FRIVOLOUS SEX OFFENDER LAWSUIT AGAINST

THE SOR WEBSITE THROWN OUT BY FEDERAL

JUDGE
Dont Bother Appealing Federal Judge Says appeal of this matter would not be taken in
good faith

David W Nail
View photos: 1 Last known address:
IN 00000Age: 57 Gender: M
Height: 5 ft. 8 in.
Weight: 155
Build: Average
Race/Ethnicity: White
Eye Color: Hazel
FEDERAL COURT JUDGE BLAST FRIVOLOUS LAWSUIT IN MICHIGAN ALL
CLAIMS ARE DISMISSED!
http://www.sexoffenderrecord.com/offender/view/670329
A RIGHTEOUS VICTORY IS SECURED
A victory for Freedom of Speech and the Peoples Right to Know is secured in Federal Court to
start off the new year of 2016. There are a few more to come in the very near future. Fighting off
yet another frivolous lawsuit, this one in the United States District Court Western District of
Michigan Southern Division, the allegations against Defendants associated with the websites

Offendex.com, SORarchives.com and SexOffenderRecord.com (websites) were DISMISSED of

all claims.
The Plaintiff, David Nail, had been charged and convicted of Child Abduction in the State of
Indiana. As a result of that conviction, government officials released the details of the crime and
his mugshot associated with the crime onto the State of Indiana Sex Offender Registry (ISOR).
As the information was released as a public record into the public domain, it was legally
obtained and republished exactly as depicted by the ISOR on the websites. David Nail decided to
utilize the Federal Courts as a means to intimidate and harass the factual republishing of his
conviction in an attempt to silence anyone that may expose the truth of his criminal history. He is
fortunate Michigan has not yet implemented the Anti-SLAPP legislation (laws addressing
strategic lawsuit against public participation SLAPP) currently under consideration. Laws
such as those found in Indiana where the alleged events actually occurred and are currently
found in 28 states that have enacted Anti-SLAPP legislation. In some states such as California
and Washington the penalties associated with filing such frivolous, abusive and harassment
motivated agendas are becoming increasing harsh to the perpetrators such as David Nail. The
consequences of his abuse of process and malicious prosecution when using the Federal Court
system to thwart the First Amendment Rights of private citizens could have been turned back
upon him with significant penalties. The case being in Michigan, it was simply DISMISSED.
The Dismissal is still a momentous confirmation of the legal validity of the websites
Offendex.com, SORarchives.com and SexOffenderRecord.com. The Federal Courts continue to
Rule with resounding support for the legal right of privately operated websites to make public
records released into the public domain available for review by the general populace. In the
Michigan Federal Court Order, the Honorable Ellen S. Carmody clearly recognized the
ridiculousness of the claims brought forward by David Nail when stating: The Court need not
accept as true, however, factual allegations which are clearly irrational or wholly incredible.
Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992).
BEWARE CONVICTED SEX OFFENDERS FEDERAL COURTS CONTINUE TO RULE
THE WEBSITES ARE PROTECTED FROM CIVIL LIABILITY DUE TO THE CLEAR
DICTATES OF SECTION 230 OF THE COMMUNICATIONS DECENCY ACT (CDA)
Once again a Federal Court has reviewed the facts and the applicable laws and has issued an
overwhelming Ruling that exonerates the websites of ANY inappropriate conduct. The dictates
and protections found in Section 230 of the CDA are applicable in the republishing and online
dissemination of the factual details of convictions of sex offenses as those found on the websites.
The Honorable Susan E. Carmody addresses the many issues thoroughly and articulates a legal
analysis that cannot be improved upon with a synopsis. The best presentation is simply providing
the actual words as written:
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) provides, in relevant part, that [n]o
provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of
any information provided by another information content provider. 47 U.S.C. 230(c)(1). The
term interactive computer service is defined as any information service, system, or access
software provider that provides or enables computer access by multiple users to a computer

server, including specifically a service or system that provides access to the Internet and such
systems operated or services offered by libraries or educational institutions. 47 U.S.C.
230(f)(2). This definition encompasses broadband providers, hosting companies, and website
operators. Jones v. Dirty World Entertainment Recordings, LLC, 775 F.3d 398, 406 n.2 (6th
Cir. 2014) (emphasis added).

Simply stated, 230 of the CDA bars lawsuits seeking to hold a service provider liable for its
exercise of a publishers traditional editorial functions such as deciding whether to publish,
withdraw, postpone or alter content. Id. at 407. It has been recognized that the immunity
afforded by 230 of the CDA marks a departure from the common-law rule that allocates
liability to publishers or distributors of tortious material written or prepared by others. Id. As
courts also recognize, Congress, however, decided to treat the Internet differently. Id. Courts
are instructed to interpret broadly the immunity afforded by 230 and close cases. . .must be
resolved in favor of immunity. Id. at 408. Moreover, the immunity afforded by 230 extends to
state law claims as well. See 47 U.S.C. 230(e)(3) ([n]o cause of action may be brought and no
liability may be imposed under any State or local law that is inconsistent with this section).

The immunity afforded by 230, however, is not without limits. While a provider of
an interactive computer service is generally entitled to immunity, as noted above, such is not
the case where the provider of an interactive computer service is also deemed to be an
information content provider vis-a-vis the content in question. Id. An information content
provider is defined as any person or entity that is responsible, in whole or in part, for the
creation or development of information provided through the Internet or any other interactive
computer service. 47 U.S.C. 230(f)(3). Stated differently, immunity under the CDA depends
on the pedigree of the content at issue.Jones, 775 F.3d at 409. Accordingly, if a website
operator is merely displaying or allowing access to information or content from a separate
and distinct information content provider, the website operator enjoys immunity. Id.

Thus, the question becomes whether Defendants can be said to have developed the objectionable
information. In this context, development considers what, if anything, the website provider did
with or to information created by or obtained from a third party. Id. at 409-11. To constitute
development, the website provider must do more than display or allow access to content created
by a third party. Id. at 410. Even augmenting the content in question does not constitute
development. Id. To constitute development, the website provider must take action which
contributes materially to the alleged illegality of the conduct or content. Id. As the Sixth
Circuit has held:
A material contribution to the alleged illegality of the content does not mean merely taking
action that is necessary to the display of allegedly illegal content. Rather, it means being
responsible for what makes the displayed content allegedly unlawful. Id.

Plaintiff merely alleges that Defendants operated a website which posted, or directed individuals
to, information created by a third party. Plaintiff alleges that this conduct constitutes various torts
under state law. As discussed above, however, Defendants enjoy immunity from such
claims.
THE CLAIMS OF DAVID NAIL DO NOT EVEN MERIT REVIEW IN APPEAL
In a rare preempted notice of just how frivolous and transparent the efforts of David Nails to
abuse the judicial process were, the Judge expresses the strong convictions of how asinine the
lawsuit really was and not worthy of serious consideration when closing the Order by conveying:
The undersigned further recommends that appeal of this matter would not be taken in good
faith. See McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 611 (6th Cir. 1997); 28 U.S.C. 1915(a)(3).
ELLEN S. CARMODY, United States Magistrate Judge.
Thank you Judge Ellen E. Carmody for your diligent efforts in administering justice and
exposing such frivolous litigation as that initiated by David Nail for the charade it was.

UPDATE:

SECOND FEDERAL JUDGE IN A MONTH RULES IN

FAVOR OF THE SOR WEBSITES!
As reported last month, a resounding victory was obtained in Federal Court with the
DISMISSAL of another frivolous lawsuit filed in the United States District Court Western
District of Michigan Southern Division. The update is that as expected the convicted felon David
William Nail of Coldwater, Michigan challenged the ruling of Judge Ellen S. Carmody in her
determination that the SOR websites accessing the database of archived public records released
into the public domain were protected by IMMUNITY based on the dictates of Section 230 of
the Communication Decency Act. The expected merit less legal challenge submitted by the
convicted felon David Nail against the rulings of Judge Carmody was required to be reviewed by
yet another Federal Judge. The great news is that after again thoroughly arbitrating the legal and
factual basis of the ridiculous claims before the Court, the second Federal Judge, the Honorable
Janet T. Neff, emphatically supported ALL of the previous rulings.

The final ruling of Judge Neff did not require the extensive breakdown of all the relevant legal
analysis as that put forth by Judge Carmody. What is worth noting in Judge Neffs final ruling is:


The Court determines that the Magistrate Judge properly conducted the review of
Plaintiffs Complaint required by 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2) and properly concluded that Plaintiffs
allegations fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Plaintiffs objections are
therefore denied.

Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, and this Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
1915(a)(3), that an appeal of the Judgment would not be taken in good faith. See McGore v.
Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 610 (6th Cir. 1997), overruled on other grounds by Jones v. Bock,
549 U.S. 199, 206, 211-12 (2007).

This is not just a GREAT victory for the SOR websites, but a victory for Freedom of Speech 1st
Amendment considerations and the Peoples Right to Know. Thank you Judge Neff for
defending the U.S. Constitution and the overwhelming legal precedents found throughout the
justice system from the U.S. District Court level to all eleven (11) U.S. courts of appeal (or
circuit courts) and finally the U.S. Supreme Court. The next step will be to implement the proper
legal response to address the lies and false claims brought forward by perjurers such as David
Nail and all others so that they are held accountable for their atrocious Abuse of Process and
Malicious Prosecution. The new year of 2016 has started in triumph, and more are to come in the
U.S. District Courts of Arizona and Nevada. You will be appropriately updated upon
confirmation of the victories coming forthwith. Until then.