Page 1 of 6


Righthaven LLC,



Dana Eiser,

Civil Action No. 2:10-CV-3075-RMG-JDA


Defendant Dana Eiser respectfully submits this supplement to her previous 12(b)(1)
motion to dismiss (Dkt. #60) and her response (Dkt. #62) to Plaintiff’s 12(b)(6) motion to
dismiss certain counterclaims. The supplemental material below relates to a sanctions hearing
that occurred yesterday in Nevada and to a public statement also made yesterday by a
Righthaven associate that confirms many of Defendant’s claims. This material is of extreme
importance to several arguments made by Defendant in the previously-referenced filings.
Defendant respectfully requests that the Court refrain from ruling on either Defendant’s 12(b)(1)
motion or Plaintiff’s 12(b)(6) motion until a transcript of the Nevada is available and submitted
to this Court, and Defendant also requests the Court consider the statement made by the
Righthaven associate when making such a ruling.
July 14, 2011 Sanctions Hearing in Righthaven v. Democratic Underground
In June of 2011, Judge Hunt of the District of Nevada indicated his belief that Righthaven
had made intentional misrepresentations to the federal courts in all Righthaven cases. This
statement was made in the context of issuing an order to show cause to Righthaven threatening
sanctions for the conduct. That order to show cause was part of the order dismissing

2:10-cv-03075-RMG -JDA Date Filed 07/15/11 Entry Number 64 Page 1 of 6
Page 2 of 6
Righthaven’s complaint in Righthaven v. Democratic Underground, already before this Court as
Dkt. #60-3.

Yesterday, July 14, 2011, Judge Hunt conducted a hearing on the order to show cause.
Judge Hunt sanctioned Righthaven and made findings that are highly relevant to this case,
especially to the cross motions to dismiss now pending before the Court.
Judge Hunt found:
1. That Righthaven is an unlicensed law firm with a contingent fee agreement masquerading
as a company.

2. That Righthaven made intentional misrepresentations to the federal courts as to the nature
of its client relationship and the rights it held under the copyright “assignments.”

3. That Righthaven “claimed that it had various exclusive rights when it knew that the
ability to exercise those rights were retained exclusively by [its client].”

4. That “The representations about the [Righthaven-client] relationship and the rights of
Righthaven were misrepresentations. They were misleading.”
5. That Righthaven’s failure to disclose the true nature of its client relationship was “not

The full citation is: Order dated 6-14-2011, Dkt. #116, Righthaven v. Democratic Underground,
2:10-cv-01356-RLH-GWF, ___ F.Supp.2d ___, 2011 WL 2378186 (D. Nev. June 14, 2011)
(HUNT, J.).
These findings were widely reported in media following the Righthaven cases.
Media covering the matter reported that when Judge Hunt began to issue his ruling, he stated:
“In the court’s view, the arrangement between Righthaven and Stephens Media is nothing more,
nor less, than a law firm—which incidentally  I  don’t  think  is  licensed  to  practice  law  in  this 
state—with a contingent fee agreement  masquerading  as  a  company.” Righthaven is not a law
firm and does not claim to be a law firm.
Media reports also indicated that after discussing Righthaven’s misrepresentations regarding its
client relationships, Judge Hunt stated: “The court finds those representations are not true and
that they are intentional.”
This statement and subsequent statements are as reported by other attorneys present in the
Nevada courtroom.
2:10-cv-03075-RMG -JDA Date Filed 07/15/11 Entry Number 64 Page 2 of 6
Page 3 of 6
6. That Righthaven’s intentional failure to disclose the true nature of its client relationship
was part of a “concerted effort to hide [the client’s] role in this litigation.”
7. That “having looked at all this evidence, [the Court] finds that [Righthaven’s statements]
are intentionally untrue.”
Judge Hunt issued a monetary sanction against Righthaven and further ordered
Righthaven to provide certain materials to every court currently handling a Righthaven case.
Specifically, Righthaven has been ordered to provide all courts with: (1) the order to show cause;
(2) a complete copy of the transcript of the July 14, 2011, hearing; and (3) any written order
subsequently issued by Judge Hunt connected with these matters.
These findings are not only extremely important to this case, they may have an issue-
preclusive effect that would prohibit Righthaven from even arguing to the contrary in this court
or any other. These findings are extremely relevant to many arguments raised by Defendant in
the 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss. In addition, it is impossible to overstate the relevance of these
findings to Defendant’s abuse of process and unfair trade practices claims.
Statement Made by Former Stephens Media C E O Sherman Frederick
Purely by coincidence, just hours before the hearing described above, former Stephens
Media CEO Sherman Frederick made a public statement that is also extremely relevant to the
foregoing matters. A bit more background information is necessary to paint the full picture of the
Frederick statement.
Many Righthaven targets are political speakers. In addition to the Democratic
Underground website, Righthaven has sued a variety of political organizations. A
disproportionate number of the earlier suits were against organizations in Nevada, which makes
sense given Righthaven’s home base is Las Vegas and the early lawsuits are all based on
2:10-cv-03075-RMG -JDA Date Filed 07/15/11 Entry Number 64 Page 3 of 6
Page 4 of 6
material appearing in the Las Vegas Review-Journal. Accordingly, in 2010, Righthaven sued the
Progressive Leadership Alliance of Nevada,
the Democratic Party of Nevada,
and the
Republican U.S. Senate nominee from Nevada, Sharron Angle.

All of these Righthaven cases were filed while Sherman Frederick was still CEO of
Stephens Media. The suits were over material appearing in the Las Vegas Review-Journal, a
newspaper owned by Stephens Media. As with each Righthaven case, Stephens Media was not a
plaintiff—Righthaven was the sole plaintiff. About a month after the Angle suit was filed,
Sherman Frederick vacated the position as CEO of Stephens Media and became an opinion
columnist and blogger with the Las Vegas Review-Journal, a position he still occupies.
Frederick’s columns and blog posts sometimes involve political topics. In addition to
writing the columns and blog posts, Frederick will sometimes engage in back-and-forth
discussions with people who post comments on the blog. Unlike other commenters, Frederick’s
comments are highlighted on his blog with a yellow background and are designated as being
written by “Sherm.”
Yesterday, Frederick authored a blog post about Sharron Angle and media reaction to her
unsuccessful Senate campaign. This post is attached as Exhibit 1.
The Angle posting elicited
comments, and Frederick responded to several of the comments. In one of those responses,
Frederick referenced the Righthaven lawsuit against Sharron Angle:

Righthaven v. Progressive Leadership Alliance of Nevada, 2:10-cv-00637-RLH-RJJ (D. Nev.)
(filed May 4, 2010).
Righthaven v. Democratic Party of Nevada, 2:10-cv-01129-KJD-PAL (D. Nev.) (filed July 9,
Righthaven v. Angle, 2:10-cv-01511-RLH-RJJ (D. Nev.) (filed September 3, 2010).
The yellow highlighting is imperceptible on Exhibit 1 for technical reasons, though it appears
clearly on the Internet and in the excerpt on the next page. The post is presently available at
2:10-cv-03075-RMG -JDA Date Filed 07/15/11 Entry Number 64 Page 4 of 6
Page 5 of 6

Frederick’s remark, “I even sued her for lifting our material”, is a statement that is of
substantial relevance to Defendant’s claims that the Righthaven-client relationship is a sham. It
constitutes a public admission by Stephens Media’s then-CEO that he—and by extension,
Stephens Media—was truly in control of the Righthaven litigation. It is ironic that several hours
before Judge Hunt’s sanctions hearing, Sherman Frederick made a public statement confirming
everything that Judge Hunt would find later that same day.
Defendant respectfully requests that the Court withhold ruling on the cross motions to
dismiss until Righthaven has provided this Court with the transcript of the July 14, 2011
sanctions hearing in Democratic Underground and any written order in connection with that
hearing, as Judge Hunt mandated Righthaven do so that other courts would have the benefit of
knowing the truth behind the Righthaven scheme. Defendant will actively monitor the situation
and provide the material as soon as it becomes available should Righthaven fail to. Further,
Defendant respectfully requests that any ruling on the cross motions to dismiss take into
consideration the statement by Sherman Frederick described herein and contained in Exhibit 1.
2:10-cv-03075-RMG -JDA Date Filed 07/15/11 Entry Number 64 Page 5 of 6
Page 6 of 6
Undersigned counsel by no means wish to irritate the Court with continued supplemental
submissions. None of the material described in this supplement existed prior to yesterday, so
there was no way for defense counsel to present it in any prior filings.
Respectfully submitted,

s/J. Todd Kincannon s/Bill Connor
1329 Richland Street 160 Centre Street
Columbia, South Carolina 29201 Orangeburg, South Carolina 29115
Office: 877.992.6878 Office: 803.531.1700
Fax: 888.704.2010 Fax: 803.531.0160
Email: Email:

s/Thad T. Viers
THAD T. VIERS, ID #10509
1104 Oak Street
Myrtle Beach, South Carolina 29578
Office: 843.488.5000
Fax: 843.488.3701

July 15, 2011 Attorneys for Defendant
2:10-cv-03075-RMG -JDA Date Filed 07/15/11 Entry Number 64 Page 6 of 6

Exhibit 1
to Defendant Eiser’s
Supplement re Sanctions
Hearing and Sherman
Frederick’s Statement

Sherman Frederick’s
Blog Post re Sharron Angle
2:10-cv-03075-RMG -JDA Date Filed 07/15/11 Entry Number 64-1 Page 1 of 4

Sherman Frederick is a columnist for
Stephens Media. His column appears
Sunday in the Opinion section of the
Review-Journal. In between Sundays,
you can find out what's on his mind

Read the columns

Technorati Profile
Recent blog entries
Angle haters: No proof, no

Travesty! Rosemary's closed
Watchdog barks; raises money
View all blog entries
Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
« Jun
01 02 03
04 05 06 07 08 09 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30 31
July 2011
The Huffington Post
Fox News
Las Vegas Review-Journal
Las Vegas CityLife
Pahrump Valley Times
Reno Gazette-Journal
Nevada Appeal
Slash Politics
Recent Comments
Massachusetts casino debate delayed until
after Labor Day
07/14/2011 10:44 AM
1 Comment

Angle haters: No proof, no reporting
07/14/2011 10:33 AM

Travesty! Rosemary's closed
07/13/2011 05:38 PM

Watchdog barks; raises money
07/13/2011 11:16 AM

Reid hosting August fundraiser at Tahoe
07/13/2011 11:10 AM

The Book Nook
Ed Graney
More Blogs
Follow us: @reviewjournal 5K Like Advertise Subscriptions Email alerts e-Edition Recent Editions Search
Thursday, Jul. 14, 2011
Sunny, 97°
Weather Forecast

Angle haters: No proof, no reporting
Posted by Sherman Frederick
Thursday, Jul. 14, 2011 at 09:37 AM
Let's get honest, shall we? A fair chunk of the Nevada media exhibits a
remarkable disdain for Sharron Angle. You simply can't thumb through
the record of stories, editorials and Twitter notes without coming to that
This is not about whether you like Angle's politics or not. This is about
how this one figure manages to bring out the worst in the state's media.
Take a look, for example, at the tweets sent yesterday by the media
against Angle. It's hard not to look at them and conclude anything other
than these folks have something personal against Angle.
One guy even said that no one should report Angle's charges that Sen.
Harry Reid stole the 2010 election unless Angle shows proof.
That's an interesting standard, which is apparently only reserved for
Nevada contains all kinds of newsmakers who say things every day
without proof. The media covers those guys like a cat laps up milk. But if
a newsmaker says something the media doesn't like, well, then no one
should report it unless the newsmaker can prove it.
That's an unsustainable standard reserved only for Sharron Angle.
This entry was posted on Thursday, Jul. 14, 2011 at 09:37 AM
and is filed under The Complete Las Vegan. You can follow any
responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave
a response.
Comments (12)
Share your thoughts on this story. You are not currently logged in.
You must be registered to comment.Register | Sign in | Terms and

Some comments may not display immediately due to an
automatic filter. These comments will be reviewed within 24
hours. Please do not submit a comment more than once.
Note: Comments made by reporters and editors of the Las Vegas
Review-Journal are presented with a yellow background.
12 Responses to "Angle haters: No proof, no reporting"
Sherm, I agree--when a Senate candidate, even one as dismal as Angle was,
from a major party, even as insane as the GOP has been and continues to be,
makes that kind of charge, there should be some reporting. In fact, if you

Page 1 of 3 Angle haters: No proof, no reporting - The Complete Las Vegan -
2:10-cv-03075-RMG -JDA Date Filed 07/15/11 Entry Number 64-1 Page 2 of 4

had held to even that minimal a standard during the 2010 campaign, your
paper might have covered Harry Reid fairly, and you and Mitch might still be
in charge.
Written by: Michael Green on Thursday, Jul. 14, 2011 at 10:33 AM -- Report abuse
today's fun fact: the U.S. government's share of home mortgages declined
sharply during the housing bubble of the last decade.
Written by: petenyc on Thursday, Jul. 14, 2011 at 10:53 AM -- Report abuse
Aside from your fantasy about my particular bit of 2010 history, Michael, your
comment remains unresponsive to the point at hand (no surprise) as well as
degrading and ignorant to the reporters at the Review-Journal who are there
now and who were there in 2010.
Written by: Sherm on Thursday, Jul. 14, 2011 at 11:23 AM -- Report abuse
Talk about your losers. Sherman's pathological affinity for Angle borders on
hysteria..Angle is an embarrassment to Nevada.
Naturally, her inane mouthings are music to the ears of the tone deaf
Sherman and his beloved tea party.
Harry didn't steal the election, Angle handed it to him every time she opened
her mouth.
With Harry's abysmal approval ratings, only a dolt like Angle could have
ceded the election
to the intensely disliked Reid.
Sherman you still are a redundant bore. The election is over. So is the tea
party. Do you actually get paid to be this irrelevant ?
Written by: Craig.Taylor on Thursday, Jul. 14, 2011 at 11:40 AM -- Report abuse
So, is Mr. Frederick asserting that Ms. Angle should be allowed to question
the results of a federal election -- i.e. undermining the entirety of our
democracy -- without a shred of proof?

Of course, his characterizations of the rest of the Nevada press is ridiculous
when you remember that Mr. Frederick has not once, in all the time I've read
his work, challenged Republican lawmakers or their statements. On the
contrary, he routinely takes them at face value.

Apparently, you can only be a partisan journalist if you're partisan in favor of
the Democrats.

I thought Mr. Frederick -- who was removed, we must remember, for his
shameless campaigning against Harry Reid, which brought embarrassment to
the Review-Journal as a publication -- had already reached his lowest point.

But today, it seems, is the day he jumped the shark. Amazing stuff.
Written by: Captain Obvious on Thursday, Jul. 14, 2011 at 11:41 AM -- Report abuse
Sherm, unlike your BLOG, a newspaper has SOME responsibility to report the
truth. Angle saying Reid STOLE the election from her without offering
anything other than her sour grapes can lead to a libel suit and most papers
don't want to even be involved. Since this is a BLOG you can say whatever
you want and not back anything up... Feel free to assist Angle in making up
reasons that she lost other than the fact she had to go so far to the right to
win the nomination that she locked herself out of the moderate vote. But if
she were such a strong viable candidate, why was she shut out of the most
recent nomination?? The answer is she is too far to the right for even
Republicans to take her seriously.
Written by: on Thursday, Jul. 14, 2011 at 11:47 AM -- Report abuse
Believe me, the debt ceiling crisis is far more important to me than the
proper standards of reporting scurrilous and unsubstantiated made by
Sharron Angle.
Nevertheless, I would think the most comment-worthy aspect of Angle's
accusation would be whether or not it is accurate. Funny that Mr. Frederick
doesn't seem to care about that.
Written by: petenyc on Thursday, Jul. 14, 2011 at 12:05 PM -- Report abuse
You mean the debt ceiling Obama voted against raising when he was a
Senator? Hummmm?
Written by: Sherm on Thursday, Jul. 14, 2011 at 12:36 PM -- Report abuse
Yes, he certainly should not have voted against it. Quite an error. He should
have realized that not raising the debt ceiling when it comes due would be
genuinely catastrophic to our country - as Martin Wolf noted in the FT
yesterday, it would be one of the gravest self-inflicted economic wounds of all
Page 2 of 3 Angle haters: No proof, no reporting - The Complete Las Vegan -
2:10-cv-03075-RMG -JDA Date Filed 07/15/11 Entry Number 64-1 Page 3 of 4
Contact the R-J • Subscribe • Report a delivery problem • Put the paper on hold • Advertise with us •
Report a news tip/press release • Send a letter to the editor • Print announcement forms • Jobs at the R-J • Stephens Media, LLC •
Privacy Statement • RSS • Twitter • Facebook • How to link to the RJ •

Copyright © Stephens Media LLC 1997 - 2011
Written by: petenyc on Thursday, Jul. 14, 2011 at 12:57 PM -- Report abuse
Sherm, if you read my post thoroughly, you would note I said that "even"
Angle's charges should be covered. As for my "fantasy," you and Mitch keep
going--the reality-based community knows much, much better. I also should
note that Obama has said he was wrong to vote as he did on the debt ceiling.
Gee, admitting error. If you did that, you'd have nothing else to talk about,
Written by: Michael Green on Thursday, Jul. 14, 2011 at 1:16 PM -- Report abuse
What you said was the RJ didn't do any reporting on the race. That is
completely incorrect. I even sued her for lifting our material.
Written by: Sherm on Thursday, Jul. 14, 2011 at 1:30 PM -- Report abuse

Here are a couple of links for your consideration:

More voters would blame Republicans than Obama in absence of debt limit
deal, says poll:

During Bush Presidency, Current GOP Leaders Voted 19 Times To Increase
Debt Limit By $4 Trillion:
Written by: Diogenes of Sinope on Thursday, Jul. 14, 2011 at 1:45 PM -- Report abuse
Page 3 of 3 Angle haters: No proof, no reporting - The Complete Las Vegan -
2:10-cv-03075-RMG -JDA Date Filed 07/15/11 Entry Number 64-1 Page 4 of 4

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful