Producer Greg Smith sues the internet for 40 million
It’s kind of hard to imagine how you’d further degrade the reputation of a film producer who produces documentaries on hilarious conspiracy theories and goes around on the internet proclaiming theories, such as ’9/11 was the work of Israeli nuclear weapons’ are “very convincing”.
Somehow forum posters on Zgeek (a mostly Australian online community) managed to achieve this and Sydney film producer Greg Smith is now planning to sue Zgeek in the supreme court for an astonishing forty two million dollars.
Forty two million plus damages.
It’s generally accepted that if you waltz around the internet proclaiming crazy conspiracy theories as fact you’re going to be torn a new one.
Worse still if you fight back and insist there’s some truth behind whatever crackpot theory of the day it is you believe in now you’re going to send a pheromone out that will attract every flamer, keyboard warrior and troll from within a 6000km radius.
This is just how the internet works.
Greg Smith engaged in such discussion on Zgeek’s forums. So the story goes forumites were discussing the book ‘The Third Truth‘ (which blames 9/11 on Russian submarines and Israeli nuclear weapons) and generally rubbishing it.
Then along comes Greg Smith and declared the arguments presented by the book as ‘very convincing’. Naturally all hell broke loose, an apology was demanded and posts were removed at the bequest of lawyers.
Smith alleges that a group of investors he was involved in pulled out of a movie deal after reading the discussion over The Third Truth on Zgeek. Really… they read some completely unverifiably forum thread and decided to withdraw their millions of dollars?
And where the hell does forty two million PLUS damages come from?
Greg Smith is such an unknown I couldn’t even find a listing on IMDB for his previous work Fortunate Sons, himself or his business partner Jonathan Nolan who is also suing Zgeek. I did however manage to find what I think is a trailer for Smith’s documentary Fortunate Sons.
No seriously, forty two freaking million dollars?
Do even A-list producers earn that much per movie?
If you’re going to participate in online discussions and represent something as irresistibly flame attractive such as a conspiracy theory book expect to be taken down hard. There’s just no way around it. The internet isn’t all bunnies and sunshine and neither are its inhabitants.
Smith has until tommorow to submit a corrected application with the supreme court. The first one had a spelling mistake. After that we could witness one of the most interesting court cases in the country.
I seriously doubt anyone in the country is going to opt in to run a public forum if owners are to be held accountable for defamatory remarks posted by it’s users. Some of the larger Australian forums get thousands of posts daily.
The ‘live’ style of conversation many participants enjoy in such forums simply won’t work if every post is to be moderated before it is published.
It’s wholly amusing that a relative unknown has put a forty two million dollar per movie price tag on himself and further has the gall to sue for more to cover reputational damage. If the trailer was anything to go by the quality of work looks to be worth that of about $4.20.
And that’s being generous.
As for forty two million dollars? Well I have a conspiracy theory of my own as to where Greg Smith pulled this number from.
His arse.
July 17th, 2009 at 2:03 pm n00b(Quote)
An interesting post from a forum called, piscesallmedia dot com from Greg Smith, and I quote…”zgeek are in hot water now i am going to sue them because all my conspiracies are true.
first i signed up, then i slandered my own company, NOW I’M SUING THEM! HOW GREAT IS THE INTERNET. also the guy who runs zgeek ***** sheep and is involved in tax evasion”…end quote.
The post has since been removed from said forum, but is easily recoverable from Google cache.
Some people don’t do Internet at all well.
July 17th, 2009 at 2:03 pm Barry(Quote)
Great article. It doesn’t quite communicate what a clueless nutjob the conspiracy theorists are though.
Try using words like “insane”, “retarded”, “crybaby”, “40 year old virgin” oh yeah and don’t forget to mention the fact that he was struck off from practicing law in australia due to misappropriating funds.
Sounds completely legit to me…
July 17th, 2009 at 2:12 pm ozsoapbox(Quote)
I had a look at the pisces site after another site linked to a URL as the official page for ‘Fortunate Sons’ but found it was dead. Has the entire site been pulled recently except for the splash page or was it always like that?
Do you have a link for the google cache? I searched “zgeek are in hot water” and couldn’t find the quote you mention in google cache or otherwise.
July 17th, 2009 at 2:24 pm n00b(Quote)
Very strange, the link is not working for me now either, but I can email you a screenshot of the page if you want.
July 17th, 2009 at 2:28 pm ozsoapbox(Quote)
Yes please, I wouldn’t mind hosting it as proof. I know photoshop yada yada but still, at least it’s something.
July 17th, 2009 at 2:42 pm Insanity540(Quote)
Well said. I have yet to read an article on this issue that is more accurate. Thumbs up for your article, I hope you don’t get sued for it.
FYI here is the gross of the following “popular” documentaries:
An Inconvenient Truth: $49,756,507
Supersize Me: $20,641,054
Sicko: $36,055,165
The Fog of War: $5,038,841
Bowling for Columbine: $58,008,423
Outfoxed: No international but us domestic :$461,572
Where in the world is Osma Bin Laden: $621,831
Fahrenheit 9/11: $222,446,882
Spellbound: $7,457,710
March of the Penguins: $127,392,693
July 17th, 2009 at 3:18 pm ozsoapbox(Quote)
With one post and a signup date of 02/07 I’m going to go out on a limb and say that’s somebody random trolling under Greg Smith’s name
.
Click to enlarge:
July 17th, 2009 at 8:41 pm Sammy(Quote)
Kudos ozsoapbox! I’ve been following this matter and yours is the first article that is spot on. I got to read the original thread before the site owner was asked to remove it, which by the way he did and this begs the question, why is he still being sued?
If you have a look at ZGeek you’ll also see that they have a ‘Report’ button on every post and at no time were any posts reported by the people suing the guy who runs ZGeek.
July 17th, 2009 at 8:48 pm ozsoapbox(Quote)
Exactly.
What more can forum owners do beyond allow posts to be reported and act when served legal takedown notices?
Forum owners can’t exactly pre-empt what people are going to discuss or how they’re going to discuss it.
This is a desperate money grab and nothing more.
July 18th, 2009 at 12:05 pm Tony(Quote)
Hi, thanks for the write up. I captures the insanity of this whole situation very well
July 18th, 2009 at 5:52 pm ozsoapbox(Quote)
No worries Tony. Any word if Smith submitted the required application on Friday?
July 18th, 2009 at 7:35 pm Tilly(Quote)
“I seriously doubt anyone in the country is going to opt in to run a public forum if owners are to be held accountable for defamatory remarks posted by it’s users.”
Actually that is the current legal situation, in the same way that newspapers are liable if they publish defamatory content, even if someone else wrote it (e.g. they have been sued for printing defamatory letters to the editor, opinion columns etc). It’s the act of publishing that is the issue.
Rest assured this is the subject of much controversy on the internet and in legal circles.
Web forum owners (in Australia at least) are responsible for content they publish, regardless of who posts it. Even if they take it down they can still be sued (although obviously the potential damages are limited if it’s only online for a short time).
Sorry. I just wanted to clear that up so readers don’t get the wrong idea. There is a misconception that “someone else wrote it, I just provided the website” is a defence.
Other than that, I agree with your article and hope this rather optimistic lawsuit gets thrown out!
Cheers,
Tilly (Aussie lawyer)
July 18th, 2009 at 8:42 pm ozsoapbox(Quote)
Thanks for the insight Tilly.
Has it been effectively challenged though?
People often throw ‘landmark case’ around when these sorts of cases are filed (think 2clix and Whirlpool) meaning that while it might be what the law states, nobody has actually challenged it (or had it upheld) in an Australian court of law.
From what I’ve seen these cases usually fizzle before having been played out till the end. If there is a case that has been proven regarding forum owners and their user content then you’d think it’d be pretty cut and dry precedent wise everytime someone has a cry about what’s written on them over the internet.
July 18th, 2009 at 9:24 pm Tilly(Quote)
Electronic Frontiers Australia has a fair bit of information on their website: http://www.efa.org.au/Issues/Censor/defamation.html
They list some of the cases involving internet defamation in Australia, but the law is still developing in this area. In short, defamation laws weren’t conceived with the internet in mind so so the courts are stuck with trying to apply old law to new technology. It’s far from ideal and unfortunately it is far from cut & dry.
I am not familiar with the finer details of the case (this website is the first I have heard about it), but I really hope the defamation laws are reformed to clarify the situation for internet users and site owners. The EFA site above has some interesting reading on the internet and law reform (if you’re into nerdy stuff like me).
July 18th, 2009 at 9:38 pm ozsoapbox(Quote)
After reading that EFA page and some of the links of it from what I can piece together the laws are there but they aren’t applied as blanket rulings.
Instead outdated laws are applied to each and every case which is where the big $$$ is as it’s not just a matter of going to court and meeting some defamation criteria previously set out.
Hopefully one day (or after enough of these types of cases), someone gets their arse into gear and makes it clear cut instead of this grey legal minefield we currently seem to have. As far as I can see the only people who benefit from the current system of unambiguity are the lawyers (no offense).
July 18th, 2009 at 10:27 pm Tilly(Quote)
You’re exactly right, it’s a mishmash of old case law being applied to cases it was never intended for. Unfortunately these types of legal threats can be an effective way of shutting down discussion.
Website operators can only educate themselves about defamation and what they need to do to avoid threats, and hope that the laws are changed eventually. I always tell people to avoid defamation suits at all costs as it’s always a messy and expensive exercise – no one wants to hire a lawyer if they don’t have to
July 18th, 2009 at 11:12 pm ozsoapbox(Quote)
In this particular case where the website owner (Tony) complied with the take down request before action was launched, how would Tony have gone about avoiding the suit?
Is it even possible to launch a defamation suit if your takedown notice has been acted upon?
ps. I really appreciate you taking the time to put your input into this.
July 18th, 2009 at 11:34 pm Tilly(Quote)
It comes down to the details of the particular case; I haven’t seen the forum posts in question, but say if there were some posts there that a ‘reasonable person’ would consider defamatory, and no action was taken for a few days/weeks/months until the legal threat was received then there is arguably a case there. Obviously Smith is saying the damage was already done before the posts were taken down and is using his so-called multi million dollar movie deal as evidence (can’t wait to see the proof of that one).
Basically it can come down to how long the posts were on the site & how many people might have read them.
There is always the defence of truth, but the defendant has to prove during trial that the statements were true, which can be a lengthy and expensive process.
Censorship sucks, and so does using lawyers to shut down discussion. Unfortunately it’s the reality of running a website in the current legal environment.
I hope Tony is able to sort this out & I hope I have clarified a few things.
July 19th, 2009 at 1:22 pm SilverKnot(Quote)
This article lacks clarity in some of the points in is making. The SMH article clearly distinguishes between the time Greg Smith was involved in the film mentioned above and the time he made the statements about the book — a book he had no part of publishing. This article doesn’t — it confuses these two time periods either deliberately or unintentionally.
The comment in the screenshot above by “GregSmith” was not made by Greg Smith. It was created by others to malign him.
And thanks to Tilly for her above comments on the law side of things.
July 19th, 2009 at 3:18 pm ozsoapbox(Quote)
Hi Silverknot. I didn’t think the time periods were relevant but I must admit I didn’t think to state whatever time period was involved between the comments he made on the forum and the defamation suit.
The time period inbetween is irrelevant I believe because Smith got his lawyers to send a take down notice to Zgeek which was then acted upon. Afterwards he filed his lawsuit claiming the imaginary millions he reckons he would have gotten paid by his Russian investors.
Smith might not have had anything to do with the book ‘The Third Truth’ but it’s pretty obvious his documentary ‘Fortunate Sons’ shares a lot of the same conspiracy nonsense beliefs. At the very least he’s got a pretty heavy vested interest in promoting the legitimacy of the book.
July 20th, 2009 at 4:09 pm Jonathan Nolan(Quote)
I am not going to post here again, since it doesn’t really add anything to my day…
But at least TRY and get your facts straight before rushing in to post an article. For starters, why not be clear on who owns or works for what business? Two minutes’ work. Or is it such a good topic it’s a shame to spoil it with any facts?
As for the reposted forum posts from Pisces, whether or not they still exist in a cache or wherever else, they were defamatory, and fake- posted by people committing the crime of identity theft in fact.
Reposting them here or allowing them to be posted in the comments section is itself potentially defamatory.
Perhaps a few more hours studying law and a few less playing video games or surfing the web for pornography would stand some of the arcmchair experts in better stead.
As for claims about takedown notices being acted on- zgeek is still posting potentially defamatory material, still telling lies in public, and still playing the victim card… Despite being responsible for everything that happened. But then personal responsibility is obviously a lot less sexy to some people than dropping the c-word at every opportunity.
July 20th, 2009 at 5:55 pm ozsoapbox(Quote)
Thanks for taking some time out from suing half the internet to respond Jonathan.
What are you talking about who works for what business? I never stated you or Greg Smith worked for anyone but yourselves. Pisces media was never mentioned in my original article and only came up afterwards.
Best of luck with your crusade to censor the entire internet and sue for some ridiculous income amount.
After you fail miserably I hear Stephen Conroy is always hiring.
July 20th, 2009 at 6:41 pm Tony(Quote)
I love you ozsoapbox.
For the record. I didn’t take the posts down when they first complained because the complaint was posted in the thread. At no point did either gentlemen bring the thread or posts to the attention of our moderators. We have a “report” button on every single post on the site. And a “Contact us” at the bottom of every page on the site. We run vbulletin which has this system inbuilt for this very thing.
So I just considered them forum trolls as the complaint was rude and threatening. Not one you’d get from a normal business. I’ve had many requests to have things removed from my site and I always comply. But the manner in which these guys did it just screamed forum troll so I ignored their first request.
This is what they wanted. Quoted from their first complaint. I have a full copy but it’s too much to post here.
“I will consider the following to be the MINIMUM level of required response from zGeek:
- a full retraction from zGeek,
- a full apology from zGeek,
- the offending thread deleted
- the offending poster, “atomboy”, banned by IP address, from zGeek
Damages will also be sought in the supreme court against zGeek and against the “atomboy”.
I require the name and address of the forum member known as “atomboy” in order to serve legal papers upon them. Failure to provide these details will only delay the matter slightly and will be taken as further evidence of compliance.
I also require this information (name and physical address) for those responsible for the zGeek forum. I have noticed that no names or physical addresses have been provided on the site. If you do not provide this information, your lack of cooperation will be noted in the ensuring legal case. ”
I don’t hand out this information due to privacy laws and this really smelt of forum trolls since they had both been in the thread arguing and insulting just like the everyone else.
Oh, and I had not participated in the thread nor did I know about it until they complained. My site is busy, I get around 500 to 1000 posts per day.
Once I got the lawyers letter the thread was removed.
Jonathan may accuse me of lying, but I assure you I am not. I have the logs and emails to prove all of it.
July 21st, 2009 at 8:38 am Barry(Quote)
Hey Johnathon nolan. I heard some kid in the playground the other day call you a “poo-poo farty head”.
I suggest you immediately contact his school and ask nay DEMAND that he be suspended.
Then you should immediately lodge forms with the SUPREME OVERLORD RULER OF THE UNIVERSE COURT and sue him for eleventeen bajillion dollars.
I can’t believe how rude some people are!
July 21st, 2009 at 1:23 pm Turbulent Priest(Quote)
A question for Mr Nolan.
Mr Nolan, I see that you have been involved in the entertainment industry for a while now. As a Canberra resident, and a fan of local theatre, I was curious if you were the same Jonathan Nolan who threatened to sue a local production company for putting a female into a male role in a Midsommernight’s Dream?
I recall threats of legal action being made by a small local company on their “Operation Shakespeare” forums, and an amount of name-calling, accusations etc. I also remember claims that this small company would have to cancel the production due to the theft of their ideas and that their forums were being watched by spies. All occurring before anything had been done, but after “expenses” had been raised.
I didn’t like visiting the forums of that small company, as the amount of abuse, threats and name-calling made it seem very uninviting.
Given your own crusade to clean up the net, I am certain that the owner, admin, moderators and users of that company’s own forums would be feeling sheepish in comparison. Heck, thanks to your own efforts, that forums’ previous excesses should now be available via their ISP records for the world to see under the guise of “discovery”? Wouldn’t they? That might even prove an established pattern of behaviour, wouldn’t it?
I am sure given the similarity in circumstances (call it a modus operandi, if you will), you might understand my confusion. So, in brief, are you that same Jonathan Nolan?
Thanks.
BTW, as a point of law, can you advise me if civil cases automatically start off at the Supreme Court?
July 21st, 2009 at 5:34 pm Nobody in particular(Quote)
Which court depends on the amount of money involved, it’s upto $50,000 for local courts, $50,000-$250,000 for state courts & anything over $250,000 is Supreme Court.
July 28th, 2009 at 2:02 pm Someone(Quote)
In my opinion I find it highly ironic that a conspiracy theorist who complains the system is corrupt and manipulated has attacked a site known for free comment and non-censorship (one of the few uncensored news sites you will find), and is using law and the supreme court (surely the embodiment of ‘the system’) to do so.
I am also highly offended by his tone in all his replies on this matter. It’s easy to be condescending and smarter-than-thou over the internet, but please have some respect for your fellow internet users.
July 30th, 2009 at 6:47 am Turbulent Priest(Quote)
Looks like there has been another rather nasty turn to this:
http://populp.blogspot.com/2009/07/sheriff-of-nothing-part-3.html
It seems Mr Nolan has decided to Trademark the name “zgeek” and then sue zgeek for breaching his trademark.
It looks like Mr Nolan realised that his case won’t stand up in court and is desperate for victory at any cost. So much the better if he can waste zgeek’s money in the process. This strikes me as both vindictive and unethical.
July 30th, 2009 at 8:47 am ozsoapbox(Quote)
Even if they trademark zgeek don’t they then have to appeal to the registrar body or whoever’s responsible for handling domain name disputes?
Who are they going to give the domain to, the guy who just registered the trademark a few days ago or the forum owner who’s been running his forum off the domain for 10 years?
As far as I know you can’t just register a trademark and then demand whoever has yourtrademark.com to shut down immediately. Nolan clearly has no idea how the internet works.
Interesting that none of this has been posted on his blog; http://finchleycentral.blogspot.com
July 30th, 2009 at 10:14 am Turbulent Priest(Quote)
If Nolan were to succeed, he would be able to issue a Cease & Desist Order, and then claim damages for every day afterwards that zgeek failed to comply.
Personally, I think he knows his main case is bogus and was hoping this petty little surprise attack would win the day for him. I think this is just a desperate scramble for any “win” he can get. If nothing else it costs Tony money. The more time and money he can waste to get revenge, the happier he will be. Is that sociopathic?
Nolan has alleged that his investors pulled out due to a character clause in their agreement. Having seen this stunt pulled now, if the investors existed in the first place, I think that this proves that they made the right call.
July 30th, 2009 at 10:37 am Darren(Quote)
Wow. This guy is just a massive fruitcake isn’t he!?
His lack of mental stability is becoming more pronounced by the day. I wonder if he even realises how rediculous, sad and desperate he appears to regular people.
August 2nd, 2009 at 7:15 pm Turbulent Priest(Quote)
Wow! Apparently (according to zGeek here: http://www.zgeek.com/forum/f60/greg-smith-issues-filmnet-a-cease-and-desist-t85469/) Greg Smith has now issued bogus Cease and Desist orders to zGeek and FilmNet!
First dodgy email “summonses” to FilmNet and zGeek, now bogus C&D orders. Nolan and his sock puppet mate are making Lionel Hutz look good at this point. Maybe they should move for a “Bad Court Thingy”.
I am beginning to wonder if Greg Smith actually exists, and isn’t just another identity of Nolan. I can’t (and for that matter don’t want) to make sense of this mess.
I feel sorry for Tony and the FilmNet guys, to have their time wasted by this clown, for the stress that it must have caused them and their families, until they realized that this was just a waste of time and money.
August 2nd, 2009 at 7:24 pm Turbulent Priest(Quote)
Barry
July 17th, 2009 at 2:03 pm
“…. oh yeah and don’t forget to mention the fact that he was struck off from practicing law in australia due to misappropriating funds.”
It is interesting to note that Nolan was publicly claiming as recently as the 26th of June that he is a barrister. I wonder where he is registered? Hmmm….
August 2nd, 2009 at 8:35 pm ozsoapbox(Quote)
Should I be expecting OzSoapbox to be trademarked soon too?
I just noticed that the Youtube trailer I featured in my post has been pulled at some point, maybe Nolan trademarked ‘Youtube’ too and sued them.
This guy keeps digging himself deeper… by the time he’s done even oxygen won’t want anything to do with him.
August 2nd, 2009 at 9:03 pm Turbulent Priest(Quote)
He’s moved on to TMUnderground. By killing theY ouTube account, he’s rid himself of the negative feedback and reviews. Here’s the last lot of spin he posted on that site.
http://www.tmoaradio.com/vb/showthread.php?p=37313#post37313
Post #5 is interesting…
The other forum members don’t appear to believe him, but seem to be blissfully unaware of what he is.
August 2nd, 2009 at 9:15 pm ozsoapbox(Quote)
That’s hilarious, they’ve pulled him up for copyright and called bullshit on him already lol. And these are senior members of that forum too so there’s probably a good chance they haven’t even seen the zgeek stuff yet!
I wonder if he’ll sue them too now. Popcorn and hilarious drama seems follow this guy around everywhere he goes on the internet.
Thanks for the updates TP I really appreciate it as it makes for some interesting reading.
August 2nd, 2009 at 10:18 pm Turbulent Priest(Quote)
If they were to become aware of the zGeek fiasco, I am certain he would claim that is is further evidence of the zGeek/Filmnet sociopath conspiracy to ruin him.
The “thing” at the root of this whole fiasco is something which I am having some trouble believing. This mysterious Russian Author/Gun Runner/Ex KGB agent/Nuclear Expert/Whatever. Why would such a person, if genuine, pick an obscure 1-man publishing operation in Australia to publish irrefutable proof of Israeli/US complicity in the destruction of the Twin Towers, and then publish said irrefutable proof using Lulu? Why would such a supposedly capable, competent and credible person choose Lulu, like any other Vanity Publisher? Why would such a person choose to work with Greg Smith or Jonathan Nolan, if they were the real deal? Why not forgo the baggage of associating with Nolan/Smith and just go it alone, or with a complete nobody with no history of being crazy?
Why would this Russian Super-Insider choose a discredited ex-lawyer if he WANTED to be believed?
The fact that Nolan/Smith can’t relate to how others view their incredible claims indicates a real problem.
Now, if you take a look at Mr Nolan’s current forums under his “Book of Mysteries” you’ll find this post by a forum member “Eye Amongst The Blind” a supposed Investigative Journalist:
“Doghead here:
whilst I would 100% definitely pay the bounty, I figure the money is pretty safe for a few reasons.
_________________
Send any gossip or rumors to me via PM do NOT use my listed email address it is now a dummy address!”
The full thread is here: http://www.piscesallmedia.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3874
Basically you have Eye Amongst The Blind (aka Doghead) stating that he has three claimants to a $1,000,000 bounty for aliens. Why they choose to forgo $9 million extra elsewhere and go to Mr Nolan instead is beyond me. Sadly there is no further info on how the final guy went with his “revelations”.
Conspiracy theories, Aliens, Ex-KGB agents, Ex-ASIO/ASIS agents et al. seem to be far more common place in the city where Mr Nolan/Smith lives.
Hopefully someone will be able to put all the pieces together and publish something that explains exactly what is going on here with Nolan/Smith. It will hopefully serve as a warning to others who encounter Nolan/Smith and help them avoid getting stuffed around as Filmnet and zGeek have been.
I suspect that Nolan is nothing more than an ex-lawyer who is now a conspiracy-theory buff (with whatever traditional mental baggage that entails) that can’t stand the thought of people judging him for what he is, and calling his bluff when he waves the “lawyer threat card”. I suspect he will try to “win” at any cost, even redefining what “win” is
(Trying to trademark names such as zGeek and FilmNet is an indicator of this course of action).
He keeps calling people “those sociopaths”, but I suspect that he is just projecting. He may be dealing with issues of his own, which could be why he projects his own problems upon anyone he sees himself in conflict with. That is not uncommon in people who have diagnosed sociopathic issues. However, modern treatment is moving away from grouping people simply as “sociopaths”.
August 3rd, 2009 at 6:21 am Turbulent Priest(Quote)
I have decided not to waste any further time on this Nolan/Smith fellow. I can only see this as being a never-ending battle of words and papercuts designed to frustrate the participants and attract attention. I don’t envisage this changing until at least one of the parties involved gets help.
I hope the people involved in this wake up to themselves and realize what a waste of time, money and energy this is and just walk away. As I am.
Thanks for your time, and good luck with weathering this spot of turbulence
August 16th, 2009 at 7:31 pm Steve Wattleford(Quote)
I was scouring Facebook today and found someone who appears to be a friend of Jonathan Nolan, and while an avid opponent of being defamed, he sure seems to enjoy being on the giving end of it. Pot, meet kettle. It’s quite fascinating, why is Greg the one suing zgeek and not Jonathan (even though he claims to be)?
Six people suing zgeek for pornography, death threats AND hate speeches? Wow, you’d think ACA would be all over this by now.
August 17th, 2009 at 1:47 am Sammy(Quote)
Steve that sounds really odd. I’m a moderator at ZGeek and I’ve yet to hear anything about us being sued for “pornography, death threats and hate speeches.”
I’ve seen other instances of Jonathan Nolan saying he is suing ZGeek myself but last I knew that just wasn’t the case. Perhaps he’s filed something recently. I’ll certainly have a chat to Tony.
April 28th, 2010 at
[...] at Zgeek. Nolan has a legal history with Zgeek which started when his mate Greg Smith decided to sue Zgeek for forty million dollars (not a [...]