Oh my.

I am completely not on Suzzette's side here or anything of the such but like someone said, a little bit of mercy?
I'm not saying that actions shouldn't be taken but suing her or her parents (who probably have no idea as to what happened) is very very very very much extreme.

Jusun should definitely have a very long chat with her before proceeding to legal battles.

Maaaaan. This is serious.

While I am fairly new I would like to offer my suggestions and opinions in the matter. I did not know Suzette at all, I spoke to her through PM a few times, while she welcomed me to the boards (which was nice) but other then that, I haven't had a lot of conversations with any one else. I do like several of you guys, so know this entire post is based on looking at it from a lawyers son's perspective, not as someone who spoke with Suzette, meaning this post is completely unbiased.

I will start off by saying, that Suzette should be held accountable for her actions, and while I wish that the court system was better able to handle such situations, I'm afraid there is not much anyone will be able to do.

1.) The main concern with pressing charges against Suzette is that she is in fact a minor, at 17, charges brought up towards a minor, result in nothing more then putting her on probation, this is if the minor committed a actual crime (internet crimes...differ) (unless held accountable for more then 1 charge, such as Marijuana, Probation Breach, etc.) The area between justice and putting trust in someone is even more Grey when it comes to internet relations. Especially when the workers here at Create Blog, were not paid for there services (If they are paid, then my mistake.) This becomes more so a hobby and or organization then it does "work area." The only reason I bring this up is because of where I currently work and the legal jargon we went through after having a customer switch the prices on the "Replica Lightsabers" receiving it for 19.99 not 109.99.... (long story)

2.) As 1 other member had stated, unless Suzette signed or "clicked agree" to some administrator statement where she complied to agree that such actions (as she took) were against the rules, and could result in immediate dismissal or possibly even criminal charges, you really don't have a case. Because all she has to do is basically say...you shouldn't have put that much trust in a person.

3.) Also if there is no Staff Agreement Policy, then (while I'm not advocating what they did) anyone involved with the links to staff conversations, and "chat logs" can not be held accountable for either. Meaning anyone who lost their job, has the right to have it back. The only reason I say this, is because if we're basing everything on Legal terms...then what makes what they did any different from what Suzette did,based on technicality not efficiency of the site.

You can try to bring up charges that challenged the integrity of the site, but like I said without User Agreements... it was just a mistake to put so much trust in her.

My suggestion: Give everyone there job back, and instead of ranting about how Suzette did a horrible job..everyone work together to make it better now that she's gone. Its honestly the only efficient thing that can be done, without involving Lawyers..but unless you feel you have a strong enough case, I suggest dropping any thought of bringing the Judicial System into this matter.

Regards,
Matt

Sorry, my dad is a Litigation Lawyer... sometimes writing this much over particular subjects becomes instinct.

Haha, yay for being a lawyer's son. My mom's a contractual lawyer .

Regardless. Yeah I brought up the whole user agreement or TOS thing, but I do believe that there could be other charges taken against her based on evidence of chat logs, though they might have to be analyzed if Suzzette denies them to check for legitimacy.

Regarding the whole returning of jobs on staff, a number of us voluntarily stepped down and didn't leave because we were forced to or anything like that. Also, you're correct in assuming that we don't get paid, strictly voluntary :D

Ju-sun isn't on a hunt to ruin Suzzette's life. More is discussed in last night's chat, but again, I'll let Ju-sun be the one to post, unless he says someone else can do it. Don't know if he wants to do it in a certain fashion

Even if she didn't sign a TOS or user agreement, motivations and intellectual arguments can be made, and people can be prosecuted based on that, though it's much harder to do.

you dont sign contracts that say you're not going to burn all the books in the library.

Its nice to see that your actually a lawyer's son, and not trying to sound smart by making up a bunch of facts. You are absolutely right that there are other grounds, but just like with any case, (especially Internet Relations) without circumstantial evidence, a lawyer won't even look at the charges. With it being circumstantial, once again without a TOS, chances of a case actually going to court, regardless of whether or not it settles before the hearing, is slim to none. Especially when Internet Cases still revolve around the Counterfeit Access Device and Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1984.

I was involved with a case against (Degrassi Fan-Site Owners...don't judge me) where one staff hacked into the database and stole credit card information from members that was on file, for VIP access to the site and forums... Even though it involved financial liability, and a signed contract that stated such actions could result in criminal charges..the judge threw the case out because of lack of any direct evidence. The only evidence he had was a ICQ chat log, that wasn't accurate enough due to the fact that it could have been tampered with and or inaccurate information.

The only beacon of hope I am seeing with a possibility of a case, is as 1 member stated the Patriot Act, that does in fact carry over to the internet. Which yet again, if he feels that strongly towards her actions... its definitely a possibility, but know that it wont be an easy battle, especially if Suzette fights back.



Your correct, but they would get you for Destruction of Property. Which could be worse, depending on what contractual agreement you did sign.

But blowing up a website and blowing up a building are a tad different haha.

There's a bunch of financial backings with this website. I'm no lawyer, but I'm pretty sure if it hurts the income from advertising or something along those lines, that would be grounds.

Good point, but the question is would it be enough grounds to persecute? And lets say this goes to a court without a Jury... what lawyer would take the case. and without a TOS, wouldn't any charge of Finances still be slim to none to actually provoke a settlement.

Idno, I'm not a lawyer, nor do I know anything about that area.

its destruction of intellectual property.

what if i came into a writers house, and deleted their entire draft of their novel off their computer? i didnt exactly sign any contracts before walking through the door.

Lol, when it comes to civil court matters, that actually make it to court, I barely know nothing as well, mostly everything I've heard and picked up from my dad and with him being a Litigation Lawyer, he likes it when both parties can make a settlement, lol. I am just bringing up these questions because even though its a matter of she wrecked the site, its back up running now, so most charges that would be dropped would be on account that they are out of personal reasons, not legal ones.

This is enough legal talk for me, it was nice though talking to someone who wasn't just like, "Lets burn her house down!" Good to see the legal side take response before the personal,even though there was that whole staff forums leak thing... I hope we both have provoked micron to critically think about his next move..I would hate for it to be a bad one.



Your very correct, however while it is a good analogy, look at the case he would present:(in a nutshell) "Suzette wrecked the forums, which by the way are up and running again." While I would hope a writer would have notes of some sort for a backup, its not necessarily the case that is being presented here at CB. Also back to the writer, if there work was deleted, and he didn't know who it was but had the email address of who did it... without the Patriot Act there is no grounds to persecute on. Even though good people out there are honest with there horrible decisions...it doesn't mean the people in the court will see it that way...what if her motivation for crashing the forums, was instigated by the chat logs and staff forums that were leaked to the members? Then the blame isn't direct evidence but psychological abuse, which can also be persecuted.. I understand the point your making, and I completely agree. but with all cases, including this one...there are to many variables to present a strong enough case to convince a judge.

Deleted..

smart people, smart people I still think he should take it up in court and get something out of. An apology at least.

In response to your saying she wrecked the forums, but they're back up:

They're back up because a lot of time was poured into the resurrection of them. Also, not everything was recovered, and members lost the ability to search for their old posts. There was an entire day where there were no forums, and I believe Jusun spent the entire day trying to fix it.

I don't think he should involve the law. I think he should call her parents up and tell them that he might sue them unless he gets an apology. Now, that would scare her and them.

But that's up to him

what would an apology do? It just words.

He could sue her for abusing her power.

No he couldn't. OMG SHE ABUSED HER POWERS ON A FORUM!
It's what she did, not the fact that she abused powers on a forum.

Well, yeah. It's up to Jusun but we're all making up scenarios.

If not an apology, then something else. I definitely do not think he should let this slide.

(I am hating playing Devils Advocate..but better a 19 year old member question these possibilities before a 30+ year old lawyer grill someone with them)

True, but once again legally speaking with the issue of Finance. Since the members don't pay a subscription or vip access fee, what harm was done other then members couldn't post on the boards. I would like to say such grounds would be enough for a possible suit, but I am afraid even though it was gone and even though some parts are not working completely, I'm afraid the urgency of the matter is not high enough, especially with the only grounds being, Time was lost getting the forums back.. I wish it was enough..but looking at it from the defendant's lawyer viewpoint.. they have enough to overrule and throw out... the truth of the matter is, what urgency does this case have over others..and what type of money is willing to be spent persecuting a minor.



Yea it's definitely up to him, but since he did open the discussion to public forum, someone has to play devils advocate and say...ok but what about this.. its one thing to hire a lawyer and press charges..but its another to lose a case, and have the person responsible walk away clean, then under double jeopardy laws, you can't persecute her again, meaning based on Judicial Law she just justified her actions... which is not what anyone wants.



I wish that were possible, however as Steven said... its not the powers she abused...and once again without a TOS that won't stand a chance in court.

I'm pretty damn skippy that Jusun has another job so what about the time and money hes lost from his regular job to put effort into restoring the forums back to the public?


Actually, I think I recall (from when I was a Staff Member), That in Backstage there are two topics. One for introductory for new mods and the second on how to work the functions and rules. I know for a fact that we were required to read the rules and take them into understanding. If I recall, It noted that if we broke certain ones there would be consequences. And I also do believe (not totally sure) that we had to respond in a topic saying "I Agree" or something. Now I'm just trying to recall what I remember so this might not be totally accurate, but if it helps ask another current staff (head staff or admin) about it.

Your right Lucy Theres is moderator rules/guidelines that we have to abide by

But although see theres no where that says we have to accept to them or anything o_O


well user agreement:

then all this other stuff, and then the last part is this:

T-T Isn't abide mean fallow? Obviously she didn't fallow them... >_>

I mean come on, its also common sense. I consider Law funny these days.

Yea of course, your supposed to follow em. And I'm pretty sure she read em.

But doesn't it say at least some actions may be taken if not fallowed or broken?

I'll just post a part of that said it, I mean if someone has a problem with me putting this up here from backstage...PM me >_>

I think it's time to update that if you guys haven't thought of it already. Or making some new agreement so if this ever happens again, you'd have something on them.

Yep
or change up the terms of service if it doesn't already have something about this.

I decided to go through the TOS that we all have to agree to when signing up and I found a couple of things so take a look.

From beginging
CreateBlog expressly reserves the right to remove your profile and/or restrict, suspend, or terminate your access to any part of the Service if CreateBlog determines, in its sole discretion, that you pose a threat to CreateBlog and/or its Users.
I remember reading one of Sammi's (I believe it was Sammi) post stating that she had received PMs from Suzzette saying "The things I could do..." or something. Couldn't that be considered as a threat? Also if she had mentioned anything of her plot/plan of dumping the forum, wouldn't that be a threat?

From Section 7
The following is a partial list of the kind of activity that is illegal or prohibited on the Website and through your use of the Service. CreateBlog reserves the right to investigate and take appropriate legal action against anyone who, in CreateBlog�s sole discretion, violates this provision, including without limitation, reporting you to law enforcement authorities. Prohibited activity includes, but is not limited to:

15. criminal or tortious activity, including child pornography, fraud, trafficking in obscene material, drug dealing, gambling, harassment, stalking, spamming, spimming, sending of viruses or other harmful files, copyright infringement, patent infringement, or theft of trade secrets;
16. advertising to, or solicitation of, any Member to buy or sell any products or services through the Service. You may not transmit any chain letters or junk email to other Members. It is also a violation of these rules to use any information obtained from the Service in order to contact, advertise to, solicit, or sell to any Member without their prior explicit consent. In order to protect our Members from such advertising or solicitation, CreateBlog reserves the right to restrict the number of emails which a Member may send to other Members in any 24-hour period to a number which CreateBlog deems appropriate in its sole discretion. If you breach this Agreement and send unsolicited bulk email, instant messages or other unsolicited communications of any kind through the Service, you acknowledge that you will have caused substantial harm to CreateBlog, but that the amount of such harm would be extremely difficult to ascertain. As a reasonable estimation of such harm, you agree to pay CreateBlog $50 for each such unsolicited email or other unsolicited communication you send through the Service;
17. covering or obscuring the banner advertisements on your personal profile page, or any CreateBlog page via HTML/CSS or any other means;
18. any automated use of the system, such as using scripts to add friends or send comments or messages;
19. interfering with, disrupting, or creating an undue burden on the Service or the networks or services connected to the Service;
20. attempting to impersonate another Member or person;
21. using the account, username, or password of another Member at any time or disclosing your password to any third party or permitting any third party to access your account;
22. selling or otherwise transferring your profile;
23. using any information obtained from the Service in order to harass, abuse, or harm another person;
24. displaying an advertisement on your profile, or accepting payment or anything of value from a third person in exchange for your performing any commercial activity on or through the Service on behalf of that person, such as placing commercial content on your profile, posting blogs or bulletins with a commercial purpose, selecting a profile with a commercial purpose as one of your "Top 8" friends, or sending private messages with a commercial purpose; or
25. using the Service in a manner inconsistent with any and all applicable laws and regulations.

I think the forums were pretty damn disrupted.

Agreeing to these terms when creating an account
I HAVE READ THIS AGREEMENT AND AGREE TO ALL OF THE PROVISIONS CONTAINED ABOVE.

Obviously she agreed to these terms since she would of not of been able to create an account. If she didn't read them, well then she basically screwed herself over.


I'm still looking within the TOS to see if I can find anything else, I'll keep you updated.

Thanks Lucy for taking the time to do this

Haha, no problem. I'm still looking through it though, so I may come across some more information, although those were the two major points that I did come across.

Oh wow. Those say a lot.

Depending on state they may try you at 17 as an adult.
In most states after 16 is when you begin to try people as adults especially for things like vandalism.But then again this is the internet so it varys.

because Suzette never actually signed a contract and was never officially employed by jusun, it will be virtually impossible to find a charge that will stick. Plus, its not like Suzette went by her full name around here. Because of that you would have a hard time proving in any court that that Suzette is the same one from cB (even though we all know that she is).

it doesn't have to go to court. You can have a hearing with the judge (no jury). The judge will decide.

its still in court without a jury.

This case will never need to make it to a jury. Its just not significant enough, no offense.

really?

if theres a judge involved, then yes.

they could easily settle on their own though.

This is exactly the action that needs to be taken. While bringing lawyers into the mix would be most likely a bad idea, this is something that can prevent this from happening again, and also save everyones butt for if it does happen again. An efficient solution, that requires no legal jargon, other then what is added, to take place.



Good point, but even at 16, criminal charges involving internet relations, is still hard to hold up in court. Most internet charges are either "hacking" or credit card fraud. There is not a lot of passion towards finding the proper justice for when websites are attacked by internal staff. This is already iffy with her being 17, it makes things worse that its a charge over the internet.



Point well made, and not only that but with internet issues, the same question of accuracy follows even the smallest accounts, such as CB user profiles, IP address's (especially if she is on AOL, because the most IPs are the same.. which is why its difficult to IP BAN someone on those) and even email accounts.

I think there are enough supporting claims here, as to why its a bad idea to involve lawyers. Its nice to see others agree based on Legal Terms..not personal preference.

Yeah, it would be one thing if she like...hacked an Admin's account and did all this. But we hired her. It's our fault. We gave her the capability to do this.

Yes... but she did agree to the terms of service.


Hold on, I'm probably going to edit this.

I'm pretty sure it's wrong to deface websites, whether or not you hacked in to the site or were given permission to do so.

yes. you agree upon registering, don't you?

^ Yeah.


oh by the way:
This Terms of Use Agreement ("Agreement") sets forth the legally binding terms for your use of the Service. By using the Service, you agree to be bound by this Agreement, whether you are a "Visitor" (which means that you simply browse the Website) or you are a "Member" (which means that you have registered with CreateBlog).

wtfpwned.

but theres no way to prove with any certainty that suzette is who we say she is in real life.

she's posted pictures of herself, hasnt she? also, jusun has her IP. i duno if that matters.

Well not to sound like a smart mouth or anything but I'm pretty sure we know its her. Well we do know what high school she attends, correct? If so, then you have a way of locating where she is. They could call local police and notify them. If they open an investigation, then they'd probably look at her computer and viola! you'd probably see createblog in her history, or cookies, etc. Yeah she could of deleted them, but theres always a way to find out. :)

And yes, the IP would help as well.


By the way, if its not the "Real" Suzzette Van Lare, then we can use information to locate the person and not only have them damaging/disrupting/tampering with the forums but also with internet fraud. Which is also mentioned in the TOS, I believe. Hold on. >_>

I'm not saying that we're not sure that that's her. We know it is. I'm saying that it probably won't hold up in court. If anyone has her phone number though that will definitely help.
And her going to createblog is totally circumstantial.

Ah Yes, it states here as well:
From Section 1
(a) all registration information you submit is truthful and accurate; (b) you will maintain the accuracy of such information;

From Section 7
14. includes a photograph of another person that you have posted without that person's consent.

Another thing:
From Section 7
CreateBlog reserves the right to investigate and take appropriate legal action against anyone who, in Createblog�s sole discretion, violates this provision, including without limitation, removing the offending communication from the Service and terminating the Membership of such violators.

not trying to burst the bubble but IPs can change.... so if hers is still the same it can help but i wouldn't put much into that



but info provided by people who really know her can prove useful


oh wow fraud too? insane

all evidence is circumstantial. a video of someone murdering another person is circumstantial.