Dear LiveVideo Users,
Thanks for your patience with our current downtime.
We hope to have the website up very soon.
Unfortunately, the data center in downtown Los Angeles, Quadranet, where LiveVideo stores most of the over 100+ servers LiveVideo, Inc. owns and operates to provide LiveVideo.com service to you has been hijacked and internet service cut-off making LiveVideo.com web servers not accessible.
Quadranet and its CEO Mr. Ilan Mishan first attempted to extort LiveVideo for more cash after LiveVideo paid Quadranet $75, 000 in cash very recently at the end of January.
In early February 2011, LiveVideo discovered billing errors showing Quadranet had inflated billing in previous months and alerted Quadranet’s CEO to a kick back scheme engineered by an employee of Quadranet
Quadranet once confronted with the proof of their illegal acts determined to try to knock LiveVideo.com out of business fearing that he had significant civil liability and also potential criminal charges that he and his company could be liable for.
Mr. Mishan leveraged the trusted position of being LiveVideo.com’s data center partner and shut off access to our webservers and announced he would no longer provide services to LiveVideo.com.
This threw LiveVideo.com into an emergency situation to try to physically move to a new data center without a proper amount of time to plan and effect such a move. This guaranteed downtime for LiveVideo.com and its users. In other words, Quadranet was trying to create a situation where LiveVideo’s business would be hurt by its website being inaccessible.
Here is the last communication with the attorney who Is a part owner of the firm
LIVEVIDEO HARDWARE AT QUADRANET IN LOS ANGELES, IS WORTH OVER $500, 000.
WE WORK WITH 3 OTHER ACTIVE DATA CENTER PARTNERS AROUND THE UNITED STATES AND 1 IN ASIA AND HAVE GOOD RELATIONSHIPS WITH THESE OTHER COMPANIES.
AFTER TELLING LIVEVIDEO ON MARCH 18 VIA ITS ATTORNEY THAT LIVEVIDEO
COULD PICKUP ITS OWNED SERVERS, QUADRANET REVERSED ITS POSITION
AND OFFER AND DECLARED LIVEVIDEO WOULD HAVE TO PROVIDE A
FULL LEGAL RELEASE AND PROMISE NOT TO EVER GO TO COURT AND TELL
A JURY ABOUT QUADRANET’S UNETHICAL AND RECKLESS ABUSE OF ITS
CUSTOMER’S USER BASE AND WEB ASSETS.
-BELOW IS THE THREAD OF LAST DISCUSSION BETWEEN LIVEVIDEO MANAGEMENT AND QUADRANET’S ATTORNEY (ROB SCAPA)
-THIS ILLUSTRATES THE CURRENT EXTORTION SCHEME BEING ATTEMPTED BY QUADRANET & BELOW THE THREAD IS A SUMMARY OF THE HOBBS ACT WHICH WE BELIEVE QUADRANET HAS VIOLATED. THE HOBBS ACT DEFINES WHAT IS EFFECTIVELY REFERRED TO AS CRIMINAL EXTORTION.
From: "Rob Scapa"
Date: March 18, 2011 11:18:01 AM PDT
To: LIVEVIDEO MANAGEMENT
Subject: Live Video,
Please see attached letter.
Scapa Law Group, PC
21700 Oxnard Street, Suite 670
Woodland Hills, CA 91367-3642
Tel. (818) 710-1881
Date: March 18, 2011 10:35:31 PM PDT
To: LIVEVIDEO MANAGEMENT
Subject: Re: Serving you
LIVEVIDEO MANAGEMENT I am out of town and cannot open anything you have sent. There is no authority to serve by email. Please have your attorney, as I have been asking for a week, call me on my cell. I have given you an opportunity to pick up all your equipment so I need to here from him. You have a duty and opportunity to mitigate damages, if any. Rs
From: LIVEVIDEO MANAGEMENT
Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2011 18:56:36
To: firstname.lastname@example.org (QUADRANET)
Cc Ilan Mishan
We would like to have a team of tech IT at 10am
start to remove our owned equipment per ur letter below.
We have contracted with Sudjam data center
to an agreement for colocation and migration services.
At the same time how would you propose
to turn over the user data that resides on your
hardware storage equipment currently.?
Our user data only exists 1 version which is
only existing on quadranet storage hardware currently.
photos, videos, blogs for livevideo.com of millions of users.
From: email@example.com (QUADRANET)
Date: March 25, 2011 7:25:37 AM PDT
To: LIVEVIDEO MANAGEMENT
Cc: ""Ilan Mishan"
Subject: Re: Fwd:
LIVEVIDEO MANAGEMENT: first I need to know that you are no longer represented by counsel, otherwise have Mr Kramer call me. Second that offer was permanently withdrawn, per my email to you. Third you will not be given access to anything unless we arrive at a settlement in writing.
On Mar 26, 2011, at 6:20 PM, Rob Scapa (QUADRANET) wrote:
LIVEVIDEO MANAGEMENT: here is Quadranets last offer to help you out
1. sign FULL release and promise not the harass Quadranet or any of its employees, contractors or assigns anymore. In other words keep your mouth shut
2. We will keep the UNUSED hardware in storage with us as collateral against the $21K you owe for 30 days. If the money is paid that hardware will be given to you. Otherwise we sell it and apply to this amount
3. You will have 14 days to move Your owned hardware out (we will turn power/internet back for that time and not a minute more)
4. We will keep OUR servers with his data up and will let Sudjam physical access to the them for 30 days.
5. Once Sudjam is done thay can delete their data and we will pull it off the rack
Quadranet will not offer ANY support other than Power/bandwidth
Let me know asap. We are trying to help, but you need to get your act together.
FROM LIVEVIDEO MANAGEMENT TEAM:
Sent: Sat 3/26/2011 6:52 PM
To: Rob Scapa
Subject: Re: I have one last offer
We would agree to accept your terms
if provision (1) was struck in its entirety.
FROM LIVEVIDEO MANAGEMENT TEAM:
Date: March 26, 2011 7:08:00 PM PDT
To: "Rob Scapa" robert@SCAPALAW.COM (QUADRANET)
Subject: We will also
We will also agree to not file a new complaint for at least the next 35 days,
providing a window for good faith discussions of a potential settlement.
From: "Rob Scapa" robert@SCAPALAW.COM (QUADRANET)
Date: March 26, 2011 7:02:59 PM PDT
To: LIVEVIDEO MANAGEMENT
Subject: RE: I have one last offer
CONCLUSION: QUADRANET HAS REFUSED TO TURN OVER LIVEVIDEO PROPERTY WITHOUT FORCING LIVEVIDEO TO GIVE UP ALL VALID CLAIMS IN COURT FOR EXISTING STRING OF MISDEEDS AGAINST LIVEVIDEO AND ITS USERS.
LIVEVIDEO BELIEVES QUADRANET HAS VIOLATED SECTION 2403 OF HOBBS ACT (Read On for more background)
2403 Hobbs Act—Extortion By Force, Violence, or Fear
Quadranet soon realized it had created even more liability for its company.
Quadranet after its illegal shutdown of service at first in writing promised LiveVideo it could physically take possession of LiveVideo.com’s user data and servers to move to a new data center,
However, as LiveVideo.com’s migration team of IT Tech professionals retained for the job requested entry to the Quadranet data center to begin, Quadranet
Reversed course and demanded that it would not turn over LiveVideo.com’s user data or physical servers unless LiveVideo agreed to a ‘full legal release or waiver’.
This meant that Quadranet now wanted to make sure LiveVideo.com would not try to collect or recoup or seek legal recourse for the very acts Quadranet had unleashed over the prior weeks causing millions of dollars in damages to LiveVideo.com and ruining productivity and access to LiveVideo.com for Millions of LiveVideo users.
LiveVideo’s advisors indicated that Quadranet was extorting the company thru refusing to hand over LiveVideo’s user data and physical servers until LiveVideo agreed to not press charges against Quadranet for the downtime that has occurred.
LiveVideo is in the process of filing for relief and aid from the California State Court and will seek a court order this week forcing Quadranet to turn over LiveVideo servers and user data they have illegally taken possession of and in the interim restore the services they turned off.
Quadranet’s reckless act is analogous to someone intentionally throwing a brick wall up 10 feet in front of a speeding car going 100 miles per hour on a race track . It’s a guaranteed crash.
LiveVideo currently believes its damages are over $10, 000, 000+ and growing.
LiveVideo will re-invest this capital recovered and recouped from Quadranet and use the capital to finalize LIVEVIDEO 2.0, a greatly upgraded and expanded version of the site, while also increasing dedicated staff, resources, and the speed of the site. We expect to launch LV 2.0 within the next 90 days.
We thank all users for their patience while LiveVideo management restores service and ultimately migrates to our new data center which is part of a much larger company that values the LiveVideo users and has a staff with a long history of operating in a legal and ethical manner.
MORE SPECIFIC INFORMATION ABOUT THE HOBBS ACT
WHICH QUADRANET IS VIOLATING THRU THEIR ACTIONS.
2403 Hobbs Act—Extortion By Force, Violence, or Fear In order to prove a violation of Hobbs Act extortion by the wrongful use of actual or threatened force, violence, or fear, the following questions must be answered affirmatively:
1. Did the defendant induce or attempt to induce the victim to give up property or property rights?
"Property" has been held to be "any valuable right considered as a source of wealth." United States v. Tropiano,
3. 418 F.2d 1069, 1075 (2d Cir. 1969) (the right to solicit garbage collection customers). "Property" includes the right of
4. commercial victims to conduct their businesses. SeeUnited States v. Zemek, 634 F.3d 1159, 1174 (9th Cir. 1980)
5. (the right to make business decisions and to solicit business free from wrongful coercion) and cited cases). It also
6. includes the statutory right of union members to democratically participate in union affairs. See United States v. Debs, 949 F.2d 199, 201 (6th Cir. 1991) (the right to support candidates for union office); United States v. Teamsters Local 560, 550 F. Supp. 511, 513-14 (D.N.J. 1982), aff'd, 780 F.2d 267 (3rd Cir. 1985) (rights guaranteed union members by the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act, 29 U.S.C. § 411).
8. Did the defendant use or attempt to use the victim's reasonable fear of physical injury or economic harm in order to induce the victim's consent to give up property?
A defendant need not create the fear of injury or harm which he exploits to induce the victim to give up property. See United States v. Duhon, 565 F.2d 345, 349 and 351 (5th Cir. 1978) (offer by employer to pay union official for labor peace held to be "simply planning for inevitable demand for money" by the union official under the circhaivestances); United States v. Gigante, 39 F.3d 42, 49 (2d Cir. 1994), vacated on other grounds and superseded in part on denial of reh'g, 94 F.3d 53 (2d Cir. 1996) (causing some businesses to refuse operations with the victim sufficiently induced the victim's consent to give up property, consisting of a right to contract freely with other businesses, as long as there were other businesses beyond defendants' control with whom the victim could do business).
Moreover, attempted extortion may include an attempt to instill fear in a federal agent conducting a covert investigation or a defendant "made of unusually stern stuff." See United States v. Gambino, 566 F.2d 414, 419 (2d Cir. 1977) (argument that FBI agent pretending to be extortion victim could not be placed in fear is not a defense to attempted extortion of the agent); see alsoUnited States v. Ward, 914 F.2d 1340, 1347 (9th Cir. 1990) (an attempt to instill fear included a demand for money from a victim who knew that the defendant was only pretending to be a federal undercover agent when he threatened the victim with prosecution unless money was paid).
However, the payment of money in response to a commercial bribe solicitation, that is, under circhaivestances where the defendant does not threaten the victim with economic harm, but only offers economic assistance in return for payment to which the defendant is not entitled, is not sufficient to prove extortion by fear of economic loss. United States v. Capo, 817 F.2d 947, 951-52 (2d Cir. 1987) (solicitation of money from job applicants by persons having no decisionmaking authority in return for favorable influence with employment counselors was insufficient evidence of inducement by fear); but see United States v. Blanton, 793 F.2d 1553, 1558 (11th Cir. 1986) (inducement by fear was proven by the defendant's solicitation of a labor consulting contract, to help employer stop outside union organizing, when the solicitation was accompanied by defendant's threat to form another union and begin organizing employees if the consulting contract was not accepted).
13. Did the defendant's conduct actually or potentially obstruct, delay, or affect interstate or foreign commerce in any (realistic) way or degree?
The Hobbs Act regulates extortion and robbery, which Congress has determined have a substantial effect on interstate and foreign commerce by reason of their repetition and aggregate effect on the economy. Therefore, the proscribed offenses fall within the category of crimes based on the Commerce Clause whose "de minimis character of individual instances arising under [the] statute is of no consequence." United States v. Bolton, 68 F.3d 396, 399 (10th Cir. 1995) (upholding Hobbs Act convictions for robberies whose proceeds the defendant would have used to purchase products in interstate commerce), quoting, United States v. Lopez, --- U.S. ---, 115 S.Ct. 1624, 1630 (1995); material in brackets added; see also United States v. Atcheson, 94 F.3d 1237, 1243 (9th Cir. 1996) (robbery of out-of-state credit and ATM cards); United States v. Farmer, 73 F.3d 836, 843 (8th Cir. 1996) (robbery of commercial business); United States v. Stillo, 57 F.3d 553, 558 n.2 (7th Cir. 1995).
Hobbs Act violations may be supported by proof of a direct effect on the channels or instrumentalities of interstate or foreign commerce, as for example, where the threatened conduct would result in the interruption of the interstate movement of goods or labor. See United States v. Taylor, 92 F.3d 1313, 1333 (2d Cir. 1996) (extortion of money, unwanted labor, and subcontracts on construction projects by threatened shutdowns and labor unrest); United States v. Hanigan, 681 F.2d 1127, 1130-31 (9th Cir. 1982) (robbery of three undochaiveented alien farm workers while they were traveling from Mexico to the United States in search of work); United States v. Capo, 791 F.2d 1054, 1067-68 (2d Cir. 1986), vacated on other grounds, 817 F.2d 947 (2d Cir. 1987) (scheme to extort local job applicants had a potential effect on interstate applicants who might otherwise be hired).
Indirect effects on such commerce are also sufficient, as for example, where the obtaining of property and resulting depletion of the victim's assets decreases the victim's ability to make future expenditures for items in interstate commerce.Taylor, supra (depletion of contractors' assets). However, the Seventh Circuit has distinguished Hobbs Act cases involving depletion of a business' assets from those involving the depletion of an individual employee's assets which, the court has ruled, are not as likely to satisfy the jurisdictional requirement of the Hobbs Act. United States v. Mattson, 671 F.2d 1020 (7th Cir. 1982); United States v. Boulahanis, 677 F.2d 586, 590 (7th Cir. 1982). Other circuits have agreed where the extortion or robbery of an individual has only an "attenuated" or "speculative" effect on some entity or group of individuals engaged in interstate commerce thereby diminishing the "realistic probability" that such commerce will be affected. See United States v. Collins, 40 F.3d 95, 100 (5th Cir. 1994) (conviction for robbery of a computer company employee reversed on grounds that theft of victim's automobile with cellular phone had an insufficient effect on his employer's business); United States v. Quigley, 53 F.3d 909 (8th Cir. 1995) (upholding the acquittal, following guilty verdict, of defendants who beat and robbed two individuals in route to buy beer at a liquor store).
18. Was the defendant's actual or threatened use of force, violence or fear wrongful?
Generally, the extortionate obtaining of property by the wrongful use of actual or threatened force or violence in a commercial dispute requires proof of a defendant's intent to induce the victim to give up property. No additional proof is required that the defendant was not entitled to such property or that he knew he had no claim to the property which he sought to obtain. See United States v. Agnes, 581 F.Supp. 462 (E.D. Pa. 1984), aff'd, 753 F.2d 293, 297-300 (3d Cir. 1985) (rejecting claim of right defense to defendant's use of violence to withdraw property from a business partnership).
"wrongful" has meaning in the Act only if it limits the statute's coverage to those instances where the obtaining of the property would itself be "wrongful" because the alleged extortionist has no lawful claim to that property.
Several courts of appeals have limited the claim-of-right defense to the context of labor-management disputes by refusing to extend the defense to extortionate violence and economic fear in commercial disputes and public corruption cases. United States v. Debs, 949 F.2d 199, 201 (6th Cir. 1991) (violence against union members in retaliation for support of opposition candidate for union office); United States v. Castor, 937 F.2d 293, 299 (7th Cir. 1991) (violent threats to obtain consent to enter into business arrangement); United States v. Zappola, 677 F.2d 264, 269 (2d Cir. 1982) (beating of debtor to coerce repayment of purported debt); United States v. Porcaro, 648 F.2d 753, 760 (1st Cir. 1981) (franchisor's violence to compel franchisee to vacate premises);United States v. French, 628 F.2d 1069, 1075 (8th Cir.1980) (public official's kickbacks on bail bond settlements); United States v. Cerilli, 603 F.2d 415, 419 (3d Cir. 1979) (solicitation of political contributions);United States v. Warledo, 557 F.2d 721, 729-730 (10th Cir. 1977) (violence by Native Americans to compel railroad to pay reparations for tribal lands).
However, other courts have held that the extortionate use of fear of economic harm in commercial disputes is subject to a claim-of-right defense on the grounds that, unlike violence, the use of economic fear is not inherently "wrongful." See United States v. Kattar, 840 F.2d 118, 123-24 (1st Cir. 1988) (threat to expose church to litigation unless purported "award" for information was paid to defendant was not a legitimate use of economic fear where the information was false and defamatory); United States v. Clemente, 640 F.2d 1069, 1077-78 (2d Cir. 1981) (extortion of bogus consulting payments from subcontractor coerced by the threat of labor unrest against the subcontractor's principal).
Where the claim-of-right defense applies, courts have generally held that the Government must prove that the defendant knew that he was not entitled to receive the property which he sought to obtain. United States v. Arambasich, 597 F.2d 609, 611 (7th Cir. 1979) (demand by labor union official on employer that the official and others be hired for no-show employment using threat of labor unrest); United States v. Sturm, 870 F.2d 769, 774 (1st Cir. 1989) (in prosecution involving debtor's withholding of property from a creditor-bank, "the term 'wrongful' requires the government to prove, in cases involving extortion based on economic fear, that the defendant knew that he was not legally entitled to the property that he received."); United States v. Dischner, 974 F.2d 1502, 1515 (9th Cir. 1992) (failure to instruct that defendant must know he had no entitlement to property he sought by use of economic fear did not rise to the level of plain error; but "knowledge of the extortion encompasses knowledge of the lack of lawful claim to the property.").
HOW YOU CAN HELP THE LIVEVIDEO COMMUNITY
YOUR VOICE IS CRITICAL AND NEEDED!
HOW YOU CAN HELP
1) FILE AN INTERNET DATA THEFT/ID THEFT REPORT WITH THE FBI’S
INTERNET CRIME DIVISION. THE REPORT TAKES LESS THEN 5 MINUTES:
The information for Quadranet (As form requests address of business)
and its owners is below.
530 West 6th Street
Los Angeles, CA 90014
Ilan Mishan, CEO
Jim Gurol, COO
2) CONTACT THE CEO OF QUADRANET OR CONTACT THEIR 24 HOUR TECH DESK HOTLINE WHERE STAFF WITH ONE BUTTON PRESSED, CAN INSTANTLY RESTORE FULL ACCESS FOR USERS TO LIVEVIDEO.COM.
Their 24 hour tech hotline or NOC:
213-614-9371 (then press option 1)
or the CEO
Ilan Mishan, CEO
FEEL FREE TO CONTACT THEM VIA EMAIL OR PHONE AND TELL THEM YOU WOULD LIKE YOUR ACCESSS TO LIVEVIDEO.COM RESTORED ASAP!!