From: Claybaugh, Melinda Sent: Friday, September 26, 2014 6:18 PM. To: Eichorn, Mark Subject: FW: FIC action Fy, $0 lam not alone in my suffering. | have to leave now, but let's chat Monday Melinda A. Claybaugh Staff Attorney Federal Trade Commission Bureau of Consumer Protection Division of Privacy and Identty Protection tek. (202) 326-2208 fax (202) 326-3062 From: Craig Britain (mailto:craigrbitain gmail.com) ‘Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2014 12:05 AM To: Uiaybaugh, Melinda Subject: Re: FTC action ‘Subject to the Consent Agreement; {reject it as a violation of my ight to Due Process. "No person shall be held to answer fora capital, or otherwise Infamous crime, unless ‘ona presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury except in cases arising inthe land or naval forces, or inthe Miia, when in actual service In time of War or pubic danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence tobe twice putin Jeopardy of fe or limb; nor shall be ‘compelled in any criminal case to bea witness against himsel, nor be deprived of if, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor hall private property be taken for public us, without sist compensation.” Not only are the Consent Agreement and Complaint invalid, they are unconstitutional. ‘Subject to the Complain: 4. At no point time did engage in any of the acts or practices alleged inthe complaint. 2. Ieeubsaquently nullified by 2. 3. "Intimate parts" is «fer reaching definition whichis in and of itself an attempt to shift the legal definition of obscenity, which isthe normal term used in these matters, and therafore I naturally object as no part of our website constitutes obscenity an thus I reject the term “intimate parts” in the same context. 4. For legal purposes via waiver the posters of all content ware the users who appeared inthe contant or the users who submitted the ‘content, al of whom formed legally ding agreomants with the website prior to submitting (posting) content on the website. This Is In ‘accordance with 47 US. CODE § 230, 5. By legal definition, users were net encouraged nor solicited to submit content. Submitters were equally male and female without gender bias, Like, just se many male submissions were received ae female eubmissions, In some months, mora sumiesione of male Users (pictured) were racerdee, 1 would request thet “personal” mean "private" and the terms be made interchangable, and by that extension ne privatefpersonal information was posted on the website, ony information which was already public by nature. "Independently located" can {iso be misconstrued as all of the information was parsed from publie sources. 6. Atno pont in time did 1 do anything mentioned in this section, 7. While the Bounty section was proposed, It wae never actually used. No rewards were aver paid, nor fees collected, ‘The primary method of collation for 9586+ of the photographs was ther presence on pubic, social websites such as Twitter, Facebook, ‘Tumblr, Reds, and Myspace, whare they were uploaded by the users who are pictured in them, which makes thore wears themesives the posters)/submitter crea(s) 47 US. CODE § 230 For allintents and purposes, “the website” was a collation of material which was already public and had been publicly posted to other websites at otner points in time withthe valid consent ofthe users posted in the content. Consent does not have an expiration date and thus the singular consent of posting public materal as such under £7 US Code § 107 constitutes Fair se Likewise, no information at any point was posted on the website which was not already posted on anather pubic wabste ang thus only public information wes used efea 17 U.S. Code § 107 |. Comments were atricty monitored and any which were deemed obscene or non-compliant with Fit Amendment Standards were removed immediately. At no ime ware any cbscene comments allowed upon the website, Sexually explicit language or derogatorylanguage was discouraged by the website, but by tse does not constitute obscenity and thus would be considered censurious oF ‘eletorious, The "higher level of hatred” suggested of the website lea contextomy, Being that ve were referring to erie in the maineeeam media having hatred for our website, and nt suggesting at any time that our website engaged in any form of hatred, hate speech or any related activity. To the contrary, our website had no lees than 7 dacaimers in which all commenters ware decouraged and ordered to retrain from insulting those who were pictured, and reminded that any sot of potential legal vilatons would be immediately reported to the proper authortes, We eiscouraged and prohibited any form of hate speech, harassment and/or cbscene speech being used against users pictured on the website, ‘9. "‘Wornen” isa gender term and the corect term in this case is “People. 95% of these users posted their own photographs on socal media websites such ae Tumblr, Tutte, Reddit, Myspace, Facebook, et.al, which were in turn considered to be public Fair Usa content in vinich congent was provided. Once provided, said eanzent cannot be revoked and thus all users provided their evn consent via publeization f thelr content, None ofthe effects can be tributed to “the website" because the photos were already avaliable for as long {sa decade In some instances. All content in which the administrator received a valid removal request was removed within one week, 410, At no point in time did the Respondent do anything liste inthis section 11, Respondent earned less than $6,000 after paying expenses associated with the website via taxation. While gross eamings may have bean $13,000, actual net earnings ware far lower. 12, Obamanuids.com was intended a¢ a atieal extension of "the webete” ang not as a new webeks 13. At no pont in time did the Respondent engage in this behavior. See 4 15, False, s004, 7. 16, False, se04, 7. 17-False, see 4,7 ‘This complaint has an abundance of patito principli and contestomy, again with leveraged discovery as the commission has refused to provide ful disclosure while demanding early access to discovery from the respondent, and thus it isthe complaint, consent agreement and Subsequent settlement request which are actually unfair and deceptive. == Receiving the folowing content -~ From:Ciaybaugh, Melinda Receiverscrairbrittin@amailcom Time: 2014-09-23, 13:51:43 Subject: FTC action ‘The attachments of the eri (1)-09 22 14 FTC to Britain-pat (2), 09 22 14 Consent Agreament pdf (G). 09 22 14 Complait.pat message is. sellowing Mr. Brittain: Please see the attached documents relating to the FTC's investigation of wnww.isanybodydown.com. It is important that you contact me as soon as possible to discuss settlement ofthis action, Sincerely, Melinda Claybaugh Melinda A. Claybaugh Staff Attomey Federal Trade Commission Bureau of Consumer Protection Division of Privacy and Identity Protection tet (202) 326-2203, fax: (202) 326-3062