LACUS mor | IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF SAINT LOUIS COUNTY 3 STATE OF MISSOURI “ JAMES HOFT, ) ) And ) 5 ) ‘TGP COMMUNICATIONS, LLC ) dib/a The Gateway Pundit ) ) Plaintiffs, ) a ) Case No.: 8 vy ) S ) Division: JACOB FORD, ) an individual, ) ff h 2 } 7 Serve: ) 73 Hampshire Drive ) AUN 44 2081 Mendham, NJ 07945 ) 224” JUDIGIAL oIROUIT ) CIRCUIT OLERK'S OFFIOE Defendant. ) —___oerury PETITION FOR DAMAGES NOT TO EXCEED SEVENTY-FOUR THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED AND NINETY-NINE DOLLARS ($74,999) ALL CAUSES OF ACTION EXCLUSIVELY PURSUANT TO MISSOURI LAW. COME NOW Plaintiffs JAMES HOFT (“Hoft") and TGP COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, d/b/a The Gateway Pundit (“TGP”) (collectively “Plaintiffs"), and for their causes of action against Defendant JACOB FORD (“Ford”), state to the Court as follows: 1, Plaintiff James Hoft is a journalist. He owns and operates Plaintiff TGP, a highly popular national political news and opinion website, visited by the public 1.6 million times per day. Atall relevant times hereto, Plaintiffs were Missouri citizens and residents of the City of St. Louis, Missouri, 2, Defendant Ford is and was, at all times relevant hereto, a New Jersey citizen and resident of Mendham, New Jersey, residing at 73 Hampshire Drive, Mendham, NJ 07945.3. This is an action for libel, injurious falsehood, and injunctive relief pursuant to Missouri law. This Honorable Court has jurisdiction under Missouri’s long-arm statute, V.A.M.S, § 506.500. Venue is appropriate pursuant to V.A.M.S. § 508.010. Plaintiff does not seek aggregate damages greater than seventy-four thousand, nine hundred and ninety-nine thousand dollars ($74,999). FACTS APPLICABLE TO ALL COUNTS 4, Defendant Ford is an analyst with Vinesight, a company which touts itself as an advanced artificial intelligence (“AI”) technology company.’ According to its website, Vinesight “[qluickly detects viral misinformation on social networks, alert{s} [its clients}, and helpfs} [the clients} mitigate the threat.”? Vinesight has repeatedly marketed itself as being capable of identifying “fake news,” and “misinformation,” circulating on the internet? 5. Critically, Vinesight alleges that the misinformation media it uncovers is a deliberate conspiracy to unfairly spread lies across the internet using deception — such as “deep fakes,”* “memes,”’ and “code words"* — to avoid detection, — Website of Vinesight. » Id. see also Exhibit 2~ Vinesight Marketing and Article Selections (which also defame Plaintiff) « According to WikiPedia: “Deepfakes (a portmanteau of "deep learning” and fake") are synthetic media in which a person in an existing image or video is replaced with someone else's likeness. While the act of faking content is not new, deepfakes leverage pawerful techniques from machine learning and artificial intelligence to manipulate or ‘generate visual and audio content with a high potential to deceive. The main machine learning methods used to create deepfakes are based on deep learning and involve training generative neural network architectures, such ‘as autoencoders of generative adversarial networks (GANS)." (Internal citations omitted) { tps:/en,wikipedia.ore/wiki/Deupfake ) (last accessed Oct. 10, 2020), 5 ups:ien.wil last accessed Oct. 10, 2020).6. Journalists, social media platforms, and “faet checking” entities’ (“FCE”) often a utilize Al and other technology companies to assist them in their efforts to determine the veracity ‘of news and opinion pieces. 7. CEs ~ particularly those which are certified by the Poynter Institute's International Fact Checking Network ~ are utilized by internet monopolies, such as Google, Facebook, Instagram, and many others (“Monopolist Platforms”) to determine whether or not articles posted on their sites are lagged, and/or removed, for being false. Having articles flagged or removed not only damages a news outlet’s brand, but it also contributes to harm the outlet’s algorithmic performance across the Monopolist Plaiforms. 8. Vinesight has repeatedly claimed that its proprietary Al technology (“using our cutting edge AI technology”) allows it to “detect{] misinformation on social networks,” and that “we have been analyzing the Internet’s social graphs for content and connections in order to detect misinformation mere moments after it’s released into the wild — regardless of whether it appears as raw text, images, memes, or video.” 9. Asaresult, when Vinesight declares a journalist's or news website's (such as is the case, vis-d-vis Plaintiffs) content as “misinformation” or “fake news,” FCEs and other journalists believe Vinesight made these determinations through the use of a legitimate and objective technology tool. 7 According to WikiPedia, “fact checking” is defined as: “Fact-checking isthe process of verifying information in non-fictional and fictional text in order to determine its veracity and correctness. Fact-checking can be conducted before (ante hoc) or after (past hoc) te text is published or otherwise disseminated, Internal fact-checking is such checking done in-house by the publisher; when the text is analyzed by a third party, the process is called external fact-checking.” (Internal citations omitted) (hitps:/en,wikipesia.org/wiki/Pact-cheeking ) (last accessed Oct. 10, 2020). * See, for eg. the Poynter Institute's Intemational Pact Checking Network (IFCN), and educational curricula: nips: poynterora/eourses/handson-factchockinu/ (last accessed Oct. 10, 2020)10. Having their work disparaged reduces the esteem in which Plaintiffs are held, and causes the PlaintifYs to not be taken seriously or to be completely disregarded. 11. Moreover, because FCEs and FCE journalists ultimately impact Plaintiffs" writing website’s performance across Monopolist Platform sites, such disparagement has direct, negative economic consequences. 12, Upon information and belief, Vinesight and Ford are fraudulently overstating their abilities to the public and to clients, because they have no way of evaluating the accuracy and veracity of written news content solely through the use of Al 13. Upon information and belief, Defendant Ford has written, assisted or aided in the writing, generation, and/or publication of studies, reports, documents, writings, and communications (“Defamatory Content”) which have defamed Plaintiffs Hoft and TOP. 14, Plaintiffs were not aware of the existence of Ford, Vinesight, or the Defamatory Content until the middle of September, 2020, and this is also when Plaintiffs’ damages were first capable of ascertainment. 15. Plaintiffs have been and continue to be damaged by the Defamatory Content because the content is actively referenced by FCEs, critical Monopolist Platform websites, and other journalists, who, as a result, communicate to others that Plaintiffs lack credibility and/or energetically censor Plaintiffs’ content. As described above, this results in financial losses to Plaintiffs, 16, This Defamatory Content includes, but is not limited to the following portions of Vinesight reports:? * See Exia, Ina report entitled “Dangerous Coronavirus Misinformation Attacks on Social Media,” Plaintiffs writings were described as “misinformation attacks” which could have dangerous health results for the public. Tweets by Hoft and articles from TGP were repeatedly cited as deliberate misinformation attacks to confuse the public, as “heavily pushed” automated “bot"!? attacks designed to deceive, and “misinformation stories being pushed on social media.” The “report” included screenshots, of Plaintiffs’ writings, which have been reproduced below. ‘These defamatory claims were supported by Vinesight’s claims that it identified this information using objective, bias-free technology: “This report has been prepared by Vinesight, an Al startup that enables people and organizations to fight back against misinformation. Vinesight’s algorithm. fernet’s social graphs for content and connections in order to detect constantly crawls the i misinformation mere moments after it’s released into the wild..." This is a lie. Dangerous Coronavirus Misinformation Attacks on Social Media a 2-day Snapshot @ vou A social bot (also: socialbot or socbot) is an agent that communicates more of less autonomously on social media, ‘often withthe task of influencing the course of discussion and/or the opinions ofits readers. Its related to chatbots but ‘mostly only uses rather simple interactions or no reactivity at all, The messages (e.g. tweets) it distributes are mostly either very simple, or prefabricated (by humans), and i often operates in groups and various configurations of partial human control (hybrid) Tt usually targets advocating certain ideas, supporting campaigns, or aggregating other sources either by acting as « "follower" and/or gathering followers itself. In this very limited respect, social bots can be said to have passed the Turing test. IF the expectation is that behind every social media profile there should be a human, social bots always use fake accounts, (Internal citations omitted) (htps:/en.wikipedia.ony bot) (last accessed October 12, 2020).‘When misinformation is about a dangerous pandemic, t can be fatal Just this Wednesday Virginia pastor tragically passed away from Coronavirus “Two wecks ago, he shared a mesne on Facebook that stggested Coronavirus "reporting was mass hysteria whipped up by the media to attack President Tunsp. VineSights research shows that this meme has been heavily pushed by bots on social media ‘This report will focus on the dangerous politcal misinformation surrounding the Coronavirus on March 16th and 17h, Specifically, VineSight looked at the two day window a week after the WHO officially declared the novel Coronavirus a pandemic, This report will lock at the variation of misinformation as well as how these posts are amplified on social media, Are they mostly initiated by bots or are real humans involved intheir spread? ‘This report has been prepared by VineSieht, an Al startup that enables people and organizations a fight back against misinformation. VineSight’s algorithm constantly crawls the Internets socal graphs for content and connections in order to detect misinformation mere moments afer i's reese into the wild — regardless of whether it appears as raw text, mages, memes, or video. Today, VineSight's Al technology finds potential misinformation within hous after itis posted on social media, Before we dive into the individua) stories le’ frst get sense of the most viral coronavirus political misinformation stories that ate being pushed on social media. The graph below displays the percentage of vial ‘misinformation related to each topie derccted by VineSight on March 16th and 17th 2020, measured by the number of recweets/shares. Political Coronavirus Misinformation tyand Amplieation of tories Invrducton:¥ bach section fiver consis fa diferent tory hace a high natty beng isiformation, The pits each ecm stp have ben es i a shared thous of. neni aetilee will a equcnly ete out tera bt detection ‘schol ic cliff wie accounts ot ie nbs, Nake (hal ths dos a ess ialete that acount as ne aan Sve rite sha kel se me at maton Fo en ‘he es ste in thi ste, the mary afte ene secant ith eh, efron wvona1a = patty 4 yuno9 s1n07» 0202 ‘91 seqo100 - Wy ss°0Viral Misinformation Topic: Coronavirus Is Not That Big Of A Deal -Awecatter the WO oily dekted the Coronas pandeme pte with veren hound shares wean cli ha the new ao erated ‘he Coronas ting EXCLUSIVE: Evidence Shows Director General of Word Health Organization Sevrehy Overstated the Fataly Rate ofthe Coronavirus Leading tothe Greatest Global Pan in History EXCLUSIVE: Evdence Shows ‘rpsnzeton Several Overt Fatal ate ons zb. Ina report entitled, “Misinformation Attacks During the October 2019 Presidential Debates,” Plaintiffs’ writings were described as “fake news" '? and “misinformation attacks.” Tweets by Hoft and articles ftom TGP were repeatedly cited as fake news and deliberate misinformation attacks on various politicians. The report included screenshots, of Plaintiffs’ writings (which have been reproduced below), which were cited as prime examples of fake news, misinformation attacks, ete. These defamatory claims were supported by Vinesight’s claims that it identified this information using objective, bias-free technology: “We're Vinesight, an Al startup that detects misinformation on social networks...in order to detect misinformation... using our cutting edge AT technology and subsequently stored in our misinformation database.” This isa lie. ke News,” has a very clear, objective, echnical meaning within the FCE-internet monopolist industry nexus, “Fake News,” is, in fact, the whole purpose for the existence of FCEs, This industry has a habit of over- relying upon WikiPedia in setting its censorship standards, so Plaintiffs rely upon WikiPedia’s definition, WikiPedia (citing to World Trends in Freedom of Expression and Media Development Global Report 2017/2018, 202, University of Oxford, UNESCO) provides as good ofa definition as exists, and defines Fake News thusly: “Fake news ({allso called junk news, pseudo-news, alternative facts, false news or hoax news) is untrue information presented as news, It often has the aim of damaging the reputation of a person or entity, or making money ‘through advertising revenue. Once common in print, the prevalence of fake news has increased with the rise of social media, especially the Facebook News" Feed, Political polarization, post-ruth politics, confirmation bias, and social media algorithms have been implicated in the spread of fake news. Its sometimes generated and propagated by hostile foreign actors, particularly during elections, The use of snonymously-hosted fake news websites has made it difficult, to prosecute sources of fake news for libel. In some definitions, fake news includes satirical articles misinterpreted as, ‘genuine, and articles that employ sensationalist or clickbait headlines that are not supported in the text. Fake news can reduce the impact of real news by competing with it; Buzzieed analysis found that the top fake news stories about the 2016 U.S. presidential election received more engagement on Facebook than top stories from major media outlets, It also has the potential to undermine trust in serious media coverage.” (Internal citations omitted) (uspsifen.wikipedia.one/wiki/Pake news )(last accessed Oct. 10, 2020) ® WikiPedia has elsewhere stated: “Fake news has become increasingly prevalent over the last few years, with the 2016 election revealing that online media platforms were especially susceptible to disseminating disinformation and misinformation . Fake news articles tend to come from satirical news websites or individual websites with an incentive to propagate false information, either as clickbait or to serve a purpose. Since these articles typically hope to intentionally promote biased or incorrect information, these articles are difficult to detect. When identifying a source of information, one must look at many attributes, including but not limited to the content of the email and social ‘media engagements. The langunge, specifically, is typically more inflammatory in fake news than real articles, in part because the purpose is to confuse and generate clicks.” (Internal citations omitted) (emphasis added) Chupsl/en.wikipedia.orw/wiki/Factechecking# Detecting fake news ) (last accessed Oct, 10, 2020), PeteMisinformation Attacks During the October 2019 Presidential Debates @ yams i= Al i= en = NEWS i "mall funog sino7 1g - pally Aleaivo.t23)3 Wy $$:01 - 0202 ‘91 s290100 - AWere vient, an A arp that deters misinformation on sca nota for over yea now, we have been analyzing the Internets soi] rap for content and connections in oder to det siavormaton mere ‘omens after lesed int the wid — regardless of whether it appears ‘saw ext nage, memes, or eo, Today, or aeomated ebony fins poten misnormation wees within hours ater heya posted ‘This report deta the most ea misinformation attacks we have detected inthe weeks lending upto and immediately following the fourth Democratic Presidential debate on October 15th 2019. ‘We rected sna ports onmisinfomtin tacks during the une ats he Jlydehatesmnd the Sepuembc debts very est inthis teport was identifi by VineSiph within 24 hours of Its posting. zing ovr ct edge A techaology and subsequent sored {nour isoformacon databse. nh repor we only incloded wets tht std aviralthresoll of rtwsets and ike. Mesto then: have hundreds oc thousss of shares, lowing ut present napehorofthe vel and ‘nfentil misinformation cert mang way trough scl ed Inthe seston, we wll breakdown the spac atacks that ar being launched atthe op Democrat presidential cancldaes. Bu beer ing 40, le gv youa vena of whieh top candies were subeted othe ‘ost misinformation nrecet months In he par few weeks wc ave sen an interesting phenomenon misinformation tacks have mainly tage Joe en aed oer prominent Democrats, sch s Nave els end Adam Schilf Most ofthese ‘neil have Ben lied a tho rcont impeachment heaigs There isa ‘mille than usa ors onthe oter presencia candidates. Candidates ke Pte Bug, Kamala Horris and even Bernie Sanders allo whom ‘sere prominent target dering the previous presidential debates, are receiving es vel misiaforations acacks inthis round “The graph bow dls the pereentage of siaformation ageing ec ‘condita detected by ViaeSigh from Octaber 13th 16th 2015 oo Non let dive don candidate by cand to ook athe misaformation ‘tacks aginst ech one, you ge ough the wees, dra your attention tai wicliy and thea that most were pulsed in hela ew days. Misinformation Attacks on Joe Biden igh Probebity Veal Misinformation: Jo Biden was pol $900k by urtna ‘ll and bots have been sreaingslam that Joe Biden has ben palé 90 by he Utrinian company Bursa, the company for which is son Hues ben working 10 Ayeotwon913 = 0202 ‘91 4840190 - Alunog $107 1S - Pel wv ss'0e"" WHY WON'T THE LIBERAL MEDIA REPORT THIS? *VIDEO and PHOTOS Urtanan Parhamentanan 9 An etka Reveals ©BursimaHoldinas Paid $900.000 for Lobbying! Was Sleepy Creepy Joe a Registered Lobbyist? Inquiring Minds Want to Know - = O2OCGCO2r6 Aqunag sino ig - 9% 010Burisma Holdings Paid Joe Biden $900,000 For Lobbying Activities: - al @ee2V1Eve Misinformation Attacks on Elizabeth Warren Possible Misinformation: “Elizabeth Warren is lying about her past” ‘Tolls and bots have been accusing Warren of lying about her past. none line of attack, she is accused of lying about being fired because of her her being 9 preghaney, Another viral story claims that she lie about Mose stories were retwected by @realDonaldTrump, ji @DineshDSoura, and @GroverNorquist. 12 wuonaa}gLIAWATHA CAN'T STOP LYING . Elizabeth Warren likes to Claim on the Stump that She's the Daughter of a Janitor. But Her Father's Death Certificate- With Info Supplied By Warren Herself- Says Her Dad Was a “Flight Instructor for the US Army". [SME CANT STOP LYING: Lit Warren Cinna She's the Daughter ot x Janitor. 1 or decades Baba Waren bed about Net “Cherokee ances’ ofa 99 nha caveer as a Marverd water @ Yeah WY S9°01 - 0202 ‘9t 4890190 - Aunod S161 35 - pals AjeotUoNDa’ac. Ina report entitled, “Misinformation Attacks During the September 2019 Presidential Debates,” Plaintiffs’ writings were described as “fake news,” and “misinformation 5 attacks.” Tweets by Hoft and articles from TGP were repeatedly cited as fake news and deliberate misinformation attacks on various politicians, and that Plaintiffs deliberately misreported stories to hatm political candidates, The “report” included screenshots, of Plaintiffs’ writings (which have been reproduced below), which were cited as prime examples of fake news, misinformation a attacks, ete. These defamatory claims were supported by Vinesight’s claims that it identified this 8 information using objective, bias-free technology: “We're Vinesight, an AI startup that detects misinformation on social networks. ... Every tweet in this report was identified by Vinesight within 24 hours of its posting, using our cutting edge AI technology and subsequently stored in ‘our misinformation database...” This is a lie. [The Remainder of This Page is Intentionally Blank]Misinformation Attacks During the September 2019 Presidential Debates tee ( _ ie dh id di” ae iP jpok, i Eau a = be NEWS [The Remainder of This Page is Intentionally Blank]We're VineSight, an AI startup that detects misinformation on social networks. For over a year now, we have been analyzing the Twitter firehose, crawling the Internet's social graphs for content and connections in order to detect misinformation mere moments after it’s released into the wild — regardless of whether it appears as raw text, images, memes, ot video. ‘Today, our automated technology finds potential misinformation tweets within hours after they are posted. ‘This report details the most viral misinformation attacks we have detected in the weeks leading up to and immediately following the third Democratic Presidential debate on September 12th 2019. ‘We created similar reports on misinformation attacks during the June 2019, debates, and the July 2019 debates. For our latest reports, follow us on ‘Dwitter or Excebook, Every tweet in this report was identified by VineSight within 24 hours of its posting, using our cutting edge Al technology and subsequently stored in our misinformation database. In this report we only included tweets that passed a viral threshold of retweets and likes. Most of them have hundreds or thousands of rerweets, allowing us to present a snapshot of the viral and influential misinformation currently making its way through Twitter. In this next section, we will break down the specific attacks that are being launched at the top Democratic presidential candidates. But before doing 50, let's first give you a sense of which top candidates were subjected to the ‘most misinformation in recent months. The graph below displays the percentage of misinformation targeting each candidate on Twitter as detected by VineSight from September 9th to 12th 2019. Now, let's dive down candidate by candidate to look at the misinformation, attacks against each one. As you go through the tweets, draw your attention to their virality and the fact that most were published in the last few days. 16 nov ig - pelid featuo.n92}3 ° ° 3 z 2High Probability Viral Misinformation: Joe Biden is senile Brit Hume Gets Honest on Joe Biden's Memory Loss: “Senility is Overtaking Him, | Think it Is* (VIDEO) 2Misinformation Attacks on Kamala Harris High Probability Viral Misinformation: Kamala Harris supports banning meat In an interview, Kamala Harris suggested changing nutrition guidelines in order to encourage less meat consumption. Her message was distorted to suggest that Harris is planning legislation to reduce meat consumption. ‘This misinformation was shared by: + ‘The Trump 2020 Campaign's verified account + Matt Whitlock, a National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) Senior Advisor and former Deputy Chief of Staff and Director of ‘Communications for Senator Orrin Hatch $~ = Kamala Harts calls for banning plastic straws & passing “incentives” for us not to eal meat. ‘She supports government having a say in what we can/cannot EAT so we will eat what THEY determine to be healthy! What happens if we refuse to stop eating meat? Meron DUOCEEDYO Wy 98°01 - 0202 '91 28q0100 - AlUnog #In07 1g - pally AleoIUONDaI,In a report entitled, “Misinformation Attacks During the June 2019 Presidential Debates,” Plaintiffs’ writings were described as “fake news,” “misinformation attacks,” automated “bot” attacks, and fake tweets. Articles by Plaintiffs were repeatedly cited as fake news and deliberate misinformation attacks on various politicians. Plaintiffs were accused of republishing a “debunked old fake news story.” The report included screenshots, of Plaintiffs’ writings (reproduced below), were cited as prime examples of fake news, misinformation attacks, ete, These defamatory claims were supported by Vinesight’s claims that it identified this information using objective, bias-free technology” “We're Vinesight, an AI startup that detects fake news on social networks ... Most fake news stories start with a kernel of truth. Trolls and bots then change the story and mix in a dash of hate, outrage, and sometimes humor. Finally, they use automation to make the fake tweet go viral.” This is a lie. [The Remainder of This Page is Intentionally Blank]Misinformation Attacks During the June 2019 Presidential Debates g von T= dy ag a Oi afl, Ee az we oh ES WW at [The Remainder of This Page is Intentionally Blank]‘We're VineSight, an Al startup that detects fake news on social networks. For overa year now, we have been analyzing the Twitter fiehose, crawling the Internet's social graph for content and connections in ordes to detect fake news mere moments after it's released into the wild — regardless of whether it appears as raw text, images, memes, o video. Today, our automated technology finds fake news wets within hours after they are posted. ‘This report details the most viral fake news attacks we have detected in the weeks leading up to and immediately following the Democratic Presidential debates. Most fake news attacks start with a kernel of truth. Trolls and bots then change the story and mixin a dash of bate, outrage, and sometimes humor, Finally, they use automation to make the fake tweet go vial Every tweet inthis report was identified by VineSight within 24 hours ofits Publishing, using our cutting edge Al technology and subsequently stored it ‘our fake news database. In this report we only included tweets that passed : Viral threshold of etweets and likes, Most of them have hundreds or thousands of reweets, allowing us to presenta snapshot ofthe viral and influential fake news currently making its way through Twitter. In this next section, we will break down the specific attacks that are being, launched atthe top Democratic presidential candidates, But before doing. 0, le’ firs give you a sense of whic top candidates were subjected 0 the ‘most fake news n recent months. The graph below displays the percentage of fake news targeting each candidate outof the total fake news tweets detected by VineSight. "Now, let's dive down candidate by eandidate to look at the fake news attacks against each one. As you go through the tweets, draw your attention totheir vitality and the face that mast were published in the last few days Fake News Attacks on Kamala Harris “SHE LIED: Kamala Harris Says She Was in Second Integrated Class in Berkeley — But Yearbook Pictures Prove She's Lying” During the debate, Kamala Harris said she was in the second integrated class in Berkeley as a child. Gateway Pundit epublished a debunked old fake newsstary about Kamala Haris from July 2016 that claimed Hareis was lying. This story was retweeted over 13,000 times on over 800 separate eweets 2 zg 3 Wy SS'01 - 0202 ‘91 18900(OR vents = (Oh those pesky itis ies! Kamala was born In 1984, Berkeley schools integrated In 1963, She lived in Berkolay for 2 yrs before her family moved to Canada where she (graduated trom high school. What other les, tan tas AOU VOMOD @ Lowatemne some ‘SHE LIED: Kamala Harris Says She Was in ‘Second Integrated Class in Berkeley -- But Yearbook Pictures Prove She's Lying sino1g 22e. __Inareport entitled, “Pake News Attacks Targeting Rep. Ilhan Omar (D- MN)M” Plaintiffs’ writings were described as “fake news,” and “misinformation attacks.” Articles from Plaintiffs were repeatedly cited as fake news and deliberate misinformation attacks ans. The report included screenshots, of Plaintiffs’ writings (which have been on various po reproduced below), were cited as prime examples of fake news, misinformation attacks, ete. These defamatory claims were supported by Vinesight’s claims that it identified this information using objective, bias-free technology: “We're Vinesight, an AI startup that detects fake news on social networks... Today, our automated technology finds potential misinformation tweets within hours after they are posted. This report details viral attacks from the past week that our algorithm has predicted with a high probability to be misinformation... Every tweet in this report was identified by Vinesight within 24 hours ofits posting, using our cutting edge AI technology and subsequently stored in our fake news database.” This is a lie. [The Remainder of This Page is Intentionally Blank] 23Fake News Attacks targeting Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) GS i ne == i Fil 4, = [The Remainder of This Page is Intentionally Blank]We're VineSight, an AI startup that detects fake news on social networks. For over a year now, we have been analyzing the Twitter firehose, crawling the Internet's social graph for content and connections in order to detect fake news mere moments after it’s released into the wild — regardless of whether it appears as raw text, images, memes, or video. Today, our automated technology finds potential misinformation tweets within hours after they are posted. This report details viral attacks from the past week that our algorithm has predicted with a high probability to be misinformation. The attacks in this report are targeting Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) Every tweet in this report was identified by VineSight within 24 hours of its posting, using our cutting edge Al technology and subsequently stored in our fake news database. In this report we only included tweets that passed a viral threshold of retweets and likes. Most of them have hundreds or thousands of retweets, allowing us to present a snapshot of the viral and influential misinformation currently making its way through Twitter. Claim: Ilhan Omar's Father was a Propaganda Official in Genocidal Barre Regime In the past few days a rumor has been spreading that Ilhan Omar’s father was part of the Said Barre regime in Somalia. This rumor went viral partially due to Jessie Jane Duff. 25 10 - Aunog sineeven This makes me sick to read lthan Omar's father & other Somalian war crimes perpetrators are curently living illegally in the United States American's died far away from home to help Somalis overcome genocide that ithan's father may enabled. #lIhanOmar dos BOGS EOEOO lian Omar's Father was Top Propaganda Official in Genocidal Barre Regime -- Then He 1nd Entered US illegally 26 wonsa'a Ai 0118 - Pall 120 - Atuneg 0z02 ‘9b 22901 Wy ss:0F£ Ina report entitled, “Misinformation Attacks Unleashed During the Impeachment Inquiry,” Plaintiffs’ writings were described as “fake news,” “misinformation attacks,” and material “pushed” by automated bots, to wit: “The impeachment inquiry has led to an explosion of misinformation attacks on social media. ‘The majority of attacks are fueled by accounts displaying inauthentic behavior and using automation.” Articles by Plaintiffs were repeatedly cited as fake news and deliberate misinformation attacks on various politicians. ‘The report included screenshots, of Plaintiffs’ writings (which have been reproduced below), were cited as prime examples of fake news, misinformation attacks, ete. These defamatory claims were supported by Vinesight’s claims that it identified this information using objective, bias-free technology: “We're Vinesight, an AI startup that detects misinformation on social networks... ‘Today, our automated technology finds potential misinformation within hours after it is posted... Every post in this report was identified by Vinesight within 24 hours of its posting, using our cutting edge AI technology and subsequently stored in our misinformation database. This is a lie. 27Misinformation Attacks Unleashed During the Impeachment Inquiry NE E SV iS “The impeachment inquiry bas led to on explosion of misinformation attacks ‘on social media, The majority of attacks are fueled by accounts displaying inauthentic behavior and using automation. Among the victims hit hardest by misinformation are the witnesses called to testify before the House Intelligence, Foreign Affairs, and Oversight committees. Misinformation attacks against witnesses often begin the day of their testimony, and often link them to Ukraine, or attempt to discredit them. As we will show, we also detected misinformation attacks targeting the Democratic Leadership, the Republican Leadership, and Republican moderates who dare to speak out against President Trump. 28We're vinesighs, an A startup that detects misinformation on social networks, For over a year now, we have been analyzing the social media firehose, crawling the Internet's social graphs for content and connections inorder to detect fake news mere moments after i’ released into the wild "regardless of whether it appears as raw text, images, memes, or video. ‘Today, our automated technology finds potential misinformation within hours after itis posted ‘This report details the most vital misinformation attacks we have detected related to the impeachment inquiry of President Donald ‘Trump, very postin this report was identified by VineSight within 24 hours ofits posting using our cutting edge Al technology and subsequently stored in ‘our misinformation database. In this report we only included posts which passed a viral threshold of retweets and kes. Most of them have hundreds for thousands of shares, allowing us to present a snapshot ofthe viral and influential misinformation currently making its way through socal media. In the past few weeks we have seen an interesting phenomenon: ‘Accounts displaying inauthentic behavior and using automation have been ‘organizing misinformation attacks against parties related tothe {impeachment inquiry. The targets of these attacks can be categorized into three subjects «+ Attacks against impeachment Witnesses + tcacks against Democratic politicians + Attacks against Republican politicians When going through the various attacks, note thar many ofthe misinformation storylines ery to connect the targeted entities with Ukraine. Attacks against Alexander Vindman, National Security Couneil director for European Affai High Probability Misinformation: Vindman shared the content of Trump's phone cal with others, and tampered with evidence. ‘This likely misinformation story was also shared by Fox Business Network's Lou Dobbs. 29 Ayeotuon213, 0202 ‘91 49G0190 - Auunog sn07 1g - Pal wvssun on WOW! Top Democrat Witness and Pompous Nutjob Col. Vindman Tried and Failed to Tamper with Rough Draft of Presidenta#6217;s Call to Ukrainian President 0202 ‘91 484000 Iv $S:01 [The Remainder of This Page is Intentionally Blank] 30‘Attacks Against Fiona Hill, Former White House Rus dviser Ligh Probabityatisnformarion: Fona Hillis a mole in the White House ‘working for George Sores, ee" No wonder they went so hard at Stone....ne knows too much ‘Adam Schif"'s Star Witness Fiona Hill Was Outed by Roger Stone and InfoWars as Deep State Soros Connected Spy in 2017 The | soy connected Fona Hil was outed by tsraeh fin 2017 as a Deep Stale SPY in the WH under then NSA Advisor General MeMaster ‘She was ALLOWED in he Trump WH by DeepState Soros SHILL McMaster @ 31 peng Ale yuneg sine7 35 Wy 85:91 - 0202 ‘91 4290190Attacks Against Democrats [tacks against Joc Biden Joe Biden has been a main target of impeachment misinformation. In particu these storylines atacking Biden have consistently been pushed by tolls and bots immediately after the Ukraine scandal broke. The follwing stores are Migh Probability Misinformation + Je Widen was involved in his son Hunter's business in Ukraine, and even received money fom farsi, the company in which Hunter was Aicecto. ve Bien he el Iyer Bien seeure $1.5 billion dea in China. + "The Justice Department admits We May tave to tnvestigae Biden! en WOW! John Solomon says Biden SPECIFICALLY set meeting with Ukrainian officials & his son's company 3 weeks BEFORE they met in 2014 Hunter Biden was then paid at least $166,000/MONTH following lucrative deal set up by his dad with Ukrainian leaders! e Le SON HOODE 32 Qovens Attacks against Other Democrats g High Probability Misinformation: § a) ‘Ukraine funded Hillary Clinton's campaign with stolen IMF money + Ukraine donated more to the Clinton foundation than any other country ‘+ Democrats threatened the Ukrainian prosecutor to get dirt on Trump «+ Hillary Clinton's illicit connections to Russia + Barack Obama blocked state department attempt to look into Hunter Biden in 2015 e> 3 They put up a dumb schmuck to make fake claims about Trump colluding with Ukraine to get Biden, and all that happened was America learned how it was CLINTON who colluded with them to receive tens of millions into her slush fund in exchange for favors. oa wy ame ss #OO9: £089 3‘Against Jacob Ford COME NOW Plaintiffs JAMES HOFT (“Hoft”) and TGP COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, W/b/a The Gateway Pundit (“TGP”) (collectively “Plaintiffs"), and for their cause of action of libel against Defendant JACOB FORD (“Ford”), state to the Court as follows: 17. Plaintiffs incorporate paragraphs 1-16 above as though fully set-forth and restated herein. 18 As stated in paragraph sixteen (16) above, on information and belief, Defendant Ford has written, assisted or aided in the writing and/or generation of studies, reports, documents, writings, and communications (“Defamatory Content”) which have defamed Plaintiffs Hoft and ‘TOP. 19. On information and belief, Ford has produced and published, and/or assisted in the production and publication of Defamatory Content about Plaintiffs. 20. This Defamatory Content is defamatory on its face. It alleges Plaintiffs are traffickers in deliberate misinformation, fake news, and endangers the community through such misinformation and fake news. 21. The Defamatory Content is continually reviewed by agents of Monopolist Platforms and FC! and is currently used by the same as a basis for discrediting and attacking Plaintiffs’ news articles. 22. This Defamatory Content is false, 23. Upon information and belief, Defendant Ford published the Defamatory Content, or assisted in publishing the Defamatory Content, either maliciously, or with reckless disregard of its truth or falsity. 3424. As a direct and proximate cause of Ford’s Defamatory Content, Plaintifis’ reputations and brand have been damaged in an amount in excess of twenty-five thousand dollars (525,000), but less than seventy-five thousand dollars ($75,000). 25. Defendant’s Defamatory Content has been published either with malice or with reckless disregard of its truth or falsity, thus warranting an award of punitive damages that will punish and deter Ford and others from like conduct, WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray this Honorable Court make and enter its Order and Judgment against Defendant Jacob Ford for reputational and emotional damages in such sum in excess of $25,000.00, but less than $75,000, as is fair and reasonable and certain to be determined at trial; punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial; costs; the removal of all of Defendant's defamatory content regarding Plaintiffs from the internet, and for such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. COUNT IT INJURIOUS FALSEHOOD ‘Against Jacob Ford COME NOW Plaintiffs JAMES HOFT (“Hoft”) and TGP COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, d/bla The Gateway Pundit (“TGP”) (collectively “Plaintiffs"), and for their cause of action of injurious falsehood against Defendant JACOB FORD (“Ford”), state to the Court as follows: 26. Plaintiff’ incorporate paragraphs 1-16 above as though fully set-forth and restated herein. 27. As stated in paragraph sixteen (16) above, on information and belief, Defendant Ford has written, assisted or aided in the writing and/or generation of studies, reports, documents, tions (“Defamatory Content”) which have defamed Plaintiffs Hoft and writings, and commu TGP, and which were directly harmful to Plaintiffs’ professional and business interests. 3528. Upon information and belief, Ford has produced and published, and/or assisted in the production and publication of Defamatory Content about Plaintiffs, either intending that they ‘would result in harm to Plaintiffs, or he recognized or should have recognized that the publication was likely to result in harm to Plaintifts. 29. This Defamatory Content is defamatory on its face. It alleges Plaintiffs are traffickers in deliberate misinformation, fake news, and endangers the community through such misinformation and fake news. 30. The Defamatory Content is continually reviewed by agents of Monopolist Platforms and FCEs, and is currently used by the same as a basis for discrediting and attacking Plaintiffs’ news articles. 31, The Defamatory Content is false. 32. Upon information and belief, Defendant Ford published the Defamatory Content, or assisted in publishing the Defamatory Content, either knowing it was false, or acted with reckless disregard of its truth or falsity, 33. The Defamatory Content is a substantial factor in causing Plaintiffs to suffer pecuniary losses in an amount in excess of twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000). 34. Defendant’s Defamatory Content was either published with malice or with reckless disregard of its truth or falsity, thus warranting an award of punitive damages that will punish and deter Ford and others from like conduct, WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray this Honorable Court make and enter its Order and Judgment against Defendant Jacob Ford for damages in such sum in excess of $25,000.00, but less than $75,000, as is fair and reasonable and certain to be determined at trial; punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial; costs; the removal of all of Defendant’s defamatory content 36 norregarding Plaintiffs from the internet, and for such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. Respectfully submitted, ‘(s/-John C. Burns JOHIN C. BURNS, #66462 P.O. Box 191250 St. Louis, Missouri 63119 Tel: (314) 329-5040 Fax: (314) 282-8136 Email: tbi@pm.me Attorney for Plaintiffs g t z 2 37EXHIBIT 10- 10:55 AM October 16, County Electronically Filed e905 wo suoneriiqnd 3u3a29y [lly 285] sman ays UI YZISeuIA‘nically Filed - St Louis County - October 16, 2020 Who We AreSMAN 24D UL AUBISAUIA uBSOUY,October 16: Cou etvonicaly Filed20SL-CC05229 - EXHIBIT 2Electronically Filed - St Louis County - October 16, 2020 - 10:55 AM armament 9 pene ‘oe 041 POF ‘wc say aonatsouy fq psa oro 0p jp stmsaad a leds 0p spe ras V Ue HBT pds 09 sey 3043S ve pamdo se ad ry ‘uods i, ERE ANNE OT I SHEP soi ep BOM OO ASPET (pmy(uo IND a RPO rabuep ap vos a mn sey usg a onc A E EDR NIL uppsaig nee pou dn pode asym Bunse nana posne ep SIT UTERO rare ab On ‘segueusin way ewe posed qe FHL EAA sepsaapy sp une yey que uubpuedscetuep eg s voReAZEUR IM, aoe a2 8 PIpayW [Epos uo speny UoREULIOZUISTAT snufaeuos05 snoxeSueq,eee idoy uorewsoyunsiyy fe11A ‘2 yois jo venegnd poe AeA reonanpaet uoReULO;UISIW sNaIAeUOIOD eDIII}Od County St Louis 3 see 0Z0Z LIL-91 Y1EWSt Louis County - Octo! Electronicaly Filed auea yeaa sco a0 peer srgcume9 a2 21 fame apoio Karas UoNeT REO ON fees wiseag SOS EAE ANSTO fovaye sf ‘24 wor, parp aneu 21d080 0000s — eq vo 818 ey 20N 5} sruineuoiog :o1do] uoreUZ0}UISIYY|eaIAElectronically Filed - St Louls County - October 16, 2020 - 10:55 AM dluunay any 04 [oo es suyneuoiog :1doy vorrewiojutsiw [eA ‘so oa; sna 9D dam FEPCOTROE ~ Hm snaog sun ‘tued ety ov Ang LON 00, J24yjo hue 40 snuneuoi9 ynoge Buueey 99 xeoyaessyeroilye Ue upinom nok eek uonaaye mou pur {6-01A09 woy ‘uosees 5 sueauoiuy 1s0w pue “9102-6002 NIH to. pap suPouatuy 6a'21 sconces 108 ‘apa pms aa presing unos ournoOctober 16, 2020 - 10:55 AM Electronically Filed - St Louis County Suny a a Sep sqyord aseazouy 09 a1wopueg atp Butsn 1 Ajuse dusnay :s1d0y uonewuoyuisiy jes, OF Mneadee® xm 10k Burpnour = 4unuy pus Ayeuy, 01 Mow 394) 1, 10018 00) 1509 ou 51 ous ‘vonuene Buked Suku 51 eYpau! sno pesucins axe nok CIOF CREM on mm ego} € us) su9:2 Leouasoyp ou 1owsew yoo}s Bunswuund ue suoRoUIsa) apIMpHON :61-INOD useo wwew ypors ou pue suonouises ou :ny SUMS weutnouy © OF ERORT TG mee = 0uS # 68 ‘uoseos ny peg, ‘sem pieou ‘iy “6002 w spuesnoin jo sue) GunowyGnets ‘Sem UOUM LNLH JO pueOY VERS JOROU | ‘Aernyosay 0 .ysna UORUP- S16 sdhy a4 UN 100 :NOLLSINO onan O NH :096'0¥2 nig(pIeD vowed —:209°69 ‘SMUIABUOOD —09E'2 0202 W2-uer syie2G apuMpLICM, edurasprevogen®55 AM Electronically Filed - St Louis County - October 18, 2020 - 10. wor29fa esau90 249 Je03S 0} SMUIACUOIOD BL ‘Sujsn axe syesowad -2Ido uoreUHO;UISIA [eI20 - 10:55 AM 20: October 18, Electronically F RCT ETOE nmin pwopued ‘Srp ven a parense4720 eUND jaury use "yan on pue ‘eH 0 ur pap dn Byam ssejousoyElectronically Filed - St Louis County - October 18, 2020. 10:55 AM 200) Bupyunpeou uiteo9 999 °SS9IPPY wop2e [Ue YOU S2M 64-CLNOO UA NOK HA BB esouarapaw voRDar3 euiug ut yoo, ewes xno 1 Joumo ou $1 50:05 1e19 aouep!DUIED ,T os sn store San PCOOB O66 oom nm ‘q wapida pouued-oid & sem snaneuaiog, > wong sai thou 0 0003 034. « 200896008 en pou spoowvereg ouuelg Ty UMOP mys ASTIN OM, WHY SN THK Or By ove AOU sruqeuosog 2 Suipeoids #1 poomuarees pauved= ouls County. October 16, 2 conically Filed - St an ® =e mt 098 OR OBS nn om ipanue sey wors uy Sussn 6 ‘274911 34 ‘Burpaye 99 0} sieadde 1 o4m S321 asneD=q aise nt egi3 84 “SMBIA ALITS. 99 pinous auweU aJeudoxdde ONDE ‘ow y esnan eu sri BUCIOD vanaione @ vo AOCEDRIGFO mr(6v-03) supeuoiss uo ep an dn fens damueas 94, - won 3 ror g uuorsnjouog 7 cooneae eM sem ng sono 3 7 ElectroniCoyElectronically Filed - St Louis County - October 16, 2020 - 10:55 AM S/AaiN soreqoq, Tenueptsorg 6TOZ 1940190 943 SuLng syeny UOHeULOsUISTTAL zoe wroHes MIPOWN,4055 AM Elect 40065 rod so wp 07 uapig 90f uo speny uoNeUUOUISIAN nasofanp any Sogou it SOYA ory ere Try eect) 6LOZ 4I91-UIEL IFO ajepipues Vpl-t Melvin los ay LiCoyptAUOPToN OESuno a0 Anse puo weg ar suommusofnay SN¢O4OUE VL AM led Electweregteru ou omically Filed - St Lous County - October 16, 20 econreere = = poy smpous sr poyon) a sy00g hi pw soy pou rome en geg2ud SUP} ejewey) Uo SPERY HONEULOJUISIWY @UNON A oA UO SPENY UOReUOWISI10:55 AM St Louls County - October 18, 20: Electronically Filed edn oq 3h won yore. wonPusofann NE atieM yraqeza uo Sy2eRY YOREUHOIUISIYaeeeeus serene: @ : pronbag yoo vonmeefany Keo HE z 294009 A109 uo SYDEAY UOREUUOJUISIOctober 18 Jecttonically Filed uns B29 8 prog@o md woMMofrHe Sq gegasE Pat NNO anogy UoReUUOJUISIA, spy 2 psoageo er one rnfomaonend BH pueggeo sin} uo SpeRY UOEUO;LISIW0:55 AM. ouls County © Ce rpeiue ren3e peu a ‘are samorganstun, 24 sazppues gus yn enue oy sono asi 22009 foNO syei20Uag Uo sjsenY UOHReUUOYU‘uypaqy ous 2109) uorsnjouey Beoreere: w= FreseseoeElectronically Filed -St Louis County - October 16, 2020 - 10:55 AM aus bo ego Eapsaks EOL PI {patra pur or dn ype spam arn PADDY SMAN anVs comma + saregeq. enuapiserg 6T0Z sequisidag aya Surg syey uoeULoyUIsTAT5AM st Electronically Filed —-# Suppo vouny spoon ma npg 207 -uoumuaonye ann 04044 YEH uuapig 20{ uo sj2enVy UoReULO; ee CTtoy ale p Yate Coll) ayepipues Vel Mole plop UONEUWUOJUISIINElectronically Filed _poung node nope swonmuisponge mag kpaod5AM 10: Electronically Filed - St Louis County - October 16, 2020 pe toaye sory oy Hy yas, vonusofni an eaasd YB annoy 0 o1@g Uo SPeNy UOREULOSUISIWSt Louis County - October 18, 2020- 10:55 AM Electronically Filed roewnes® hq yaemy 10} auiy s0N eng fq x0og ti eu —— OAM October 18, 2020- 10:55 St Louls County onicaly Filed 99M 00C9EO oo mm Buiuueg suBew ,UeD | 1 suem pue sBunooys asaKh Bug se — sauvo 11389 Sowerg mou oyiNoL,.O OLA ‘sBuOOYS ‘se6u dois of As 0} osu0dsO1 MOU @ UL a) DetCOODAR — mins Os NN YNNOD SI3H SAYS 1003 SiH. NHI Did Sika 30 3NOKSAS ONIN GB HWs wopa1g 0) BuuUr o}aR SIM somaneaua tr55 AM 10 St Louis County - October 16, 2020 Electronically Filed iodine nui moun sonoma an SHOOK YS SIU} E]eWey UO S]EAY UOREULOJUISIN,Electronically Fil ouompeaoe mundane sung wonouofany iy Gngeansd PHY srepues ajuiag uo sypeny UoReUUOUISI apatea pring suo ar uo 9us0H OwrY oneULeRIH Fs NeOGE4d YA6, 2020nang faa afew oqo ‘aioddns huang ig, rwoouuopamy ran Oangagoud VBE BaiSmyng ayag Uo Sen UOREUUOUISI 10:55AM ‘page ofenme ay piysa Rpvon 9 Hon Comm sown ana uae Ynegez||a Uo SjIEAY UOREULOJUISIN, St Louis County - October 18, 2020 - ElectronOctaber Electronically Filed ooo ete0:55 AM Cotober 16, us County st {oop Lapusive dor nowsg wowouunfomy rn Geramgend VOM wee =6 ponuns nnsnows, oqowuofnay an Sanaa SH SenowEg Uo SPEAY HOREUUO;UISIW 4 WiAM 0555) October 16, 2021 ctronically Filed - St Louis County es ny 1840 98120004 108 ‘ama anoge aip poqadosd weep Ayanoe poreuoane jos00q epyur ue sem azaya exp 995 9M “ou Za40 s10q Uaazod 24p 18 Yoo] aM UMsazepypueo se 200, sqepyjo poop se jor sjayn ut soused 10g wus soxepipue renuprsoid tpt. r2e3u0> emu atdoo aavy ear FaMoKTAASTUA aN DE] Uy -UrBTE 10, 8, 2020 ‘ym Supjsoss wana sdugiad som ays 10 34 20x pure ‘saxeprpueD enUDpIsaAd a IeIUOD UT U>Bq PeY FsMoqqaRSNYA ay WEY AUT sq pie STON, emo|qansty ayy asuTEse SPERY ‘uonewaopuisten Burpeards ke AauqRPOXD KN ome Sere" “Suenyjod nenouiaq isureie syaeny + sessaunty4 auounpeader suese SUNY « sofgns 9am 1 pamofare> 9q ues S92 apa parpr uaaq aney uonewonne Buisn pu zoveyoq anuaqAMEUT Sursofdsrp s1uNOs>y asap yosiaiin ayy Zambur wauypead sureie sypene voneunoyuts Suze B10 Electronically Filed - St Louis CountyElectronically Filed - St Louis County - October 18, 2020 - 10:55 AM sqgod no s2yromsay ssaussng xo Aa pazeys ose sean 201s woneUMOFUISL ATT SAL “souapias tim paradares pue “sso yay > auoKNe summa yo ywonuo> ays pareys uewpurn -uouowuefusiy ANngogoug YS seygy woodosng 203 aopanp pune Aryns9s JeuoReN “TeMpalA J9puEXaTy IsuNEse SEY sim to popadons oq ous ny oY ‘NVATUCHSIWD pom sea 983 NH YON SO siseusmof pue some dumnay uo Ads soAUOWNE ‘2uTengD) payse ypUAOUEADA IEW uoRDULLE/UINyY ApqDgOL YSN eure Jopessequiy savers pau sounog ‘yoymoueAng sue ysutese SYERY TrEet6e70 = onOctober 16, 2020 - 10:55 AM Electronically eseraste: oo eostorere 001001 wwe oem reseeerne ow om 's9god NOT SoHOMIAN, ssaugsng xog fq pazeys ose sea sons woneuLiopuisrar Aa ST UTE remreosoe - ore sree abou pp Uru 1A oeeduy OF 8806 S14 w ANOS DONS.October 16, 2020 - 10:55 AM led - St Louis County Electronically ‘ag dua) pjeuoa Aq paxeys sem suyuoxs woneuoyustn Aor su, ‘opig soup 1 pau 1201 a suoousofgy ypgogade YLT aeorce:t0 s040§ 982095 30) Bupj0M, “semen any ayp Ur aout ITH EuOHE MonmUofiasyy Armgeqaug HT J2s1ape wissmy asnoH 2H J8ULIO4 “INH PUCK suEsy SPENY praeeeens ow = ‘apig 20r asupefe suopefoqf2 uondnisos dn paraxo yprur] axaig uonouuofuisyy Amqogau YS erousg sowedsu araunsedag ae SPTUTT aaaig wsuTEse HPENYsqenoweg ysulesy SPenY sepowg 2uppene patos SUDA ondimog kretes 0 stp TRH ETON PEILISUTEAY ENV FOFRES9FO me aousso, i 0 Bn os = uN + sews ot eng gener mop ea Oana hd ‘ounty - October 16, 2020 - 10:55 AM werwen 94 poy ameR2psUM Sy sone 5 sua su pay anna SUROS eet ‘am dur zB “ate sep 21 sige uo em 0 TSS oultnoa um ey wa stun es simu sa 0 vou ip 24 suno> yo ase Electronically Filedetoecsers m= sever ieor el eacaneroe mm eeseniers we 0:55 AM, 2020 “apie svessaauy on ancy Aeyy ag, UUPe awouNsedad soMsNE aL « ‘eUTUD Ur Tap UORTER $"TS¥ a1ND9s UapIE ToMUMHY Padioy UopIE 20 « sonasp sem za1unyy yomyan ur Avedon ae nq 1g wo 1 40s sf panjoaut sea UaPIG 900 County - October 16, ana pue ‘surerin uonowiopnsyy Suyotfos UL eadun jo a8 urew B uasq seq UaPIE 20° uapia vor asurese syeny Electronically Filed - StCounty - Ootober 16 srenoug s9110 asuReBe SPENY Teee08008 = — Beet yor um an urenyn 2tp on parsoutin so: srojeap suse uequpesqn 02 ye |Soped AOUEN pUE HDS WEPY © ip wounypeodu dn Sip 1 urenyn 01 Ay 02 sae sys WepY 30} pred Lueduto> Sopa OIUMY2020 - 10:55 AM ounty - October 16, ronically Filed - St Louis © Elec! eereesnes = 2 -Nouvous3nn ‘OY ANYM MOA sl ONY BOA 3SIVe soz wy 1 yoo] 01 Wuone wounzedap 2715 paypoyq eure opera + psy on suomauteo apm SHON ATEN “fumsonp An 1oqe azour Buz094 Ut 30 ‘sIgssUT eee) uo woy duns, Sutaowa ag AOU paunsse AU BN + 40) odds wearqnday 512 "Buistang Jo pueoq ay; uo Sus sostape souLHOY I « suoupuuofisiny Qipgoqaud YBIH ‘oPEne ypns uy paBeHua sey "ysemy unsn¢ BuyBudqey> sso18 U0 20} veprpurd & “woLION Woy “sog pure sjon Aq paysene uo9q AereIpaUIU ‘ney dumnay, waprsarg isuyefe ino wayods axey ova sue>yqndow, \ysewy unsnp poe Aoumoy nq isuTese syseny rewoerSt Louls County - October 16, 2020 - 10:55 AM nically Filed Elec uOoK ona amreag wooey su sog = wusgn owe syeuno|aetao 10367 jerusy agenuetig wopoes uinipaw wor 210IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE COUNTY OF ST. LOUIS STATE OF MISSOURI JAMES HOFT, et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) } Case Number: 208L-CC05229 * v, ) } Division Number: 19 JACOB FORD, ) ) ‘ Defendant. ) f NOTICE OF HEARING Please take notice that the undersigned counsel will call up for hearing Defendant’s Motion to Transfer Venue in the Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Division 19, on the 9" day of March 2021 at 10:00am, or as soon thereafter as counsel may be heard. Respectfully submitted, KETCHER LAW FIRM, By /s! Bradley J, Ketcher Bradley J. Ketcher, MO# 37958 Ketcher Law LLC P.O. Box 190201 St. Louis, MO 63119 314-259-1234, brad@ketcher.com Leslye M. Winslow MO# 49713 LMW Law LLC 2215 S. Jefferson Ave. St. Louis, MO 63104 573-230-5874 Imwdem@email Attorneys for Defendant FordCertificate of Service Thereby certify that a copy of the following was served on February 8, 2021 on all counsel of record via the Court's e-filing system. /s/_Leslye M, Winslow polig Alea 10 Aven: Lb 4202's 98IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE COUNTY OF ST. LOUIS JAMES HOFT, et al., Plaintifis, v. JACOB FORD, Defendant. STATE OF MISSOURI Case Number: 20SL-CC05229 Division Number: 19 ENTRY OF APPEARANCE, COMES NOW, Bradley J. Ketcher and enters his appearance on behalf of Defendant Jacob Ford. Respectfully submitted, sradley J. Ketcher Bradley J, Ketcher, MO# 37958 Ketcher Law LLC P.O. Box 190201 St. Louis, MO 63119 Tel: 314-259-1234 Attorney for Defendant Ford Certificate of Service Thereby certify that a true copy of the foregoing was served on February 5, 2020 on all counsel of record electronically via the Court’s e-filing system. és/ Bradley J. KetcherFILED 02-05-2021 JOANM, GILMER | ~ CIRCUIT CLERK | © IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE COUNTY OF ST. LOUIS ST. LoUls COUNTY STATE OF MISSOURI JAMES HOFT, et al., ) ) Plaintifis, ) ) Case No. 20SL-CC05229 ve ) ) Division 19 JACOB FORD, ) ) So ordered Defendant. ) = Thomas C. Albus = Motion to Withdraw as Attorney Khristine A. Heisinger hereby withdraws her appearance as counsel for Defendant Ford, Withdrawal is necessary as Ms. Heisinger is no longer working with the Ketcher Law Firm, LLC, Mr. Ketcher remains on record as attorney for Mr. Ford, and Leslye Winslow filed her entry of appearance for Mr. Ford yesterday, Respectfully submitted, / Khvistine A. Heisinger Khristine A. Heisinger, No. 42584 329 Schumate Chapel Rd. Jefferson City, Missouri 65109 Tel. 573/690-9046 khrisheisinger@embarqmail.com KETCHER LAW FIRM, LLC Brad Ketcher, No. 37958 P.O. Box 190201 St. Louis, MO 63119 Tel, 314/259-1234 Fax 314/667-5664 brad@ketcher.com Attorneys for Defendant FordCertificate of Service g | certify that on this 5" day of January 2020, a true copy of the foregoing was served electronically via the Missouri Case.Net e-filing system on all counsel of record. (s/ Khvistine A, Heisinger Vid 90°80 - L202IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE COUNTY OF ST. LOUIS STATE OF MISSOURI JAMES HOFT, et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) Case No. 20SL-CC05229 v. ) ) Division 19 JACOB FORD, ) ) Defendant. ) Motion to Withdraw as Attorney Khristine A. Heisinger hereby withdraws her appearance as counsel for Defendant Ford, Withdrawal is necessary as Ms. Heisinger is no longer working with the Ketcher Law Firm, LLC. Mr. Ketcher remains on record as attorney for Mr. Ford, and Leslye Winslow filed her entry of appearance for Mr. Ford yesterday. Respectfully submitted, /s/ Khristine A. Heisinger Khristine A. Heisinger, No. 42584 329 Schumate Chapel Rd. Jefferson City, Missouri 65109 Tel. 573/690-9046 khrisheisinger@embarqmail.com KETCHER LAW FIRM, LLC Brad Ketcher, No. 37958 P.O. Box 190201 St. Louis, MO 63119 Tel. 314/259-1234 Fax 314/667-5664 brad@ketcher.com Attorneys for Defendant FordCertificate of Service I certify that on this 5" day of January 2020, a true copy of the foregoing was served electronically via the Missouri Case.Net e-filing system on all counsel of record, 9 /s/ Khristine A. Heisinger g0'80- 1202 WeIN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE COUNTY OF ST. LOUIS STATE OF MISSOURI JAMES HOFT, et al., ) ) Plaintifis, ) } Case Number: 208L-CC05229 v. ) 3 ) Division Number: 19 & JACOB FORD, ) ) 8 Defendant. ) . ENTRY OF APPEARANCE COMES NOW, Leslye M. Winslow and enters her appearance on behalf of Defendant Jacob Ford. Respectfully submitted, /Leslye M. Winslow Leslye M. Winslow, MO# 49713 LMW Law LLC 2215 South Jefferson Ave. St. Louis, MO 63104 Tel; 573-230-5874 Imwdem@gmail.com Attorney for Defendant Ford Certificate of Service Thereby certify that a true copy of the foregoing was served on January 4, 2020 on all counsel of record electronically via the Court's e-filing system. Jsl Leslve M. WinslowIN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE COUNTY OF ST. LOUIS STATE OF MISSOURI JAMES HOFT, et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) 2 ) Case No. 208L-CC05229 v. ) 5 ) Division 19 JACOB FORD, ) ) 2 Defendant. ) é DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE Defendant Ford requests this Court transfer venue to the Circuit Court for the City of St. Louis under Rule 51.045. Without waiving Defendant's challenges to personal jurisdiction and that Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted (separate motions filed), Plaintiff also fails to allege facts supporting their conclusory allegation that venue is proper in this circuit. Pet. 43. Section 508.010.5, RSMo, states that when there is a count alleging a tort, "and in which the plaintiff was first injured in the state of Missouri, venue shall be in the county where the plaintiff was first injured by the acts or conduct alleged in the petition.” Plaintiffs are residents of the City of St. Louis. Pet. 1. Defendant Ford is not a Missouri resident. Pet. 2. Plaintiff's Petition fails to allege where the injury occurred. The conduct is alleged to have taken place over the internet or via various social media platforms. St. Louis County is not even mentioned in the Petition.‘As the purported injury is to Plai Louis, and with no allegations whatsoever supporting an injury first occurring in St. Louis County, venue in this Circuit is improper. To the extent venue is appropriate in § fs, and they are residents of the City of St. any Missouri court, based on the allegations in the Petition, proper venue could only be in S the City of St, Louis. Defendant Ford respectfully requests this Court proceed under Rule 51.045 and order this case transferred to the Circuit Court for the City of St. Louis. Respectfully submitted, /s/ Khristine A. Heisinger Khristine A. Heisinger, No. 42584 329 Schumate Chapel Rd. Jefferson City, Missouri 65109 Tel. 573/690-9046 khrisheisinger@embarqmail.com (s/ Brad Ketcher Brad Ketcher, No. 37958 P.O. Box 190201 St, Louis, MO 63119 Tel. 314/259-1234 Fax 314/667-5664 brad@ketcher.com Attorneys for Defendant Ford Certificate of Service I certify that on this 3 day of December 2020, a true copy of the foregoing was served electronically via the Missouri Case.Net e-filing system on all counsel of record. ds Khristine A. HeisingerIN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE COUNTY OF ST. LOUIS STATE OF MISSOURI HOFT, etal., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) } Case No. 208L-CC05229 5 vy. ) 8 ) Division 19 3 JACOB FORD, ) ) Defendant, ) 8 DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF PERSONAL. JURISDICTION, OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM UPON WHICH RELIEF CAN BE GRANTED, AND SUGGESTIONS IN SUPPORT 1. INTRODUCTION As set forth in greater detail below, this Court cannot lawfully exercise personal jurisdiction over Defendant Ford and this case must be dismissed. Alternatively, the Petition does not state a claim upon which relief can be granted and should be dismissed. IL MISSOURI COURTS LACK PERSONAL JURISDICTION OVER DEFENDANT JACOB FORD A. Legal Standard In determining whether to grant Mr. Ford's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, this Court "must consider whether the allegations in the petition, if taken as true, establish facts adequate to invoke personal jurisdiction." Ingham v. Johnson & Johnson, No. ED 107476, slip op. at 19 (Mo. App. E.D. Jun. 23, 2020). "The allegations of the petition are given an intendment most favorable to the existence of the jurisdictional fact." Id.Applying this standard, Mr. Ford is a resident of New Jersey. There are no allegations regarding how Plaintiffs, or anyone else in Missouri for that matter, became aware of the alleged VineSight reports that are described in the Petition. The allegations in the Petition reference VineSight's website (Pet. Ex. 1) and "Marketing and Article Selections” found on the company's website (Pet. Ex. 2). Mr. Ford's name appears nowhere in the reports. Plaintiffs allege that Mr. Ford is an analyst with VineSight and “upon information and belief," had some role, perhaps an assisting role, in writing, producing, or publishing the reports. Aside from Mr, Ford's alleged role in the reports published on VineSight's website, again reading the allegations as required under the standard, Plaintiff allege that "Monopolist Platforms," including Google, Facebook and Instagram, censor content originating from GateWay Pundit based on VineSight reports. Plaintiffs also allege that unspecified "fact-checking entities" actively reference VineSight's reports, and "communicate to others" GateWay Pundit's lack of credibility. Plaintiffs provide no examples or specific allegations that either of these types of activities occurred. To subject a non-resident defendant to personal jurisdiction in Missouri courts, Plaintiffs must make a prima facie showing that (1) the cause of action arose out of an activity covered by Missouri's long-arm statute, § 506.500, RSMo; and (2) Mr. Ford had sufficient minimum contacts with Missouri to satisfy the requirements of due process. Johnson v, Arden, 614 F.3d 785, 794 (8th Cir. 2010); State ex rel. Cedar Crest Apartments, LLC y, Grate, 377 8.W.34 490, 493 (Mo. bane 2019). B. Plaintiffs‘ claims fail to allege a tortious act committed "within 2paps a Missouri," as required by Missouri's long-arm statute nis jurisdiction for torts ‘The Missouri long-arm statute confers Missouri courts uri committed within Missouri, § 506.500.1(3), RSMo (emphasis added). The Mi Supreme Court has decided that allegations such as in this case are not a "tortious act 5 within Missouri": The mere allegation that a website, accessible by internet users in every state in the country, published false or misleading statements cannot be enough to conclude the website owner acted tortiously within Missouri, To find specific jurisdiction under these facts would allow [defendant] - and virtually any other company with a website ~ to be sued in Missouri if its website was viewed by a party who believes it was aggrieved by the z information obtained. Such a result would open up Missouri courts to suits against companies who lack even negligible contacts with the state. In other words, it would essentially "resemble[ ] a loose and spurious form of general jurisdiction.” Bristol-Myers Squibb, 137 S.Ct. at 1781. This cannot be the proper result. State ex rel. PPG Industries, Inc. v. McShane, 560 8.W.3d 88, 893 (Mo. banc 2018). Due Process prohibits the exercise of personal jurisdiction over Mr. Ford In addition to the long-arm statute requirement, there is a due process prong that n requires that must be satisfied before personal jurisdiction attaches. General jurisdict the defendant has "continuous and systematic’ contacts with the forum state, even if the injuries at issue in the lawsuit did not arise out of the defendant's activities directed at the forum." Johnson, 614 F.3d at 794. Plaintiffs do not allege a single fact suggesting that Mr, Ford has had continuous and systematic contacts with Missouri; this Court cannot exercise authority over Mr. Ford via general jurisdiction. ‘A court may have specific jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant who has purposefully directed his activities at Missouri residents in a suit that arises out of or 3relates to these activities. Jd, at 795. The Eighth Circuit has adopted the Zippo test of whether a website can provide sufficient contacts for specific personal jurisdiction. Id. at 796. In Zippo Mfg. Co. v. Zippo Dot Com, Inc., the court addressed "situations where a defendant has simply posted information on an Internet Web site which is accessible to 'A passive Web site that does little more than users in foreign jurisdictions," stating, make information available to those who are interested in it is not grounds for the exercise of personal jurisdiction." 952 F.Supp. 1119, 1127 (W.D. Pa, 1997). ‘The Bighth Circuit agreed that mere posting on a website that is accessible in Missouri "is insufficient to confer personal jurisdiction." Johnson, 614 F.3d at 796. Although Missouri courts have not yet decided what due process standard should be applied in assessing personal jurisdiction based solely on internet contacts, Andra v. Left Gate Prop. Holding, Inc., 453 $.W.3d 216, 278 (Mo. bane 2015), this Court should consider Johnson as persuasive, especially considering the Missouri Supreme Court's decision in PPG Industries, disoussed above. Aside from reports being posted on VineSight's website, Plaintiffs’ claims rely on third parties accessing VineSight's reports and then acting on them. Nothing done by is for Google, Facebook, Instagram or unknown "fact-checking entities" can be the ba exercising personal jurisdiction over Mr. Ford. "It is well-established a plaintiff may not use the actions of a third party to satisfy the due process requirement of the specific personal jurisdiction analysis." State ex rel. LG Chem, Ltd. v. Laughlin, No. $C97971, slip op. at 7 (Mo. bane June 2, 2020). Plaintiffs do not allege that any action by the identified entities or the unidentified "fact-checking entities" was at the direction of Mr. 4Ford. "[FJoreseeability' alone has never been a sufficient benchmark for personal jurisdiction under the Due Process Clause." LG Chem, slip op. at 7 (quoting World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 295 (1980)). Actions, not simply expectations, must exist to give rise to personal jurisdiction. Id. , D. Conclusion Plaintiffs fail to allege facts that give rise to personal jurisdiction over Mr. Ford. Based on precedent in a case with similar facts, Plaintiff’ fail to plead facts to show that Mr. Ford committed a tortious act within Missouri. Exercising personal jurisdiction over Mr. Ford would also violate his due process rights. Based on lack of personal jurisdiction, this Court should dismiss this case. Il, PLAINTIFFS HAVE FAILED TO STATE A CLAIM UPON WHICH RELIEF CAN BE GRANTED Plaintiffs have asserted causes of action for libel and injurious falsehood, based on Defendant Jacob Ford's alleged authorship of reports issued by a company, VineSight, that described a number of posts by Plaintiff’ as "misinformation" and "fake news." Plaintiffs have failed, however, to allege any facts that would show that any of the posts described as misinformation or fake are actually true. Thus Plaintiffs have failed adequately to plead one of the central elements of any libel claim: that the statements alleged to be libelous were false. Further, Plaintiffs have failed to plead facts that would show they suffered any actual damages from the alleged libelous statements. For these reasons, Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, for either libel or injurious falsehood.A. Legal Standard Rule 55.27(a)(6) "allows a defendant to assert a plaintiff's '[fJailure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted’ by a motion to dismiss. This rule encourages early resolution in order to avoid the expense and delay of baseless claims and to promote judicial efficiency." Town and Country Appraisal, LLC v. Hart, 244 $.W.3d 187, 189 (Mo. App. E.D. 2007). Such a motion to dismiss "is solely a test of the adequacy of the petition." Bromwell v, Nixon, 361 8.W.3d 393, 398 (Mo. bane 2012). The court reviews the petition "to determine if the facts alleged meet the elements of a recognized cause of action, or of a cause that might be adopted in that case." City of Lake Saint Louis v City of O'Fallon, 324 8.W.3d 756, 759 (Mo. banc 2010) (internal quotation omitted). The "Missouri rules of civil procedure require fact pleading." State ex re. Harvey v. Wells, 955 $.W.2d 546, 547 (Mo, banc 1997). Rule 55.05(1) requires a "short and plain statement of the facts showing that the pleader is entitled to relief..." ‘That requirement means that a "petition must contain allegations of fact in support of each essential element of the sought to be pleaded." Sparks v. PNC Bank, 400 8.W.3d 454,460 (Mo. App. E.D. 2013). The rules “demand more than mere conclusions that the pleader alleges without supporting facts.” Zafer Chiropractic & Sports Injuries, P.A. ¥. Hermann, 501 $.W.3d 545, 549 (Mo. App. E.D. 2016) (quoting Transit Cas. Co. ex rel Pulitzer Publishing Co. v. Transit Cas. Co. ex rel. Intervening Employees, 43 $.W.3d 293, 302 (Mo. bane 2001). B. Plaintiffs Have Failed to Plead Any Facts Showing Falsity or Actual 6Damages "[T]o prevail on a defamation claim,’ both public-figure and private-figure plaintiff's must prove '1) publication, 2) of a defamatory statement, 3) that identifies the plaintiff, 4) that is false, 5) that is published with the requisite degree of fault, and 6) damages the plaintiff's reputation." Smith v. Humane Society of the U.S., 519 $.W.3d 789, 798 (Mo. bane 2017) (quoting Farrow v. Saint Francis Med. Ctr., 407 $.W.3d 579, 598-99 (Mo. bane 2013). Similarly, “the elements of both injurious falsehood and defamation of public figures... require a plaintiff to prove by clear and convineing evidence that the statement at issue is false." Wandersee v. BP Products North America, Inc., 263 8.W.3d 623, 632 (Mo. bane 2008). And "{tJo prove the element of causation in a claim for injurious falsehood, a plaintiff must show that the defendant's false statement caused plaintiff's pecuniary loss." Jd. at 630. Plaintiffs in this case allege no facts at all that would establish either falsity or actual damages/pecuniary loss. () _ Falsity. Plaintiffs allege that VineSight's claim that its algorithm is able to detect misinformation "is a lie." Petition {16(a). VineSight is not a defendant in the action. Plaintiffs also cite VineSight reports allegedly authored in whole or in part by Defendant Ford, that state that a number of posts by Plaintififs on Twitter and Facebook were "misinformation" or "fake news." Petition §{16, 20.