Computer underground Digest Wed 27 Jan, 1999 Volume 11 : Issue 06
ISSN 1004-042X
Editor: Jim Thomas (cudigest@sun.soci.niu.edu)
News Editor: Gordon Meyer (gmeyer@sun.soci.niu.edu)
Archivist: Brendan Kehoe
Proust Reader: Etaion Shrdlu, Jr.
Shadow-Archivists: Dan Carosone / Paul Southworth
Ralph Sims / Jyrki Kuoppala
Ian Dickinson
Cu Digest Homepage: http://www.soci.niu.edu/~cudigest
CONTENTS, #11.06 (Wed, 27 Jan, 1999)
File 1--GUARDIAN ANGELS AND C. SLIWA SUED BY FORMER CYBERANGELS FOUNDER
File 2--CyberAngels v. Guardian Angels Copyright Suit
File 3--Cu Digest Header Info (unchanged since 10 Jan, 1999)
CuD ADMINISTRATIVE, EDITORIAL, AND SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATION APPEARS IN
THE CONCLUDING FILE AT THE END OF EACH ISSUE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 16:20:54 -0800
From: "Colin Gabriel Hatcher"
Subject: File 1--GUARDIAN ANGELS AND C. SLIWA SUED BY FORMER CYBERANGELS FOUNDER
((CuD MODERATORS' NOTE: A few years ago, CuD reported on the
activities of the "CyberAngels," a Net-watchdog group. The
following updates the status of the group and its activities)).
PRESS RELEASE
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE - JAN 27 1999
GUARDIAN ANGELS AND CURTIS SLIWA SUED BY FORMER CYBERANGELS FOUNDER
Curtis Sliwa and the Guardian Angels were served with a lawsuit today for
copyright infringement, fraud, libel, and breach of contract. Plaintiffs
Colin Gabriel Hatcher and Dominie Judge Kitaj, former high ranking Guardian
Angels for 16 years, are a husband and wife team who created and directed
the Guardian Angels' Internet program called "CyberAngels".
Hatcher and Kitaj are suing Sliwa and the Guardian Angels in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California, USA, for
claims arising out of a dispute over ownership rights of materials written
by Hatcher and posted on the Guardian Angels' "CyberAngels" website, over
misleading tax advice, defamation and unpaid debts.
CYBERANGELS
In June 1995 Hatcher and Sliwa jointly conceived the idea of "CyberAngels",
an innovative on-line Internet safety project based on a "neighborhood
watch" concept. For three years, Hatcher and Kitaj ran CyberAngels from
their apartment in California. Hatcher has become a nationally recognized
expert in cyberspace safety education, with many TV, radio and media
appearances. He has been an advisor to State Governments concerning
cyberspace legislation, has toured schools teaching on Internet safety
matters, and has spoken as a panel member at many Internet conferences,
including the Washington Online Summit in December 1997, attended by
Attorney General Janet Reno and Vice President Al Gore.
Hatcher and Kitaj severed all connection with the Guardian Angels and
CyberAngels in July 1998. The Guardian Angels, who publicly claim that all
of its work is done by volunteers and who insisted for years that Hatcher
and Kitaj were volunteers (instructing them not to report business and
modest living expense reimbursements as taxable income), reversed its
position with respect to Hatcher and Kitaj being volunteers once they had
left the organization.
COPYRIGHT DISPUTE
Guardian Angels asserts that it has copyright ownership over materials
written by Hatcher because they now contend that Hatcher was a Guardian
Angels employee, not a volunteer. Both Hatcher and Kitaj insist they were
full time volunteers for a host of reasons, including the fact that the
Guardian Angels did not pay them a salary, did not provide them any
employment benefits such as paid vacation, medical insurance, life
insurance, or disability insurance, did not withhold federal or state
income taxes from them, did not withhold social security taxes from them,
and did not withhold California state disability taxes from them.
Kitaj is suing for reimbursement of several thousand dollars which she
loaned to Guardian Angels to run various community service projects, and
which Guardian Angels now claims it does not owe her.
PRESIDENT'S SERVICE AWARD
In November 1998, Hatcher received word that he had been selected by the
Points of Light Foundation to receive the prestigious President's Service
Award for his volunteer work in cyberspace safety education. However, the
Guardian Angels falsely represented to the Points of Light Foundation that
Hatcher was an employee of the Guardian Angels. As a result of the
Guardian Angels' misrepresentation, Hatcher was deemed ineligible for the
award. To add insult to injury, the thousands of hours of time that
Hatcher and Kitaj had devoted to cyberspace safety was credited to Sliwa
and the Guardian Angels. Ultimately, the Guardian Angels were awarded the
President's Service Award, instead of Hatcher.
When Hatcher and Kitaj left Guardian Angels, the vast majority of
CyberAngels' active volunteer members left with them (85%), including
eleven (11) out of twelve (12) of CyberAngels' project Directors. This
group of volunteers has now founded their own Internet non-profit
organization to continue their work online, called SafetyEd International
http://www.safetyed.org
of which Hatcher is President and CEO and Kitaj a Board member.
CONTACT
The lawsuit can be read in full at the following internet address:
http://www.safetyed.org/lawsuit.html
Requests for faxed or email copies of the full lawsuit can be made by email
to gabriel@safetyed.org or by telephone to 1 408 808 1462 (USA).
Colin Gabriel Hatcher & Dominie Judge Kitaj: 1 408 808 1462
_____________________________________
"The rain it raineth on the just
And also on the unjust fella
But mainly on the just because
The unjust steals the justs umbrella."
(Bertholt Brecht)
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 22:17:20 -0600 (CST)
From: Computer underground Digest
Subject: File 2--CyberAngels v. Guardian Angels Copyright Suit
Source: http://www.safetyed.org/lawsuit.html
LAWSUIT
MANUEL A. MARTINEZ (SBN 115075)
LESLIE V. CANCEL (SBN 160652)
STEIN & LUBIN LLP
600 Montgomery Street, 14th Floor
San Francisco, California 94111
(415) 981-0550
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
COLIN HATCHER and
DOMINIE KITAJ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF California
SAN JOSE DIVISION
COLIN HATCHER, an individual, and DOMINIE KITAJ, an individual,
Plaintiffs,
v.
THE ALLIANCE OF GUARDIAN ANGELS, INC., a New York corporation; CURTIS
SLIWA, an individual; and DOES 1-50,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
No.
COMPLAINT FOR COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT, CONTRIBUTORY COPYRIGHT
INFRINGEMENT, VICARIOUS COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT, DECLARATORY RELIEF,
LIBEL, INTENTIONAL MISREPRESENTATION, NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION,
BREACH OF WRITTEN CONTRACT, AND BREACH OF ORAL CONTRACT
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Plaintiffs Colin Hatcher ('Hatcher') and Dominie Kitaj ('Kitaj'), for
their complaint, allege as follows:
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
This is an action for infringement of Hatcher's federally-registered
copyrights, for contributory copyright infringement, vicarious
copyright infringement, libel, intentional misrepresentation,
negligent misrepresentation, breach of contract, injunctive relief and
declaratory relief. For over 16 years, Plaintiffs volunteered as
'24/7's' being available 24 hours a day, seven days a week - without
salaries - for The Guardian Angels, a New York based charitable
organization founded by Curtis Sliwa ('Sliwa') in the early 1980's to
promote public safety.
In 1995, Sliwa and Hatcher, together decided to create and establish
CyberAngels, a pioneering cyberspace neighborhood watch organization
devoted to Internet safety that would expand the Guardian Angels range
of activities and revitalize the Guardian Angels' public reputation.
Since Sliwa knew nothing about the Internet or computers generally, he
asked Hatcher to devote himself full-time to the creation, development
and promotion of CyberAngels. Sliwa promised Hatcher and his wife,
Kitaj, that they would be fully reimbursed for all living expenses as
well as costs and expenses incurred in connection with their work on
CyberAngels. Sliwa and The Guardian Angels treasurer (Sliwa's mother)
also told Hatcher and Kitaj not to declare any money they received in
any way from The Guardian Angels because they were only volunteers.
From 1995 through June 1998, Hatcher and Kitaj devoted literally
thousands of hours to CyberAngels, developing it into a model Internet
safety program, garnering public accolades and enhancing the
reputation of The Guardian Angels. Hatcher, an acknowledged expert in
the Internet safety field, also allowed many of his personal writings
on Internet safety to be posted on the CyberAngels website and to be
used in CyberAngels programs.
In mid-1998, Hatcher retained Parry Aftab, a self-declared 'cyberspace
lawyer' to represent him in protecting his copyrights in certain of
his personal written works, in documenting his and his wife's evolving
relationship with The Guardian Angels, and to assist Hatcher and Kitaj
in addressing and remedying financial and organizational practices by
the Guardian Angels'organization. Aftab, however, not only failed to
represent Hatcher's and Kitaj's interests, she divulged her
confidential communications with Hatcher to Sliwa. Aftab then began to
actively represent Sliwa and The Guardian Angels in their discussions
with Hatcher and Kitaj, ultimately working with Sliwa to force Hatcher
and Kitaj out of the CyberAngels program. Aftab then usurped Hatcher's
position within CyberAngels, and asserted on behalf of The Guardian
Angels full ownership of all of Hatcher's independently created work.
Sliwa and The Guardian Angels rewarded Plaintiffs for their selfless
efforts by falsely claiming that they had embezzled funds from the
organization, refusing to honor oral and written promises to reimburse
Plaintiffs for thousands of dollars in loans made to fund Guardian
Angels' activities, claiming ownership of Hatcher's independently
created written works, and leaving Plaintiffs to be subjected to
significant tax penalties as a result of the false tax information
given to them.
Moreover, after Hatcher was selected to receive a Presidential Service
Award for his volunteer work, Sliwa and other Guardian Angel
representatives succeeded in having Hatcher stripped of the Award by
falsely telling the selection committee that Hatcher was not a
volunteer, but had been a highly compensated employee of The Guardian
Angels who had embezzled funds, and convincing the committee that The
Guardian Angels as an organization, and not Hatcher, should be
honored. Sliwa and others within The Guardian Angels have continued
their campaign of harassment against Hatcher and Kitaj by making
libelous statements about Hatcher and Kitaj's honesty and integrity
which have severely compromised Hatcher's reputation within the law
enforcement and Internet safety community, continuing to use Hatcher's
copyrighted work without his permission, and refusing to honor
agreements to reimburse Plaintiffs for costs and expenses incurred in
connection with the CyberAngels program. Moreover, Hatcher and Kitaj
have been forced to hire accountants and pay considerable tax
penalties due to erroneous tax information given to them by The
Guardian Angels.
THE PARTIES
Hatcher is an individual residing in Santa Clara County, California.
Kitaj is an individual residing in Santa Clara County, California.
Defendant The Alliance of Guardian Angels, Inc. (hereinafter 'THE
GUARDIAN ANGELS') is a corporation organized and existing under the
laws of New York with its principal place of business located in New
York, New York. At all relevant times alleged herein, THE GUARDIAN
ANGELS, has maintained offices in San Francisco, San Jose, Los Angeles
and Sacramento California and has been doing business and soliciting
donations in the Northern District of California.
Upon information and belief, defendant Curtis Sliwa ('Sliwa') is an
individual residing in New York, New York. Upon information and
belief, Sliwa is the President of THE GUARDIAN ANGELS and has
supervised and controlled THE GUARDIAN ANGELS' illegal infringing
activity alleged herein and has a direct financial interest in such
infringing activity.
Upon information and belief, Defendants DOES 1-50 are presently
unknown individuals and entities who are doing business within this
district and elsewhere and are engaged in the distribution of products
which infringe on Hatcher's federally-registered copyrights. DOES
1-50, along with Defendants THE GUARDIAN ANGELS and Sliwa hereinafter
are referred to, collectively, as the 'Defendants.'
Upon information and belief, DOES 41-50 supervised and controlled THE
GUARDIAN ANGELS' illegal infringing activity alleged herein and have
or had a direct financial interest in such infringing activity.
Hatcher shall amend and/or seek leave to amend this Complaint to
include the name or names of such individuals or entities if and when
they are identified.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
This Court has original jurisdiction over the subject matter of this
action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 1331 and 1338, and has pendent
jurisdiction over all state law claims. This Court has personal
jurisdiction over Defendants by virtue of their transacting and doing
business in the State of California and in this judicial district, for
the past 16 years. Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28
U.S.C. ' 1391(b) because a substantial part of the events giving rise
to the claim occurred in this district.
INTRADISTRICT ASSIGNMENT
Pursuant to Local Rule 3-2(c), assignment of this case to the San Jose
Division is appropriate because this action arises in Santa Clara
County.
FACTS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS
Beginning in June 1995, Hatcher and Sliwa decided to create an
Internet safety program analogous to a neighborhood watch program,
staffed with volunteer Internet users who, through a variety of
programs, would seek to make Internet use safer, especially for
children. Sliwa had virtually no knowledge of the Internet, or
computers, and asked Hatcher to volunteer his time to create the
Internet safety program, to be named 'CyberAngels'. Hatcher agreed to
volunteer all of his time to create the 'CyberAngels' program.
CyberAngels subsequently became a dba for THE GUARDIAN ANGELS.
Prior to the formation of CyberAngels, both Hatcher and Kitaj had been
working as full-time volunteers with THE GUARDIAN ANGELS since 1989.
They had both given up their careers in reliance on Curtis Sliwa's
promise that their out of pocket expenses (personal and operational)
would be covered by THE GUARDIAN ANGELS.
From June 1995, until July 1998, THE GUARDIAN ANGELS and Sliwa left
all decisions regarding what to post on the CyberAngels' website to
Hatcher's discretion. Hatcher launched the CyberAngels program in June
1995, and personally staffed the program, from his Los Angeles
apartment. Hatcher and his wife, plaintiff Kitaj, lived in a high
crime area in Los Angeles where Kitaj provided building security
services as a Guardian Angel in exchange for free rent. Beginning in
or about December 1995, Kitaj volunteered full time to help Hatcher
run the CyberAngels program.
From its inception in June 1995 through July 1998, Hatcher and Kitaj
ran the CyberAngels program and made it a nationally prominent
proponent of Internet safety issues. Under Hatcher's leadership and
Kitaj's administration, CyberAngels provided online courses in
Internet safety, founded the first Cyberstalking Advisory service,
assisted and advised victims of online stalking and harassment, and
assisted in creating KidsWeb Camp, an innovative project involving
children from around the world in the world's first Cyberspace Summer
Camp.
Between June 1995 and July 1998. Hatcher wrote original written
materials on the subject of Internet safety. Between June 1995 and
July 1998, Hatcher posted much of his original written materials on
THE GUARDIAN ANGELS' website. At all times that he posted such
materials, Hatcher asserted his personal copyright to his original
written materials and posted notice of his copyright ownership with
his materials on the THE GUARDIAN ANGELS' website. THE GUARDIAN ANGELS
never disputed Hatcher's copyright designations and never claimed
ownership of any of Hatcher's original written materials.
In January 1998, Hatcher published a book entitled 'Cyber Street
Smarts'. 'Cyber Street Smarts' includes original written materials
authored by Hatcher on the subject of Internet safety and includes
much of the original written materials that Hatcher previously
authored and posted on THE GUARDIAN ANGELS' website.
On or about February 3, 1998, Hatcher registered 'Cyber Street Smarts'
with the Writers Guild of America.
On or about December 2, 1997, Hatcher met Parry Aftab at the
Washington Online Summit where Hatcher was a speaker on an Internet
safety panel. Aftab is an attorney with an office in Paramus, New
Jersey and a self-proclaimed 'cyberspace lawyer'. During conversations
at the Summit, Aftab advised Hatcher that she had admired his work but
that she believed CyberAngels had a major public relations problem
because of its connection with THE GUARDIAN ANGELS. Aftab informed
Hatcher that she had left out all reference to CyberAngels in her
recently published book on Internet Safety because of its affiliation
with THE GUARDIAN ANGELS which she considered to be a highly
controversial and questionable organization.
After the Washington Online Summit, Hatcher and Aftab became friends
and began to correspond by e-mail. Shortly after the Summit, Hatcher
agreed to establish an Internet link from THE GUARDIAN ANGELS' website
to Aftab's recently published book. Aftab agreed to provide Hatcher a
recommendation for his law school applications.
On January 13, 1998, Hatcher sent an e-mail to Aftab asking for her
help because someone had stolen Hatcher's materials from THE GUARDIAN
ANGELS' website and posted it as their own.
On January 14, 1998, Aftab sent an e-mail to the offending party
stating that she was 'legal counsel for CyberAngels' and demanding
that the offending party cease and desist from using the stolen
materials.
On January 15, 1998, Hatcher sent an e-mail to Aftab asking her to
represent him in negotiating and documenting an agreement between
himself and The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children
(NCMEC).
On January 16, 1998, Aftab sent an e-mail back to Hatcher agreeing to
represent him in the NCMEC contract matter.
On January 19, 1998, Hatcher requested additional help from Aftab to
stop the unauthorized use of his written work. Again, Aftab agreed to
provide such legal aid.
On March 16, 1998, Hatcher sent an e-mail to Aftab in which he advised
her that he was working on obtaining substantial funding from
Microsoft for CyberAngels and asked Aftab if she would be a reference
for Hatcher.
On March 17, 1998, Aftab sent an e-mail back to Hatcher in which she
agreed to be a reference for Hatcher.
Once Hatcher and Kitaj began finding sources of funding for the
CyberAngels program and it appeared that the program would grow
significantly in scope and public profile, Sliwa began taking more of
an active interest in the CyberAngels program.
On or about May 30, 1998, Hatcher attended an Internet safety
conference in Seattle, Washington which Aftab also attended. While in
Seattle, Hatcher asked Aftab if she would represent him and negotiate,
on his behalf, with Sliwa and THE GUARDIAN ANGELS, regarding funding
issues and establishing CyberAngels on a more appropriate legal
footing, instead of the oral agreements and handshakes under which
Sliwa always operated. Hatcher also requested that Aftab assist him
and his wife in preparing a written agreement documenting the various
oral agreements they had entered into with THE GUARDIAN ANGELS. Aftab
told Hatcher that she would represent him in all of these matters and
assured him that everything he discussed with her would be protected
by the attorney-client privilege.
Based on their attorney-client relationship, Hatcher candidly
discussed with Aftab his concerns and his growing conflicts with Sliwa
and THE GUARDIAN ANGELS. Hatcher confided in Aftab and told her that
he and Kitaj were concerned that Sliwa might not be operating THE
GUARDIAN ANGELS finances properly and that they did not want
CyberAngels to get dragged down with THE GUARDIAN ANGELS if the
Internal Revenue Service learned that THE GUARDIAN ANGELS was not
complying with IRS regulations. Among other things, Hatcher described
how Sliwa had made oral agreements on behalf of THE GUARDIAN ANGELS
with Hatcher, Kitaj and others within THE GUARDIAN ANGELS, to
reimburse them for business and living expenses and how they had been
told not to report any of such reimbursements as income to the IRS.
Aftab told Hatcher that she thought Sliwa and THE GUARDIAN ANGELS had
not been acting legally and that she would arrange a meeting with
Sliwa in New York to tell him that THE GUARDIAN ANGELS were in serious
danger of losing their non-profit status unless they took steps to
rectify the various legal issues that Aftab and Hatcher had discussed.
During this meeting, Aftab also advised Hatcher that while she
believed THE GUARDIAN ANGELS could potentially claim that Hatcher's
original written materials belonged to THE GUARDIAN ANGELS under the
'work for hire' doctrine, Aftab would negotiate with Sliwa and THE
GUARDIAN ANGELS to ensure that Hatcher's personal copyright ownership
of his original written materials that had been posted on THE GUARDIAN
ANGELS website was retained and protected.
On or about June 13-14, Hatcher and Aftab had further discussions
about various legal issues that Hatcher asked Aftab to help him
negotiate with Sliwa and THE GUARDIAN ANGELS.
On June 16, 1998, Hatcher and Kitaj sent an e-mail to Aftab in which
they outlined a proposed agreement with THE GUARDIAN ANGELS and Sliwa
for Hatcher's continued operation of CyberAngels. Among the issues
discussed in the e-mail were funding for CyberAngels, fund raising
efforts, Hatcher's copyright ownership of his original written
materials, joint ownership of written materials co-authored by Hatcher
and others, a CyberAngels proposed board of directors, authority to
representCyberAngels and related issues.
Hatcher and Kitaj asked for Aftab's help in representing their
interest in these matters. Hatcher and Kitaj are informed and believe,
and allege on such information and belief, that Aftab held various
meetings and discussions with Sliwa in or about July, 1998, in which
she revealed to Sliwa the privileged information that Hatcher had
confided to her, and in discussing with Sliwa her own legal analysis
as to how THE GUARDIAN ANGELS could claim ownership of the original
written materials prepared by Hatcher which had been posted on THE
GUARDIAN ANGELS' website.
Hatcher and Kitaj are informed and believe, and allege on such
information and belief, that Aftab and Sliwa agreed among themselves
that Aftab would represent the interests of Sliwa and THE GUARDIAN
ANGELS in any negotiations with Hatcher and Kitaj.
On June 19, 1998, Aftab sent an e-mail to Hatcher and Sliwa in which
she described herself as counsel to SOC-UM [Safeguarding Our Children
- United Mothers], a party joining with THE GUARDIAN ANGELS and
CyberAngels to create a list of websites to be licensed to third
parties for screening purposes. Aftab wrote that 'as counsel for
SOC-UM I need to be certain that the CyberAngels' portion of the list
and its arrangements with SOC-UM and third parties which are licensing
the list are in correct legal form and duly authorized. Aftab also
wrote that 'I have included my suggestions, as a friend, for resolving
outstanding issues between you, as well as those things which must be
done as part of correct corporate governance and smart business
management.'
Aftab went on to purportedly dictate what proposed organizational and
operational changes were required by law for THE GUARDIAN ANGELS and
CyberAngels. None of Aftab's proposals were made as an advocate for,
or as a representative of, Hatcher and Kitaj's best interests and the
proposals failed to consider alternatives which would also comply with
legal requirements. Instead, virtually all of Aftab's proposed
organization and operational changes were intended to favor Sliwa and
THE GUARDIAN ANGELS.
Over the next few weeks, Aftab switched sides and began representing
Sliwa and THE GUARDIAN ANGELS interests adversely to those of Hatcher
and Kitaj. For example, on June 26, 1998, Aftab sent an e-mail to
Hatcher in which she set forth the terms that Sliwa asked her to
convey to Hatcher and Kitaj for the operation of CyberAngels. Among
other things, the proposal included a joint salary for Hatcher and
Kitaj of $2,500 per month commencing on the date the agreement is
signed, but required that Hatcher and Kitaj pay for all of
CyberAngels' operational expenses (such as rent and utilities, travel,
equipment, administration, etc.) out of their salary. In response,
Hatcher and Kitaj sent an e-mail to Aftab in which they asked: 'Are
you saying that if a person runs a 501c3 [charitable organization]
from their apartment then the cost of the monthly rent is not
permitted to be claimed as legitimate operating expenses - nor
utilities? Or are you proposing that we could do it either way but
that this way is the way you suggest is better? The only reason we are
living in this highly expensive apartment rather than a cheaper,
smaller one is: 1) Running CyberAngels needs a large office space - we
have 3 desks, 2 computers, 3 filing cabinets, a photocopy machine,
etc. 2) Security - we have thousands of $ of equipment here, so we
have deliberately chosen a low crime area (more expensive). If we
weren't running CyberAngels we would be living in a high crime area
(all we could afford). 3) Need for a space presentable and
professional for press interviews and media, suitable for filming etc.
I do a lot of press. Likewise since we work all day here we use a
higher amount of utilities here than we would if we commuted to an
office. Therefore it seems to me a legitimate expense to claim at
least a percentage of the apartment rent and utilities from the 501c3
[charitable organization]. Is this an issue that Curtis and I just
need to agree on? Or are you saying it is illegal to claim even a
part?'
In response, Aftab sent an e-mail to Hatcher on June 27, 1998, stating
'Curtis took your rent into consideration when setting your salary. He
could pay a portion of the rent, and a lower salary. The gross and net
dollars are the same. He also took your utilities into consideration.
You guys have been doing things so wrong for too long, that fixing it
won't be easy.'
Aftab's e-mails became progressively more hostile towards Hatcher and
Kitaj and even more one-sided in favor of Sliwa and THE GUARDIAN
ANGELS. On June 30, 1998, Hatcher and Kitaj wrote an e-mail to Sliwa
and Aftab in which they again raised the issue of reimbursement for
rent and utilities for CyberAngels. In response, Aftab sent an e-mail
to Hatcher and Sliwa in which she wrote: 'Colin: I think you don't
understand. There will be no reimbursement of expenses, other than
special ones, and other than payment of an allotted phone bill. The
salary was meant to cover everything. You'd also have to contact a tax
advisor to tell you if the expenses are deductible.'
On July 22, 1998, Sliwa sent an e-mail to Hatcher and Kitaj in which
Sliwa responds to numerous issues that Hatcher and Kitaj had raised in
an earlier e-mail to Sliwa. Hatcher and Kitaj are informed and
believe, and allege on such information and belief, that Aftab wrote
the July 22, 1998 e-mail for Sliwa. In his July 22, 1998 e-mail, Sliwa
wrote that, 'All old arrangements have been superseded by the new
terms which have been previously presented to you. These terms are not
in addition to the old arrangements, they replace them, entirely.'
In response to Hatcher and Kitaj's question as to why they should have
to pay all basic operating expenses for CyberAngels out of their
proposed $2,500 monthly salary, Sliwa wrote: 'It's not a matter of the
benefit that this arrangement brings you, it is a matter of conducting
the program and its funding legally, where to date it might not have
been handled correctly. It has to be done this way.'
In response to Hatcher and Kitaj's question as to why CyberAngels
could not be run like all other Guardian Angels chapters regarding
accounting matters, Sliwa wrote: 'CyberAngels is not a chapter of
Guardian Angels, it is a program run by Guardian Angels. Things have
to be handled as I have informed you. Parry [Aftab] has been asked to
advise us on the CyberAngels program, and we don't need to get into
how other segments of Guardian Angels are run. This is how CyberAngels
will be run.'
In response to Hatcher and Kitaj's request that THE GUARDIAN ANGELS
acknowledge that 'all material currently on the CyberAngels website
researched and written by me is owned by me, and that permission to
post it on the CyberAngels website does not waive my rights of
ownership', Sliwa wrote: 'All these materials are the property of
Guardian Angels.' Sliwa also wrote that THE GUARDIAN ANGELS would not
honor its prior agreement to reimburse Kitaj for over $18,000 that she
loaned to CyberAngels for office furniture, computer software, and
various administrative costs. Sliwa also refused to have THE GUARDIAN
ANGELS fund the CyberAngels' program any further unless Hatcher and
Kitaj agreed to the numerous points Sliwa made in his July 22, 1998
e-mail.
On July 23, 1998, Hatcher and Kitaj sent an e-mail to Sliwa in
response to his July 22, 1998, e-mail. In his e-mail, Hatcher and
Kitaj denied the implication that they had misappropriated funds and
pointed out that they had been following the accounting reimbursement
system that Sliwa had given to Hatcher and Kitaj when they first
became full time volunteers for THE GUARDIAN ANGELS under which both
personal and operational expenses were paid from donations received,
that all accounts and receipts had been sent to THE GUARDIAN ANGELS'
accounting department managed by Sliwa's mother, Frances Sliwa, and
that Sliwa and his mother had approved and had full knowledge of THE
GUARDIAN ANGELS' accounting reimbursement system.
Hatcher also proposed that he should not be required to pay
CyberAngels operating expenses from their proposed salary as they
would be taxed by the IRS for those business expenses. They proposed
that their proposed salary be for their personal expenses only and
that business expenses be paid by CyberAngels.
On July 24, 1998, Sliwa sent an e-mail to Hatcher and Kitaj regarding
their July 23, 1998 e-mail in which Sliwa wrote 'The idiots STILL
DON'T GET IT'. Hatcher and Kitaj are informed and believe, and allege
on such information and belief, that Sliwa inadvertently sent his July
24, 1998 e-mail to Hatcher and Kitaj and that it was intended to be
sent to Aftab and others.
Hatcher and Kitaj refused to accept Sliwa's proposals and severed
their ties with THE GUARDIAN ANGELS in late July, 1998. Shortly after
Hatcher and Kitaj's departure, Aftab assumed Hatcher's role as
Executive Director of the CyberAngels program, using it as a platform
to promote both the program, as well as her own writings and legal
practice. Aftab further represented that she was legal counsel to
Sliwa and THE GUARDIAN ANGELS.
Beginning in or about July, 1998, THE GUARDIAN ANGELS, Aftab and Does
1-50, took the position that Hatcher and Kitaj had been employees of
THE GUARDIAN ANGELS and not volunteers.
Hatcher was not an employee of THE GUARDIAN ANGELS. Hatcher never
received a paycheck from THE GUARDIAN ANGELS. In fact, THE GUARDIAN
ANGELS never asked Hatcher to sign a W-2 form, never withheld Federal,
State or local taxes, and never paid the social security or FICA
payments that an employer is required to pay for an employee. THE
GUARDIAN ANGELS did reimburse Hatcher, at times, for room and board
and other extremely modest business and living expenses. The value of
the living expense reimbursements, if considered a wage, would result
in a wage of less than 30 cents per hour.
Kitaj was not an employee of THE GUARDIAN ANGELS. Kitaj never received
a paycheck from THE GUARDIAN ANGELS. In fact, THE GUARDIAN ANGELS
never asked Kitaj to sign a W-2 form, never withheld Federal, State or
local taxes, and never paid the social security or FICA payments that
an employer is required to pay for an employee. THE GUARDIAN ANGELS
did reimburse Ms Kitaj, at times, for room and board and other
extremely modest business and living expenses. The value of the living
expense reimbursements, if considered a wage, would result in a wage
of less than 30 cents per hour.
Over a period of 9 years, THE GUARDIAN ANGELS never considered Hatcher
nor Kitaj as employees until July 1998 when it had business disputes
with Hatcher and Kitaj, when they left the organization and when THE
GUARDIAN ANGELS concluded that it could assert ownership rights to the
original written materials created by Hatcher and posted on THE
GUARDIAN ANGELS' website if it characterized him as an employee.
Beginning in or about August, 1998, THE GUARDIAN ANGELS and Aftab
removed Hatcher's copyright notice from its website without Hatcher's
permission and continued to post Hatcher's original written material
on THE GUARDIAN ANGELS' website.
On or about November 13, 1998, Hatcher formally revoked his permission
to allow THE GUARDIAN ANGELS to continue to post his original written
materials on its website and demanded that THE GUARDIAN ANGELS remove
his work from its website. Despite Hatcher's demand, THE GUARDIAN
ANGELS continues to post Hatcher's original written materials on its
website, thereby willfully infringing on Hatcher's copyright.
THE GUARDIAN ANGELS, under the supervision of Sliwa and Aftab,
continue to post Hatcher's original written materials on its website
in derogation of Hatcher's copyright. In posting Hatcher's original
written materials on its website, THE GUARDIAN ANGELS, Sliwa and Aftab
are blatantly attempting to evade enforcement of the federal copyright
laws.
COUNT I - COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT
(Hatcher Against THE GUARDIAN ANGELS)
Hatcher repeats and realleges the allegations in paragraphs 1 through
53 above as if fully set forth herein.
In or about June 1995 through July 1998, Hatcher created and wrote
original materials which he posted on THE GUARDIAN ANGELS' website on
the subject of Internet safety and in July 1998, Hatcher published
much of his original written material, with additional original
written material, in a book entitled 'Cyber Street Smarts'. 'Cyber
Street Smarts' contains large amounts of material wholly original with
Hatcher and are copyrightable subject matter under the laws of the
United States.
Hatcher has complied in all respects with the 1978 Copyright Act, 17
U.S.C. ' 101, et. seq., and all other laws governing copyright, and
secured the exclusive rights and privileges in and to the copyrights
of 'Cyber Street Smarts' and received from the Register of Copyrights
certificates of registration identified as follows: 'Cyber Street
Smarts' - Registration No. TXU854211. Since June 1995, 'Cyber Street
Smarts', or portions thereof, have been published by Hatcher and all
copies of it made by Hatcher or under his authority or license have
been published with notice of Hatcher's copyright. Since June 1995,
Hatcher has been and still is the sole proprietor of all rights, title
and interest in and to the copyright of 'Cyber Street Smarts', and all
portions thereof.
Commencing in or about August, 1998, Defendants have infringed
Hatcher's 'Cyber Street Smarts' copyright by their unauthorized
posting of Hatcher's 'Cyber Street Smarts' on THE GUARDIAN ANGELS'
website in violation of 17 U.S.C. ' 106(3). Hatcher has notified THE
GUARDIAN ANGELS that it has infringed Hatcher's copyright. Defendants'
foregoing acts have caused and are causing great and irreparable
damage to Hatcher.
WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays for relief as set forth below.
COUNT II - CONTRIBUTORY COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT
(Hatcher Against Sliwa and DOES 1-50)
Hatcher repeats and realleges the allegations in paragraphs 1 through
62 as if fully set forth herein. The acts of Defendant Sliwa and DOES
1-50 described above constitute contributory copyright infringement.
WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays for relief as set forth below.
COUNT III - VICARIOUS COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT
(Hatcher Against Sliwa and DOES 41-50)
Hatcher repeats and re-alleges the allegations in paragraphs 1 through
64 as if fully set forth herein. The acts of Defendant Sliwa and DOES
41-50 described above constitute vicarious copyright infringement.
WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays for relief as set forth below.
COUNT IV - DECLARATORY RELIEF
(Hatcher Against THE GUARDIAN ANGELS)
Hatcher repeats and re-alleges the allegations in paragraphs 1 through
66 as if fully set forth herein.
An actual controversy has arisen and now exists between Hatcher and
THE GUARDIAN ANGELS concerning their respective rights and duties with
respect to the original written material authored by Hatcher regarding
Internet safety which has been posted on THE GUARDIAN ANGELS' website.
THE GUARDIAN ANGELS now contend that Hatcher was an employee of THE
GUARDIAN ANGELS and that Hatcher's original written materials,
including 'Cyber Street Smarts' constitute a 'work made for hire'
within the meaning of 17 U.S.C. ' 101. Hatcher contends that he was
not an employee of THE GUARDIAN ANGELS. Among other things, THE
GUARDIAN ANGELS:
(a) did not control the manner and means by which Hatcher authored his
original written materials;
(b) did not provide, or pay for, all of the tools, including
computer equipment, Hatcher used to author his original written
materials;
(c) did not have the right to assign additional projects to
Hatcher;
(d) did not control Hatcher's discretion over when and how long to
work;
(e) did not pay Hatcher a salary;
(f) at all relevant times has publicly claimed on its website and
elsewhere that all of its work is done by volunteers;
(g) did not provide Hatcher any employment benefits such as paid
vacation, medical insurance, life insurance, or disability
insurance;
(h) did not withhold federal or state income taxes from Hatcher;
(i) did not withhold social security taxes from Hatcher; and
(j) did not withhold California state disability taxes from
Hatcher.
Hatcher also contends that he is the exclusive owner of his original
written materials previously posted on THE GUARDIAN ANGELS website and
of 'Cyber Street Smarts' and that such works do not constitute a 'work
made for hire' within the meaning of 17 U.S.C. ' 101.
Hatcher desires a judicial determination of his rights and duties and
a declaration that he is the exclusive owner of his original written
materials previously posted on THE GUARDIAN ANGELS website and of
'Cyber Street Smarts' and that such works do not constitute a 'work
made for hire' within the meaning of 17 U.S.C. ' 101. A judicial
declaration is necessary and appropriate at this time under the
circumstances in order that Hatcher may ascertain his rights and
duties as alleged herein.
WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays for relief as set forth below.
COUNT V - LIBEL
(Hatcher and Kitaj Against THE GUARDIAN ANGELS, Sliwa and DOES 1-10)
Hatcher and Kitaj repeat and re-allege the allegations in paragraphs 1
through 70 as if fully set forth herein.
At all times prior to the defamatory statements alleged herein,
Hatcher has enjoyed a good reputation generally and in his field of
youth work Internet safety.
At all times prior to the defamatory statements alleged herein, Kitaj
has enjoyed a good reputation generally and in her field of youth work
and Internet safety.
Immediately after Hatcher's and Kitaj's departure from THE GUARDIAN
ANGELS, Sliwa and DOES 1-10 began publishing defamatory falsehoods
about Hatcher and Kitaj.
On August 4, 1998, THE GUARDIAN ANGELS, Sliwa and DOES 1-10 published
and sent an e-mail to numerous existing and former volunteers, donors
and law enforcement personnel associated with the CyberAngels program.
In that e-mail, THE GUARDIAN ANGELS, Sliwa and DOES 1-10 implied that
Hatcher and Kitaj had embezzled funds from THE GUARDIAN ANGELS, that
Hatcher and Kitaj were 'well paid', and that they were inappropriately
attempting to embezzle additional funds from THE GUARDIAN ANGELS by
seeking reimbursement for trips to England. The e-mail states, in
relevant part, 'CA [CyberAngels] had to be accountable to GA [THE
GUARDIAN ANGELS], and make sure that it operates in accordance with GA
standards. Unfortunately, no one at CA was giving GA the information
it needed about CA's operations, or more importantly, funds collected
by CA. . . . As part of a review of the CA program, there were several
irregularities that Curtis [Sliwa] also discovered in the CA
operation. These were brought to my attention. (Many more have been
discovered since which we believe are far more serious. These will be
pursued, unfortunately, in court.) . . . . Notwithstanding their
claims, Gabriel [Hatcher] and Judge [Kitaj] were well paid every month
by GA for their management and operation of the CA program. Judge is
seeking to be reimbursed for personal expenses which she paid, not CA
expenses, such as trips to England, etc.'
The foregoing e-mail is libelous on its face. It clearly exposes
Hatcher and Kitaj to hatred, contempt, obloquy and ridicule because it
falsely implies that Hatcher and Kitaj had embezzled funds from a
non-profit corporation, it falsely states that Hatcher and Kitaj had
been seeking reimbursement from a non-profit corporation for a
personal trip to England, it falsely states that Hatcher and Kitaj had
been well paid for their management and operation of the CyberAngels
program, and it falsely implies that Hatcher and Kitaj had been taking
advantage of a non-profit corporation for their personal financial
gain.
Upon information and belief, THE GUARDIAN ANGELS, Sliwa and DOES 1-10
have orally uttered and published similar falsehoods to others,
including CyberAngels' volunteers and people in law enforcement who
previously assisted Hatcher in his Internet safety work when he
volunteered with THE GUARDIAN ANGELS, as well as Hatcher and Kitaj's
personal bank manager, with whom Hatcher hoped to maintain good
relations.
Prior to his departure from THE GUARDIAN ANGELS, Hatcher was
personally nominated for the President's Service Award for his
outstanding voluntary service, particularly in the realm of Internet
public safety.
Upon information and belief, the Points of Light Foundation selected
Hatcher to receive the President's Service Award and attempted to
notify him of his selection in or about October, 1998. They contacted
one of four original nominators, Steven Hilton, CEO of Webtex
Technologies and informed him that Hatcher had been selected.
Upon information and belief, the Points of Light Foundation could not
locate Hatcher and attempted to contact him through THE GUARDIAN
ANGELS' CyberAngels program.
Upon information and belief, THE GUARDIAN ANGELS and DOES 1-10 falsely
represented to the Points of Light Foundation that Hatcher was an
employee of THE GUARDIAN ANGELS, not a volunteer, that he had
embezzled funds from THE GUARDIAN ANGELS, and that he was undeserving
of the President's Service Award.
Upon information and belief, the Points of Light Foundation believed
the false representations of THE GUARDIAN ANGELS and Does 1-10 and
reversed its decision to award Hatcher the President's Service Award
and was persuaded by THE GUARDIAN ANGELS to give the award to THE
GUARDIAN ANGELS instead of to Hatcher.
Upon information and belief, THE GUARDIAN ANGELS was awarded the
President's Service Award as a result of its false representations
about Hatcher.
Hatcher and Kitaj left THE GUARDIAN ANGELS in July 1998 and have since
established a new non-profit organization, SafetyEd International, to
continue their work on Internet safety. As a proximate result of the
above-described publications, many of the law enforcement personnel
and CyberAngels volunteers who had previously worked with Hatcher and
Kitaj will no longer communicate with Hatcher and Kitaj. In addition,
some former CyberAngels volunteers have re-published the
above-described publications in e-mails to others involved in Internet
safety issues. As a proximate result of the above-described
publications, Hatcher and Kitaj have suffered loss of reputation,
mortification and hurt feelings all to their respective general damage
and which have severely interfered with their ability to continue
their work in the Internet safety field. As a further proximate result
of the above-described publications, Hatcher has suffered the
following special damages: loss of the prestige and honor of being
awarded the President's Service Award and any monetary payment
accompanying such award.
The above-described publications were published by the defendants with
malice, fraud and oppression in that THE GUARDIAN ANGELS, Sliwa and
DOES 1-10 knew that the statements were false, but made the false
statements with the intent to injure Hatcher and Kitaj by trying to
convince the volunteers, donors and law enforcement personnel who had
previously worked with Hatcher that he was untrustworthy, greedy, that
he did not have at heart the safety and best interests of Internet
users and that they should have nothing more to do with Hatcher and
Kitaj. The above-described conduct of THE GUARDIAN ANGELS, Sliwa and
DOES 1-10 therefore justifies awarding exemplary and punitive damages
to Hatcher and Kitaj.
WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays for relief as set forth below.
COUNT VI - INTENTIONAL MISREPRESENTATION
(Hatcher and Kitaj Against THE GUARDIAN ANGELS and Sliwa)
Hatcher and Kitaj repeat and re-allege the allegations in paragraphs 1
through 87 as if fully set forth herein.
THE GUARDIAN ANGELS and Sliwa advised Hatcher and Kitaj that THE
GUARDIAN ANGELS was a legitimate not-for-profit corporation with tax
exempt status under 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, that it
used a certified public accountant, that Hatcher and Kitaj, just like
many other THE GUARDIAN ANGELS volunteers who received reimbursements
for business and living expenses, did not have to report such
reimbursements to the Internal Revenue Service and did not have to pay
taxes on such reimbursed expenses.
The foregoing representations of THE GUARDIAN ANGELS and Sliwa were
false and THE GUARDIAN ANGELS and Sliwa knew them to be false at the
time the representations were made.
Upon information and belief, the misrepresentations of THE GUARDIAN
ANGELS and Sliwa were intended by THE GUARDIAN ANGELS and Sliwa to
induce Hatcher and Kitaj and others to rely on them and not to report
personal expense reimbursements as income so that THE GUARDIAN ANGELS
and Sliwa could conceal from the IRS and state authorities its
irregular accounting practices and so that THE GUARDIAN ANGELS and
Sliwa could represent to donors and potential donors that 'no one in
our group is paid a salary so every dollar you give goes directly
towards getting Guardian Angels out where we belong - on your
streets.'
Hatcher and Kitaj were unaware that the representations of THE
GUARDIAN ANGELS and Sliwa were false. Hatcher and Kitaj reasonably
relied on THE GUARDIAN ANGELS' and Sliwa's misrepresentations and,
until recently, never reported reimbursements for living expenses
received from THE GUARDIAN ANGELS as taxable income.
As a proximate result of the misrepresentations of THE GUARDIAN ANGELS
and Sliwa, Hatcher and Kitaj have been required to hire a tax attorney
to represent them, have been required to pay tax penalties, and have
suffered other monetary damages in an amount to be proven at trial.
The misrepresentations of THE GUARDIAN ANGELS and Sliwa were made with
malice, fraud and oppression and were undertaken with the intent to
injure Hatcher and Kitaj and therefore justify awarding exemplary and
punitive damages to Hatcher and Kitaj.
WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays for relief as set forth below.
COUNT VII - NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION
(Hatcher and Kitaj Against THE GUARDIAN ANGELS and Sliwa)
Hatcher and Kitaj repeat and re-allege the allegations in paragraphs 1
through 94 as if fully set forth herein.
THE GUARDIAN ANGELS and Sliwa advised Hatcher and Kitaj that THE
GUARDIAN ANGELS was a legitimate not-for-profit corporation with tax
exempt status under 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, that it
used a certified public accountant, that Hatcher and Kitaj, just like
many other THE GUARDIAN ANGELS volunteers who received reimbursements
for business and living expenses, did not have to report such
reimbursements to the Internal Revenue Service and did not have to pay
taxes on such reimbursed expenses.
The foregoing representations of THE GUARDIAN ANGELS and Sliwa were
false and THE GUARDIAN ANGELS and Sliwa had no reasonable grounds to
believe them to be true at the time the representations were made.
Upon information and belief, the misrepresentations of THE GUARDIAN
ANGELS and Sliwa were intended by THE GUARDIAN ANGELS and Sliwa to
induce Hatcher and Kitaj and others to rely on them and not to report
personal expense reimbursements as income so that THE GUARDIAN ANGELS
and Sliwa could conceal from the IRS and state authorities its
irregular accounting practices and so that THE GUARDIAN ANGELS and
Sliwa could represent to donors and potential donors that 'no one in
our group is paid a salary so every dollar you give goes directly
towards getting Guardian Angels out where we belong - on your
streets.'
Hatcher and Kitaj were unaware that the representations of THE
GUARDIAN ANGELS and Sliwa were false. Hatcher and Kitaj reasonably
relied on THE GUARDIAN ANGELS' and Sliwa's misrepresentations and,
until recently, never reported reimbursements for living expenses
received from THE GUARDIAN ANGELS as taxable income. As a proximate
result of the misrepresentations of THE GUARDIAN ANGELS and Sliwa,
Hatcher and Kitaj have been required to hire a tax attorney to
represent them, have been required to pay tax penalties, and have
suffered other monetary damages in an amount to be proven at trial.
WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays for relief as set forth below.
COUNT VIII - BREACH OF WRITTEN CONTRACT
(Kitaj Against Sliwa)
Kitaj repeats and re-alleges the allegations in paragraphs 1 through
100 as if fully set forth herein.
On June 12, 1997, in Hollywood, California, Kitaj and Sliwa entered
into a written contract. Pursuant to the terms of the written
contract, Kitaj agreed to purchase for CyberAngels a PowerComputing
computer system for the sum of $2,300 to be paid for with her credit
card. Sliwa agreed to repay Kitaj the principal sum of $2,300, plus
interest accumulated on her credit card, at a rate of $120 per month
on the eighth day of each month starting June 8, 1997 until the
principal and accumulated interest were paid in full. Pursuant to the
terms of the contract, the computer belonged to Kitaj until Sliwa had
fully reimbursed her for its costs, plus interest.
Sliwa breached the written contract by failing and refusing to make
any of the monthly payments beginning in August, 1998.
As a direct and proximate result of Sliwa's breach of his contractual
duties, Kitaj has been damaged in a sum to be proven at trial.
WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays for relief as set forth below.
COUNT IX - BREACH OF ORAL CONTRACT
(Hatcher Against THE GUARDIAN ANGELS)
Hatcher repeats and re-alleges the allegations in paragraphs 1 through
104 as if fully set forth herein.
In or about September 1991, Sliwa, on behalf of THE GUARDIAN ANGELS,
asked Hatcher to give up his job as a teacher to become a full time
volunteer for THE GUARDIAN ANGELS. THE GUARDIAN ANGELS, through Sliwa,
offered to reimburse Hatcher for basic living expenses - food,
clothing and shelter - if Hatcher would become a full time volunteer.
Hatcher agreed and gave up his job to become a full time volunteer.
Over the next several years, until late July, 1998, Hatcher was a full
time volunteer for THE GUARDIAN ANGELS and THE GUARDIAN ANGELS
reimbursed Hatcher for basic, and very modest, living expenses and
business expenses.
On or about July 24, 1998, THE GUARDIAN ANGELS repudiated its prior
oral agreement and refused to reimburse Hatcher for his living
expenses or for his business expenses which had been incurred on
behalf of THE GUARDIAN ANGELS.
As a direct and proximate result of Sliwa's breach of his contractual
duties, Hatcher has been damaged in the sum to be proved at trial.
WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays for relief as set forth below.
COUNT X - BREACH OF ORAL CONTRACT
(Kitaj Against THE GUARDIAN ANGELS)
Kitaj repeats and re-alleges the allegations in paragraphs 1 through
109 as if fully set forth herein.
In or about January 1992, Sliwa, on behalf of THE GUARDIAN ANGELS,
asked Kitaj to give up her job as a Galleries Assistant/Security
Officer for the Marlborough Fine Art Museum in London, England to
become a full time volunteer for THE GUARDIAN ANGELS. THE GUARDIAN
ANGELS, through Sliwa, offered to reimburse Kitaj for basic living
expenses - food, clothing and shelter - if Kitaj would become a full
time volunteer. Kitaj agreed and gave up her job to become a full time
volunteer.
From approximately January 1992 through October 1994, and from
December 1995 until late July, 1998, Kitaj was a full time volunteer
for THE GUARDIAN ANGELS and THE GUARDIAN ANGELS reimbursed Kitaj for
basic, and very modest, living expenses and business expenses.
On or about July 24, 1998, THE GUARDIAN ANGELS repudiated its prior
oral agreement and refused to reimburse Kitaj for her living expenses
or for her business expenses incurred on behalf of THE GUARDIAN
ANGELS.
As a direct and proximate result of Sliwa's breach of his contractual
duties, Kitaj has been damaged in a sum to be proved at trial.
WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays for relief as set forth below.
ON COUNT I
That the Court grant an order providing for the seizure of any and all
copies, whether in computer format or hard copy, of Hatcher's original
written materials; any and all business records (including but not
limited to computer data) relating to the publication, posting, sale,
distribution, advertisement, promotion, and/or offering for sale of
such original written materials and/or other articles involved in THE
GUARDIAN ANGELS' use of Hatcher's copyrighted original written
materials; and any and all brochures, prints, packages, wrappers,
receptacles, mailers, advertisements, promotional materials and other
written materials relating to same; and
That THE GUARDIAN ANGELS be required to account for all gains, profits
and advantages derived by THE GUARDIAN ANGELS by such infringement and
pay such profits over to Hatcher or to pay to Hatcher such damages
sustained by Hatcher arising from the foregoing acts of infringement,
as plaintiff shall ultimately elect;
That Defendants and their officers, agents, servants, employees,
representatives, attorneys, related companies, successors, assigns and
all others in active concert or participation with them, be
permanently enjoined and restrained from infringing in any manner
Hatcher's copyright interests in his original written materials,
including 'Cyber Street Smarts' and, in particular, from; posting,
copying, distributing, selling, offering for sale, advertising and/or
promoting for sale Hatcher's 'Cyber Street Smarts';
From taking any action likely to cause confusion, mistake or deception
on the part of Internet users, purchasers or consumers the approval by
Hatcher of the Defendants' unauthorized posting of Hatcher's 'Cyber
Street Smarts' and from otherwise misappropriating that which
rightfully belongs to Hatcher.
For its attorneys' fees;
For statutory damages for THE GUARDIAN ANGELS' willful copyright
infringement.
ON COUNT II
That Defendants Sliwa and Does 1-50 be held jointly and severally
liable with THE GUARDIAN ANGELS for its copyright infringement.
ON COUNT III
That Sliwa and DOES 41-50 be held jointly and severally liable with
THE GUARDIAN ANGELS for its copyright infringement.
ON COUNT IV
For a declaration that Hatcher is the exclusive owner of his original
written materials previously posted on THE GUARDIAN ANGELS website and
of 'Cyber Street Smarts' and that such works do not constitute a 'work
made for hire' within the meaning of 17 U.S.C. ' 101.
ON COUNT V
For general damages against THE GUARDIAN ANGELS, Sliwa and Does 1-10
in an amount to be proven at trial.
For special damages against THE GUARDIAN ANGELS, Sliwa and Does 1-10
in an amount to be proven at trial.
For punitive and exemplary damages against THE GUARDIAN ANGELS, Sliwa
and Does 1-10 in an amount to be proven at trial.
ON COUNT VI
For general damages against THE GUARDIAN ANGELS and Sliwa in an amount
to be proven at trial.
For punitive and exemplary damages against THE GUARDIAN ANGELS and
Sliwa in an amount to be proven at trial.
ON COUNT VII
For general damages against THE GUARDIAN ANGELS and Sliwa in an amount
to be proven at trial.
ON COUNT VIII
For money damages against Sliwa in an amount to be proven at trial.
ON COUNT IX
For money damages against THE GUARDIAN ANGELS in an amount to be
proven at trial.
ON COUNT X
For money damages against THE GUARDIAN ANGELS in an amount to be
proven at trial.
ON ALL CAUSES OF ACTION
1. For plaintiffs' costs of suit; and
2. That plaintiffs have such other and further relief as the Court
deems just.
Dated: December 29, 1998 STEIN & LUBIN LLP
By:
Manuel A. Martinez
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
COLIN GABRIEL HATCHER and
DOMINIE KITAJ
PLAINTIFFS DEMAND A JURY TRIAL
SafetyEd International Website
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1999 22:51:01 CST
From: CuD Moderators
Subject: File 3--Cu Digest Header Info (unchanged since 10 Jan, 1999)
Cu-Digest is a weekly electronic journal/newsletter. Subscriptions are
available at no cost electronically.
CuD is available as a Usenet newsgroup: comp.society.cu-digest
Or, to subscribe, send post with this in the "Subject:: line:
SUBSCRIBE CU-DIGEST
Send the message to: cu-digest-request@weber.ucsd.edu
DO NOT SEND SUBSCRIPTIONS TO THE MODERATORS.
The editors may be contacted by voice (815-753-6436), fax (815-753-6302)
or U.S. mail at: Jim Thomas, Department of Sociology, NIU, DeKalb, IL
60115, USA.
To UNSUB, send a one-line message: UNSUB CU-DIGEST
Send it to CU-DIGEST-REQUEST@WEBER.UCSD.EDU
(NOTE: The address you unsub must correspond to your From: line)
CuD is readily accessible from the Net:
UNITED STATES: ftp.etext.org (206.252.8.100) in /pub/CuD/CuD
Web-accessible from: http://www.etext.org/CuD/CuD/
ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.4) in /pub/Publications/CuD/
wuarchive.wustl.edu in /doc/EFF/Publications/CuD/
EUROPE: ftp.warwick.ac.uk in pub/cud/ (United Kingdom)
The most recent issues of CuD can be obtained from the
Cu Digest WWW site at:
URL: http://www.soci.niu.edu/~cudigest/
COMPUTER UNDERGROUND DIGEST is an open forum dedicated to sharing
information among computerists and to the presentation and debate of
diverse views. CuD material may be reprinted for non-profit as long
as the source is cited. Authors hold a presumptive copyright, and
they should be contacted for reprint permission. It is assumed that
non-personal mail to the moderators may be reprinted unless otherwise
specified. Readers are encouraged to submit reasoned articles
relating to computer culture and communication. Articles are
preferred to short responses. Please avoid quoting previous posts
unless absolutely necessary.
DISCLAIMER: The views represented herein do not necessarily represent
the views of the moderators. Digest contributors assume all
responsibility for ensuring that articles submitted do not
violate copyright protections.
------------------------------
End of Computer Underground Digest #11.06
************************************
<--">Return to the Cu Digest homepage
Page maintained by: Jim Thomas - cudigest@sun.soci.niu.edu