"We had every right to publish information of public concern as established in Obsidian v Cox regarding Free Speech. "

"On November 4th, 2014, OpUniteBlue.com was suspended by GoDaddy due to a DMCA (copyright infringement) complaint. The complaint was made by Jeffrey Joy, the owner of a private investigation business called Vested Protection Security. Mr Joy is also the husband of Zapem aka Michele aka Joanne Joy.

OpUniteBlue published an article on Mr. Joy and Vested Protection Systems, alleging unethical and possibly illegal activities. 

We had every right to publish information of public concern 

as established in Obsidian v Cox regarding Free Speech. 

Though our hosting contract with GoDaddy was due to expire November 27th, we felt the DMCA complaint was filed in retaliation so we chose challenge Mr. Joy’s copyright claims.

We won.

Though OpUniteBlue.com is back online we’re not done with Vested Protection Services. There are boundaries to what a private investigation business is allowed to do and Vested Protection has been stepping outside those boundaries for years.

Here’s the DMCA complaint Mr. Joy sent.

Subject: Re: DMCA TakeDown Notice
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2014 13:16:09 -0400
To:copyrightclaims@godaddy.com
<vestedprotection@gmail.com>
I am the copyright owner of the content being infringed at:

1. Pictures of our office that were removed from our business website located atwww.vestedprotection.com.

http://www.opuniteblue.com/2014/10/zapem-the-surreal-housewife-of-new-jersey/

2. Copies of the emails illegally hacked from a private email account and published on this website in violation of federal and state law.

http://www.opuniteblue.com/2014/10/zapems-plan-to-destroy-the-left-2012/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=evergreen_post_tweeter&utm_campaign=website

This letter is official notification under the provisions of Section 512(c) of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (�DMCA�) to effect removal of the above-reported infringement. I request that you immediately remove the specified posting and prevent the infringer, who is identified by its web address, from posting the infringing photograph to your servers in the future. Please be advised that law requires you, as a service provider, to �expeditiously remove or disable access to� the infringing photograph upon receiving this notice. Noncompliance may result in a loss of immunity for liability under the DMCA.

I have a good faith belief that use of the material in the manner complained of here is not authorized by me, the copyright holder, or the law.

The information provided here is accurate to the best of my knowledge. I swear under penalty of perjury that I am the copyright holder.

Please send me at the address noted below a prompt response indicating the actions you have taken to resolve this matter.

Sincerely,
/s/ Jeffrey J. Joy
Vested Protection Systems, LLC
206 Westfield Avenue
Clark, New Jersey 07066

Mr Joy claimed that pictures of his office were taken from his business site. There is only one pictue and it’s actually a screen capture taken from Google maps. His claim is not true.

Mr Joy also claims Zapem’s emails were illegally hacked. Once again, this isn’t true. It’s been reported on several blogs that the emails were released by a Breitbart staff member. There are audio recordings of the email’s author, Michele, complaining about the emails being released but she doesn’t mention anything about hacking."

Source and Full Article
http://www.opuniteblue.com/2014/11/vindication-opuniteblue-com-is-back-online/

A "STUNNINGLY ROBUST" Protection of Free Speech.

"I take issue with Gajda’s interpretation of much of the case law cited in The First Amendment Bubble. She reports, for example that a federal court “decided in 2011 that a blogger’s posts involving a bankruptcy trustee . . . were not of public concern because there was no evidence that the public had paid any attention to the private company’s collapse.” Obsidian Finance v. Cox is a complex case, but she fails to note that the Ninth Circuit eventually found that the blog posts did address “a matter of public concern.”

To my eyes, the ruling is a 

stunningly robust protection of speech. 

Elsewhere, she argues that “some judges” are suggesting that “accidents are not newsworthy”; her evidence is DeSirey v. Unique Vacations—a case about a dune buggy accident in which American press freedoms were not remotely involved. The defendants wanted a trial in St. Lucia, where the accident occurred. They argued that tourism was of “public interest” to the island resort’s press. The judge held that “this relatively straightforward tort suit does not automatically become of broad public interest in St. Lucia merely because it involves the tourism industry.”

Read the Whole Story At:
http://www.cjr.org/review/how_the_first_amendment_applie.php?page=all&print=true#sthash.MEVDRQqf.dpuf

Plus Folks Please note that a Bankruptcy Court Proceeding is a Public Issue, as are 1031 Exchange Companies, DIG DEEP.