Talk:Stephen M. Cohen

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I would like to note that "Helmr" is not Chris O'Brien of the San Jose Mercury News. I am Chris O'Brien, and this is my first ever post to Wikipedia. Sjcobrien 22:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)Chris O'Brien

I am Helmr and I am not Chris O'Brien nor at any time have I ever claimed to be him. The executive staff at Wikipedia knows my real name. Helmr 10:49, 24 July 2007

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Stub This article has been rated as stub-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

I reverted unsubstantiated information entered by Helmr. The ownership of SEX.COM is long settled by courts that Gary Kremen is the legal owner. 74.96.165.62 02:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

It seems that someone by the name of Stardust8212 keeps on changing this page for reason unknown.

The ownership of SEX.COM was in fact turned over to Gary Kremen on November 27, 2007 by Judge James Ware on November 27, 2000. docket number 440

It is not yet November 27, 2007, so this date must have a typo. The domain name was sold by Kremen in 2006. See Kremen's article for a citation. -Agyle 05:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Due to many conflicts in the sex.com stories, I became interested in searching for the truth.. I have visited the United States District Court here in San Jose, California several times.

I am currently doing a story for CNN about misinformation in the news. My story has grown so large that CBS and I are now working on a larger story on the subject of misinformation created on the internet that makes its way into news as being real news.

Investigation shows that many of the stories printed about the sex.com case first appeared on the internet through a press release issued by person working for sex.com. These stories were then picked up by members of the news media without any verification whatsoever.

Of course this has become a major news story about how news is made when in fact it may not be true.

The remarks that I have made about the sex.com case has been as a result of an intense investigation.

For Reference, the District Court records are in most part different that what has been printed in the internet that made it into the news. Docket number 479 through 1255. The records of the United States Trademark and Patent Office officially indicates that the United States Trademark for sex.com was issued in August of 2006 to Stephen Michael Cohen. [1]

My interviews have been with then United States Attorney for the Northern District of California Kevin V. Ryan, With agents of the FBI [2] Employees of the District Court including the Chief Deputy Clerk [3] .

The link to the U.S. Federal Courts requires an account charged to a credit card of which you are charged 8 cents per page. [4]

The Court record is absolute verification of the facts that I have stated here.

I removed all references to the word THEFT. Mr. Cohen has not been convicted of the crime of theft. The sex.com case is a civil case and not a criminal

case and the use of that word is in violation of Wikpedia's policies.Helmr 6:18, 11 April 2007

Please do not remove other peoples talk page comments. Also based on your wording of "My investigation" I strongly suggest you read Wikipedia's policy on original research, which can be found at WP:OR. Stardust8212 23:48, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
I have changed the page because there is no reason to delete the correctly sourced information in lieu of information which has no source. Note that the links you have provided link to either pages which require membership to access or have nothing to do with this article. Please read Wikipedia's external linking policy and WP:SOURCE. Stardust8212 00:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

After your comments on my talk page I have made a request for comment on this article. I believe the sources I have added to be reputable sources which are not publishing false information. The state that Cohen has served time for both impersonating a lawyer and forgery, contrary to your statements on my talk page. I have also removed all information which does not currently give a source and removed use of the term fraudster from the introductory line. Stardust8212 20:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Did Cohen obtain the Internet domain legally or illegally?

I don't get it. Did Cohen obtain the Internet domain legally or illegally? If legally, then what's all the fuss with him being sued and all? If illegally, it should be stated clearly in the article. Itayb 20:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

According to all the sources I have found he obtained the domain illegally and owes the original owner something in the order of $65 million. Stardust8212 20:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I've added the word illegally to the article to make it clearer. It would be nice to know how exactly he was able to pull this off, after all, he is no computer hacker. It would be also nice to know how this Kremen guy didn't notice his lucrative domain name had been hijacked. The article is mute about these points right now. Itayb 21:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Information about any illegal activities by Cohen is being continually removed by another user (have a look at the page history) and I am loathe to spend time on something and have it summarily deleted. Reading here it appears that Cohen "hacked the computer system used to store all dotcom registrant details and change ownership of Sex.com into his name. Cohen later covered his tracks by forging a letter, purportedly from Kremen's company, handing over the domain in recognition of non-existent trademark rights Cohen had in the name "sex.com"." I would like to add this information to the article once Helmr stops claiming that all my edits are "libelous and poory sourced"[sic] . Stardust8212 21:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Helmr

That is a very good question. It looks like Stephen Michael Cohen may have been the real owner of sex.com all along and not Gary Kremen at least the United States Trademark and Patent office thinks so.

The USPTO hasn't issued any statements on this, have they? They deal with a lot of record keeping and ruling in the issuances of trademarks and patents, but it seems like federal courts would be the ones to express an opinion in the event of a dispute. -Agyle 06:22, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

In the court records, there is a deposition of Gary Kremen where he stated under the penalty of perjury that he was not the owner of sex.com at the time he filed his law suit. Kremen stated he had sold his interest in sex.com to a company called Online Classiffieds, Inc., which had already been dismissed out of the case by District Court Judge James Ware.

Today in checking the docket Cohen and his attorneys have just filed an emergency motion for an order to show cause re: contempt against Kremen and his attorney's for fraud. According to the clerk's office, that motion is on the desk of Judge Ware.

Cohen has filed three motions to quash service and for a protective order which in part was granted by United States Magistrate Patricia Trumbull.

While Cohen was in jail and during the period he was in Mexico, the United States District Court discovered that there are over 400 filed documents went missing from the court records in the Kremen v Cohen case. The only ones that perused the file at the courthouse according to the clerk's office were Gary Kremen, his attorney's and members of the press.

The FBI office in San Jose, United States Department of Justice, United States Attorneys Office and the Clerk of Court for the United States District Court for the Northern District of California are doing a major investigation into these missing documents.

I have copies of most of the Kremen v Cohen case if anyone want to read it and I have Cohen's latest motions that were filed.

As to what is going to happen, who knows? It is up to Judge James Ware to decide and he has scheduled a date of June 21, 2007 to hear Cohen's motion to reverse the sex.com case.

The statement "Cohen had previously served prison sentences for impersonating a lawyer and forgery" is not true according to the court files at the District Court in San Diego. Cohen was convicted and served time for a Bankruptcy Fraud in 1992.

The current sentence on this, which I recently wrote, based on the Wired article cited, is "In 1991, he was convicted in a bankruptcy fraud scheme in which he forged documents and assumed other identities." Are you saying the conviction was in 1992, or that he served time in 1992? I think the meaning of the sentence is otherwise compatible with your account. I don't think the formal charge of "Bankruptcy Fraud" necessarily contradicts the prior wording that he "served sentences for impersonating a lawyer and forgery," if the bankruptcy fraud was committed by impersonating a lawyer and forgery, although it could be made more clear. -Agyle 06:22, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

What is interesting is, if you do a search for press releases, and sex.com you will see that most of the articles about Stephen Michael Cohen came from someone connected with sex.com. I am currently doing a story on the subject of what is real news. Helmr 5:27, 11 April 2007

[edit] Sources

  • Got sauce? Er, source? I removed one offensive and two non-RS "pseudo-sources" and provided lots of real sources. Someone that likes this article could read those sources and make a sourced article. Maybe I will if no-one else cares too but a lot on my plate right now. Cheers. --Justanother 04:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Source update. I removed what appears to be commercial link spam for an upcoming book that may well be published by a vanity press. I did not remove The Register again but that is non-RS, too. Someone else can remove it if they agree, please see WP:V. --Justanother 14:06, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Justanother, it was i who re-added the "The Register" reference and who added the reference to the book site. The "The Register" reporter, Kieren McCarthy, is also the author of the book. The book is clearly very relevant. Violet Blue mentions both the article and the book in the article, which you added yourself. Why do you consider "The Register" unreliable? Itayb 14:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi. The Register is basically a glorified blog, isn't it? These online publications are problematic; blogging is gaining respect and it is starting to become a tough call on some of them. Still, real news organizations have massive investment in personnel and facility that engenders real liability concerns that drive real fact-checking. Sites like The Register do not. The same holds true for a reputable publishing house vs. a vanity press or self-publishing. That fact-checking is the reason that we use reliable and reputable secondary sources as a substitute for peer review. That is basic to the history of Wikipedia vs. Nupedia. Re the book, it is not even published yet so the link serves only as advertising, no? Such advertising is prohibited. --Justanother 14:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Re the book, take a look at the site. It's brimming with relevant information. It stands independently of the book. As for the "The Register", maybe you're right in principle, but in this particular case, the "The Register" article is mentioned in the SFGate.com article. Wouldn't it be safe in this specific case to reference the source of this mention? Also, aren't the rules for inclusion in the "External links" section a bit looser than the rules for inclusion as a cited reference? Itayb 14:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
BTW, i haven't heard of the "The Register" before, but then i haven't heard of any of the other references mentioned in the article either. Inspecting the "The Register" website, and reading its Wikipedia article, it seems a bit more than a glorified blog. Does a publication have to be sold in dead-tree format to be reckoned with? Itayb 15:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I think that EL are looser than refs. You might want to check how that would apply. I put these sources there as potential refs as the refs that were in the article were problematic. So I would say, see what the policies say and then only use the ELs as refs if they are WP:RS. I think that the book site is self-published and should not be in the article (WP:BLP. See WP:BLP for special requirements. Also please see a related RfC I am running at Talk:Catherine Bell#Request for Comments - Use of the "truthaboutscientology" website as I cover some points there re BLP (I came here from the RfC page). I think that if a specific Register article is referenced in RS then it is appropriate to put an EL to that article. (edit conflict) I really do not have a top-of-my head answer to your last question but it bears research. --Justanother 15:06, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Helmr

"The Register" and Kieren McCarthy according to Cohen's attorney's are the same person. Helmr 10:34, 14 April 2007

"The Register" isn't a person. It's a website. What I think you mean to say is that it's owned and operated by Kieren McCarthy. 4.238.8.243 18:04, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
If that's what's intended it doesn't seem well founded. Itayb 18:09, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] THIS IS HELMR

The court TV article relating to Stephen Michael Cohen are a reprint of several other articles that appeared on the internet. The fact is Cohen was convicted of Bankruptcy Fraud in the United States, District Court in San Diego in 1992.

Your statement that Cohen had previously served prison sentences for impersonating a lawyer and forgery are not true and they are libelous. The United States District Court case information is: http://www.casd.uscourts.gov/ and the case number is 90-1052 [[5]]

Kremen and Cohen have both become professional litigants and they both have sued anyone and everyone that has come into their path. Cohen’s attorneys have prepared a racketeering action against several reporters, magazines, news agencies and several web sites for publishing untrue information about Cohen during Judge Ware’s deliberation process, for the express purpose of influencing the Judge’s decision.

This attack upon the news has never been tried before. First Amendment Rights do not apply when it relates to criminal activity. As you know, several news reporters have spent time in jail for refusing to turn over documents, film or testify in criminal cases. Several United States Circuit Court’s including the United States Supreme Court have all stated that one does not have a right to freedom of the press when it relates to criminal activity.

In short, this could change the way we publish the news when cases are currently being decided in our court system. England has laws about news reporting on cases pending in their courts.

I have removed your comment as being not true even though it has been reported.

The court records on this subject outweigh the stories published and are in accordance with UTC’s policy. If you would like copies of Cohen’s case, just write to me and I will forward them off to you. Helmr 11:59, 15 April 2007

[edit] ES5 citations

I have citations for the new Earth Station 5 section. There are many linked from the ES5 article which I am currently working on. I'll turn some more attention to this article after I am done over there. mako (talk•contribs) 15:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Helmr

Today, I received a filed copy of a new law suit that Stephen Michael Cohen filed in the United States District Court against Gary Kremen, his attorneys and 2 members of the press for “Racketeering under Title 18 USC 1961 & 1962 engaging in the illegal influencing of the court during its decision process with outrageous and untrue writings and statements, undue enrichment and a 1981 action.

I am sending a copy of this action that I received today to Wikipedia so they can present it to their legal department to determine what if anything they should do regarding the web pages for sex.com and Stephen Michael Cohen.

After talking to Wikipedia, I am removing all statements that are in dispute until United States District Court Judge James Ware decides who is the real owner of sex.com on the hearing scheduled for August 6, 2007 in San Jose, California. Helmr 7:22, 18 July 2007

[edit] Helmr

I changed back the page that was edited by Brianmc per Wikipedia Helmr 10:49, 24 July 2007

Helmr, you will be blocked by Wikipedia admins if you continue to perform a large scale blanking of this article. Nobody believes you when you say the foundation has ordered this information removed. I can readily check with Jimbo and others if you do this again, and then I will request you be blocked for disruption. I've read the case on PACER (law), anyone can. --Brianmc 10:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Just to add to this, the foundation operates a system called OTRS which handles all email to the main foundation addresses. Volunteers process the emails and - where appropriate - pass them up to board level or staff level. If you really had contacted the foundation you would have a ticket number you could cite and anyone (such as myself) with OTRS access could verify your claims.
In addition, were the Foundation to mandate that this article be changed for legal reasons someone from the office would perform the edit you claim to be doing on their behalf. There would be a cited number that would allow the validity of the edit to be checked.
In summary: You're totally unconvincing. --Brianmc 11:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Year of birth

All sources I've seen put Cohen's year of birth as 1948, but none are really reliable sources. Articles from what I'd consider reliable sources just give his age, from which you can only derive the year of birth to plus or minus one year. Sex.com's old reward for his capture included his birthdate, height, and other more personal information that probably shouldn't have been posted. An apparent court transcript of a deposition posted as a .doc file on porn industry gossip/news site lukeford.com included the same birthdate. -Agyle 05:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Same SMC in 1969 marijuana bust?

A Stephen Michael Cohen was arrested in this 1969 California marijuana case. (That's the 1970 Cohen v. Superior Court appeals decision). The appeals decision is still cited a bit ([http://www.acgov.org/jsp_app/da/pov/povarticles.jsp?year=2007 "Police Surveillance"] Point of View, Alameda County District Attorney's Office, Winter 2007.) Not knowing whether it's the same Stephen Michael Cohen, would it be appropriate to mention "A Stephen Michael Cohen was involved...," or should it not be included at all unless corroboration of his identity can also be cited? -Agyle 03:37, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Since there is not corroboration and the event is not really directly related to what he is notable for I think it should be left out. According to WP:BLP we must be especially careful with sources on an article on living people and the inclusion test at Wikipedia:Avoiding harm (only a proposed guideline but still a good rule of thumb) seems to indicate this shouldn't be included. By the way, your recent work on the article is looking pretty good. Nice to see someone putting some work into this, I got too frustrated to be productive. Stardust8212 03:47, 11 August 2007 (UTC)