Deirdre Saoirse Moen

Sounds Like Weird

Ellora's Cave: Some pubnt Trick-or-Treat

31 October 2015

As much as @pubnt made us tear our virtual hair out on #notchilled, there were some really (unintentionally) hilarious assertions. Here are a few of my favorites.

  1. Claiming to be a legal blogger (and law student)
  2. …yet failing Courtney Milan’s 1L test.
  3. Claiming Ellora’s Cave was in “merger” talks with a big 5 publisher.
  4. Asserting tax liens are a “government agreed tax incentive” and “low cost loan.”
  5. Saying it was perverse for the (Dear Author) defense team to call @pubnt as a witness. (Completely failing to understand why defense was subpoenaing Twitter about @pubnt’s identity.)
  6. Assertions that Ellora’s Cave, which was founded in 2000, is an “ancient” publisher.
  7. Claiming that Ellora’s Cave had $15 million cash in the bank, despite the fact that there are consistent reports, both last year and this year, of authors being paid super late.
  8. “Wrong rubbish.” See also: false rubbish and banned wrong rubbish.
  9. Not to mention “banned pariah.”
  10. Asking Marc Randazza, lawyer for Dear Author, a legal question.

@julainestone @jaidblack As legal bloggers we present valid legal arguments. Only the Judge determines if our legal arg. applies.#notchilled

— Pub Net (@pubnt) December 24, 2014

@tejasjulia Only one of us is, but she is hardly on here. Yeah, we are legal bloggers with access to a lawyer sometimes. #notchilled

— Pub Net (@pubnt) February 14, 2015

@Anda_Rae @Gianna_Simone @excogitates As a law student and a lawyer we knew this had to happen for Judge Adams to run the trial. #notchilled

— Pub Net (@pubnt) January 30, 2015

Courtney’s 1L Test

Hey @pubnt if your number includes a lawyer, when does the law assume that all eighty-year-old woman can have children?

— Courtney Milan (@courtneymilan) December 18, 2014

Covered in this post here.

Tax Liens

@AuthorAnitaCox Tax Liens: Because it is a Government AGREED tax incentive and for effectively EC a low cost loan. #notchilled

— Pub Net (@pubnt) February 16, 2015

@tejasjulia Agreed tax liens is a LOWEST rate cash around 4 the “borrow low (interest), invest (at) high” returns first princple.#notchilled

— Pub Net (@pubnt) January 15, 2015

(Quite apart from the fact that the existence of tax liens will tend to drive the cost of all other sources of credit higher.)

Calling @pubnt as a Witness

@ataglanceRMC And thus the DEFENSE calling us as a witness is PERVERSE. For who calls a “witness” to prove the OPPOSITION’s case?#notchilled

— Pub Net (@pubnt) February 16, 2015

Courtney covers the logic errors in @pubnt’s position here. I just re-read that post the other day, and it’s fantastic.

Ancient Publisher

I’ve sat on things that pre-date Christianity (e.g. at the Temple of Delphi), so even my ass has more experience with ancient things than EC…unless one’s counting appropriating sacred caves in India or symbols of Ancient Egypt.

Even if EC wants to consolidate, which there is no indication of, demand for the ancient pub will be huge. @Soenda #notchilled

— Pub Net (@pubnt) October 16, 2014

There’s no reason for the authors of a publisher with a rep as ancient as EC to panic. #notchilled

— Pub Net (@pubnt) October 16, 2014

EC is an ancient enough Pub it must now close doors to unagented submissions. Agents know how to behave, filter trash.@jaidblack #notchilled

— Pub Net (@pubnt) October 13, 2014

$15 Million in Cash in the Bank

@tejasjulia @ataglanceRMC They can confiscate EASILY from bank account with $15 million if they wanted, Mega Supid Slush Piler. #notchilled

— Pub Net (@pubnt) February 16, 2015

…and also this overstatement of EC’s earnings (based on various articles)…

@AuthorAnitaCox @ataglanceRMC ..right through the years EC was raking in 15 million to 20 million profits per annum. #notchilled

— Pub Net (@pubnt) February 16, 2015

Wrong Rubbish, et al

@julainestone @deirdresm If EC had gone under by the end of the year DA would be sitting pretty now for it was not WRONG RUBBISH.#notchilled

— Pub Net (@pubnt) February 16, 2015

@julainestone @deirdresm ..that has already been proven as WRONG RUBBISH meeting conditions of Libel stronger every day. #notchilled

— Pub Net (@pubnt) February 16, 2015

Banned Pariah

@Format_Me @julainestone A banned pariah with no credibility that nobody respects and nobody believes. #notchilled

— Pub Net (@pubnt) January 28, 2015

@Soenda @julainestone That’s in Slush Piler Dreamlandia. EC will laugh at any demand from this banned pariah slush piler. #notchilled

— Pub Net (@pubnt) January 13, 2015

Asking Randazza

@marcorandazza (1/2) Please give us an insight into why you would go to Fed court with an experienced First Amendment judge… #notchilled

— Pub Net (@pubnt) January 27, 2015

@marcorandazza (2/2) … and then agree to proceed with a Magistrate, counselor. Any insight much appreciated. #notchilled

— Pub Net (@pubnt) January 27, 2015

Randazza’s answer is gone, but if I recall correctly, it boiled down to ask your own lawyer.

Special Double Backflip Fail Award

And for the special double backflip fail award, special mention should go to filing a paper with the court (interpreted as a Motion to Quash) that was so ineptly written the court was able to overrule simply because @pubnt admitted to having discoverable information in their filing. From the judge’s order:

Here, @pubnt objects to any information being produced by Twitter that may assist in identifying the “owners” of the account. However, in the five-page letter, @pubnt does not identify or analyze any basis for quashing or modifying the subpoena permitted under Rule 45. Instead, the letter indicates that the individual or individuals who purport to be the “owners of the ‘@pubnt’ Twitter account” are intimately familiar with the parties in this case, along with the claims and defenses asserted. They speak adamantly, declaring to all readers that they have witnessed misconduct by Defendants and that they can prove their negative statements about the Defendants. These facts alone put @pubnt and its “owners” within the confines of Fed.R.Civ.P. 26 and Fed.R.Evid. 401, and therefore, their information is subject to discovery under the subpoena power of the Civil Rules.
In their letter – let alone the actual tweets on the account – the @pubnt “owners” confirm that they have knowledge about the underlying allegations and defenses, such as claims for defamation/libel and the defenses of truth, substantial truth, and lack of malice.
Simply reading the “owners’” letter demonstrates that they have relevant information that is discoverable in this case. Merely because the Defendants may be able to obtain certain information from other sources does not render the subpoena unnecessary. Furthermore, Defendants are entitled to pursue discoverable evidence from the primary source, instead of merely accepting statements by the “owners” that information they have can be procured by other means (especially considering the tenor of their letter shows an almost venomous disregard for Defendants).

Several Reasons Why I Think Tina Engler Is @pubnt (or part of @pubnt)

Comments About EC’s Counsel, Past and Present

First, assertions about the Dear Author suit’s Ellora’s Cave Attorney vs. the Brashear suit’s EC Attorney.

@deirdresm Seems EC has a better attorney this time or he wouldn’t have agreed stipulations. He’s not playing hardball. #notchilled

— Pub Net (@pubnt) November 1, 2014

@deirdresm .. unlike the attorney in the last case. This attorney seems to be conducting this case very correctly. #notchilled

— Pub Net (@pubnt) November 1, 2014

@deirdresm I meant better in the sense better behaved proceduraly and in compliance than the atty in EC’s previous case.#notchilled

— Pub Net (@pubnt) November 1, 2014

I’ve made reference several times to the Brashear judge’s 27-page smackdown ruling (doc here, please add popcorn), but there is nothing in that document that points to any correctness of @pubnt’s assertions. In fact, this conversation caused me to read the entire Brashear case over time, and I never did have that kind of sense of either their earlier counsel in the case (whom EC later sued) or their later counsel.
So who would? One of the very few EC insiders who either a) had direct access to said counsel; or b) was one of EC principal’s confidantes—but even confidantes will tend to forget details over the years, you know?

Comments About Ellora’s Cave’s Merger Negotiations

Merger information is generally embargoed until the merger is fully hashed out, but @pubnt was quite happy to tweet all about it.

@JetGibbs The merger partner would have trimmed the bad eggs. happens all the time. Lean and mean EC with big profit margins. #notchilled

— Pub Net (@pubnt) February 14, 2015

@trista_michaels Your contract will also be earmarked for a fire sale by EC & big pub merger partner. #notchilled

— Pub Net (@pubnt) January 31, 2015

@tejasjulia @CatGrant2009 @ataglanceRMC EC wouldn’t want a sale. Only a merger. #notchiiled

— Pub Net (@pubnt) January 17, 2015

Funny how @pubnt knew (alleged) internal motivations. Even more interesting was that Ellora’s Cave never did anything about it. In fact,


@ShelbieKnight Stands to reason. NO PUBLISHER would touch an author complaining about a lightening fast 3/5 Editing schedule. #notchilled

— Pub Net (@pubnt) November 9, 2014

@ShelbieKnight Professionals don’t tweet comments the opposite of the norm – about a 3/5 month lightening fast Editing schedule#notchilled

— Pub Net (@pubnt) November 9, 2014

As I’ve previously pointed out, this one of several typos that Tina Engler and @pubnt share.

Ellora’s Cave Seemed Singularly Uninterested in Who @pubnt Was

…despite the fact that @pubnt made Ellora’s Cave look bad.
In fact, in filing 72-1, Mastrantonio wrote (emphasis added):

Even if Plaintiffs were responsible for the actions of @pubnetTwitter, such conduct is not relevant to establish any element of abuse of process. Element (2) of abuse of process makes it clear that the “proceeding” that is being used for the ulterior purpose is the legal proceeding. In other words, the abuse has to involve the misuse of procedures like discovery or some other tool of the judicial process. Regardless of who or what @pubnetTwitter is, its actions are not using the machinery of this litigation. Accordingly, such conduct cannot be considered as part of an abuse of process claim.

Mastrantonio seemed so clueless about Twitter at that point that he really had no idea what had been going on for months.


Thanks to Brian Longoria for the Pumpkin PSD mockup. Fun!

Related Posts