At first I thought the fact that the lead partner from Righthaven worked with Michelle Obama in Chicago was a coincidence. After all, we all know there are a lot of bad lawyers out there...
Now, I’m wondering if they just sued DU and the Nevada DNC for appearance sake. No-one would be the wiser if the Nevada DNC and DU agreed to “settlements” and agreed to keep the details under-wraps. Would be a nice little work-around to pay them off for this hit on Angle as well. Any contribution from Reid’s campaign to the Nevada state DNC which was then passed on to pay the “settlements” could be easily covered, IMHO.
Maybe there really is something to the fact that MObama and the guy from Righthaven worked in the same Chicago lawfirm, in the same department, at the same time. I’m really wondering now what happened that Michelle lost her law license... Were any of her co-workers in on whatever game she was playing?
i don’t know if anyone can answer this question or not, but is Righthaven in an operating agreement with the Journal? If so, then why does RH purchase the copyrights outright and THEN sue? I’m also wondering how RH can go after people (as they have in some cases) for alleged infrigement during the time period before they acquired said copyrights? Also curious on why Righthaven is only purchasing (separately) the copyrights for specific articles... It seems like they are only interested in articles they can get something out of through lawsuits.
If Righthaven is not acting on behalf of the LVRJ, then how can they claim any damages at all? Righthaven does not publish content, their clients are NOT the people they are claiming the websites are ‘targetting’, so how can they claim they’ve sustained damages?
I guess perhaps I am just not understanding why RH would have to purchase the copyrights if they really are working for the LVRJ?
“Nevada DNC” in my first post above should have read the Nevada Dem Party.