John Higdon, Plaintiff vs. Michael McCarty, a.k.a. Michael Enoch, a.k.a. Ras, a.k.a. Exorcist, a.k.a. Kravitz03, a.k.a. Abbatage, and DOES 1-15, Defendants |
Case No. CV772062 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DEFAMATION, INVASION OF PRIVACY-PUBLICITY
PLACING PERSON IN FALSE LIGHT IN THE PUBLIC EYE |
Plaintiff alleges:
1. Plaintiff John Higdon is, and at all times herein mentioned was, a resident of Santa Clara County, California.
2. Defendant Michael McCarty is, and at all times herein mentioned was, a resident of Santa Clara County, California.
3. Plaintiff is ignorant of the true names and capacities of defendants sued as DOES 1 through 15, inclusive, and therefore sues these defendants by fictitious names. Plaintiff will amend this complaint to allege their true names and capacities when ascertained. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that each of the fictitiously named defendants is responsible in some manner for the occurrences herein alleged, and that plaintiff's damages as herein alleged were proximately caused by their conduct.
4. Venue is pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure ß 395.
5. Defendant Michael McCarty has used the following names during the times herein mentioned: Michael Enoch, Ras, the Exorcist, Kravitz03 (kravitz03@aol.com), Abattage (abattage@aol.com).
6. At all times mentioned herein, plaintiff, a gay male, was and is a corporate officer of Announcement Technologies, Inc., a California corporation, and resides in the City of San Jose, County of Santa Clara, State of California. Plaintiff has resided in the City of San Jose for over forty years and at all times has enjoyed a good reputation both generally and in his occupation.
7. "ba.broadcast" is a Usenet discussion forum on the Internet devoted to the discussion of topics related to the broadcasting industry in the San Francisco Bay Area. "ba.broadcast" is accessible to every user of the World Wide Web. Ability to participate in Usenet groups, such as "ba.broadcast", is regularly included in the basic access packages of Internet service providers. Usenet groups allow the posting of original messages and responding to another's post.
8. Defendant McCarty regularly uses the "ba.broadcast" forum to espouse his views that members of the broadcasting community, including plaintiff, are conspiring against him.
9. Defendant's threats and harassment to a former employer resulted in defendant's conviction in 1992 for violating Cal. Pen. Code Section 653m(a).
10. Defendant's threats and harassment to one member of the broadcasting community resulted in defendant's conviction in 1996 for violating Cal. Pen. Code Section 555.
11. In early 1996 plaintiff challenged defendant's views on "ba.broadcast". Since that time, plaintiff has become a target of defamatory postings in which defendant used one of several pseudonyms.
12. Third parties began to inquire to plaintiff as to the true identity of defendant. On or about February 20, 1997, in response to the inquiries by third parties, plaintiff posted information disclosing the facts of defendant's criminal record and pattern of harassment. All of the records posted were from verified public records.
13. Defendant continues a pattern of conduct in "ba.broadcast" whereby he defames plaintiff. From November 02, 1997 through February 11, 1998, defendant has posted at least twenty-five messages to "ba.broadcast" each of which includes at least one defamatory statement of or concerning plaintiff.
14. Defendant published messages to "ba.broadcast" that suggest plaintiff has AIDS (on or about November 02, 1997, message ID 19971102234901.SAA14631@ladder01.news.aol. com: "Higdon, your sperm comes with AIDS, your sperm is no good?"; on or about November 03, 1997, message ID 19971103003001.TAA18911@ladder02.news.aol.com: "Higdon, you're an AIDS boy."; on or about November 03, 1997, message ID 19971103140001.JAA09894 @ladder01.news.aol.com: "Midgets with AIDS."; on or about November 04, 1997, message ID 19971104044500.XAA01846@ladder01.news.aol.com: "You're sick Higdon ! An AIDS vector, . . ."; on or about November 14, 1997, message ID 19971114145700.JAA17835@ladderr01. news.aol.com: "Really, who cares what the reprobate mind, AIDS vector, butt lick wants to say. Johnny on the Spot Higdon is sick.").
15. Defendant published messages to "ba.broadcast" that attack the plaintiff's professionalism and client relationships (on or about December 05, 1997, message ID 669vq3$lo@sdrn.zippo.com: "I know exactly why John Hates S.F. TV, because all of the major stations refuse to use his services, they won't hire such a vile hateful bird (Byrd)."; on or about December 05, 1997, message ID 66a1dq$5i6@sdrn.zippo.com and 66a1fd$5m3@sdrn.zippo. com: "What I like is how John Higdon is trying to be employed by local broadcasters, yet publicly he conducts himself in a most un-becoming way[¶]"Attacking most every single media entity in the Bay Area over.[¶]"But really who would hire such a jack-ass as Higdon ?"; on or about December 05, 1997, message ID 66a2495$7gg@sdrn.zippo.com: "While there is plenty of boasting about the massive amounts of work that John Higdon has been hired to do by local broadcasters by himself, amusingly all of the cases are few and from the past.[¶]"Is John being hired now?[¶]"Or is he in the doldrums of un-employment as he alludes to in other articles?[¶]"Is his name getting around ba.broadcast, as he intended, to show others that he is in fact the vile hateful bird (Byrd) that others are alleging ?[¶]"But, really, local media who reads ba.broadcast has already made up their mind about Higdon, for his antics in ba.broadcast has been so vile that certainly people have taken notice."; on or about December 11, 1997, message ID 66pg6t$h0c@sdrn.zippo.com: "Speaking of Hateful Higdon's [laughable] Consulting Business- [brackets in original][¶]"Who would want to hire an anti-Semite Fag, of such vile hatred?"; on or about December 11, 1997, message ID 66q5m5$qfq@sdrn.zippo.com: "Let's see, since the Ballpark vote was a scam (for which a new legal battle is ensuing - over voter fraud) and along with Willie Brown fooling the masses, by not dealing with the fact that he is a "bought" man (corrupt), then that must be the reason why Higdon gets hired also.[¶]"People are easily fooled."; on or about December 13, 1997, message ID 66uope$p61@sdrn.zippo.com: "'Johnny on the Spot' enema Higdon has spent years attacking and trying to vilify almost every single article, comment, here in ba.broadcast, along with radio and television personalities in the business - whom I care for, and will certainly try to defend.[¶]"ATI, Inc., John Higdon's home based consulting business is as honest as the man who owns it. So not very. I know personally where his actions are filled with half-truths and out-and-out lies.[¶]"Broadcasting is an honest profession. It's the dergs who pretend to be upful and honest who drag it down.and in my book certainly including others, that would be Johnny on the Spot."; on or about February 10, 1998, message ID 19980210210501.QAA02238 @ladder02.news.aol.com: "Have you noticed that John Higdon's company Announcement Technologies, Inc. is a vehicle for the above continual "bogus" deception in this newsgroup ?"; on or about February 11, 1998, message ID 19980211203801.PAA18259@ladder03.news.aol.com: "How could you, in the Radio and TV profession, look to employ a one John Higdon of ATI (Announcement Technologies Inc.) who is guilty of stalking people in the media?[¶]"Hiring a wolf in the fold.[¶]"Never !").
16. Defendant published messages to "ba.broadcast" that suggest plaintiff is deceitful and dishonest (on or about November 14, 1997, message ID 19971114150400.KAA17195 @ladder02.news.aol.com: "His hatred in this group and conspiracy of lies."; on or about December 11, 1997, message ID 66q5m5$qfq@sdrn.zippo.com: "People are easily fooled."[¶] "The underlying reasons behind all of the above, is filled to the brim with lies, deceit, dishonesty - Higdon's efforts here in ba.broadcast, and in his own personal life."; on or about December 13, 1997, message ID 66uope$p61@sdrn.zippo.com: "I know personally where his actions are filled with half-truths and out-and-out lies.[¶]"Broadcasting is an honest profession. It's the dergs who pretend to be upful and honest who drag it down.and in my book certainly including others, that would be Johnny on the Spot."; on or about February 10, 1998, message ID 19980210210501.QAA02238@ladder02.news.aol.com: "John wants to pretend to be Brian Harper, for his intentions are to fool everyone here.[¶]"A lying, deceiving, harassing, threatening, reprobate, anal bastard - John Higdon !"; on or about February 10, 1998, message ID 19980210205700.PAA01085@ladder02.news.aol.com: "So, in other words, get a clue and phuck off, you conspiring, lying, harassing bastard.").
17. Defendant published messages to "ba.broadcast" that suggest that plaintiff is anti-Semitic (on or about November 04, 1997, message ID 19971104042800.XAA29934@ladder01. news.aol.com: "Abaddon (Hebrew for Satan - just ask Elie)."; on or about December 11, 1997, message ID 66pg6t$h0c@sdrn.zippo.com: "Who would want to hire an anti-Semite Fag, of such vile hatred?"; on or about December 11, 1997, message ID 66pg0k$gei@sdrn.zippo.com: "The anti-Semite Higdon (A-bad-don = Satan in Hebrew), now wants to liken himself to a philistine. Why don't you just cut to the quick, and call yourself Dr. Mengele at Auchwitz ?").
18. Defendant published messages to "ba.broadcast" that suggest plaintiff suffers from mental illness (on or about November 04, 1997, message ID 19971104052401.AA05571 @ladder02.news.aol.com: "How can anyone in their right mind, give support to such a pituitary mad, butt sniff lick as Higdon?"; on or about November 14, 1997, message ID 19971114145700. JAA17835@ladderr01.news.aol.com: "Higdon is more than deranged, actually more than just pituitary mad, an insane rabid antichrist, absolutely hates religion."; on or about November 25, 1997, message ID 65f57a$ajc@sdrn.zippo.com: "Reprobate faggots are always in denial of their own pituitary illness, thereby trying desperately to justify their insane ramblings that they themselves of course don't see as insane. A reprobate mind is a mentally ill individual, and the Holy Scriptures prophesies his and others' actions 2000 years ago. Reprobates and Geek-Speak."; on or about December 03, 1997, message ID 664tm9$816@sdrn.zippo.com: "I knew something was wrong with your mind, even without Elie saying so.").
19. Defendant published messages to "ba.broadcast" that suggest George Byrd was plaintiff's lover (on or about November 03, 1997, message ID 19971103003001.TAA18911 @ladder02.news.aol.com: "Your sperm is tainted. But hey, Byrd will 'service you' still!"; on or about November 03, 1997, message ID 19971103140001.JAA09894@ladder01.news.aol.com: "So, let us discuss the midget fellatio fellowship that both Higdon and Byrd have for each other. It's love, you should see it. Two midgets in love."; on or about November 03, 1997, message ID 19971103135201.IAA09337@ladder01.news.aol.com: "You got Byrd.[¶]. . . .[¶]"And is there any wonder why he is Higdon's real time lover? Of course not."; on or about November 04, 1997, message ID 19971104052401.AA05571@ladder02.news.aol.com: "I'm telling ya, [sic] this raging faggot sleeps with midget male love Byrds. A real feather up his butt."; on or about November 04, 1997, message ID 19971104044500.XAA01846@ladder01.news.aol.com: "Anal lick lust thrusts, you're sick. Sick, dirty and together every hateful Byrd."; on or about November 14, 1997, message ID 19971114150400.KAA17195@ladder02.news.aol.com: (a) "The sight of the two love byrds together so many times and so lovingly - them two - how sick. Little butt lick perverts both of them."; on or about December 13, 1997, message ID 66uope$p61@sdrn.zippo.com: "Is it any wonder why George Byrd and him are more than friendly ?[¶]You can always tell a person by who they keep company with."; on or about January 06, 1998, message ID 19980106013300.UAA27257@ladder01.news.aol.com: "What is needed is a picture of George Byrd of KKUP FM, one of John Higdon's known homosexual lovers."; on or about January 06, 1998, message ID 19980106012500.UAA23371@ladder02.news.aol.com: "What is needed is a picture of George Byrd of KKUP FM, one of John Higdon's known homosexual lovers.").
20. Defendant published messages to "ba.broadcast" that suggest plaintiff engages in abnormal sexual behavior (on or about November 04, 1997, message ID 19971104042800. XAA29934@ladder01.news.aol.com: "Yeah, you're enlightened alright - A candle up your hungry fag ass"; on or about November 04, 1997, message ID 19971104044500.XAA01846@ladder01. news.aol.com): "a sick fag who gets off with the smell of feces and your love of the anus. Anal lick lust thrusts, you're sick"; on or about November 14, 1997, message ID 19971114145700. JAA17835@ladderr01.news.aol.com: "Butt lick rimming faggot."; on or about November 14, 1997, message ID 19971114150400.KAA17195@ladder02.news.aol.com: "Little butt lick perverts both of them.[¶]"Higdon is trying to cast that upon another, when he is the SOB catty dominatrix fag."; on or about January 06, 1998, message ID 19980106013300.UAA27257 @ladder01.news.aol.com: "There is no question about it, the picture of John Higdon is of a reprobate pituitary mad anal queen, an anal rimming lusting fag"; on or about January 06, 1998, message ID 19980106012500.UAA23371@ladder02.news.aol.com: "There is no question about it, the picture of John Higdon is of a reprobate pituitary mad anal queen, an anal rimming lusting fag.").
21. Defendant published messages to "ba.broadcast" that suggest plaintiff is a stalker (on or about February 11, 1998, message ID 19980211203801.PAA18259@ladder03.news.aol.com: "So, what do fellow media people feel about psychos who stalk in order to harm the people who work in radio and tv, the media in general?[¶]"That is why I bring John Higdon into the picture.[¶]"For just like the psycho stalker of Michael Savage, John Higdon has been stalking and threatening me for years now.[¶]"How could you, in the Radio and TV profession, look to employ a one John Higdon of ATI (Announcement Technologies Inc.) who is guilt of stalking people in the media?").
22. Defendant published messages to "ba.broadcast" that state that plaintiff is reprobate (on or about November 25, 1997, message ID: "He cannot fathom the idea that many people think he is exactly what others describe him as: A reprobate faggot circuitry nerd geek.[¶]Reprobate faggots are always in denial of their own pituitary illness, thereby trying desperately to justify their insane ramblings that they themselves of course don't see as insane. A reprobate mind is a mentally ill individual, and the Holy Scriptures prophesies his and others' actions 2000 years ago. Reprobates and Geek-Speak."; on or about January 06, 1998, message ID 19980106013300.UAA27257@ladder01.news.aol.com: "There is no question about it, the picture of John Higdon is of a reprobate pituitary mad anal queen, an anal rimming lusting fag."; on or about January 06, 1998, message ID 19980106012500.UAA23371@ladder02.news.aol. com: "There is no question about it, the picture of John Higdon is of a reprobate pituitary mad anal queen, an anal rimming lusting fag.").
23. Defendant published messages to "ba.broadcast" that suggest plaintiff associates himself with feces (on or about November 03, 1997, message ID 19971103143201.JAAA11974 @ladder01.news.aol.com: "We know exactly why Higdon is associated with Bull Cows, Sh*t[¶]"Why does John associate himself with feces so much?"; on or about November 04, 1997, message ID 19971104044500.XAA01846@ladder01.news.aol.com: "a sick fag who gets off with the smell of feces and your love of the anus. Anal lick lust thrusts, you're sick. Sick, dirty and together every hateful Byrd.[¶]"Feces Fags - Higdon."; on or about February 10, 1998, message ID 19980210205700.PAA01085@ladder02.news.aol.com: "Fecal Higdon, the above has nothing to do with broadcasting.").
24. These messages was seen and read by persons who reside in and around the San Francisco Bay Area and created publicity in the sense of a public disclosure to a large number of people.
25. I was informed by my attorney that on or about 3:13 p.m. on January 23, 1998, defendant was personally served with a letter demanding retraction; that defendant immediately telephoned my attorney and left a telephone message that he would not retract his statements; that approximately one half hour later defendant telephoned my attorney and left a telephone message that he would retract his statements. On or about 5:03 p.m. on January 23, 1998, defendant posted a message to "ba.broadcast" which did not include any statement of retraction but did include additional defamatory statements (message ID 19980124030301.WAA06301.@ladder01. news.aol. com, such as: "You're a sick anal queen John!").
26. Plaintiff incorporates by this reference each an every allegation set forth in paragraphs 1. through 25.
27. The statements reference in paragraph 14. that suggest plaintiff has AIDS are false and libelous on their face. Said statements clearly expose plaintiff to hatred, contempt, ridicule, and obloquy because they suggest plaintiff has a loathsome and contagious venereal disease.
28. The statements reference in paragraph 15. that attack the plaintiff's professionalism and client relationships are false and libelous on their face. Said statements clearly expose plaintiff to hatred, contempt, ridicule, and obloquy. Said statements tends to injure plaintiff in respect of his profession in that they suggest reasonable people would not hire plaintiff and that plaintiff poses a physical threat to his clients.
29. The statements reference in paragraph 16. that suggest plaintiff is deceitful and dishonest are false and libelous on their face. Said statements clearly expose plaintiff to hatred, contempt, ridicule, and obloquy because they suggest plaintiff is deceitful and dishonest.
30. The statements reference in paragraph 17. that suggest that plaintiff is anti-Semitic are false and libelous on their face. Said statements clearly expose plaintiff to hatred, contempt, ridicule, and obloquy because they suggest that plaintiff is harbors hatred and discriminates on the basis of religion and/or national origin.
31. The statements reference in paragraph 18. that suggest plaintiff suffers from mental illness are false and libelous on their face. Said statements clearly expose plaintiff to hatred, contempt, ridicule, and obloquy because they suggest plaintiff has diminished and abnormal mental function and does not conduct himself as would a sane person.
32. The statements reference in paragraph 19. that suggest George Byrd was plaintiff's lover are false and libelous on their face. Said statements clearly expose plaintiff to hatred, contempt, ridicule, and obloquy because they impute unchastity to plaintiff.
33. The statements reference in paragraph 20. that suggest plaintiff engages in abnormal sexual behavior are false and libelous on their face. Said statements clearly expose plaintiff to hatred, contempt, ridicule, and obloquy because they suggest plaintiff engages in sexual practices that society regards with disgust.
34. The statements reference in paragraph 21. that suggest plaintiff is a stalker are false and libelous on their face. Said statements clearly expose plaintiff to hatred, contempt, ridicule, and obloquy because they suggest plaintiff engages in criminal behavior.
35. The statements reference in paragraph 22. that state that plaintiff is reprobate are false and libelous on their face. Said statements clearly expose plaintiff to hatred, contempt, ridicule, and obloquy because they indicates that plaintiff is depraved and unprincipled.
36. The statements reference in paragraph 23. that suggest plaintiff associates himself with feces are false and libelous on their face. Said statements clearly expose plaintiff to hatred, contempt, ridicule, and obloquy because they suggest plaintiff associates himself with feces.
37. As a proximate result of the above-described publications plaintiff has suffered loss of his reputation, shame, mortification, and hurt feelings all to his general damage in the sum to be determined at trial and sufficient for jurisdiction of this court.
38. Defendant published the defamatory statements with malice as evidenced
by the content of the described postings in paragraphs 14. through 23.
, and defendant's behavior in response to a demand for retraction as set
for in paragraph 25.
39. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by this reference each and every allegation set forth in paragraphs 1 through 25. above.
40. Defendant's postings identified in paragraph 14. made without plaintiff's consent invaded plaintiff's right to privacy. Said postings constituted an invasion of plaintiff's privacy by creating publicity placing plaintiff in a false light in the public eye. The publicity created by defendant placed plaintiff in a false light in the public eye in that it incorrectly suggests plaintiff has a loathsome and contagious venereal disease. The publicity created by the defendant was offensive and objectionable to plaintiff and to a reasonable person of ordinary sensibilities in that made the plaintiff object of hatred, contempt, obloquy, and ridicule.
41. Defendant's postings identified in paragraph 15. made without plaintiff's consent invaded plaintiff's right to privacy. Said postings constituted an invasion of plaintiff's privacy by creating publicity placing plaintiff in a false light in the public eye. The publicity created by defendant plaintiff in a false light in the public eye in that it incorrectly suggests reasonable people would not hire plaintiff and that plaintiff poses a physical threat to his clients. The publicity created by the defendant was offensive and objectionable to plaintiff and to a reasonable person of ordinary sensibilities in that made the plaintiff object of hatred, contempt, obloquy, and ridicule and tends to injure plaintiff in respect of his profession.
42. Defendant's postings identified in paragraph 16. made without plaintiff's consent invaded plaintiff's right to privacy. Said postings constituted an invasion of plaintiff's privacy by creating publicity placing plaintiff in a false light in the public eye. The publicity created by defendant plaintiff in a false light in the public eye in that it incorrectly suggests plaintiff is deceitful and dishonest. The publicity created by the defendant was offensive and objectionable to plaintiff and to a reasonable person of ordinary sensibilities in that made the plaintiff object of hatred, contempt, obloquy, and ridicule.
43. Defendant's postings identified in paragraph 17. made without plaintiff's consent invaded plaintiff's right to privacy. Said postings constituted an invasion of plaintiff's privacy by creating publicity placing plaintiff in a false light in the public eye. The publicity created by defendant plaintiff in a false light in the public eye in that it incorrectly suggests that plaintiff is harbors hatred and discriminates on the basis of religion and or national origin. The publicity created by the defendant was offensive and objectionable to plaintiff and to a reasonable person of ordinary sensibilities in that made the plaintiff object of hatred, contempt, obloquy, and ridicule.
44. Defendant's postings identified in paragraph 18. made without plaintiff's consent invaded plaintiff's right to privacy. Said postings constituted an invasion of plaintiff's privacy by creating publicity placing plaintiff in a false light in the public eye. The publicity created by defendant plaintiff in a false light in the public eye in that it incorrectly suggests plaintiff has diminished and abnormal mental function and does not conduct himself as would a sane person. The publicity created by the defendant was offensive and objectionable to plaintiff and to a reasonable person of ordinary sensibilities in that made the plaintiff object of hatred, contempt, obloquy, and ridicule.
45. Defendant's postings identified in paragraph 19. made without plaintiff's consent invaded plaintiff's right to privacy. Said postings constituted an invasion of plaintiff's privacy by creating publicity placing plaintiff in a false light in the public eye. The publicity created by defendant plaintiff in a false light in the public eye in that it incorrectly imputes unchastity to plaintiff. The publicity created by the defendant was offensive and objectionable to plaintiff and to a reasonable person of ordinary sensibilities in that made the plaintiff object of hatred, contempt, obloquy, and ridicule.
46. Defendant's postings identified in paragraph 20. made without plaintiff's consent invaded plaintiff's right to privacy. Said postings constituted an invasion of plaintiff's privacy by creating publicity placing plaintiff in a false light in the public eye. The publicity created by defendant plaintiff in a false light in the public eye in that it incorrectly suggests plaintiff engages in sexual practices that society regards with disgust. The publicity created by the defendant was offensive and objectionable to plaintiff and to a reasonable person of ordinary sensibilities in that made the plaintiff object of hatred, contempt, obloquy, and ridicule.
47. Defendant's postings identified in paragraph 21. made without plaintiff's consent invaded plaintiff's right to privacy. Said postings constituted an invasion of plaintiff's privacy by creating publicity placing plaintiff in a false light in the public eye. The publicity created by defendant plaintiff in a false light in the public eye in that it incorrectly suggests plaintiff engages in criminal behavior. The publicity created by the defendant was offensive and objectionable to plaintiff and to a reasonable person of ordinary sensibilities in that made the plaintiff object of hatred, contempt, obloquy, and ridicule.
48. Defendant's postings identified in paragraph 22. made without plaintiff's consent invaded plaintiff's right to privacy. Said postings constituted an invasion of plaintiff's privacy by creating publicity placing plaintiff in a false light in the public eye. The publicity created by defendant plaintiff in a false light in the public eye in that it incorrectly indicates that plaintiff is depraved and unprincipled. The publicity created by the defendant was offensive and objectionable to plaintiff and to a reasonable person of ordinary sensibilities in that made the plaintiff object of hatred, contempt, obloquy, and ridicule.
49. Defendant's postings identified in paragraph 23. made without
plaintiff's consent invaded plaintiff's right to privacy. Said postings
constituted an invasion of plaintiff's privacy by creating publicity placing
plaintiff in a false light in the public eye. The publicity created by
defendant plaintiff in a false light in the public eye in that it incorrectly
suggests plaintiff associates himself with feces. The publicity created
by the defendant was offensive and objectionable to plaintiff and to a reasonable
person of ordinary sensibilities in that made the plaintiff object of hatred,
contempt, obloquy, and ridicule.
50. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by this reference each and every allegation set forth in paragraphs 1 through 25. above.
51. Defendant's postings to "ba.broadcast" which identify and are directed at plaintiff constitute a pattern of conduct. The intent of this pattern was to alarm or harass plaintiff
52. Defendant's pattern of conduct served no legitimate purpose and seriously annoyed, tormented, and terrorized plaintiff.
53. Defendant's pattern of conduct is such as would cause a reasonable person to suffer substantial emotional distress, and actually caused plaintiff substantial emotional distress.
54. As a result of defendant's pattern of conduct plaintiff reasonably feared for his safety.
55. The defendant has made a credible threat with the intent to place the plaintiff in reasonable fear for his safety.
56. Defendant's pattern of conduct is such as would cause injury to a person's business and professional reputation, and has actually resulted in loss of income to plaintiff.
57. Plaintiff has demanded that defendant cease and abate his pattern of conduct and defendant has persisted and intensified his pattern of conduct.
WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays judgment against the defendant as follows:
1. For general damages, the amount to be determined at trial, and is in excess of the minimum required to establish jurisdiction.
2. For special damages to be determined at trial.
3. For punitive [or exemplary] damages to be determined at trial.
4. For costs of suit incurred herein.
5. For a preliminary and permanent injunction enjoining defendant and his agents, servants, and employees, and all such persons acting under, in concert with, or for him: a) from continuing to publish the above-described facts in such a manner as to falsely imply plaintiff is of low social status; that plaintiff engages in deviant sexual behavior; that plaintiff willfully exposes himself to venereal disease; or any individual is plaintiff's lover; b) publishing on, or communicating through, the internet, or any interactive computer or networking service; c) publishing on, or communicating through, the internet, or any interactive computer or networking service, any matter directly or indirectly identifying plaintiff, his business, clients, or reasonably likely prospective clients.
6. For such other and further relief as the court may deem proper.
Dated: March 23, 1998