Jenny Frankfurt particulars of claim

IN THE CENTRAL LONDON

COUNTY COURT

CLAIM NO. 3CL02233

Between

JENNY FRANKFURT

and

PARTICULARS OF CLAIM

SIMON M . SMITH SOLICITOR ADVOCATE 92A HIGH STREET TI LLICOULTRY CLACKMANNANSHIRE FK13 6DY

Tel : 01259 752478 Fax: 01259 750415 Ref: SS/F03.01

Solicitors for the Claimant

Claimant

Defen dant

Jenny Frankfurt - Particulars of Claim

Page 1 of 15

IN THE CENTRAL LONDON COUNTY COURT

CLAIM NO. 3CL02233

BETWEEN

JENNY FRANKFURT

Claimant

-v-

Defendant

PARTICULARS OF CLAIM

The Parties

1. The Claimant is a private individual resident in Los Angeles.

2. The Defendant is a privat e individual residen t in London.

The Claim in Summary

3. The Claimant seeks in these proceedings damages and an Injunction under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 arising from the acts of publication

by the Defendant and continued publication by him on a daily basis of a blog

concerning her which seeks to damage her reputation and causes her

considerable alarm and distress, and the acts of the publication by the

Defendant of Tweet messages seeking to publish the existence of the blog

and encouraging third parties to read it and to re-Tweet it a link to it and

thereby publicise it to others who may wish to read it.


Page 2 of 15

4. Should these proceedings continue, the Claimant intends to amend her Claim

and these Particulars of Claim to seek damages for the separate causes of

action of Invasion of Privacy (contrary to the Claimant's right under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights as enshrined in the Human

Rights Act 1998) and Infringement of Copyright (in respect of the various messages sent by the Claimant to the Defendant and a sound recording of a

voicemail message left by the Claimant on the Defendant's mobile phone

which the Defendant published on the blog in dispute). When it became clear that the Defendant intended to go ahead with the publication of his blog, the

Claimant sent an email to him making clear that he did not have her

permission to publish any of her texts or emails wh ich she had privately sent

to him, yet he published them in flagrant disregard of that lack of consent in

any event.

The Background to the Dispute

5. The Claimant has never met with the Defendant. She came to know the

Defendant through Twitter and has spoken to him briefly and exchanged

messages on an intermittent basis over the years. To that extent only, they

formed a friendship.

6. The Claimant candidly accepts that out of boredom she created a false

account on Twitter, that is to say not one in her true identity. There is nothing

illegal in this, nor is it necessarily uncommon, the Defendant himself having

done so (as to which reference will be made below in paragraph 24 of these Particulars of Claim). Due to their friendship, the Claimant knew that the Defendant was out of work at the time and was looking for employment.

Although she now regrets doing so, she thought that she would offer him a

fake job under the false alias in order to improve his self-esteem, as she saw it. She now realises this was a wrong thing to do, but it was not done w ith the

intent to upset the Defendant. In the event, although the fake job had been


Page 3 of 15

alluded to in the exchanges between the Claimant (under her false alias) and ~he Defendant, the position of employment was not in fact offered, the

Claimant having made clear that the was unlikely to get the job. The Claimant has sincerely apologised on many occasions to the Defendant for this error of

judgment on her part.

7. After investigating the position, the Defendant, who was understandably

angry, managed to identify the Claimant as being behind the false alias. At

first the Claimant denied that she was behind the false alias out of a sense of

embarrassment, but eventually accepted that she was behind the false alias.

The Claimant did so after the Defendant threatened to reveal what he

suspected she had done to his friends and the internet community generally,

and also after the Defendant threatened to reveal the false alias to a client of

the Claimant's. After the Claimant deleted her false alias account, the

Defendant nevertheless proceeded to carry out his threat and revealed the

false alias to the Claimant's client, as a result of which the Claimant was fired

by the client.

8. In a series of disturbing text messages from the Defendant to the Claimant in

the 4-5 weeks prior to the publishing by the Defendant to the internet of the

blog in dispute, in what amounted to clear malicious communications under

the Malicious Communications Act 1988, the Defendant made threats to

inter alia cause physical harm to the Claimant and her son; made negative

reference to her mental and emotional state; and went so far as to accuse

her of wanting to kill her son and his friends at camp. The Defendant also

threatened in his text messages to publish a blog on the internet revealing

what the Claimant had done so as to damage and destroy her reputation.

9. On 5 th August 2013, therefore, the Claimant emailed the Defendant to say, "I

filed charges against you for harassment (via text) with the Los Angeles Police Department... My lawyer is also prepared to beef this up with a lawsuit based

on the harassing, violent, emotionally and physically distressing texts you


Page 4 of 15

have sent me and a cease and desist order regarding anything you write

stalker/, where it remains. A copy of the blog is attached as the Annexure to

~hese Particulars of Claim.

13. In posting text exchanges between himself and the Claimant to his blog, the

Defendant opted to edit certain texts so as to remove his said threats to the

Claimant from their content.

14. The blog accuses the Claimant of being a 'Cyber-stalker' towards the

Defendant and of harassing him. The Claimant denies both charges. The facts

and admissions as pleaded in Paragraph 6 of these Particulars of Claim do not

support or justify the making of either allegation. For the avoidance of doubt, the Claimant does not accept the majority of the truth of what the blog asserts about her. Importantly, the truth or falsity of the content of the

Defendant's blog is entirely irrelevant to the question of harassment in these

proceedings and serves as no defence whatsoever to the claim as pleaded.

15. Whilst the Claimant has at no stage denied the right of the Defendant to be

angry with her for her misjudgment and actions, she nevertheless contends that the Defendant's reaction has been wholly disproportionate in seeking to

cause considerable alarm and distress to her and damage to her reputation,

including unwarranted threats of vio lence towards her. The Defendant has

embarked upon a course of misguided revenge which far from its stated aim

of seeking to protect others from the Claimant (the Defendant having published a Tweet on 29lh July 2013 prior to publication of the blog in

dispute, reading "[I have to do it) If only so other people have a warning1'), has set about quite deliberately and cynical ly to cause maximum alarm and

distress to the Claimant and harm to her reputation .

16. The Defendant then actively sought to publicise the existence of his blog. For

instance, as follows:


Page 6 of 15

- ("CityJohn@Twitter") -13.08.13 - "The woeful tale of Jenny Frankfurt, my internet stalker. Now with added voicemail and troll shaming! Please

RT" [ie Re-Tweet] [together with a link to the Defendant's blog"]; and - ("CityJohn@Twitter") -14.08.13 - "Here's the direct link to the really, really interesting comment on my Jenny Frankfurt stalker blog [together with link to the Defendant's blog].

17. On 31~t August 2013, the Claimant 's solicitors wrote a letter to the Defendant, marked 'confidential', asking that he cease and desist from his

campaign and immediately disable the blog. The letter included the

following, "Whatever justification you consider you have for publishing the attack upon our client, there is no justification in law. We invite you to disable the blog on the basis of no admission of liability. Should you decline

to do so, this will be rel ied upon as Aggravation in legal proceedings that will

then follow." Rather than take up that reasonable suggestion so as to avoid

the necessity of legal proceedings, the Defendant instead posted the

confidential letter to his blog, where it remains and which he continues to

publish. He then immediately set about actively publ icising his blog again,

making reference to the inclusion of the Claimant's solicitors' letter, in his

various Tweets and encouraged others to do likewise, including his girlfriend

or partner.

18. As a direct consequence, and having been left by the Defendant with no

other option, legal proceedings were issued by the Claimant and served upon

the Defendant by email on 11th September 2013, the Defendant having

chosen to accept service by email of proceedings having refused to divulge

his postal address.

19. On 14th September 2013, the Claimant emailed the Defendant as follows

(directly copying that email to the Claimant's father), "John, I am asking that you please take the blog down. You've had it up for over a month and it's

nicely done the job you wanted to. I am suicidal and am putting my affairs in


Page 7 of 15

order to kill myself. I cannot get a job, I am taunted daily by you and yovr acolytes. I have no money now and a child I cannot care for. I don't care what

you think of me. I am sorry I hurt you. The situation was not about you as I

told you many times. Nonetheless, this is not a lie or a meaningless threat.

You have, I assume, done what you wanted to do. Congratulations. My son's

name is Teddy. While I have had other depressive issues this has put me over

the top. Please take it down. I am asking kindly and nicely. It's time to move

on now. My attorney and father are copied on this letter." The Defendant's

reaction was to ignore that email and to continue to publish the blog in

dispute.

20. The following day, on 15th September 2013, and without prompting or prior

notice to the Claimant, the Claimant's father chose out of obvious and sincere

parental concern to email the Defendant direct. He said as follows, "I can only

plead with you ... I can do no less than beg with you" to relent. He referred to

his daughter's "authentically suicidal depression, by which I am terrified". He

added, "She has no job, and she fears that your blog about her will make it impossible for her to find one. And her distress at the situation is significantly

impairing her ability (she is a single mother) to care for her five year-old son. It seems to her, quite vividly I'm afraid, that your blog is running her life".

Alarmingly, and to the Defendant's considerable discredit, the Defendarnt

chose to ignore that plea for several days knowing that by doing so the

Claimant's father's concern would unnecessarily be exacerbated.

21. Some four days later on 19th September 2013, the Defendant chose to reply

to the Claimant's father, as follows, "Thank you for your concerned email. I

am afraid that I am not in a position to take the blog down due to the

continued threat of litigation against me ... You will note that her 'suicidal'

email to me failed to mention this. I cannot and will not correspond with you

further until the prospective litigation is concluded." The Claimant notes with

disdain and relies upon in aggravation the dismissive reference, in the

Defendant's own parenthesis so as to reject its sincerity, to the word


Page 8 of 15

'suicidal'. The Defendant's refusal to take the blog down entirely ignored the

request made in the Claimant's solicitor's initial letter of 31st August 2013, as

pleaded at paragraph 16 above, that he could do so on the basis of no

admission of liability.

22. The Defendant has boasted with satisfaction on his Twitter account of the

number of 'hits' or 'views' to his blog, and actively incites and encourages

those reading it or following his Tweets to further publish the blog by Re-

Tweeting a link to it. He also has indicated a determination not to stop

publishing the blog in offensive terms, and apparently dismisses and mocks

the legal process commenced by the Claimant, for instance as follows:

("CityJohn@Twitter") - 01.09.13 - " I'm now being sued by my internet stalker [together with link to the Defendant's blog]. Pis RT [ie Re-Tweet] like there's no tomorrow";

("CityJohn@Twitter") - 04.09.13 - "My blog about internet stalker Jenny Frankfurt has been viewed nearly 137,000 times";

("CityJohn@Twitter") - 05.09.13 - " I'm a pretty nice person. Until someone unwarrantedly provokes me. Then - did not know WHO they

were fucking with. I break them";

("CityJohn@Twitter") - [Date unknown] - "Apparently I'm still being sued by my internet stalker. Any RTs [a reference to 'Re-Tweet"] would be greatly appreciated. 145k views [together with a link to his blog]"; ("CityJohn@Twitter") - 10.09.13 - "Not backing down. I've done nothing wrong and now I'm being sued. Fuck 'em";

("CityJohn@Twitter") -10.09.13 - "Bastards. All"; ("CityJohn@Twitter") - [Date unknown] - "They've issued proceedings against me", to which ("@rich108" - [Date unknown] - repl ied "Surely not? And is the blog down now? How rid iculous"), to which "CityJohn@Twitter" responded - [Date unknown] "No. As long as I'm being attacked and litigation is a prospect it's staying up. It's a fucking

farce";


Page 9 of 15

("CityJohn@Twitter") - [Date unknown] - "They issued proceedings against me. Which, as you can imagine, are laughable";

("CityJohn@Twitter") - [Date unknown] - "Jurisdiction. It's all meaningless"; and

{"CityJohn@Twitter") - [Date unknown]- " Incredibly. Thankfully I have great friends (on Twitter and elsewhere) and massive legal backup. Won't back down to bullies", in response to "@ Naughtypob" - [Date unknown] - "CityJohn it's going viral. Which is good."

23. As a result of the posting of the blog, the Claimant has been forced to take

down her blog " hitchyourwagon.wordpress.com" from the internet which

she had published for more than 2 years, due to the on line abuse it was

receiving from those who had read the Defendant's blog and been directed

by him or his blog to it.

24. The Defendant created a false Twitter account under the alias "@barrysaber"

with the intent to further harass the Claimant and damage her reputation. On

g th September 2013, the Defendant published the following Tweet, "Have a

look@ Barry Saber's account. You may find it amusing". As a direct result,

menacing messages were posted to "@barrysaber" including a suggestion

that the Claimant should burn in Hell. The "@barrysaber" account was

subsequently disabled by Twitter but only after the Claimant raised a number

of understandably alarmed complaints in respect of it.

25. Further, a Guardian computer journalist, Jack Schofield, has posted to his blog a link to the Defendant's blog, a summary of the Defendant's version of

events, and the Claimant's solicitors' confident ial letter of 315t August, for

which the Claimant holds the Defendant liable, it being a natural and

foreseeable result of his original publication and subsequent encouragement

of third parties to republish it.


Page 10 of 15

26. A standard Google and Yahoo search on the Claimant's name now reveals as

9ne of the immediate links available, "Jenny Frankfurt - Internet Stalker",

being a link to the Defendant's blog and posted by him on 14th August 2013.

The standard Google search also contains the link, "Please get the story of

Jenny Frankfurt, my internet stalker, out there. Needs to be read by

everyone", being a further link to the Defendant's blog and posted by him on

15th August 2013.

27. As a single mother, the Claimant is the only source of income for herself and

her young child. Typically, that income would arise from requests to edit

screenplays which arrived over the internet. As a direct result of the

Defendant's actions in posting the blog and seeking to damage the Claimant

by his Twitter posts, and by his deliberately 'following' the Claimant's Twitter

'followers', many of whom were sources of work for the Claimant (thereby linking his Tweets about her to them), that source of income has dried up. The Defendant has indicated that more than 150,000 people have now

visited his blog, primarily in the UK and US, where most of her work contacts

are centered. The Claimant contends that work that was previously sourced

from the internet is no longer available because of the damage done by the

Defendant to her reputation.

28. The Claimant finds it difficult to sleep and go about her daily life in the

manner she considered normal prior to the publication of the blog.

29. If that were not bad enough, as a direct result of the Defendant's blog and

actions, the Claimant has suffered such a level of alarm and distress that she

became suicidal. To address this, she has had friends staying with her on

what was in effect at its worse stage a 'suicide watch' and is currently in

therapy and on anti-depressant medication. She considers that the

experience has affected every aspect of her life - financial, parenting,

physical, mental and emotional health. Although in law the Defendant must

take the 'victim' as he finds her, insofar as she had bouts of pre-existing


Page 11 of 15

depression, what makes matters considerably worse in the present

circumstances is that both the Claimant herself and separately and without

prompting her father alerted the Defendant to these suicidal tendencies, only

for him to cast doubt on them and fail to disable the blog. The Defendant can

therefore have no proper grounds to assert that he is not liable for his actions

in actual knowledge of the Claimant's level of alarm and distress and should

be held to account accordingly having carried out his threats and acts with his

'eyes wide open' and with a reckless disregard for the serious consequences

that have followed.

30. The Claimant intends to apply in these proceedings for permission to join the Claimant's girlfriend or partner, Ms. as a Second

Defendant to these proceedings. Ms. - operates a Twitter account

under the name ' ' and has 1035 followers who receive her

Tweets. The Claimant has never met with nor spoken to Ms. - who

has actively sought to encourage readership and republication of the

Defendant's blog on more than one occasion, and has publicly and libelously

asserted that the Claimant is an internet stalker of herself (in addition and separate to being an internet stalker of the Defendant) thus engaging in a course of conduct with the effect of causing alarm and distress to the

Claimant. Further, according to the Defendant's own Tweets, Ms. -

actively gathered much of the information, much of which is false, concerning

the Claimant that was published in the Defendant's blog and is therefore

equally responsible for its creation, content and publication. For instance, she

has Tweeted as follows:

Upon publication of the Defendant's blog to the internet,

') - 13.08.13 - "as promised! The scary and sad portrait of @CityJohn's and my internet stalker! [with a link to the blog in dispute]. Please RT ['Re-Tweet']"; (' ') -13.08.13 - "She's a festering c### [Claimant's

solicitor's deletion] of the highest order";


Page 12 of 15

')-13.08.13 - " Re-tweeted by. ', the Tweet from @CityJohn reading, "The woeful tale of Jenny Frankfurt, my internet

stalker. Now with added voicemail and troll shaming! Please RT" [ie Re-Tweet] [together with a link to the Defendant's blog"]; (' ') - 14.08 - "if you haven't seen it, please read a profile of @CityJohn's and my internet stalker" [together with a link to the Defendant's blog];

') -14.08.13 - "she was a 'friend' of John's for years";

') -14.08.13 - "filth ;)" (' ') - 14.08.13 - "PSA [standing for Public Service Announcement]: if you haven't seen it, please read a profile of @CityJohn's and my internet stalker [together with a link to the blog} (sorry for repeating! x);

')- 14.08.13 - "Re-tweeted by. ', the Tweet from @CityJohn reading, "Here's the direct link to the really, really

interesting comment on my Jenny Frankfurt Stalker blog [together with a link to the Defendant's blog]"; (' ')-14.08.13- "Stalkers and fraudsters and trolls, oh my! [together with a link to the Defendant's blog] (now with trolling tweets)";

')-01.09.13 - II ',the Tweet from @CityJohn reading, "I'm now being sued by my internet stalker! You

couldn't make this up [together with a link to the Defendant's blog]. Pis RT [ie Re-Tweet] like there's no tomorrow";

' ) - 03.09.13 - "so @CityJohn's internet stalker is threatening to sue if he doesn't take his blog down by 3pm. Read it while

you can [with a link to the blog in dispute, on which was scanned a legible copy of the Claimant's solicitors confidential initial letter before claim]";

')-[Date unknown] - "ha ha! Don't you mean mental hospital?", in reply to "@Stuart Wilks - [Date unknown) - "what


Page 13 of 15

about the arrest of that scoundrel who plagues your twitter account? (by which I mean @CityJohn";

(' ') - [Date unknown] - "860. I'm keeping a log of how much we milk this bitch for". The reference to '860' is a reference

to the Claim Form issue fee which appears on the face of the Claim Form

as served on the Defendant alone, and which he has plainly disclosed a

copy of the Ms.- This Tweet was quickly deleted by Ms.

- and

') - [11.10.13) - "I'm just J's stalker account;)".

31. For the reasons pleaded above, the Defendant is liable for the serious course

of conduct of harassment he has deliberately subjected the Claimant to.

AND THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS:

(1) Damages (including Aggravated and Exemplary Damages) pursuant to sections 1 and 3 of the Protection of Harassment Act 1997;

(2) A Permanent Injunction to restrain the Defendant, or anyone at his direct ion or encouragement, from further publishing the blog complained of and from further

engaging in a course of conduct of harassment to the Claimant; and

(3) Indemnity Costs.


Page 14 of 15

STATE\IEYf OF TRUTH

I believe that the facts stated in these Particulars of Claim are true.

'\ \ Signed...~.

Jenny Frankfurt

Dated this 11th day of October 2013.

Served this 11th day of October 2013 by Simon M. Smith, Solicitors for the Claimant.


Page 15 of 15

Documents

Jenny Frankfurt particulars of claim