Internet War waged against Hal Turner, Hudson County hate monger and FBI informant

By Anthony Olszewski

In December 2006, a band of Internet vigilantes (reportedly based in and attacked Hal Turner’s ‘net audio broadcasts and Web Site.

The initial foray consisted of a coordinated series of prank calls to Hal Turner’s Internet talk show. Mr. Turner retaliated by posting the callers’ phone numbers at his Web Site.

The ePosse escalated the attack over a wider front. The pranksters posted the personal phone numbers of Hal Turner and his parents. Included in the message were allegations of domestic abuse and cruelty to animals, which Mr. Turner has denied. Supposedly Hal Turner’s wife, mother, and underage son received phone calls threatening assault and sexual assault.

The Battle of the Bandwidth
Hal Turner’s Web Site became the target of a Denial of Service attack. A Denial of Service attack is an automated process that sends a tsunami of ‘net traffic to a domain. This can cause the hosting server to grind to a halt, making a Web Site unavailable to visitors. According to Turner, the Denial of Service attack has cost him thousands of dollars in bandwidth charges. The attackers (possibly identified or associated with /b/tards and/or Anonymous) are quite proud of this and have openly gloated about it in message boards.

Hal Turner has stated that criminal charges were filed against John Does. He also posted that Skinheads in either Australia or New Zealand (Mr. Turner was not sure of a location more precise than “down under.”) located and beat one of the hackers. As proof, Hal Turner displayed on his Web Site a picture of a young man with a bloody face. Someone did a google image search using “bloody face” as the term. In this way, the identical photo was located immediately elsewhere on the Web in an unrelated context. Subsequently, the picture and the boast of assault disappeared from Hal Turner’s Web Page.

Hal Turner displayed on his Web Site a picture of a young man with a bloody face.
Turner displayed on his Web Site a picture of a young man with a bloody face.
For a short time on the morning of December 28th 2006, Hal Turner’s Web Site forwarded to (loaded) the official FBI Web Site. I at first thought that Hal Turner’s Site was hacked. This does not seem to have been the case. A possibility is that the forward was intended to divert the Denial of Service attack to the FBI and so involve the Feds.
Click HERE for Online audio of what appears to be a call to the FBI.

Hal Turner appealed to other White Supremacists noting that they may be targeted next. Some of those claiming to be members of the ePosse have echoed this.

It’s not clear why visitors to or have decided to attack racism in general and Hal Turner in particular. and are best known for a focus on Japanese cartoons and comics.

In April 2006, Hal Turner was quoted as advocating the killing of undocumented aliens. He also was involved in an assault case against Jaime Vazquez, recipient of the Purple Heart, Frmr. Jersey City Councilman, and Frmr. Jersey City Deputy Mayor.

Hal Turner is best known for his advocacy of racism and of violence against immigrants and public officials. As a drumbeat to these rants, Turner also frequently reports (in the manner of Chicken Little) that the US economy is about to collapse.

Here is Hal Turner’s most recent “scoop” from 12/15/06:
Tells visiting Bush administration officials they will not sit back and lose their shirts as U.S. Dollar collapses; they are getting out fast and large!

BEIJING, CHINA — Sources with a U.S. Delegation in Beijing have told The Hal Turner Show the Chinese government has informed visiting Bush Administration officials they intend to dump One TRILLION U.S. Dollars from China’s Currency Reserves and convert those funds into Euros, gold and silver!

. . .
7chan-ers  distributied a poster to Hal Turner's neighbors..
7chan-ers distributed a poster to Hal Turner’s neighbors. The flyer announces Mr. Turner’s calling for the murder of minorities.

Click HERE to see the complete image.

The 7chan-ers displayed these images Online:

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Internet War waged against Hal Turner, Hudson County hate monger and FBI informant

    District of New Jersey

    Harold C. “Hal” Turner D/B/A : Hon. PETER G. SHERIDAN
    Turner Radio Network D/B/A :
    Hal Turner Radio Show :
    Plaintiff,: Civil Action No.
    : 07-306 (PGS)
    V. :
    : : COMPLAINT : : :
    John Doe(s) 1-1000 :

    Plaintiff, Harold C. “Hal” Turner by way of Complaint
    against the internet web sites,,, and and John Doe(s)
    1-1000 hereby says:

    1. Plaintiff Harold C. “Hal” Turner is and at all relevant
    times was a citizen of the State of New Jersey and the
    United States of America, residing at 1906 Paterson Plank
    Road, North Bergen, Hudson County, New Jersey within this
    District, doing business as Turner Radio Network and The
    Hal Turner Radio Show.

    2. 2. n
    internet web site whose owner information is presently
    intentionally concealed and unavailable absent a
    Subpoena, but whose business and activities relevant to
    this Complaint took place substantially within this
    Upon Information and belief, Defendant is an
    internet web site whose owner information is presently
    intentionally concealed and unavailable absent a
    Subpoena, but whose business and activities relevant to
    this Complaint took place substantially within this
    Upon information and belief, Defendant
    is an internet web site whose owner information shows an
    address of eBaums World PO BOX 18091 Rochester, New York
    14618 , but whose business and activities relevant to
    this Complaint took place substantially within this
    Upon information and belief, Defendant
    is an internet web site whose owner information indicates

    it is a California corporation, Nexis Entertainment
    located at 1675 Garnet Lane Concord, CA 94519 but whose
    business and activities relevant to this Complaint took
    place substantially in this District

    Upon information and belief, Defendant is
    an internet web site whose owner information shows it is
    a corporation Velocity Enterprises 1006 E. Market St,
    York, PA 17320 whose business and activities relevant to
    this Complaint took place substantially within this
    7. Upon information and belief, Defendants John Doe 1-1000
    are presently unknown individuals acting in concert with
    the named Defendants above, and whose activities relevant
    to this Complaint took place substantially within this
    8. This Court has original jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s
    claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1338 (a) (original
    jurisdiction in cases involving infringement of
    Copyright), 28 U.S.C. 1331 (federal question) and 28
    U.S.C. 1367(a) (supplemental jurisdiction)

    The matter in controversy exceeds the sum of $50,000
    exclusive of interest and costs
    Venue is proper in this judicial District pursuant to
    28 U.S.C. 1391(b)(2) because a substantial part of the
    actions giving rise to Plaintiff’s claim have occurred in
    this District.
    A. The Business of the Plaintiff
    Plaintiff owns a Computer Server which is co-located
    in a Data Center in Parsippany, NJ. Through this
    computer server, Plaintiff engages in Interstate Commerce
    by operating several internet web sites,,, Through these sites, Plaintiff
    provides web site hosting services for individuals and
    groups needing such services and provides interstate
    communication services for the broadcast of cyber-radio
    shows by Plaintiff and other individuals and groups. One
    such cyber-radio show is “The Hal Turner Show.” While it
    is being broadcast live on the Internet “The Hal Turner
    Radio Show” (hereafter referred to as “The Show”) is the
    single, most-listened-to talk radio program in the entire
    world on the America Online (AOL)/SHOUTcast internet
    streaming audio system. While it airs, The Show has more

    listeners on the internet than radio station WNYC AM 820,
    in New York City; more listeners on the Internet than
    radio station WBUR 90.9 FM in Boston, MA; and is growing
    in popularity and listenership. The reasons The Show is
    so popular has to do with unfettered free speech afforded
    to callers and exercised by Plaintiff as Host. People
    can call-in and use any language or terminology they
    choose, to express their thoughts or feelings about
    social, political, cultural, racial or religious issues,
    without fear of being censored or cut off. The Show is
    the literal embodiment of the First Amendment to the
    Constitution for The United States of America. The Show
    is a national treasure.

    Allowing and exercising such unfettered free speech
    has caught the attention of a number of self-anointed
    arbiters of political correctness who seem to think they
    have a right to decide for others, what should and should
    not be allowable public discourse. These self anointed,
    politically correct tyrants have, for the six years that
    the Show has aired, used every method possible to stifle,
    censor, smear, vilify, besmirch, disrupt, interrupt and
    shut down The Show. All their efforts have failed, until

    B: B: t
    At some point prior to December 20, 2006, a group of
    self-anointed tyrants utilized an internet relay chat
    (IRC) known as in a chat room called
    #halturner, to concoct and implement a scheme to disrupt
    The Show by placing dozens of crank calls while the show
    aired. Since callers to The Show are not pre-screened
    for content, they were able to get on the air and pull
    their pranks, thus successfully disrupting the program
    for the three hours it aired.
    After The Show ended, Plaintiff decided to research
    the Caller ID for phone lines coming into The Show. The
    research allowed plaintiff to identify five or six
    specific telephone numbers that had repeatedly called The
    Show. Two days later, on December 22, 2006, Plaintiff
    chose to publicly release those phone numbers via the web
    site as a warning to others not to
    engage in that type of activity anymore.
    When Plaintiff released those phone numbers, the John
    Doe Defendants named in this action at law – and hundreds
    of their John Doe cohorts from the Defendant’s web sites
    -became enraged that Plaintiff dared to fight back.

    Later, on or about December 23, 2007, one or more of
    the John Does posted to the internet Plaintiff’s
    personal, private, unlisted home telephone number and the
    private unlisted home telephone number of Plaintiff’s 62
    year old mother, Kathleen Diamond in Tunkhannock, PA.
    Within hours of the publishing of the private unlisted
    home telephone numbers above, Plaintiff began to receive
    dozens of harassing, abusive and threatening calls. The
    first such call was received by Plaintiff’s wife, Phyllis
    Turner. Plaintiff later came to find that the John Doe
    Defendant caller recorded that call and publicly
    published the audio on the Internet for others to hear in
    direct violation of 47 U.S.C. 605(a). This had the
    effect of encouraging hundreds of others to engage in the
    same activity. These calls continued into all hours of
    the day and night, continued throughout Christmas Eve and
    Christmas Day and became so bothersome that Plaintiff had
    to shut off his telephone and, ultimately, change his
    telephone number.
    Almost simultaneously with the calls to Plaintiff’s
    home, Plaintiff’s 62 year old mother who lives with her
    70 year old husband in Tunkhannock, PA, started receiving

    similar calls. So determined were these John Doe
    Defendants to disrupt and harass, they continued to place
    these harassing and threatening calls throughout
    Christmas Eve and even on Christmas Day. These calls
    became so bothersome to Plaintiff’s mother and her
    husband – who is recovering from Leukemia – they too had
    to change their telephone number.

    At or about 12:30 PM EST on December 23, 2006,
    Plaintiff examined the real-time, graphical data-flow
    chart for his computer server. That real-time graphical
    data-flow chart showed the computer server had begun to
    receive extraordinary amounts of internet data traffic.
    Data flow out of the computer server suddenly increased
    about 100 times the normal rate. This became very
    worrisome very quickly because Plaintiff must pay for all
    data that flows into and out of the computer server.
    Plaintiff logged-in to the administrative area of the
    computer server and called up a “Netstat” report to
    identify what connections were being made to the computer
    server. Plaintiff found thousands of simultaneous
    connections from dozens of users, but these connections
    were strange: They were emanating from the same Internet
    Presence (IP) addresses. These connections to
    Plaintiff’s computer server were systematically and

    deliberately calling for, and receiving, tens of
    thousands of exact duplicate copies of Plaintiff’s web
    sites and / or exact duplicates of certain files on those
    sites. These exact duplicates were all going to the
    exact same computers on the exact same day(s).

    In common internet parlance, data flow into and out of
    a computer server is known as “bandwidth” and the type of
    activity described in #19 above, being done to
    Plaintiff’s computer server, is commonly called
    “Bandwidth rape.” It is a malicious form of data
    leeching activity designed specifically to suck the data
    out of a web site, so thoroughly and for so long, that
    the site is financially killed by increased bandwidth
    Upon realizing what was happening, Plaintiff began to
    analyze the logs of connections to the computer server
    using the “Netstat” command which shows all connections.
    Those logs helped to isolate and allow the blocking of
    the offending IP addresses. Plaintiff contacted the data
    center where the server is located and asked them to
    begin blocking the worst offending IP addresses. They
    did. The server bandwidth started returning to normal.

    Apparently, the attackers realized they were being
    blocked out, so they publicly published messages on the
    one or more of the Defendants web sites, asking others to
    join in the attacks and providing detailed instructions
    about how to perpetrate the attacks. The data flow once
    again jumped to 100 times normal. Late in the day on
    December 23, or early in the morning on December 24,
    Plaintiff decided to temporarily shut off the web sites
    hoping that the attackers would go away.
    Over the Christmas holiday, Plaintiff researched
    Bandwidth rape and learned that it can be defended
    against by installing a file which tells automated
    software that Plaintiff’s sites will not accept their
    use. Plaintiff installed on the computer server a file
    called “robots.txt” which instructs automated software
    that my computer server will not accept their
    connections. Plaintiff thought the problem was solved.
    It was not.
    On December 26, 2006 Plaintiff turned the web sites
    back on and almost immediately attacks began anew, but in
    a different, more destructive form: SYN-ACK data packet

    When one computer tries to communicate with another
    computer over the Internet, the origin computer sends a
    “SYNCHRONIZE (SYN)” data packet to the target computer it
    is trying to reach. This data packet tells the target
    computer to prepare to communicate with the origin
    computer via certain internet addresses, IP’s. The
    target computer then sets aside a small amount of its
    resources to be able to handle whatever the origin
    computer needs and sends and ACKNOWLEDGEMENT (ACK) data
    packet to the origin computer saying it is ready to
    communicate. In a SYN-ACK flood attack, the origin
    computers deliberately send a SYN data packet but never
    follow through with communication. This is a malicious
    act because as the target computer sets aside resources
    to prepare to communicate with tens of thousands of these
    origin SYN requests, the resources of the target computer
    get used up, making the computer unable to continue
    handling other, legitimate SYN requests. This type of
    activity is specifically designed to cause the target
    computer to be unavailable to legitimate users, who, when
    they try to connect, can get no reply from the targeted
    computer because its resources have become overloaded.
    Since SYN-ACK data packets are absolutely essential
    to the proper operation of computer communication via the

    internet, there is absolutely no technological defense
    that Plaintiff is aware of, which can prevent this type
    of attack. As such this type of activity – designed to
    make data unavailable – was specifically outlawed by the
    Computer Fraud and Abuse Act 18 USC 1030.

    For the purposes of this Complaint, Plaintiff’s
    computer server is a “protected computer” as defined in
    18 USC 1030 because it is “used in interstate commerce”
    for the purpose of “communication.” Hence, the provisions
    of 18 USC 1030 apply to Plaintiff’s computer server.
    On December 28, 29 and 31, 2006, additional SYN-ACK
    attacks were launched against Plaintiff’s computer,
    flooding it with upwards of 100 times the normal inbound
    data, which Plaintiff has to pay for, and making it
    impossible for the computer server to handle legitimate
    communication requests. On December 31, 2006, Plaintiff
    had to shut off his web sites again to protect from being
    Bankrupted by these attacks.
    On or about Tuesday, December 26, Plaintiff received
    an e-mail from a local Papa Johns Pizza Store advising
    they were filling my internet order for about $93 in
    pizza and stating the pizzas would be delivered soon.
    Plaintiff placed no such order. Plaintiff called the

    store to cancel it and told them it was a case of WIRE

    On or about Wednesday, December 27, Plaintiff once
    again aired “The Hal Turner Show” which ended around
    11:00 PM EST. At about 1:00 AM on Thursday, December 28,
    our home doorbell rang waking up Plaintiff and his
    family. It was a Pizza delivery from a local pizza
    store, filling another Pizza order which Plaintiff did
    not place. The pizza delivery man showed me his delivery
    slip which showed Plaintiff’s name, address and telephone
    number. Plaintiff placed no such order. Plaintiff told
    the delivery person this was another case of WIRE FRAUD.
    On or about Friday, December 29, at about 1:00 in the
    afternoon, Plaintiff’s home doorbell rang again with yet
    another pizza delivery, this one telephoned into the
    pizza shop by someone fraudulently claiming to be
    Plaintiff, but which Plaintiff did not order. As before,
    the pizza delivery man showed Plaintiff a delivery slip
    with Plaintiff’s name, address and home telephone number.
    Plaintiff placed no such order and told the delivery
    person this was another case of WIRE FRAUD.

    On or about Saturday, December 30, 2006, two large
    boxes were delivered to Plaintiff’s home by the United
    States Postal Service. Inside were bulk amounts of
    shipping boxes shipped to Plaintiff’s home by the
    internet auction web site, These boxes are
    shipping supplies which are designed to allow EBAY
    sellers to ship goods to EBAY buyers. Plaintiff placed
    no such order for any such supplies. Plaintiff has told
    EBAY this was a case of MAIL FRAUD and EBAY told
    Plaintiff to ship the supplies back to them.
    Since these attacks commenced, Plaintiff has received
    e-mails and electronic messages posted to his web site
    visitor comments area trying to Extort a surrender. The
    wording varied, but the message is the same:
    “We will not stop until you shut down your web site
    and your radio show.” This attempt to force Plaintiff
    to do something he is unwilling to do – terminate a
    lawful $60,000 per year and growing enterprise – is

    On January 3, 2007, during Plaintiff’s live radio show
    which airs from 9:00 PM until 11:00 PM EST, the computer
    server suffered the largest, most disruptive attack to
    date. A sudden and dramatic increase of inbound traffic

    hit the server at six-hundred-sixty megabits per seconds
    (660 Mbps.) This attack was so enormous and so sustained
    that it saturated routers in the data center, taking
    Plaintiff’s web sites off line and also halting normal
    computer data flow for hundreds of other customers whose
    computers are also inside the data center. So damaging
    was this attack that the data center had to “null route”
    (shut off all access to) the computer server, rendering
    Plaintiff unable to conduct a radio show or to do
    business through that server for the next ten hours,
    until the data center could clear the inbound data

    On or about Friday, January 5, 2007, a Manager from
    the United States Post Office at North Bergen, NJ came to
    Plaintiff’s home to ask if he had ordered a truckload of
    postal shipping supplies. Plaintiff told him no. The
    Postal manager advised that the North Bergen Post office
    had one or more Pallets of shipping supplies, allegedly
    ordered by Plaintiff, but they were hesitant to deliver
    it because it appeared to be a fraud. Plaintiff told the
    Postal Manager it was, in fact additional mail fraud and
    the manager told Plaintiff he would alert U.S. Postal
    Inspectors for federal investigation.

    On or about Friday, January 5, 2007, the owners of
    web site removed the front page of their site
    and put in its place an apology to Plaintiff. The page
    showed an image of a Five Dollar Bill, with an altered
    photograph of Plaintiff in the middle of that bill, and
    the caption above the bill read as follows” WE’RE SORRY
    WE TOOK ALL UR MONIES, HERE” as if to give Plaintiff the
    fake five dollar bill. This act appears to be an overt
    acknowledgement that Defendant deliberately
    attacked my web site and deliberately cost me money.
    On or about January 4, 2007 I received an email from
    a person calling himself Joey Bernert, purporting to be
    an administrator, a person in authority at the web site That e-mail acknowledged that their
    site supported the attacks launched against Plaintiff,
    which indicates they were willing participants,
    facilitators or accessories to the acts described herein.
    On January 3, another Denial of Service attack was
    launched at Plaintiff’s server, taking The Show off the
    On January 9, 2007, Plaintiff was notified in writing
    by Net Access Corporation, that due to the repeated

    Denial of Service attacks against the server, they will
    not continue service to Plaintiff. They further advised
    that if future inbound attacks occurred, they would be
    forced to immediately halt service to me so as to protect
    their other customers. Their letter requires Plaintiff
    remove the server from their data center on or before
    February 15. While Plaintiff has made arrangements for a
    new data center to provide service, the cost for such
    service is sixty-one percent (61%) more expensive per
    month at minimum. If these Denial of Service attacks
    continue, the added costs and possibility of being thrown
    out of the new data center are causing incalculable harm
    to Plaintiff.

    On January 10 and 17, two additional Denial of
    Service attacks occurred against Plaintiff’s server, both
    organized and promoted on the Defendant(s) web sites.
    The attack on the 17th, forced Net Access Corporation to
    once again ‘null route” Plaintiff’s server to protect
    their other data center customers.
    On January 18, 2007, a number of regular visitors to
    Plaintiff’s web site telephoned saying they could not
    access Plaintiff’s sites. Upon investigation, Plaintiff

    determined that Net Access Corporation has, in fact, null
    routed access to the server again to protect their other
    customers and as a result, Plaintiff is effectively out
    of business because of the Denial of Service attacks.

    C. The Business of the Defendants
    42. is an internet web site that allows users to
    post messages and images of various types seemingly
    without restraint. Criminal activity seems to be rampant
    and well documented on this web site. The site contains
    pornographic depictions of children and well publicized
    terrorist bombing threats. The Court’s attention is
    directed to an incident which occurred in October 2006.
    Late that month, the United States Department of Homeland
    Security issued a nationwide terrorist attack alert over
    the alleged planned truck bombings of NFL Football
    Stadiums. The threats to truck-bomb those stadiums was
    posted on the web site upwards of forty (40)
    separate times before authorities arrested the
    43. is an internet web site that allows users to
    post messages and images of various types. Criminal
    activity on this web site includes pornographic

    depictions of children and photographs of pre-teen and
    teenage girls in various states of undress. One area of
    this site is specifically set up to foster criminal
    attacks against other web sites. That area, called /i/
    for INVASION allows users to anonymously conspire
    together, in public, to arrange criminal attacks against
    various web sites around the world similar to the attacks
    outlined in this Complaint.

    44. is an internet web site offering
    examples of prank phone calls and telephone harassment
    against a variety of targets similar to those outlined in
    this complaint. The site also offers a message forum in
    which users can talk about various topics or plan and
    coordinate illegal activities against a variety of web
    sites similar to those outlined in this complaint.
    45. is an internet web site which offers
    IRC chat and the ability to download “malware.” Malware
    is malicious computer software which can be used to
    attack internet users and web sites similar to the
    attacks outlined in this complaint.
    46. is an internet web site offering free
    Internet Relay Chat (IRC) through which its users can

    talk about a variety of topics including planning illegal
    attacks against computer servers as outlined in this

    The business of John Doe(s) 1-1000 is not known at
    this time.
    COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT (17 U.S.C. 501 et. seq.)

    John Doe Defendants perpetrated infringement upon
    Plaintiff’s Copyright by making copies of his radio shows
    of December 20 and December 27, posting copies of those
    shows on free file storage services and then advertising
    a link on the named Defendants web sites encouraging
    users to take copies of those shows. By making the
    shows available free, the general public was able to
    avoid paying Plaintiff for subscription access to such
    shows, thus causing incalculable harm to plaintiff in
    lost revenues from subscription sales. By allowing users
    to post links to the infringed material, named Defendants
    facilitated wide distribution of the infringed material.
    Further irreparable harm to Plaintiff is imminent as a
    result of Defendants conduct and Plaintiff is without an
    adequate remedy at law. Plaintiff is entitled to

    injunctive relief, restraining named defendants, their
    agents, employees, representatives and all persons acting
    in concert with them from engaging in further Copyright

    Plaintiff is further entitled to recover from
    Defendants, monetary damages as a result of defendant’s
    acts of Copyright Infringement in an amount to be
    determined at trial.
    Plaintiff is also entitled to recover from Defendants,
    the gains, profits and advantages they have obtained as a
    result of their acts of copyright infringement in an
    amount to be determined at trial.

    John Doe Defendants willfully engaged in activities
    specifically designed to cause the data on Plaintiff’s
    server to be made “unavailable.” The named Defendants
    willfully facilitated, aided and abetted those activities
    by allowing users of their web sites to conspire, plan,
    organize, incite and teach others how to commit similar
    acts via their web sites, and in the case of Defendant, by featuring a specific area of their web site
    designed to aid, abet and further attacks against
    internet web sites.


    John Doe Defendants engaged in Common Law Fraud in
    violation of the laws of the State of New Jersey by
    intentionally using automated software to repeatedly
    download content from my web sites for the sole purpose
    of causing harm in the form of increased bandwidth costs.
    These acts deprived Plaintiff of the inestimable right of
    fair dealing and were done with malice for the sole
    purpose of inflicting financial harm. Named Defendants
    willfully facilitated, aided and abetted this Fraud by
    allowing users of their web sites to conspire, plan and
    organize these acts through publishing instructions on
    the methods and tasks to be undertaken for the purpose of
    harming Plaintiff.


    John Doe Defendants committed numerous acts of mail
    fraud by placing orders for goods, services and
    merchandise to be shipped to Plaintiff via United States

    Postal Service, with Plaintiff being billed for such
    goods and merchandise, when Plaintiff made no such
    requests for any goods, services or merchandise. Named
    defendants facilitated, aided and abetted such Mail Fraud
    by allowing users of their web sites to conspire, plan,
    organize and incite such acts via their web sites.


    55. John Doe Defendants committed numerous acts of Wire
    Fraud by placing orders via telephone for goods, services
    and merchandise to be shipped to Plaintiff, with Plaintiff
    being billed for such goods and merchandise, when Plaintiff
    made no such requests for any goods, services or
    merchandise. Named defendants facilitated, aided and
    abetted such Wire Fraud by allowing users of their web
    sites to conspire, plan, organize and incite such acts via
    their web sites.

    John Doe Defendants committed extortion by demanding
    Plaintiff quit, shut down and/or cancel his radio show
    and web sites under threat of continuing Computer Fraud
    and Abuse, Mail Fraud, Wire Fraud. Attempting to force

    someone to give up his radio show and web sites, an
    estimated $60,000 per year enterprise which is something
    of value, under such threats of continued computer
    attacks and fraud is extortion. Named Defendants
    facilitated, aided and abetted such Extortion by allowing
    users of their web sites to publicly and repeatedly
    conspire, plan, organize and implement the attacks in
    furtherance of the effort to force Plaintiff to give up
    his business.


    Since two or more people from each of the named
    Defendant web sites, acting in concert, engaged in the
    “predicate felonies” of Mail Fraud, Wire Fraud and
    Extortion, within a ten year period, and since the named
    defendants,,, and, willfully facilitated,
    aided and abetted these acts, the named defendants are,
    in fact, Racketeer Influenced, Corrupt Organizations.
    Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1964(a) Plaintiff is entitled to
    triple damages in an amount to be determined at trial.

    Whereas Plaintiff has suffered substantial harm as
    outlined above and has no other remedy at law, Plaintiff
    hereby demands a Trial by jury to recover monetary
    damages as a jury may see fit to award.

    I declare under penalty of perjury and pursuant to 28
    U.S.C. 1746 that the foregoing is true and correct.
    Dated: North Bergen, New Jersey
    January 19, 2007

    Harold C. “Hal” Turner

  2. billy says:


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *