Beneficiary of Fake DMCA:
- Spitfire Aviation
- Perjury, Impersonation, Identity-theft, Misrepresentation
Fake Link/Website Used:
- David Goehst
Date of Submission:
- May 03, 2017
- November 29, 2017
ANALYZING THE FAKE DMCA
Let us analyze this fake DMCA –
The DMCA filed by ‘David Goehst‘ states that his article published at whatinfo.net, was republished without his consent by Independent.com and a couple of other websites.
Of course, Independent.com would copy David Goehst’s article because he is such an amazing writer. It seems that last time, Ripoff Report copied his article which we wrote about – http://webactivism.com/andy-manalis-investigation-fraud-impersonation-perjury-fake-dmca-1179687/
He needs to be vigilant, since there are 4 more (fake) DMCAs filed by him. It seems everybody is copying his artful articles –
David Goehst is currently being investigated by DOJ and should soon become very famous 🙂
SO WHAT WERE THEY TRYING TO HIDE ?
This article, originally published at Independent.com (and now removed due to the fake DMCA –
Spitfire Aviation Owner Sentenced in Insurance-Fraud Scheme
Secret Flight and False Claim Lands Andrea Read in Legal Trouble
The owner and operator of Spitfire Aviation flight school at the Santa Barbara Airport was sentenced last month to three years of probation for helping orchestrate an insurance-fraud scheme involving one of the school’s planes. Andrea Read pleaded no contest to “accessory after the fact,” which prosecutors say is “a crime of moral turpitude” that could affect her business and pilot’s licenses.
The sequence of events and Read’s involvement are detailed in a 15-page report written by an investigator with the California Department of Insurance, who notes that Read refused to cooperate with authorities and likely doctored and deleted incriminating data from her office computer before it could be viewed by National Transportation Safety Board agents.
Anita Rodriquez told investigators that on July 1, 2009, she was flying a Cessna 172 rented from Spitfire when she had a hard landing at Page Airport in Arizona. Though a mechanic there gave her the all-clear to fly after a quick inspection of the plane, when the Cessna returned home to Santa Barbara it was discovered that the impact actually caused more than $40,000 of internal damage. The aircraft would remain grounded over the next few months. Rodriguez said Spitfire never told her to buy renter’s insurance and didn’t have any at the time.
When Read learned of the incident and the damage, according to the report, she told Rodriquez on July 13 to meet her at Spitfire’s hangar, where she ordered Rodriquez to purchase her own liability policy. Read said they would wait a few weeks before filing a claim against that policy instead of Spitfire’s. Rodriquez told investigators she was “intimidated” and “coerced” by Read and Spitfire maintenance supervisor Glenn Fuller to go along with the ruse and reportedly did so out of a fear of retaliation. Shortly after, she purchased a $50,000 ADL (aircraft damage liability) policy through Avemco Insurance Company.
On the night of August 12, nearly six weeks after the hard landing, Rodriquez again met Read at the hangar. The plan was to take a different Cessna up for a short flight and say the hard landing took place then. According to investigators, Read picked a particularly dark and foggy night so the airport’s control tower wouldn’t be able to see the dummy plane’s tail number. Read then reportedly manipulated the damaged plane’s Tachometer and Hobbs meter records to reflect the flight. Neither the control tower nor the FAAwere notified of the supposed incident that night.
The next day, the investigator’s report states, Rodriquez filed her claim with Avemco and later received “word-for-word” instructions from Read and Fuller on how to complete the forms. Before Avemco issued any funds, one of Spitfire’s mechanics notified the company that the claim was likely fraudulent. Soon after, Rodriquez withdrew her claim, but by that time, the NTSBand the California Department of Insurance had become involved. After the agencies completed their investigations, they forwarded the case to the Santa Barbara District Attorney’s Office, which admonished Read for taking a cross-country flight in the midst of prosecution after she was specifically ordered to remain in the county.
Rodriquez, Fuller, and a Spitfire mechanic named Christopher Forester testified against Read and pleaded no contest to minor misdemeanor charges for their roles in the scheme. After a related court hearing, Read’s girlfriend reportedly accosted one of the involved parties and is now being investigated for witness intimidation. Fuller and Read are currently embroiled in a bitter contract dispute. That case is scheduled to go to trial in October. Since 2004, Read has been part of 15 separate lawsuits, mostly as a plaintiff in property-related complaints.
Read declined to comment on her insurance-fraud case and referred all questions to defense attorney Doug Hayes. Hayes placed much of the blame on Rodriquez, claiming she was a Spitfire employee at the time of the scam and that she took the Cessna she damaged without permission. Hayes said it was Rodriquez who masterminded the fraud.
Hayes asserted that Read did nothing wrong, and that the late-night flight was taken just to check the aircraft for any mechanical issues. He said the only reason Read pleaded no contest to her accessory charge was because she originally faced five felony counts and he didn’t want to take a chance with a jury. Of Read’s refusal to talk with with authorities, Hayes said that he had simply given her “properly lawyer advice that you don’t cooperate with anybody.”
WHAT IS A FAKE DMCA AND WHY ARE WE LISTED HERE ?
Soon after we published the first set of our investigation reports on fake DMCAs, we managed to generate interest from online media such as Techdirt, Adweek and Huffington Post. Some of the key stories included our revelations on Torrence Boone , MoneyLife.in, Julia Scelfo and aReputation. We also shared unpublished data and information with 3 different law agencies who looked into this scam.
And we got results. We dented this fake DMCA industry and made sure we act as deterrent to the rogue reputation firms indulged in these criminal practices. Here are some of the outcomes and changes we made possible with the help of several other citizen lawyers and agencies –
- Ripoff Report wipes out Google (fake) Removals with a stroke of genius ! Thank you Ed – at webactivism.com
- Court finds evidence of ‘fraud on the Court’ in one of the missing-defendant libel takedown cases – at washingtonpost.com
- Default judgment aimed at deindexing apparently accurate information about person convicted of sex offense – at washingtonpost.com
- Panic and desperation getting the better of rogue reputation services – at webactivism.com
- Google still deindexing some material found by courts to be defamatory — but it’s being more skeptical – at washingtonpost.com
- Google Apparently No Longer Humoring Court Orders To Delist Defamatory Content – at techdirt.com
- Paul Levy Discovers Head Of Reputation Management Company Signed Off On Forged/Fraudulent Court Docs – at techdirt.com
- Filing Bogus Lawsuits As Part Of A ‘Reputation Management’ Strategy Costs Firm $71,000 – at techdirt.com
- Richart Ruddie Settles anti-SLAPP Claims, Makes Restitution; but the Guilty Companies Remain Unpunished – at typepad.com
- Who Filed Fake Copyright Infringement Complaints Against AgencySpy? – at adweek.com
- The Dark Art of Fake DMCA Takedown Requests – at huffingtonpost.com
Fake Fraudulent DMCA might seem inconspicuous, until its you at the receiving end of this crime. This is not a prank. This is not an inconvenience. This is not random. These fake DMCA cases are calculated criminal schemes targeting very specific and rather important information/content. These hitjobs are usually against media, in order to help their clients hide important information from public’s eye, all in the name of Reputation Management. Millions of dollars are spent doing this, and if no one wants to bring this topic to the fore, we will.
Our team will not constantly monitor and publish these reports on a DAILY basis without fail. And we do not plan to publish and forget. We will take constructive steps in order to expose the faces behind this scam, and to try and undo the damages. AND IF YOU INDEED PART OF THIS SCAM, WE WILL ENSURE THAT YOU GET WHAT’S COMING YOUR WAY.