazza
Legal Group
3625 S. Town Center
Drive, Suite 150
Las Vegas, NV 89135
(888) 667-1113

In addition, specific jurisdiction is properly exercised because the Chansons
purposefully availed themselves by intentionally assisting in victimizing a
California child, specifically aiming their tortious acts against Plaintiff in her
home state of California, and indeed in her very hometown. The Chansons and
other Defendants caused to be published lascivious, sexually explicit photos of
Plaintiff, a minor, and went so far as to post the childs profile page that they
created for herto target her, to embarrass her, and to harm her, and to ensure
that such harm was visited upon her in the community where she lives. There can
be no question that Defendants Roy and Amy Chanson knew that this child lived
in California, and no question that they posted her photographs online, knowing
that she would feel the brunt of the harm in this state. Their tortious conduct was
purposeful and calculated to cause injury in California and thus the Chansons
must have reasonably anticipated being haled into a California court.
A. This Court may exercise general jurisdiction over Defendants
because YouGotPosted/UGotPosteds contacts are substantial and
continuous and systematic.
Courts first look to a states long-arm statute to determine whether general
jurisdiction over a defendant is appropriate. Newport Components, Inc. v. NEC
Home Electronics, Inc., 671 F.Supp. 1525, 1533 (9th Cir. 1987). Californias
long-arm statute allows for an exercise of jurisdiction over nonresidents on any
basis that is not inconsistent with the U.S. Constitution. See Cal. Code Civ. P.
410.10. General jurisdiction requires a defendant to engage in substantial or
continuous and systematic contacts that approximate physical presence.
Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co., 374 F.3d 797, 801 (9th Cir. 2004);
Bancroft & Masters, Inc. v. Augusta Natl, Inc., 223 F.3d 1082, 1086 (9th Cir.
2000). In determining whether a defendants contacts are continuous and
systematic, courts examine those activities that impact the state, including whether
the defendant solicits or engages in business, serves the states markets, or

13cv1238

6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Randazza
Legal Group
3625 S. Town Center
Drive, Suite 150
Las Vegas, NV 89135
(888) 667-1113

designates an agent for service of process there. Hirsch v. Blue Cross, Blue Shield,
800 F.2d 1474, 1478 (9th Cir. 1986), citing Helicopteros, 466 U.S. at 414, World-
Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 295 (1980); Perkins v.
Benguet Consolidated Mining Co., 342 U.S. 437, 447-49 (1952).
The WhoIs information for the YouGotPosted website, trademark
application, and DMCA agent notification all clearly point toward a San Diego,
California address. See Exhibit A, WhoIs registration for YouGotPosted, Exhibit
B, Trademark Registration Application Information for YouGotPosted, and ECF
#5-1 at 17, YouGotPosted Terms of Use. Each of these California connections
indicates that YouGotPosted and Defendants have a continuous and systematic
relationship with the state, as the sites designated agent is located within
California, the website is registered and operated in California, and the owners
intend to register a trademark for the website with the same California address.
Furthermore, YouGotPosted is a commercial website from which the
operators regularly solicit visitors to submit nude photos and from which
Defendants gleefully wreak havoc on the lives of men, women, and children
nationwide. See A Victim Speaks: Standing Up to a Revenge Porn Tormentor,
attached as Exhibit C. The menu tags on the right side of the front page feature
clickable links to several states, including California, encouraging and targeting
those states for submissions. Defendants derive a pecuniary benefit from these
photos, including Plaintiffs, to advertise and promote their services through the
site. Through the website, Defendants regularly and persistently solicit business
from California residents.
Prior to filing any lawsuit against Defendants, an attorney for the law firm
now representing Plaintiff spoke to the Chanson Defendants, including
Roy and Amy Chanson. See Declaration of Ronald D. Green (Decl. of Green),
4, 16. Roy and Amy Chanson stated that they not only knew about the subject

13cv1238

7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Randazza
Legal Group
3625 S. Town Center
Drive, Suite 150
Las Vegas, NV 89135
(888) 667-1113

website, but were actively assisting with its operations and administration. See
Decl. of Green, 12, 15. Specifically, they were editing photographs on the site
and altering watermarks from the name of a predecessor website (IsAnyoneUp) to
the name of the new website (UGotPosted). Decl. of Green, 11-13.
Based on those admissions, a trademark infringement lawsuit was brought
against the Defendants, including Roy and Amy Chanson. Decl. of Green, 11-
13. During the course of settlement negotiations, it was believed that Defendants
Roy and Amy Chanson convinced their son Eric Chanson to set aside a settlement
agreement he had already executed. Decl. of Green, 5-7. Based on these pre-
existing party admissions, the claims against Roy and Amy Chanson have a basis
to be pursued in both fact and law despite their post hoc rationalizations before
this Court. Furthermore, these admissions are enough to show that Defendants
Roy and Amy Chanson worked with the other Defendants in operating and
running YouGotPosted/UGotPosted, and since the website operated out of
California, jurisdiction over them is proper.
Thus, based on representations Roy and Amy Chanson made prior to the
filing of this suit, the Chanson Defendants contacts with the State of California
are systematic and continuous enough so as to justify this Courts general
jurisdiction over Roy and Amy Chanson as editors and co-conspirators with the
other website Defendants.
B. Defendants Roy and Amy Chanson are subject to specific
personal jurisdiction within California.
This Court may exercise specific personal jurisdiction over the Chanson
Defendants. For specific jurisdiction, the United States Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit employs a three-part test: 1) the defendant must purposefully avail
himself to acting or causing interference in the forum state; 2) the cause of action
must arise from the defendants activities in the forum state; and 3) the acts or
consequences caused by the defendant must be substantially connected to the

13cv1238

8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Randazza
Legal Group
3625 S. Town Center
Drive, Suite 150
Las Vegas, NV 89135
(888) 667-1113

forum state in order to make the exercise of jurisdiction reasonable. Cybersell,
Inc. v. Cybersell, Inc., 130 F.3d 414, 416 (9th Cir. 1997), quoting Ballard v.
Savage, 65 F.3d 1495, 1498 (9th Cir. 1995); see also CYBERsitter, 805 F. Supp.
2d at 967, citing Schwarzenegger, 374 F.3d at 802.
Plaintiff bears the burden in establishing the first two prongs of this test.
CYBERsitter, 805 F. Supp. 2d at 967. As to these first two prongs, the Ninth
Circuit evaluates purposeful availment using the Calder effects test, a three-part
test derived from the United States Supreme Courts decision in Calder v. Jones,
465 U.S. 783 (1984). For purposeful direction to exist under this test, the
defendant allegedly must have (1) committed an intentional act, (2) expressly
aimed at the forum state, (3) causing harm that the defendant knows is likely to be
suffered in the forum state. Yahoo! Inc. v. La Ligue Contre Le Racisme Et
LAntisemitisme, 433 F.3d 1199, 1206 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc).
Once these elements are satisfied, as set forth below, Defendants bear the
burden of presenting a compelling case that this Courts exercise of jurisdiction
would not be reasonable. Id. Defendants motion has not satisfied this burden. As
such, the Court may exercise specific personal jurisdiction over Defendants Roy
and Amy Chanson, and their motion should be denied.
1. Defendants Roy and Amy Chanson committed an
intentional act by publishing Plaintiffs lewd and lascivious
photos on the Internet.
Intentional acts such as the Chanson Defendants publication of the minor
Plaintiffs photos need not be made with the intent to violate Plaintiffs rights, but
only with an intent to perform an actual, physical act in the real world.
CYBERsitter, 805 F. Supp. 2d at 969, citing Schwarzenegger, 374 F.3d at 806.
However, Defendants publication of Plaintiffs photos in violation of federal and
state law is an entirely volitional act. See Rio Props., 284 F.3d at 1020 (finding
operation of even a passive website to be an intentional act). Defendants Roy and

13cv1238

9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Randazza
Legal Group
3625 S. Town Center
Drive, Suite 150
Las Vegas, NV 89135
(888) 667-1113

Amy Chanson availed themselves of California when they published the child
Plaintiffs photos on the Internet.
3
Defendants own and operate
YouGotPosted/Ugotposted under two domain names. ECF #1-1 at 7 26.
Navigating to <yougotposted.com> redirects users to <ugotposted.com>.
YouGotPosted/Ugotposted specifically aimed its activities at California, through a
California-specific page. Defendants actively solicit sexually oriented photos
through several invitations on their site to Post Nudes, including both a tab at
the top of the front page and a large, pink-highlighted link located on the right of
every page. The categories menu along the right side of every page of the site
contains clickable links to various states, including California. This feature for
sorting and seeking out California victims of the site is intrinsic to its operation
and placed on the site by Defendants. The link to California directs users to
photos of subjects from California, identifying each by his or her full name and
the city of residence.
Before posting their victims photos online, Defendants manually alter the
content by inserting their watermark onto each image, including those featuring
Plaintiff .
4
ECF #1-1 at 7-8 33-34. Defendants then tag the photos based
on personal information of their victims in order to categorize them based on
where the victims live. ECF #1-1 at 7 31. By their own admission, Defendants
Roy and Amy Chanson engaged in this editing process. See Decl. of Ronald D.
Green, 11-15.
Defendants categorization of the photos by the victims hometowns shows
that Defendants know exactly where the harm of their actions will be felt. In fact,
the purpose of posting the photos with the full names, cities, states, and links to

3
Note that Defendants did not merely publish the photos, but solicited them, selected them, published
them, assigned the victims name and hometown to them, and placed their own watermark over them.
4
This is an act of unmitigated gall. The Defendants, including Roy and Amy Chanson, do this because
they are concerned that third parties might steal the images and use them on their own websites.
Apparently, thieves themselves, the Defendants do not wish to have other parties steal their ill-gotten
child pornography.

13cv1238

10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Randazza
Legal Group
3625 S. Town Center
Drive, Suite 150
Las Vegas, NV 89135
(888) 667-1113

Facebook profiles of the subjects suggests that Defendants wanted no mistake in
pinpointing the exact identities of each and every unsuspecting victim whose nude
photos was plastered on the Web, including that of Plaintiff
When Defendants intentionally posted the lascivious child pornographic
photos of Plaintiff identifying her by her full name, her hometown in
California, and a link to her Facebook profile, they did so with full knowledge and
the intent that their behavior would specifically harm her right at her front
doorstep in California. Through their actions, Defendants expected that the
childs face and online social networking profiles would be inextricably connected
to sexually explicit photos of her, causing shame, embarrassment, and ridicule (or
worse) among those who knew her. Under the Calder effects test, Roy and Amy
Chanson purposefully availed themselves to jurisdiction in California when they
assisted the other Defendants in posting photos to YouGotPosted.
Defendants Roy and Amy Chanson materially assisted Defendant Eric
Chanson in operating YouGotPosted. See Complaint, ECF # 1-1 at 5-6. Now that
they have been sued, Defendants Roy and Amy Chanson deny any involvement
with YouGotPosted (see generally, Defendants Roy and Amy Chansons Motion
to Dismiss, ECF #7). However, when it suited them, they claimed a far more
active involvement. Prior to filing any suits against Defendants, an attorney for
the one of the law firms representing Plaintiff spoke to the Defendants in
this action, including Roy and Amy Chanson. Roy and Amy Chanson stated
explicitly that they not only knew about the website, but actively assisted with its
operations and administration. See Decl. of Green, 11. Defendants Roy and
Amy Chanson are knowing participants in the operation of YouGotPosted, and
admitted that they engaged in editing of the photos themselves. Because
California jurisdiction over issues involving YouGotPosted is proper, jurisdiction
over Roy and Amy Chanson, as editors of the website, is also proper.

13cv1238

11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Randazza
Legal Group
3625 S. Town Center
Drive, Suite 150
Las Vegas, NV 89135
(888) 667-1113

Accordingly, Roy and Amy Chanson, in assisting the owners and operators of
YouGotPosted, have purposefully availed themselves to jurisdiction in California.
2. Plaintiffs causes of action arise from Defendants Roy and
Amy Chansons activities directed at California.
Knowledge that targets residents of the forum is considered express aiming
under the precedent of this circuit. Rio Props., 284 F.3d at 1020 (operating
website aimed at Nevada casino deemed express aiming of tortious conduct into
Nevada); Bancroft & Masters, Inc. v. Augusta Nat., Inc., 223 F.3d 1082, 1088 (9th
Cir. 2000); Panavision Itnl, L.P. v. Toeppen, 141 F.3d 1316, 1321 (9th Cir.
1998). When a defendant individually targets a plaintiff known to be a forum
resident, that is enough to show that the defendants actions were specifically
aimed at a forum. See Brayton Purcell LLP, 606 F.3d at 1129 (9th Cir. 2010);
Pebble Beach Co., 453 F.3d at 1156-57 (9th Cir. 2006); Panavision Intl, 141 F.3d
at 1321-22. The facts alleged in the Complaint occurred within the State of
California. The child pornographic images of Plaintiff were seen by Plaintiff and
known to her while she was a California resident, creating the basis of this
litigation. Furthermore, the Defendants categorized the photographs into different
states including California. Defendants knew when posting the photos that
was a California resident, as that information was required in order to post
her photos. Therefore, Defendants individually targeted when posting her
photos, along with her full name and hometown, to a page specifically
categorizing California residents.
Moreover, based on the knowledge that Roy and Amy Chanson had or
should have had, they should have anticipated that Plaintiffs injury would have
been within her place of residence California. Panavision Itnl, L.P. v. Toeppen,
141 F.3d 1316, 1321 (9th Cir. 1998) (holding that defendant should have
reasonably anticipated jurisdiction in California after cybersquatting on movie
production companys domain names, as its principal place of business was in

13cv1238

12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Randazza
Legal Group
3625 S. Town Center
Drive, Suite 150
Las Vegas, NV 89135
(888) 667-1113

California, and the heart of the theatrical motion picture and television industry is
located there); Rio Props., 284 F.3d at 1020 (RII knowingly injured RIO in
Nevada its principal place of business and the capital of the gaming industry,
by operating a passive website).
As shown above, Defendants regularly engaged in collecting and soliciting
photos from California residents. Defendants, including Roy and Amy Chanson,
knew or should have known lived in California, as they required that
information as a condition of distributing Plaintiffs images. Defendants posted
Plaintiffs photos along with her full name and the California city in which she
resides, and associated it with an index term categorizing it with other entries from
the state. Based upon Roy and Amy Chansons own words and claims, they
engaged in editing of the photographs.
5

Plaintiff s causes of action relate directly to Defendants acts with
California. Therefore, the second factor of the three-part specific jurisdiction
analysis is satisfied.
3. This Court may reasonably exercise jurisdiction over
Defendants Roy and Amy Chanson.
With Plaintiff satisfying the first two prongs of the Ninth Circuits test for
specific personal jurisdiction, the burden to show the Courts exercise of
jurisdiction is unreasonable shifts onto Defendants. CYBERsitter, 805 F. Supp. 2d
at 967. To meet this burden, Defendants must present a compelling case that
this Courts exercise of jurisdiction would be unreasonable. Id., quoting Burger

5
Whether Roy and/or Amy Chanson actually edited these particular photographs of this
particular child is unknown before discovery. Nevertheless, their own admissions
support the claim that they are knowing and willful participants in this enterprise, and
they should not be set loose simply because they have raised the uncreative defense of
we didnt do it. When it served them, they claimed to be involved in operations at
Yougotposted/Ugotposted. Decl. of Green, 11. Now that they have learned that their
actions may subject them to liability, they claim complete ignorance and uninvolvement.
At the very least, they should submit themselves to discovery.

13cv1238

13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Randazza
Legal Group
3625 S. Town Center
Drive, Suite 150
Las Vegas, NV 89135
(888) 667-1113

King Corp. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 477 (1985). Courts consider seven factors
when analyzing whether the exercise of personal jurisdiction would be reasonable:
(1) the extent of a defendants purposeful interjection;
(2) the burden on the defendant in defending in the forum;
(3) the extent of conflict with the sovereignty of the defendants state;
(4) the forum states interest in adjudicating the dispute;
(5) the most efficient judicial resolution of the controversy;
(6) the importance of the forum to the plaintiffs interest in convenient and
effective relief; and
(7) the existence of an alternative forum.
Id. at 973. As explained below, the balance of these factors weighs in the minor
Plaintiffs favor, and Defendants have not satisfied their burden of presenting a
compelling case that this Courts exercise of personal jurisdiction over them
would be unreasonable.
As Defendants have inserted themselves into California, it is reasonable for
them to stand suit in connection with those activities. Purposeful interjection is
analogous to the purposeful direction analysis discussed above. Sinatra v. Natl
Enquirer, Inc., 854 F.2d 1191, 1199 (9th Cir. 1988); see Corporate Inv. Bus.
Brokers v. Melcher, 824 F.2d 786, 790 (9th Cir. 1987) (discussing that the
purposeful injectment factor receives no weight once it is shown that the
defendant purposefully directed its activities to the forum state). As this prong
has been satisfied above, Roy and Amy Chanson have purposefully interjected
their activities into California. The weight of this factor favors the Court
exercising personal jurisdiction over Defendants Roy and Amy Chanson.
Because the first two elements of the three-part test are satisfied, there is a
presumption that Californias personal jurisdiction over Roy and Amy Chanson is
reasonable. However, even if reasonableness were not presumed, Plaintiff can
show that jurisdiction is reasonable. Californian after Californian finds herself (or
himself) victimized by these Defendants, each of them targeted by name with as

13cv1238

14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Randazza
Legal Group
3625 S. Town Center
Drive, Suite 150
Las Vegas, NV 89135
(888) 667-1113

much personal information about them as the Defendants can muster. If
Californias courts will offer no comfort to the California victims, then who
reasonably will? It is in Californias interest to its citizens to protect its minors
from sexual exploitation online. Defendants exposed Plaintiff, a minor, by
posting the graphic lascivious exhibition of her genital or pubic area on their
website. Because the child in question is a resident of California, California has a
direct interest in the resolution of this Complaint.
Roy and Amy Chanson knew Plaintiff resided in California because
her location was required to post her images. The Defendants unlawful
commercial child pornography enterprise categorized Plaintiff as a California
resident. See ECF # 1-1 at 7 31. Since Defendants knew full well that Plaintiff
would be exploited within the forum state when they posted a series of sexually
explicit photographs of her on YouGotPosted/UGotPosted, the Court has specific
personal jurisdiction over the Chansons. In this case, as editors of the website,
Roy and Amy Chanson would have known where Plaintiff lived even if they
conducted no inquiry into her whereabouts. Her location was required to post the
images of her. Defendants placed Plaintiffs photos under the California tag on
YouGotPosted/UGotPosted, proving that they knew where she lived. In addition,
Defendants post personal information of all of the subjects whose photos appear
on the website, including links to Facebook pages, so that visitors of the site may
contact them. Defendants, including Roy and Amy Chanson, fully knew that the
subjects of the photos on their website are injured in their home state. Indeed,
Defendants gathered the location of each victim before posting the images. This
makes it all but certain that the sites operators knew precisely where all of their
victims were located, and specifically sought to harm them right here at home in
California. Otherwise, what purpose is served by displaying the victims name
and hometown? Thus, Roy and Amy Chanson knew that their tortious acts outside

13cv1238

15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Randazza
Legal Group
3625 S. Town Center
Drive, Suite 150
Las Vegas, NV 89135
(888) 667-1113

of the state would injure Plaintiff in California, and the Court may reasonably
exercise specific jurisdiction over the Chansons.
Additionally, Plaintiff is a minor who has brought this complaint through
her mother over Defendants distribution of lewd and lascivious, sexually explicit
images of her. Because Plaintiff is under 18 years old, it is in her best interest to
litigate her cause of action in the state where she is domiciled, in California.
Should this child be forced to chase each individual Defendant in each of these
jurisdictions? Or should this child receive justice herewhere all of the harm is
focused and felt? As operators of YouGotPosted/UGotPosted, Roy and Amy
Chanson, in concert with the other Defendants, posted the photos online with the
knowledge that Plaintiff lives in California. Therefore, it is just that the lawsuit
remain in California. On the other hand, dismissing this case for lack of personal
jurisdiction would require a victimized child to travel to unknown locales either
Arizona, New Jersey, Illinois, or whatever other state the Chansons and their co-
conspirators claim would be proper. Is it just or proper that a child should be
forced to travel far from home, when the victimization of that child took place in
California and all of the effects of the victimization were in California? The
audacity of these Defendants seems to know no bounds.
In weighing these factors, the burden on Defendants is light in comparison,
as most of the evidence would be located in California. Considering the totality of
these circumstances, specific jurisdiction over Roy and Amy Chanson is
reasonable and any other determination would be grossly unjust.
IV. CONCLUSION
Plaintiff respectfully requests this Court to deny Defendants Roy
and Amy Chansons Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(2). Plaintiff has
met her burden of establishing a prima facie case of personal jurisdiction over the
Chansons. California may exercise general jurisdiction over Roy and Amy

13cv1238

16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Randazza
Legal Group
3625 S. Town Center
Drive, Suite 150
Las Vegas, NV 89135
(888) 667-1113

Chanson because their contacts with the state are so systematic and continuous
that they may be haled into Court here. California has specific personal
jurisdiction over Roy and Amy Chanson because, as admitted editors of the
YouGotPosted/UGotPosted website, they purposefully availed themselves of the
privilege of conducting business in California; second, Plaintiffs cause of action
arose from Roy and Amy Chansons activities within the state; and third, Roy and
Amy Chansons tortious acts had a substantial enough connection with California
to make exercise of jurisdiction reasonable.
Dated: October 29, 2013 Respectfully Submitted,
RANDAZZA LEGAL GROUP
/s/ Marc J. Randazza
Marc J. Randazza (Cal. Bar # 261986)
Christopher A. Harvey (Cal. Bar # 261986)
Randazza Legal Group
3625 S. Town Center Drive, Suite 150
Las Vegas, NV 89135

Attorneys for Plaintiff
through her mother,

29th
October

EXHIBIT A
Case 3:13-cv-01238-CAB-BLM Document 17-1 Filed 10/29/13 Page 1 of 3
10/27/13 Ugotposted.com - Whois History - DomainTools
1/2 www.domaintools.com/research/whois-history/?page=details&domain=ugotposted.com&date=2013-08
Previous (2013-08-28) Next (2013-08-30)
Whois History for Ugotposted.com on 2013-08-29
Follow Follow Like 12k
Domain: ugotposted.com - Whois History
Cache Date: 2013-08-29
Registrar: GANDI SAS
Server: whois.gandi.net
Created: 2012-09-18
Updated: 2013-01-28
Expires: 2014-09-18
Reverse Whois: Click on an email address we found in this whois record
to see which other domains the registrant is associated with:
18daf22380de249757d25a798048f79e-1652791@contact.gandi.net
domain: ugotposted.com
reg_created: 2012-09-19 01:04:29
expires: 2014-09-19 01:04:29
created: 2013-01-28 08:42:07
changed: 2013-01-28 08:42:07
transfer-prohibited: yes
ns0: dora.ns.cloudflare.com
ns1: jim.ns.cloudflare.com
owner-c:
nic-hdl: KB2353-GANDI
owner-name: Kevin Bollaert
organisation: ~
person: Kevin Bollaert
address: 1765 Garnet Ave 27
zipcode: 92109
city: San Diego
state: California
country: United States of America
phone: +1.6197860710
fax: ~
email: 18daf22380de249757d25a798048f79e-1652791@contact.gandi.net
lastupdated: 2013-05-15 19:44:52
admin-c:
organisation: ~
zipcode: 92109
city: San Diego
state: California
phone: +1.6197860710
fax: ~
lastupdated: 2013-05-15 19:44:52
tech-c:
organisation: ~
You are logged in as mrandazza Upgrade Your Account | Log out | Help
ugotposted.com Whois Search Search
Lookup Domain Ownership History
ugotposted.com Lookup
Overview Whois Lookup Reverse Whois Whois History Domain Report Hosting History Screenshots Reverse Name Server Reverse IP DNS
10/27/13 Ugotposted.com - Whois History - DomainTools
2/2 www.domaintools.com/research/whois-history/?page=details&domain=ugotposted.com&date=2013-08
zipcode: 92109
city: San Diego
state: California
phone: +1.6197860710
fax: ~
lastupdated: 2013-05-15 19:44:52
bill-c:
organisation: ~
zipcode: 92109
city: San Diego
state: California
phone: +1.6197860710
fax: ~
lastupdated: 2013-05-15 19:44:52
Memberships | Developer API | About Us | Blog | Desktop Tools | Terms of Service | Privacy | Support | Join Our Team | Contact Us | Press | Site Map
2013 DomainTools, LLC All rights reserved.


EXHIBIT B
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Home|Site Index|Search|FAQ|Glossary|Guides|Contacts|eBusiness|eBiz alerts|News|Help
Trademarks > Trademark Electronic Search System (TESS)

TESS was last updated on Fri Oct 11 03:12:21 EDT 2013

Logout Please logout when you are done to release system resources allocated for you.
Record 1 out of 1
( Use the "Back" button of the Internet Browser to
return to TESS)
Word Mark YOUGOTPOSTED
Goods and
Services
IC 042. US 100 101. G & S: Computer services, namely, creating an on-line community for users to
upload and comment on various types of media and engage in social networking in the fields of videos
and photography. FIRST USE: 20121101. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 20121101
Standard
Characters
Claimed
Mark
Drawing
Code
(4) STANDARD CHARACTER MARK
Serial
Number
85730045
Filing Date September 15, 2012
Current
Basis
1A
Original
Filing Basis
NO FILING BASIS
Owner (APPLICANT) BOLLAERT, KEVIN INDIVIDUAL UNITED STATES 1765 GARNET AVE #27 SAN DIEGO
CALIFORNIA 92109
Assignment
Recorded
ASSIGNMENT RECORDED
Type of
Mark
SERVICE MARK
Register PRINCIPAL
Live/Dead
Indicator
LIVE

|.HOME | SITE INDEX| SEARCH | eBUSINESS | HELP | PRIVACY POLICY

EXHIBIT C
8/15/13 A Victim Speaks: Standing Up to a Revenge Porn Tormentor | Betabeat | The Lowdown on High Tech
1/10 betabeat.com/2013/05/revenge-porn-holli-thometz-criminal-case/
BETABEAT POLITICKER GALLERISTNY COMMERCIAL VSL POLITICKERNJ SEARCH TECH
Ms. Jacobs
XXX IN TECH
A Victim Speaks: Standing Up to a
Revenge Porn Tormentor
Holly Jacobs has finally come forward and is filing a criminal case against
a faceless revenge porn distributor--who she believes is in fact her ex.
By Jessica Roy 5/01 1:04pm
On a drizzly evening in Tampa in 2006, 23-
year-old Holly Jacobs was enjoying a
typical date night with Ryan Seay, her
boyfriend of a few short months. As the
time to head home approached, he walked
her to her car and reluctantly kissed her
goodbye. She clung dreamily to the sweater
Mr. Seay had given her earlier in the
evening, when shed said she was cold. As
her car pulled out of Mr. Seays driveway,
she noticed it: a little heart that he had
traced in the raindrops collected on her
rear windshield.
Years later, when theyd finally broken it off for good, Ms. Jacobs, now 29, says that Mr. Seay
did the unthinkable: He uploaded naked photos of her to the web. Photos that shed sent to
him in confidence. He allegedly posted them to scores of revenge porn sites, online hubs where
scorned exes publish intimate photos without their former lovers consent. She says he attached
her name, email address and a screenshot of her Facebook profile to the nude photos along
with commentary about what a slut she was. Knowing that she was working as a teaching
assistant at a local university, he allegedly uploaded a video of her masturbating with the title
Masturbation 201 by Professor Holli Thometz.
Ms. Jacobs, who legally changed her name from her birth name Holli Thometz following the
abuse, is just one of an untold number of women who have been victimized by revenge porn.
But victims, at first afraid to speak out, are beginning to fight back against the distributors,
proprietors and site hosts who comprise the revenge porn economy. In January, more than 23
women signed on to a class-action suit in Texas against the revenge porn website Texxxan.com
and its host, GoDaddy.com. In Florida, where Ms. Jacobs lives, a law was recently proposed
that would make the distribution and hosting of revenge porn a felony before last-minute
amendments were tacked on and the bill was sidelined to temporary postponement, according
to sources familiar with the situation.
Enter your email for updates
Send an anonymous tip
PLANET GOOG
Well, Goddammit: Google
Glass Won't Let You Swear
Twitter 227 Facebook 2K+ Reddit LinkedIn 11 Google +1 Email
Print
EVENTS
THIS WEEK
STARTUP
RUNDOWN
BETABEAT
SINGLES
Follow Follow Like 3.3k
Florida Launches Drone Warfare
Against Mosquitoes
Lend a Helping Hand: Now You
Can Raise Money for Charity by
Watching Webcam Porn
Ill Tumblr for You: The 100
Sexiest Tumblrs
Its Time For You to Get Vine (And
New Yorks Biggest Vine Star Will
Explain Why)
To date, New Jersey is the only state with a viable revenge porn law on the books, and it stems
from the infamous 2010 case of Rutgers student Tyler Clemente. The statute, 2C:14-9, makes it
illegal for anyone to disclose any photograph, film, videotape, recording or any other
reproduction of the image of another person whose intimate parts are exposed or who is
engaged in an act of sexual penetration or sexual contact, unless that person has consented to
such disclosure.
On Thursday, April 18th, Ms. Jacobs became the first person in Florida to sue an ex for their
alleged distribution of revenge pornography, according to her lawyer, Patrick McGeehan. She
filed a civil suit in Miami-Dade County against Mr. Seay for invasion of privacy, public
disclosure of private facts and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The suit (embedded
below) alleges that Mr. Seay published pornographic images and a video of the plaintiff as
well as the plaintiffs name, occupation, details about her schedule and other personal and
private facts about the plaintiff on various websites.
Lawyers and victims across the country are looking to her case as a model in the ongoing legal
battle against revenge porn. After years of hiding in shame after her naked body was splashed
across the web without her consent for strangers to ogle, she is finally coming forward to speak
about her experiences. And for the first time, shes using her real name.
***
On New Years Day 2009, Ms. Jacobs received a call from a friend who frantically told her she
needed to log on to Facebook and change her password: someone had changed her typically
harmless profile picture to a naked photo of her. When she logged on, the photo was gone.
Emotionally rattled, she called and accused Mr. Seay, since he was the only person she had
sent nude photos to, but he flatly denied it.
From that day on, I Googled my name regularly just because I knew he was capable of this,
she said.
Several months later, Ms. Jacobs was Googling herself at Florida International University,
where she was working as a statistical consultant, and came across a cache of her naked
photos on the website amihotornotnude.com. I must have just turned white, she said. My
stomach just dropped and I felt ill and I told my boss, I have a personal issue that I need to go
take care of and I ran out of there.
This time, her full name had been published alongside the photos. And there were tons of
them.
***
Images kept cropping up, even as Ms. Jacobs
scrambled to have webmasters scrub the
photos from scores of sites. Even stranger,
they seemed to multiply, as if he was
Photoshopping and cropping the images to
make it appear like there were more of them.
Then the threats began.
Someone created a Yahoo address in her
name and emailed her a collection of her
photos. Get in touch concerning your
pictures. Theres also a nice video, the
person wrote in an email timestamped 6:50 a.m. Have [they] seen them? Pasted below were
the email addresses of Ms. Jacobs co-worker and boss. Ms. Jacobs was terrified, but decided
not to respond and eventually fell back to sleep. At 8:16 a.m., Ms. Jacobs received another
email: Its 8:15 where you are. You have until 8:37 to reply. Then I start the distribution.
Your Countless Selfies Are
Alienating Everyone Around You
That day, the anonymous person who had established an email address in her name sent the
photos to her boss and co-worker. Three days later, he had uploaded them to scores of revenge
porn sites. Her photos went viral.
Ms. Jacobs enlisted the help of a local counsel named David Seltzer, but the anonymous
individual, whom Ms. Jacobs believes to be her ex, continued to torture her. Someone
anonymously tipped off the universitys HR department that a professor is masturbating for
her students and putting it online, explained Ms. Jacobs. The call landed her in the deans
office to explain the embarrassing incident. The aftermath eventually led her to quit her job.
Though shed called the local police when the abuse first started, they told her that because she
was over 18 when the photos were taken, there was nothing they could do for her. The campus
police at her university took a report and sent it to the state attorneys office, but they refused
to pick up her case. So Ms. Jacobs worked tirelessly to try to scrub the images of herself from
the web. She filed DMCA takedown requests and created sites with positive information about
herself in an attempt to push her pictures lower in search results.
I worked like a dog getting all of them down, she admitted. I got them all down except for
some of the torrents. Within two weeks they went right back up on other sites.
***
By February 2012, Ms. Jacobs had had enough. She had lost years of her life fighting to erase
the online pornographic trail her tormentor had created for her without her permission, and
she was done. I realizedthis is what he wants me to do, Ms. Jacobs told Betabeat via Skype.
He wants me to spend all of my time taking down my Google results instead of moving on
with my life and being free and being in a good relationship and getting my Ph.D. So I
essentially said, Fuck it.
I felt like the only thing I could do was part from that identity that had been completely
defamed and I wanted to just get on with my life, Ms. Jacobs said.
One night the idea struck her to create End Revenge Porn, an online hub for victims and
advocates to discuss revenge porn. She connected with women like professors Mary Anne
Franks and Danielle Citron, former politician Charlotte Laws and lawyers Erica Johnstone and
Colette Vogele, experts in the field who helped her hone her message. She also formed an
unofficial support group with two other victims, Hollie Toups and Jane, the pseudonymous
woman behind Women Against Revenge Porn. Now Ms. Jacobs site, End Revenge Porn, is one
of the most prominent platforms for resources for revenge porn victims, and Ms. Jacobs is
working on establishing it as a nonprofit. Through the site, shes also collecting donations to
help fund her anti-revenge porn efforts.
But the reign of terror continued for Ms. Jacobs even as her taste for activism grew. In August
2012, she was supposed to present her thesis at a conference for the American Psychological
Association when someoneshe believes it was Mr. Seaypublished the date, time and location
of the conference, alongside her naked photos. They even had a summary of what my
presentation was going to be on, she explained. They said something like why dont you go
check her out and see if shell have sex with you for money because shes obviously out of a
job.
For Ms. Jacobs, that was the final straw. She backed out of
the conference, saying her safety was in danger, and was
possessed with a renewed fervor to have her case picked up
by the police. She and her mother charged Senator Marco
Rubios office, a move that eventually led her to meet with
the Florida State Attorneys Office. I went to that meeting
and there were six people around the table and I just
started crying because I was like, finally somebody is going
to do something about this, she said. And it was just a
huge wave of relief.
A few weeks ago, Ms. Jacobs received word that a state
attorney would take the case and charge Mr. Seay with
cyberstalking, the first time a victim has ever filed a criminal
suit against her ex for distributing revenge porn. Mark Cox,
chief of investigations at the Florida State Attorneys Office,
told Betabeat that the agency has filed a case to charge Mr.
Seay with one count of stalking, two counts of harassment
by use of personal identification info and one count of
unlawful publication. The case is set for arraignment on
June 3rd, and Mr. Seay faces a maximum penalty of four
years in jail. Mr. Seay declined to speak with Betabeat, but
his attorney, Charles Arline, said Mr. Seay denies all
allegations and maintains he is just as much a victim in this
as Ms. Jacobs is.
Im coming out because Im tired of hiding, Ms. Jacobs said. Im tired of not knowing which
name to give to who in my life. I want to live an honest life. As the first person to file a
criminal complaint against her ex, Ms. Jacobs will undoubtedly become a lightning rod for the
controversy revolving around revenge porn, and she wants to set an example for other victims
who are struggling to find a way to put their lives back together.
The fact that Holly is able to experience what shes experienced and use that to fight struck
me as impressive, Mary Anne Franks, a law professor at the University of Miami who
specializes in cyberharassment, told Betabeat by phone. The experience is so disturbing and
depressing, I cant imagine she could have the energy and courage to do what shes doing.
Still, Ms. Jacobs has a long way to go. Shes been working with lawmakers in Florida to pass a
bill that would make publishing revenge porn without a victims consent a third-degree felony.
The bill received an initial onslaught of support, but its debate in the House has been
temporarily postponed. Ms. Jacobs hopes coming forward will help give lawmakers the extra
push they need to put a revenge porn law on the books.
I hope that Ill set an example and show this is how you overcome this: by coming forward,
she said. Youre not exposing yourselfyoure already exposed on the internet. Instead, youre
exposing what is happening to you. Everybodys going to see me naked, and everybodys going
to see me do things I never wanted anybody to see except the person I was with. But if its in
the name of the cause and to change the laws about this, then Im happy to do it. Were all
naked underneath our clothes.
If you want to contact Holly about her story, you can reach her at
endrevengeporn[at]gmail[dot]com.
Revenge Porn Complaint: Holly Jacobs vs. Ryan Seay

San Diego YouGotPosted Lawsuit: Opposition To Roy and Amy Chanson's Motion To Dismiss

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

San Diego YouGotPosted Lawsuit: Opposition To Roy and Amy Chanson's Motion To Dismiss

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

13cv1238

Potrebbero piacerti anche