Abuse of Usenet:
The Amended Complaint against the Woodside Literary Agency
What follows is the text of the amended complaint filed against the Woodside
Literary Agency in New York on December 14, 1997. It has been reformatted to be readable
on
the web.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x Case No. 97 Civ. 0166 (NG)
JAYNE A. HITCHCOCK,
AMENDED COMPLAINT
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 defen-dants and/or defendants John Doe
#1 through John Doe #10 in connection with the
matters described in the complaint,
Defendants,
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
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. sec. 1964(c) and 28
U.S.C. secs. 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:
a. 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 is owned operated
and directed principally by defendants, James Leonard, John Lawrence
and Ursula Sprachmann (the "Leonard/Lawrence/Sprachmann defendants").
Upon information and belief, said defendants also use the names of the
other named defendants as aliases, and such other named defendants
may be fictitious individuals who exist only as alter egos of said
Leonard/Lawrence/Sprachmann defendants.
(4) 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.
(5) Upon information and belief, the fact that the
Leonard/Lawrence/Sprachmann defendants are principal owners,
operators and directors of the Woodside enterprise is evidenced,
among other things, by the facts that:
(a) The telephone numbers advertised and used by defendant
Woodside are assigned and billed to various of the
Leonard/Lawrence/Sprachmann defendants:
i) Records from the New York Telephone company
("New York Telephone") indicate that (718) 651-8145,
listed by defendant Woodside as the number at its
principal place of business in Woodside, New York, is
billed to defendant John Lawrence ("Lawrence") at the
address of that place of business.
ii) These same records link the (941) 642-9660 telephone
number advertised and used by Woodside for its place of
business in Florida, and the address thereof, to defendant,
Ursula Sprachmann ("Sprachman"), who, according to
those telephone billing records, is the mother of defendant
Lawrence.
iii) Records from Citizens Telecommunications Company
demonstrate that the (518) 484-4196 telephone number,
advertised and used by defendant Woodside for its
Adirondack, New York place of business, is assigned
and billed to defendant Lawrence at the address of that
place of business.
(b) Bank accounts into which checks solicited by defendant
Woodside were deposited and collected show one or more of the
Leonard/Lawrence/Sprachmann defendants as signatories.
(c)Defendant Sprachmann owns real property which she uses
and makes available to the other named defendants and the Doe
defendants for the purpose of its being the principal place of
business of the Woodside enterprise.
(6) Upon information and belief, each of the named defendants is a
citizen of the State of New York or of the State of Florida.
b. 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.
c. 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.
4. The matter in controversy exceeds, exclusive of interest and costs, the sum of fifty thousand
dollars.
5. 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, have conducted and conduct
activities prohibited by 18 U.S.C. sec. 1962. Upon information and belief, such activities,
among other things, have included:
a. Defendants, through and on behalf of defendant Woodside, have repeatedly
placed advertisements on the internet, which advertisements have been false
and deceptive in violation of the laws of the State of New York and the United
States, including 18 U.S.C. sec. 1343 (wire fraud);
b. Virtually every individual who responds to the advertisements of Woodside by
sending it a writing sample receives a response sent by named defendants and Doe
defendants through the United States mail saying:
(1) that the sample is excellent;
(2) that said individual should send in the full manuscript for evaluation,
together with a $75 or $150 check as a "reading" and/or "market research"
fee; and
(3) that "less than 5% of the authors contacting our agency are invited
to submit their entire manuscript" or words to similar effect.
c. Upon information and belief, at least the content described in paragraph 5.c(3)
above was false, and known by defendants to be false, at the time each instance
of it was deposited in the mail.
d. Each instance in which defendants deposited, or caused to be deposited, into
the United States mail such a communication to an individual who had responded
to an advertisement of defendant Woodside, constituted the commission of mail
fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. sec. 1341. Upon information and belief, defendants
have committed such mail fraud on two or more occasions, including, among others:
(1) By letter dated June 17, 1996, to Daryl W. Bach of Winchester
Massachusetts;
(2) By letter dated February 24, 1997 to Mr. Thomas Tully of Nashville,
Indiana;
(3) By letters dated March 16, 1996, and April 10, 1996 to Philip Tate
of Trinidad, Colorado;
(4) By letter dated March 11, 1996 to Fred G. Thompson of Ottawa,
Ontario, Canada;
(5) By letter dated February 24, 1996, to Michael Thompson of
Pflugerville, Texas;
(6) By letter dated December 17, 1996 to Kiki Rothschild of
Bloomfield, Connecticut;
(7) By the letters to plaintiff referred to in paragraphs 13 and 14 below.
Background
6. Plaintiff is a professional author and a Teaching Assistant at the University of Maryland.
7. 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.
8. Plaintiff frequently reads and posts articles to an internet news group called "misc.writing"
which is followed by many authors and would-be authors.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. 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".
14. 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"
15. From this, plaintiff concluded that Woodside was operated in a manner substantially
different from that of a normal and legitimate literary agency.
16. Upon information and belief, Woodside responds to virtually every submission of a writing
sample by a potential client with a letter lauding the quality of the writing and requesting a $75
or $150 fee for "reading" and/or "market research" or "market evaluation".
17. Upon information and belief, Woodside is in the business of collecting such "reading fees"
and, contrary to its repeated representations, not in the business of representing authors in
business discussions and negotiations with potential publishers.
18. 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.
19. Thereafter, defendants committed the acts complained of herein.
20. Plaintiff also reported the activities of Woodside to the Attorney General of the State of
New York, and, upon information and belief, the New York State Department of Law
conducted an investigation, and the Attorney General has commenced legal action against
Woodside as a result of that report.
Plaintiff's Claim for Relief
21. 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 and who was attempting to make collect telephone calls to Woodside. Such
messages included, without limitation:
a. Message directed at plaintiff posted to the "alt.books.reviews" newsgroup:
"From: ZKPT22A@prodigy-.com
(James Leonard)
Newsgroups:alt.books.reviews
Subject: Re: WRITERS SEEKING PUBLICATION
DATE: 17 Aug 1996 01:01:56 GMT
Organization: Prodigy Services Company 1-800-PRODIGY
This author demands that literary agencies accept his Porno, Porno Porno.
They all keep saying No,No,No, that this author should try selling the
questionable, Quote: "Great Literature" in the dark corners of sewers.
This author says that no one is a better writer. All writers should take
insult to this. From what I see on the internet, this author, this author
who is after all literary agencies, seriously needs to go back to school."
b. Message, also directed to plaintiff, cross-posted to three newsgroups
(misc.writing, misc.writing.screenplays, and rec.arts.books):
"From: Oakwood<105222.1250@CompuServe.COM>
Newsgroups: misc.writing,misc.writing.screenplays,rec.arts.books
Subject: Hitch's beef needs Maalox
Date: 5 Sep 1996 17:48:05 GMT
Message-ID:<50n3ol$fv1$1@mhafn.production. compuserve.com
So, Hitchcock, you got the beef, but you don't want to share it with us?
Why don't you go back into your "bored-housewife world" and peddle your
international books which in our opinion you have printed yourself, and
finally shut up. While we certainly have made a typo here and there (our
secretaries are better in this regard) you are genuinely ignorant, crying
out on the internet how smart you are and then flaunting that you do not
know the difference between slander (verbal) and libel (in writing). And
sorry, we still don't take your collect phone calls, but maybe we should
talk to your hubby Chris."
22. Said messages were untrue when posted; defendants knew or should have known when
they were posted that they were untrue; and the named defendants and the Doe defendants
posted said messages with actual malice.
23. The named defendants and the Doe defendants have threatened to have Jayne Hitchcock
blacklisted by publishers.
24. 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:
a. 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";
b. 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 generating a negative reputation for plaintiff among
the readers of those news groups and inducing inflamed readers to send her
E-mail complaints; and
c. Posting the messages described in the following paragraph of this complaint.
25. 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."
26. 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. Defendants' "mail-bombings" alleged above were violations of 18 U.S.C. sec.
1030(a)(5)(A)(i)(II) punishable under U.S.C. sec. 1030(c)(3)(A) by fine and up to five years of
imprisonment, or both.
27. Upon information and belief, the named defendants and the Doe defendants have taken
further actions to harass and harm plaintiff, including among other things, mailing, in violation
of 18 U.S.C. sec. 1341, several fraudulent subscription requests to various magazines,
purporting to order subscriptions in the name of plaintiff and/or members of her immediate
family.
28. Upon information and belief, each of the aforesaid actions taken against plaintiff was
undertaken in the conduct of the affairs of the Woodside enterprise, in an effort to prevent
plaintiff's objections from destroying or otherwise interfering with the profits of that
enterprise.
29. 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 "26" of this amended 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.
30. 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.
31. 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.
32. As a result of the foregoing, plaintiff has suffered extreme emotional distress and has been
substantially injured in her business and property. Such injuries include, without limitation,
"special" or pecuniary harms such as:
a. Plaintiff was required to obtain and pay for a new (unlisted) telephone line;
b. Plaintiff has been, and continues to be, required to pay the expenses of
attending sessions with a therapist to deal with the mental and emotional
distress caused by defendants' acts;
c. Plaintiff's business reputation has been impaired, and plaintiff has been,
and continues to be, required to devote substantial time and effort, and to
pay expenses, in efforts to mitigate the effects thereof.
33. As a result of the foregoing, in addition to their liability for their violations of federal law,
defendants are liable to plaintiff under causes of action pursuant to the laws of the State of New
York including without limitation causes of action for:
a. Defamation;
b. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress; and
c. Prima Facie Tort, or the intentional infliction of harm to the plaintiff
without excuse or justification.
WHEREFORE, plaintiff demands judgment against defendants, jointly and severally,
awarding plaintiff:
a. Injunctive relief prohibiting defendants from any further conduct which
would tend to harass plaintiff;
b. Threefold the compensatory damages determined by the trier of fact herein;
c. Punitive damages of $10,000,000 or in such other amount as may be
determined by the trier of fact herein;
d. Her costs and disbursements herein, including a reasonable attorney's fee;
and
e. Such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and proper in
the premises.
Dated: New York, New York
December 14, 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]