Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Merger Law Assoc V Wells and Google 109486
Merger Law Assoc V Wells and Google 109486
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
-and-
MATTHEW WELLS
an~,IC
Defendants
STATEMENT OF CLAIM
Instead of serving and filing a statement of defence, you may serve and file a notice
of
intent to defend in Form 28B prescribed by the Rules of Civil Procedure. This will entitle
you to ten more days within which to serve and file your statement of defence.
Page 2
IF YOU PAY THE PLAINTIFF'S CLAIM, and $2,500 for costs, within the time for
serving and filing your statement of defence you may move to have this proceeding
dismissed by the court. If you believe the amount claimed for costs is excessive, you
may pay the plaintiff's claim and s400 for costs and have the costs assessed by the
court.
Date: August 4, 2010 Issued bv-A..'
Local registrar
Addre s of
court office: 393 University Avenue
io' Floor
Toronto, ON, M5G iE6
CLAIM
2. The individual plaintiff, julius csurgo, claims against the defendant Matthew
Wells as follows:
(a) damages for libel in the amount Of $500,000 pursuant to the Libel and
Act (Canada) at the close of business on the first day on which the bank
quotes a Canadian dollar rate for purchase of the currency of the United
by the Plaintiff(s);
(h) such further and other relief as this Honourable Court deems just.
2. The corporate plaintiff, Merger Law Associates Ltd., claims against the
(a) damages for libel in the amount Of $50o,oo0 pursuant to the Libel and
Act (Canada) at the close of business on the first day on which the bank
quotes a Canadian dollar rate for purchase of the currency of the United
by the Plaintiff(s);
(g) such further and other relief as this Honourable Court deems just.
(a) damages for libel in the amount Of $500,000 pursuant to the Libel and
Act (Canada) at the close of business on the first day on which the bank
quotes a Canadian dollar rate for purchase of the currency of the United
by the Plaintiff(s);
(d) A permanent injunction and mandatory Order directing Google, Inc. to:
(i) suspend and/or terminate the Battle Light blog (as defined
below);
Page 6
(ii) suspend and/or terminate Mr. Well's blog account with the
(iii) delete any and all references to the plaintiffs in the Battle Light
(g) such further and other relief as this Honourable Court deems just.
The Parties
Europe. He is primarily engaged in the sale of corporate shells and the obtaining
of public listings for corporations. Such listings end up, primarily, on the
under the laws of the Commonwealth of The Bahamas. It is the beneficial owner
6. Matt Wells ("Mr. Wells") isan individual residing in Toronto, Ontario. Mr. Wells,
under the pseudonym "HitElevenn, posts on a weblog called Battle Light (the
"Battle Light Blog"). The website address for Battle Light Blog is hLttp:HIBattle
Light.blogspot.com/.
Internet search engine technology provider, that also provides other services.
Service is owned by Google, but much of the content on the Blogger Service is
on individual weblogs - called "blogSn - with the specific postings on the blogs
that are published to the site being generally provided and maintained by
individuals.
9. Individuals use the Blogger service and its associated software under a personal,
10. By signing on to the Blogger Service, exercising his or her rights under the
respective licence, and operating a blog, the individual "blogger" agrees to abide
11. The plaintiffs repeat and rely upon the Google TOS, Blogger TOS and Blogger
CP in full, and further rely on such specific terms as are set out below.
22. While the Plaintiffs repeat and rely upon the terms of the Google TOS, Blogger
TOS and Blogger CP in full, neither of the Plaintiffs is a party to nor bound by
such agreements. Mr. Wells and Google, however, are bound by such
agreements.
The Libel
13. The following statements, defamatory of either Mr. Csurgo, MLAL, or both,
were each published on the Battle Light Blog between June -14, zo3.o, and June
27, 2010:
Page 9
(a) On June 2.4, 2010, it was published on the Battle Light Blog that , "Mr.
Csurgo and Mr. Shea ..and their firm, Merger Law Associates Ltd, have
(i) In fact, neither Mr. Csurgo nor Merger Law has ever been
(ii) The allegation that they have been, as set out in the Battle Light
(iii) Further, contrary to the allegations in the Battle Light Blog, there
Mr. Csurgo.
(b) On June 16, 2010, , it was published on the Battle Light Blog that
"Merger Law Associates Ltd" isan " international firm with Toronto roots
(iii) To suggest otherwise, as does Mr. Wells in the Blog, is false and
defamatory.
(c) On June 16, 2owo, in the midst of Mr. Well's discussion of Julius Csurgo,
"Mr. Csurgo and Mr. Shea own almost exactly 33% of the
company. And this is a firm that they are shilling via
telemarketing fraud."
(i) Infact, neither Mr. Csurgo nor MLALf, have "shilled" any company
(d) On June 20, 2oio, it was published on the Battle Light Blog that MLAL
(e) On June 21, 2010, , it was published on the Battle Light Blog that
"Uranium 308 and the Vita Sweet/Afterwire" were Hpart of the same
stock scam, being perpetrated by the same groups." Then, the Blog
refers to the "The evidence [as being] all there." That "evidence" is
(i) The impression given that Mr. Csurgo's very linkage to a project is
defamatory.
(f) On June 21, 2010,,1 it was published on the Battle Light Blog that Mr.
Bourse". It was published on the Battle Light Blog that "the sheer jump in
value here (was] remarkable." The Blog then immediately refers to there
being "more that you can do with one of these companies than just enjoy
Page 12
the lofty jump in share capital" and suggesting that "there are plenty of
(i) The clear impression given is that Mr. Csurgo "lures" innocent
(g) On June 22, 2oi0, a description of Mr. Csurgo was published on the
Battle Light Blog referring to him as being one of the "big fish in this
scam#$
(i) The clear impression given is that Mr. Csurgo is not only a scam
(h) On June 23, 2010, , it was published on the Battle Light Blog that "Mr.
Csurgo or one of his associates" had been trying to intimidate the writer
of the blog.
(i) The impression that Mr. Csurgo "or one of his associates" is trying
(ii) Rather, Mr. Csurgo, has pursued his response through the court
i) On June 27, 2010,, it was published on the Battle Light Blog that MLAL
companies"
() On June 27, 2010,, it was published on the Battle Light Blog that MLAL
"was (and perhaps still is)making incredible sums of money off of the
companies that they are promoting through their illegal business activity
in the U.K.".
otherwise.
(k) On July 24, 2010, it was published on the Battle Light Blog that:
laundering investigationj
(iv) The Idea Fund One Ltd. was "implicated in this Fastweb money
laundering scheme".
(v) The alleged scam "is operated in part by the mafia. The mafia.
Remember that."
NOi "...we also find the same outfit [The Idea Fund One Ltd] holding a
incredibly interesting."
(viii) Neither Mr. Csurgo nor MLAL is engaged in any such scheme and
() On July 27, 2o:Lo, it was published on the Battle Light Blog stated that:
pretty website, float some capital, and then you sell, sell, sell
some shares."
00i Such an approach was used with a company called Resos Pharma
company";
Oiv) The Battle Light Blog has shown the reader "many examples of
Associates Ltd.";
(y) Mr. Csurgo (and Mr. Shea) sold their shares to persons who,
addresses that do not actually exist and that the two individuals
(vi) The clear implication in the Battle Light Blog is that MLAL is
(0i) Further, it suggests that MLAL and/or Mr. Csurgo are using non-
15. The Defamatory Statements were made by Mr. Wells with the knowledge that
such statements were untrue or were made by Mr. Wells with reckless
16. In particular, but without limiting the generality of their natural and ordinary
(c) that Mr. Csurgo and/or MLAL are engaged in criminal and/or illegal
activity;
(d) that Mr. Csurgo and/or MLAL are willing to act unethically to furthe r
Defamatory Words are false and defamatory of the Mr. Csurgo and/or
Liability
17. The Defamatory Statements published by Mr. Wells on the Battle Light Blog are
(b) Mr. Csurgo, and/or MLAL is/are willing to act unethically tofurther
28. Mr. Wells knew or ought to have known at the time the Defamatory Statements
were made that such comments would lower the reputation of the plaintiffs
in
the estimation of those who became aware of the comments and would expose
the plaintiffs to hatred, contempt, or ridicule. Mr. Wells also knew or ought
to
have known at the time the Defamatory Statements were made that
such
comments would cause the plaintiffs to be shunned and avoided.
29. It is known to the defendants, but unknown to Mr. Csurgo and/or MLAL, which
clients or potential clients of Mr. Csurgo and/or MLAL have accessed or seen the
Slog in question.
20. However, many of MLAL and/or Csurgo's customers conduct internet searches
customers have found the Battle Light Slog and, as a direct result of the
cancelled business dealings that they were going to engage in with Csurgo
Page 19
and/or MLAL. As a result, Csurgo and MLAL have to date lost or may yet lose
business totalling.U.Ss4,ooo,ooo.
21. Such damages are entirely or substantially the result of the Defamatory
Statements made by Mr. Wells on the Battle Light Blog and as such Mr. Wells is
(a) "responsible for [his] own use of the Service, for any posts [he] make,
(b) he "will use the Service in compliance with all applicable local, state,
23. In addition, Mr. Wells agreed "...to abide by the Blogger Content Policy
agreed that] Google may, in its sole discretion, modify or revise the Blogger
Content Policy at any time, and [Mr. Wells did] agree to be bound by such
modifications or revisions."
24. Under the Blogger TOS, "Violation of any of the [Blogger TOS], including the
immediate termination of this Agreement, and may subject you to state and
shall have no obligation, to investigate your use of the Service in order to (a)
25. Much of the content of Blogger.com and Blogspot.com -- including the contents
people who made such postings. Google does not monitor the content of
26. in general, Google states that it does not monitor the content of blogs on the
described below, Google was put on notice regarding the contents of the Battle
Statements as, through the Blogger Service, Google has assisted Mr. Wells in his
28. Further, the United States Communications Decency Act of 1996 does not afford
Google any protection in the circumstances as the said Act does not preclude
Page 21
liability where the provider or user knew or had reason to know that the matter
was defamatory.,-that is, -common law. distributor liability..As Google was -put on
29. Mr. Csurgo has been in the business of advising and assisting companies in
ensure that he can properly and, as a result, it is highly important for Mr. Csurgo
31. In fact, Mr. Csurgo built a excellent reputation in the industry and his reputation
company.
32. As the President of MLAL, and a business and community leader, Mr. Csurgo
33. His prospective client base includes companies in disparate industries and
of whom will be dealing with Mr. Csurgo for the first time in any given
transaction, Mr. Csurgo's reputation for integrity and honesty is essential to his
success.
34. Mr. Wells's postings on the Battle Light sight were calculated to and did in fact
35. Mr. Csurgo has and will in the future suffer damage to his feelings and damage
to his reputation as a result of the Defamatory Statements. He has also lost and
will continue to lose income as a result of the libel. As such, Mr. Csurgo is
36. MLAL was established in November 2005 with Mr. Csurgo as the managing
director".
37. While Mr. Csurgo has grown the company and, in the process, has engaged
MLAL's name and growing reputation are largely synonymous with that of Mr.
Pae23
Csurgo. Further, the discussions about Mr. Csurgo on the Battlelight Blog
Accordingly, the false and defamatory statements made by Mr. Wells about Mr.
Csurgo, the individual responsible for supervising and conducting the affairs of
38. MLAL has developed, within a short period of time, a strong reputation in the
business community for the creation and development of shell corporations and
39. By making the Defamatory Statements on the blog as set out above, Mr. Wells
intended to and did in fact disparage the goodwill of MLAL, which is essential to
40. The Battle Light postings by Mr. Wells were also calculated to and did in fact
42. MLAL has and will in the future suffer damage to its reputation. MLAL has also
in damages.
Page 24
Aggravated Damages
43. The defo-dant Mr. Wells has aggravated the damag~es caused to Mr. Csurgo and
MLAL by:
(a) making the aforementioned blog entries maliciously and in bad faith,
with knowledge that its contents were false, or with reckless disregard
entries; and/or
Punitive Damages
44. The malicious, high-handed and arrogant conduct of Mr. Wells warrants an
appropriately punished for his conduct and deterred from such conduct in the
future.
Pa9e 25
Injunction
web, damages will continue to incur to Mr. Csurgo and MLAL as business
46. Google, under the Blogger TOS, has the right to "in its sole discretion, at any
time and for any reason, terminate the [Blogger] Service [with any licensee],
account".
49. Google has the ability to immediately stop the ongoing damages to Mr. Csurgo
and MLAL but, to date, has refused to do so. However, as set out in the Blogger
Service:
50. In any event, the language of Section 230(c) of the Communications Decency Act
of Google's other services are republishers and not the publisher of that content.
Therefore, these sites are not held liable for any allegedly defamatory, offensive
51. Google has investigated Mr. Wells' use of the Blogger Service and failed to take
investigation despite being put on notice of Mr. Wells' violations of the law by
52. Further, it appears that Google will not remove the Defamatory Statements
from the Blogger Service without a court order requiring it to do so. The
plaintiffs accordingly ask for the requested injunctive relief to prevent ongoing
53. To the extent Mr. Wells' publications on the Battle Light blog are a ubroadcast"
as defined in the Libel and SlanderAct, notice under the said Act was provided to
54. This claim may, without a court order, be served outside Ontario as the
(c) for an injunction ordering a party to do, or refrain from doing, anything
and/or
5. The plaintiffs request that this action be tried in the City of Toronto.
ONTA RIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
Proceedings commenced at Toronto
STATEMENT OF CLAIM