Vanessa Kachadurian - Freedom of speech and truth remain- FALSE VICTORY

Mr. Bennet Kelley a self-professed "Internet Attorney" is claiming "victory" in a case he won NO award in and didn't succeed in squashing the truth or Freedom of Speech. Do we need to remind Mr. Kelley about the lies and mistruths in his flimsy Complaint that didn't make it past mediation? Or how you had to amend the complaint many times, because it had no legal theory. In the end you had no where to go with it and your client errors in thinking that anyone in the Republic of Armenia would side with Plaintiff over me, or any other of our citizens. Labeling me a "Cyber Attacker" is libelous and I have challenged you to debate me on Truth vs. Cyber Attacks any time, I will even grace your internet radio show with my perspective and that of an average citizen.

As the mediation report said.......anyone can sue for anything if they want to, or if Plaintiff has the money to spend on an ambulance chaser like you. The other fact is, your case was past over by many attorneys in Fresno before a law firm that is NOW closed after 50 years accepted it. "Small Victory" no not at all, you don't control the law in Armenia and the other countries, that is where the truth is being exposed. Even your client's money won't change the truth, all $1.3 million that has been earned the last 4 years from buying and selling children.

Perhaps we should also remind everyone how you wrongfully accused me of trying to harm you. All I ever did was tell you to leave my family alone (a reasonable request)that you turned into a bad circus, it isn't my fault your client lied to you about the facts and you were embarassed. You also leave out the part how you stole the federal court seal and my photo and ran it on a blog together. Your ethics is laughable and your a.m. radio show and Huffington blog (neither are paid venues) are stupid and self-promoting. As the other attorney's call you "a deceptive cheeky little monkey" I have also reported you to the Armenian Law Association in California and they are not happy with your ethnic slurs and as you put it "Tweeking on a Lark". Your antics are unethical and it's too bad your client doesn't file legal malpractice charges against you for destroying her case and abusing her reputation. Not to mention stealing over $100K in legal fees from your client and promising to destroy people who have an opinion or truthful substantiated proof of wrong doing. Surely, your client understands that everyone doesn't believe she is a savior of some sort.

Your client wins nothing and you win nothing in damages because you failed to prove this and failed to distinguish the multitude of reports from Brandeis University to Radio free Europe regarding irregular practices in adoption. One should ask why Mr. Kelley doesn't file flimsy lawsuits against the journalists or news companies? Why? Because he can't attack the truth, so he creates straw man arguments that amount to no more than fantasy writing by Kelley. So lets see here, $100K spent on legal fees and $85K reimbursed for legal fees by the insurance company. At the end of the day, you didn't squash the truth and never will.

Mr. Kelley also proceeded to attack my community with Ethnic Slurs and harass my family which precipitated a police report. All of which is sitting on the DA's office in Santa Monica, California. if you think you will win Mr. Kelley you are sadly mistaken, you only win with making a complete fool out of yourself especially when it was found that your complaint had errors and misinformation in it.
Remember Kelley you didn't do your due diligence and verify your client's remarks about "so called" clients and THE REAL reason they stopped their contract to adopt. Which if you recall had nothing to do with me or any other journalist, this was verified by a 3rd party who interviewed the 4 couples who cited "bad customer service" and other "inconsistancies" in the horrible and laughable written complaint that is being laughed at by every law professor on the west coast. Your embarassment after finding these facts were true were evident in your behavior toward me and resorting to personal attacks because you COULD NOT WIN A JUDGMENT.

Keep up the attacking Bennet, you are a low life sleeze only after attorney fees. Which your client paid you handsomely for. What was it that you were paid? Estimates by legal friends say it was $85-100K for legal fees? and what did I have to pay? .......ZERO. Kelley didn't succeed in doing what he set out to do, harm me financially and emotionally. So how much more did the Plaintiff pay you to straighten up her business reputation? You are a paid agitator and have done this for the Democratic party by attacking former President Bush (Bushlies.net) But attacking a solo citizen is unacceptable for your wealthy client. Your client is not a small business as you would have people believe, their IRS revenue reported is $1.3 million for the last 4 years. Adoption Agencies are not exactly without critics these days, as such they have dropped off by 52% the last 4 years for good reasons.

Here is the lie Kelley posted. If he wants to call it a “victory”, he can. Of course, you’re free to categorize it however you want. Plaintiffs easily incurred legal fees and costs in excess of $100k. The mediation alone probably cost them ten grand between attorneys’ fees, the mediator’s fee, hotels, and flights. Surely, Bennet walked away with more money to support his lackluster writing and speaking career. Do you really think bashing private citizens and aligning yourself with a group that is currently under FBI investigation is good for your reputation?

Mr. Kelley you will never stop freedom of speech and the truth, as this was explained to you by Judge Westerfield. Admittedly, your own client admits the arrest and the DISMISSAL BY the former employer, all known and substantiated facts. Again you misled everyone and your communication sucks, I think your own quote "do anything for a buck" suits you well. Your professors from back east would be very ashamed of your lousy tactics and infantile actions. You lose and you have to resort to personal attacks on children and 80 year olds.

Mr. Kelley professes to stand up for Freedom of Speech and applauds "Occupy Wall Street Movement". Unfortunately when it comes to lawyers and mercenaries, they will always side with the paying client as they are a paid mouthpiece puppet. No lawyer can be trusted, so we have to ask Mr. Kelley does he stand on the side of moral virtues or big business and greed? I think we know the answer. Also you profess to defend Spam, yet claim you added a website attacking me for spam filters (whatever that is suppose to mean- Everyone should realize Bennet has a magical way with word salads- after all he is a wanna be writer) Then fail to mention you were paid unsuccessfully by Spam Lobbyists, not to mention your former job as in house counsel for Value Click who have since "parted ways" with you. I understand your late father was an honorable DA in Rhode Island, too bad you have not filled his shoes.

P.S. THIS LATEST BLOG YOU POSTED ABOUT ME IS PROOF, OF YOUR VICIOUS PROSECUTION ATTEMPT AND VEXATOUS MALICIOUS LITIGATION. YOU LOSE AND ARE A LOSER.


Internet Law Center Announces Victory against Serial Cyber Defamer; Calls for Legislative Action
Internet Law Center Announces Victory against Serial Cyber Defamer;

Calls for Legislative Action

SANTA MONICA, CA–Nov. 15, 2011—The Internet Law Center, a law firm based in Santa Monica, California, announced today it had achieved a significant victory for its client Hopscotch Adoptions, Inc. (www.hopscotchadoptions.org) of High Point, North Carolina in a federal defamation action against Vanessa Kachadurian of Fresno, California, with an $85,000 settlement.

Hopscotch and its founder Robin Sizemore, filed suit against Kachadurian in federal court in Fresno in December 2009 in response to a vicious cyber-smear campaign that began in 2006. The plaintiffs were merely one of several adoption and educational institutions to be targeted for abuse by Kachadurian under multiple identities.

“It is a gutsy move for a small non-profit like Hopscotch to say ‘enough’ and take on someone like Kachadurian who can devastate a small business,” said Internet Law Center founder Bennet Kelley. This is especially true when, Kelley added, “cyber abuse often escalates online and leads to offline threats of violence in over one in four cases according to data compiled by WHO@ (www.haltabuse.org).”

“Small victories like these collectively send an important message that the internet is no longer the ‘Wild, Wild West’ and that you can and will be held accountable for your actions.”

Kelley noted, however, that “Kachadurian is part of a growing class of internet serial defamers who cause substantial economic and emotional harm to their victims and who have forced companies to spend millions on online reputation management to block and/or respond to such attacks.”

Kelley, who helped draft a primer on internet law for California policymakers, argued that lawmakers across the country should seriously assess whether their state’s defamation laws need to be updated to address these worst offenders.

Kelley added that, this may be a topic he explores in more depth in a future edition of Cyber Law and Business Report, a radio show he hosts that airs weekly on WebmasterRadio.fm.
About The Internet Law Center

The Internet Law Center (www.internetlawcenter.net) helps clients navigate and influence the evolving legal standards for the changing digital economy. The firm publishes the newsletter, Cyber Report, which won top prize at the Los Angeles Press Club’s 2011 Southern California Journalism Awards.

The firm was founded by Bennet Kelley, the former co-chair of the California Bar Cyberspace Committee, where he led the effort to publish Cyberspace Law and Policy: A Primer for State Policymakers.

Kelley is also Of Counsel to San Diego-based Hull McGuire PC (www.hullmcguire.com) and host of Cyber Law and Business Report which airs every Wednesday at 10AM Pacific/ 1PM Eastern on WebmasterRadio.fm. (www2.webmasterradio.fm/cyberlaw-and-business-report/).



Contact:

Bennet Kelley, (310) 452-0401
bkelley@internetlawcenter.net

Vanessa Kachadurian-Judge Tomar Mason San Francisco Superior Court

My friend and honorable judge of San Francisco Superior Court- Tomar Mason

Attorneys Say Mason Is Sharp, Sweet and Slow

By Rinat Fried
The Recorder
June 18, 2002


Tomar Mason: The judge gets high marks for her courtroom demeanor, but some attorneys complain about short hours and long arguments.
Photo: Jenna Bowles
TOMAR MASON

BIO BOX


COURT: San Francisco Superior

APPOINTED: Dec. 31, 1998, via court consolidation

DATE OF BIRTH: June 1, 1951

LAW SCHOOL: UCLA School of Law, 1977

PREVIOUS EMPLOYMENT: S.F. Muni Court judge, 1991-98


Lawyers like appearing before San Francisco Superior Court Judge Tomar Mason. They just wish there was more time to do it.

Since her days at San Francisco's Hall of Justice, Mason has had a reputation for tardiness. That rap has followed her to the civil courthouse, where it continues to color an otherwise respectable judicial reputation.

"She's very sweet, she has a good sense of humor," said one litigator, speaking on the condition of anonymity. "The one thing that bothered me is she doesn't start real quick and she takes a long lunch."

Another attorney was more critical.

"She keeps incredibly short hours," said a civil litigator, a partner in a downtown San Francisco firm. "She actually seems to hold court only a few hours a day."

Mason says her court hours are 9 to 5, with some adjustments depending on the case. "I find it an interesting comment," she said. "I'll certainly talk to counsel about it in individual cases."

Attorneys are divided on Mason's judicial skills. Almost all attorneys praise Mason, 51, for her courtroom demeanor. They say she is patient, polite and pleasant. But several also say she lets attorneys argue too long and allows too much duplication in her trial procedure.

Several attorneys, even her fans, agreed that Mason could cut off arguments sooner.

"She is courteous to lawyers, she reads your papers, she looks up the law. I think she is one of the better judges around," said L. Jay Pedersen, a partner at Bledsoe, Cathcart, Diestel & Pedersen.

But, Pedersen, added, "If anything, she lets attorneys argue until they stop. She probably should stop them before the fifth go around."

Mason takes the feedback in stride.

"Great, I'm glad to hear this," she quips. "I'm going to cut them off from now on."

For one attorney, faced with trying a long prevailing wage case before Judge Mason, her patience was a virtue.

Since few state judges are intimate with the Employee Retirement Income Security Act and its terminology, attorneys in the case provided Mason with relevant statutes and commentary. Mason diligently reviewed the binder, which she modestly called "ERISA for dummies," recalled attorney Mark Thierman.

"Sometimes she had trouble with it, but she got back on track," he said.

In fact, a week and a half into the 20-day trial, Mason did something most unusual: She ordered the attorneys to present their opening statement all over again.

"At one point, she said, 'I will now have opening statements again because I finally understand,'" Thierman said.

"One thing that impressed me the most is that she was totally humble," he said. "This is boring stuff. . . . She gets a 110 percent for patience."

Mason has also been known to ask attorneys to preview their cases in chambers before the trial begins -- a habit that elicits mixed responses.

"I'm not a big fan of that procedure," said David Balter, staff counsel for the state's Division of Labor Standards Enforcement who recently tried a wage dispute in Mason's courtroom. "I think there is some duplication there."

But another attorney saw the procedure as a plus. "What I liked about her is she's willing to bring it into chambers and talk seriously about the strengths and weaknesses of the case," said criminal defense attorney V. Roy Lefcourt.

Mason says the previews are helpful to attorneys because, among other things, they are opportunities to hash out procedural issues and stipulations that help the trial move along quicker.

"I find that oftentimes counsel are very eager to talk to the court to alert the court to important issues," she says.

There is a greater consensus about Mason's people and communication skills, which lawyers say are her great asset.

"Unlike a lot of judges who don't have good communication skills, she is very easy to communicate with," says Deputy Public Defender Arcelia Hurtado. "She lets you know how she feels about a case."

Mason can be quite sensitive to the litigants in her courtroom, Hurtado added. For example, Hurtado recalled a client of hers, a veteran of the armed forces, who was sentenced to a diversion program.

"I remember him coming to court after he'd completed his program," Hurtado said. "She told him, 'You're a veteran?' He says yes. She says, 'I want everyone to give him a round of applause for serving this country and completing his program.' " According to Hurtado, the entire courtroom erupted in applause, moving her client to tears.

And when a pair of 90-year-olds appeared in court over a wage dispute, Mason was on the attorneys' case to make sure their clients were not excluded.

"At various times there were some issues in terms of people not being able to hear," said Balter, the labor standards attorney. "She made sure attorneys, including myself, spoke loud enough

Vanessa Kachadurian- 9th Circuit to reconsider Armenian Genocide Case en Banc

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202532050520&slreturn=1#

9th Circuit to Reconsider Armenian Genocide Case En Banc
The 9th Circuit has ordered an en banc rehearing of a challenge to a California statute that has spawned lawsuits against insurance firms on behalf of victims of the Armenian genocide. Earlier, a three-judge panel had upheld the statute, reversing its own initial decision dismissing the case.
Amanda Bronstad
11-11-2011
A federal appeals court has ordered an en banc rehearing of a challenge to a California statute that has spawned lawsuits against insurance firms on behalf of victims of the Armenian genocide.
The case, against two German insurers and their parent company, Munchener Ruckverischerungs Gesellschaft A.G., or Munich Re, will be reheard in oral arguments during the week of Dec. 12 in San Francisco, according to a Nov. 7 order by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Earlier, a three-judge panel had upheld the statute, reversing its own initial decision dismissing the case.
"We're delighted that the court has agreed to rehear the decision," said Neil Soltman, a partner in the Los Angeles office of Mayer Brown who represents Munich Re. "We think reversal of the initial decision was obviously incorrect and we're glad to have the opportunity to present it to the full en banc court."
Brian Kabateck, a partner at Kabateck Brown Kellner in Los Angeles, and one of the lead plaintiffs attorneys in the case, said he wasn't surprised by the decision.
"Obviously, we would have preferred they denied it," he said. "But I do think in one respect it's important, because this is an important issue with respect to the Armenian genocide and it's important that possibly this case reach the Supreme Court to deal with the question of the recognition of the Armenian genocide."
Between 1915 and 1923, more than 1.5 million Armenians died at the hands of the Ottoman Empire. The government of modern Turkey, an important member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, has strenuously denied that any genocide occurred, and the U.S. does not recognize the episode as genocide.
Kabateck and Mark Geragos have taken the lead in filing cases against insurance firms and banks on behalf of Armenian descendants of genocide victims, often obtaining big settlements. In 2004, New York Life Insurance Co. agreed to pay $20 million, and in 2005 AXA S.A. agreed to a $17 million settlement.
The latest case was filed in 2003 by Vazken Movsesian, a priest in the Armenian Apostolic Church, as a class action. Munich Re moved to dismiss, arguing that the foreign-affairs doctrine pre-empted the statute, which also violated the due process clause of the United States Constitution. Munich Re cited failed legislative efforts in the United States to formally recognize the Armenian genocide.
In 2007, U.S. District Court Judge Christina Snyder in Los Angeles rejected the company's motion, prompting Munich Re's appeal to the 9th Circuit.
The en banc hearing will be the third go-round for the case before the appellate court. In 2009, a three-judge panel initially upheld dismissal for Munich Re in a 2-1 decision, concluding that the California statute -- Section 354.4 of the California Code of Civil Procedure, approved in 2000 to extend the statute of limitations for Armenians to file insurance claims -- was unconstitutional. The court also found that U.S. foreign policy pre-empted the California law, citing the U.S. Supreme Court's 2003 decision in American Insurance Associates v. Garamendi, which concluded that U.S. foreign policy pre-empted a California law granting insurance relief for Holocaust victims.
The 9th Circuit used the same reasoning in another case heard at the same time, striking down a 2002 California law meant to help plaintiffs recover artwork allegedly looted by the Nazis in Von Saher v. Norton Simon Museum.
In the Munich Re case, the majority opinion came from Dorothy Nelson and the late David Thompson, with Harry Pregerson dissenting.
But on Dec. 10, 2010, in a rehearing by the same panel, Nelson reversed course and sided with Pregerson. In that 2-1 decision, the panel found that there was no "express federal policy forbidding states to use the term 'Armenian Genocide'" and that, unlike the Holocaust, no executive agreements existed to resolve victim claims.
"The panel's holding is both incorrect and a danger to U.S. interests," wrote Soltman, Munich Re's attorney, in a Jan. 3 petition to rehear the decision en banc. "The panel consequently misapplied the law governing an area of national importance and international sensitivity, allowing California to interfere with the President's authority to determine foreign policy and threatening vital U.S. interests," he wrote.
Joining Munich Re was the Republic of Turkey, which filed an amicus brief.
In their response, filed on Feb. 1, Kabateck and Geragos of the Law Offices of Geragos & Geragos, said a few "carefully selected remarks" from government officials did not constitute a foreign policy position on the Armenian genocide.
The Armenian Bar Association; the Center for the Study of Law & Genocide at Loyola Law School, Los Angeles; U.S. Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif.; and various human rights organizations filed briefs supporting the claims.
In several notices filed with the court, Soltman noted the U.S. Supreme Court's June 27 refusal to hear a petition to overturn the 9th Circuit's ruling in Norton Simon, the case over alleged Nazi looting of artwork. Also in that case, the U.S. solicitor general filed a brief to deny review.
Soltman said that decision meant the Munich Re case was ripe for en banc review.
"The two cases in our view are indistinguishable from one another, yet after the panel changed its decision, the two decisions didn't make any sense," he said. "The art case and our case were no longer consistent with each other, and the whole purpose of the en banc procedure is to eliminate inconsistencies with the circuit's cases. This is a perfect example."
Kabateck disagreed that there was a conflict in the circuit.
"They're politically completely different events. Our position is the United States government has never taken a position on the genocide. It's not in conflict," he said. "We've got an issue where we're not running contrary to, not afoul of, a particular policy of the United States."