Abuse of Usenet: The Complaint against the Woodside Literary Agency

What follows is the text of the complaint filed against the Woodside Literary Agency in New York. It has been reformatted to be readable on the web.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

JAYNE A. HITCHCOCK, Plaintiff,

-against-

WOODSIDE LITERARY AGENCY, JAMES LEONARD, SUSAN DAY, JOHN LAWRENCE, RICHARD BELL, URSULA SPRACHMANN, and JOHN DOE #1 through JOHN DOE #10, the preceding ten names being fictitious, the persons or parties intended being the persons doing business as Woodside Literary Agency and/or James Leonard, Susan Day, John Lawrence, Richard Bell, or Ursula Sprachmann, and RICHARD ROE #1 through RICHARD ROE #10, the last preceding ten names being fictitious, the persons or parties intended being the persons acting in concert with the named defendants and/or defendants John Doe #1 through John Doe #10 in connection with the matters described in the complaint,

Defendants,

Case No. 97 Civ. 0166 (Gershon)

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff, by her attorney, John A. Young, for her complaint herein, alleges: Jurisdiction of this Court

  1. This Court has jurisdiction over this action by virtue of 18 U.S.C. 1964(c) and 28 U.S.C. 1331, 1332.
  2. Identification and citizenship of plaintiff: Plaintiff, Jayne A. Hitchcock, resides in, and is a citizen of, the State of Maryland.
  3. Identification and citizenship of defendants:
  1. Named defendants:
  1. Upon information and belief, defendant Woodside Literary Agency ("Woodside"), is an enterprise owned and operated by defendants, James Leonard, Susan Day, John Lawrence, Richard Bell, Ursula Sprachmann, and John Doe #1 through John Doe #10.
  2. Upon information and belief, defendant Woodside has not been officially organized under the laws of the any state of the United States of America.
  3. Upon information and belief, defendant Woodside has its principal place of business in the state of New York, within the Eastern District of New York.
  4. Upon information and belief, each of the named defendants is a citizen of the State of New York or of the State of Florida.
  • Defendants John Doe #1 through John Doe #10 (the "Doe defendants"):
    1. Upon information and belief, each of the Doe defendants is a person not actually named "James Leonard", "Susan Day", "John Lawrence", "Richard Bell", or "Ursula Sprachmann" who does business under one or more of such names and/or the name "Woodside Literary Agency".
    2. Upon information and belief, each of the Doe defendants is a citizen of foreign state or of a state other than the State of Maryland.
    3. Upon ascertaining the true identities of the Doe defendants, plaintiff intends to file an amended complaint which will identify them more specifically.
  • Defendants Richard Roe #1 through Richard Roe #10 (the "Roe defendants"):
    1. Upon information and belief, each of the Roe defendants is a person not actually named "James Leonard", "Susan Day", "John Lawrence", "Richard Bell", or "Ursula Sprachmann" who conspired, cooperated, assisted, aided or abetted one or more of the named defendants or Doe defendants in committing the acts hereinafter complained of.
    2. Upon information and belief, each of the Roe defendants is a citizen of foreign state or of a state other than the State of Maryland.
    3. Upon ascertaining the true identities of the Roe defendants, plaintiff intends to file an amended complaint which will identify them more specifically.
  • The matter in controversy exceeds, exclusive of interest and costs, the sum of fifty thousand dollars.
  • Upon information and belief, Woodside is an enterprise within the definition contained in the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. Secs. 1961-68, 1961(4) in connection with which the named defendants other than Woodside, together with the Doe defendants and with the assistance of the Roe defendants, conduct activities prohibited by 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1962. Background
  • Plaintiff is a professional author and a Teaching Assistant at the University of Maryland.
  • Plaintiff makes extensive use of electronic mail ("E-mail") and other internet services for her business and professional activities. Plaintiff also uses internet services including E-mail for personal purposes.
  • Plaintiff frequently reads and posts articles to an internet news group called "misc.writing" which is followed by many authors and would-be authors.
  • Defendants have posted or caused to be posted messages to the "misc.writing" news group and other internet news groups numerous advertisements on behalf of "Woodside Literary Agency" soliciting writing samples from published and unpublished authors.
  • The posting of advertisements to internet news groups (other than a few groups which exist specifically for that purpose) is generally considered an abuse of the internet and of the readers of the news groups.
  • The posting of the same, or virtually the same, message to many news groups or many times, a practice generally known as "spamming", is also generally considered an abuse of the internet and of the readers of the news groups.
  • Literary agents are a recognized and respected part of the publishing industry. The regular course of business for a normal literary agent is to represent the author in business discussions and negotiations with potential publishers of the author's work in exchange for a fee which is earned upon the sale of a work and paid out of a modest portion of the proceeds of such sale.
  • Notwithstanding Woodside's inappropriate posting of its advertisement on the "misc.writing" newsgroup, plaintiff responded to it. Woodside replied with a letter praising the sample of her work and suggesting that she send it the full manuscript together with $75 as a "reading and market evaluation fee".
  • Wanting to be sure that said reply was not an isolated exception, plaintiff responded again to Woodside's advertisement, this time using her maiden name. Woodside's reply was virtually identical, except that it asked for a $150 "reading and market evaluation fee", and stated:

    The agent assigned to your submission is interested and would like to review the entire manuscript, re: When Will I See You Again. Please make a check out to Mr. John Lawrence (the agent reviewing your work) for $150.00. This reading and market evaluation fee is refundable upon the sale of your work and bank clearance of publisher's advance.

    "Please be advised that less than 5% of the authors contacting us are lucky enough to catch our interest. Obviously, Mr. Lawrence thinks you've got something good.

    "Kindly send the material to our NY main office by August 5th: (I advise you to Fed-X it on August 2nd so Mr. Lawrence gets it on the 3rd). From August 7th until the end of August he will be at the Florida branch. You may send your manuscript there anytime after August 7th-not before.

    "[signed]
    Senior Editor
    Dr. Richard Bell"

  • From this, plaintiff concluded that Woodside was operated in a manner substantially different from that of a normal and legitimate literary agency.
  • Upon information and belief, Woodside typically responds to a potential client's submission of a writing sample with a letter lauding the quality of the writing and requesting a "reading fee" of $150.00.
  • Upon information and belief, Woodside is in the business of collecting "reading fees" and not in the business of representing authors in business discussions and negotiations with potential publishers.
  • After learning the manner in which Woodside did business, plaintiff posted articles in response to Woodside's advertisements in internet news groups, in which articles she advised would-be authors of the facts that the normal and legitimate literary agencies did not charge "reading fees" or other fees in advance of making a sale; but that Woodside did so. She also objected to Woodside's spamming of newsgroups with advertisements and voiced her opinion that Woodside was a scam and not a legitimate literary agency.
  • Plaintiff also reported the activities of Woodside to the Attorney General of the State of New York, and, upon information and belief, the Bureau of Consumer Frauds and Protection, of the New York State Department of Law, is conducting an investigation of Woodside as a result of that report.
  • Thereafter, defendants committed the acts complained of herein. Plaintiff's Claim for Relief
  • The named defendants and the Doe defendants have published or caused to be published numerous messages on internet news groups falsely accusing Jayne Hitchcock of being a "bored housewife" who was attacking Woodside because her writings were "PORN" which had been rejected.
  • The named defendants and the Doe defendants have threatened to have Jayne Hitchcock blacklisted by publishers.
  • The named defendants and the Doe defendants have harassed plaintiff and interfered with her ability to conduct business and personal communications by way of E-mail or other internet services or by telephone. The means of such harassment have included
    1. Flooding plaintiff's E-mail accounts with hundreds of meaningless or abusive messages, many of which have been very lengthy, a practice known as "mail- bombing";
    2. Posting messages in various internet news groups calculated to inflame most readers of those news groups ("flame-bait") and forging the origination information on those messages to make it appear that they were posted by Jayne Hitchcock, thereby inducing inflamed readers to send her E-mail complaints; and
    3. Posting the messages described in the following paragraph of this complaint.
  • The named defendants and the Doe defendants have placed Jayne Hitchcock in imminent danger of sexual assault, of other bodily harm, and of her very life, by posting to many internet news groups devoted to the topics of sex, and particularly of deviant sex, messages forged to appear to have originated from her such as the following

    "Female International Author, no limits to imagination and fantasies, prefers group macho/sadistic interaction, including lovebites and indiscriminate scratches. Invites you to write or call to exchange exciting phantasies with her which will be the topic of her next book. No fee or hidden expenses for talented partici pants. Contact me at misc.writing or stop by my house at [plaintiff's actual home address]. Will take your calls day or night at [plaintiff's actual home telephone number]. I promise you everything."

    The named defendants and the Doe defendants have also attempted to interfere with plaintiff's business affairs by mail-bombing the University of Maryland and her own literary agent and by sending E-mail to them, forged to appear as though such E-mail had originated with her, and written in a manner calculated to disrupt her relationship with each of those institutions.

  • Upon information and belief, some of the Roe defendants conspired, cooperated, assisted, aided or abetted one or more of the named defendants or Doe defendants in doing each of the acts described in paragraphs numbered "21" through "25" of this Complaint, and each of the Roe defendants conspired, cooperated, assisted, aided or abetted one or more of the named defendants or Doe defendants in doing some of such acts.
  • Upon information and belief, each of the acts complained of above was done by the named defendants and the Doe defendants wilfully, wantonly and maliciously and with the specific intent to injure plaintiff
  • Upon information and belief, each of the acts complained of above was done by the Roe defendants either wilfully, wantonly and maliciously and with the specific intent to injure plaintiff or with reckless disregard of their foreseeable consequences to plaintiff.
  • As a result of the foregoing, plaintiff has suffered extreme emotional distress and has been substantially injured in her business and property.

    WHEREFORE, plaintiff demands judgment against defendants, jointly and severally, awarding plaintiff:

    1. Injunctive relief prohibiting defendants from any further conduct which would tend to harass plaintiff;
    2. Threefold the compensatory damages determined by the trier of fact herein;
    3. Punitive damages of $10,000,000 or in such other amount as may be determined by the trier of fact herein;
    4. Her costs and disbursements herein, including a reasonable attorney's fee; and
    5. Such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and proper in the premises.

    Dated: New York, New York
    January 13, 1997
    John A. Young
    EDNY attorney bar code JY1748
    Attorney for plaintiff
    P.O. Box 4695
    New York, NY 10185-4695
    [22 Wyckoff Street
    Brooklyn, NY 11201

    Return to story