Jenny Frankfurt Particulars of Claim

Jenny Frankfurt - Particulars of Claim
IN THE CENTRAL LONDON
COUNTY COURT
CLAIM NO. 3CL02233
Between
JENN Y FRAN KFURT
Claimant
and
Defen dant
PARTICULARS O F CLA IM
SIMON M . SMITH
SOLICITOR ADVOCAT E
92A HI GH STREET
TI LLI COULTRY
CLACKMANNANSH IRE
FK13 6DY
Tel : 01259 752478
Fax: 01259 750415
Ref: SS/F03.01
Solicitors for the Claimant
Page 1 of 15
IN THE CENTRAL LONDON
CLAIM NO. 3CL02233
COUNTY COURT
BETWEEN
JENNY FRANKFURT
Claimant
-v-
Defendant
PARTICULARS OF CLAIM
The Parties
1. The Claimant is a private individual resident in Los Angeles.
2. The Defendant is a privat e individual residen t in London.
The Claim in Summary
3. The Claimant seeks in these proceedings damages and an Injunction under

the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 arising from the acts of publication
by the Defendant and continued publication by him on a daily basis of a blog
concerning her which seeks to damage her reputation and causes her
considerable alarm and distress, and the acts of the publication by the
Defendant of Tweet messages seeking to publish the existence of the blog
and encouraging third parties to read it and to re-Tweet it a link to it and

thereby publicise it to others who may wish to read it.
Page 2 of 15
4. Should these proceedings continue, the Claimant intends to amend her Claim
and these Particulars of Claim to seek damages for the separate causes of
action of Invasion of Privacy (contrary to the Claimant's right under Article 8
of the European Convention on Human Rights as enshrined in the Human
Rights Act 1998) and Infringement of Copyright (in respect of the various
messages sent by the Claimant to the Defendant and a sound recording of a
voicemail message left by the Claimant on the Defendant's mobile phone
which the Defendant published on the blog in dispute). When it became clea r
that the Defendant intended to go ahead with the publication of his blog, the
Claimant sent an email to him making clear that he did not have her
permission to publish any of her texts or emails wh ich she had privately sent
to him, yet he published them in flagrant disregard of that lack of consent in
any event.
The Background to the Dispute
5. The Claimant has never met with the Defendant. She came to know the
Defendant through Twitter and has spoken to him briefly and exchanged
messages on an intermittent basis over the years. To that extent only, they
formed a friendship.
6. The Claimant candidly accepts that out of boredom she created a false
account on Twitter, that is to say not one in her true identity. There is nothing
illegal in this, nor is it necessarily uncommon, the Defendant himself having
done so (as to which reference will be made below in paragraph 24 of these
Particulars of Claim). Due to their friendship, the Claimant knew that the
Defendant was out of work at the time and was looking for employment.
Although she now regrets doing so, she thought that she would offer him a
fake job under the false alias in order to improve his self-esteem, as she saw
it. She now realises this was a wrong thing to do, but it was not done w ith the
intent to upset the Defendant. In the event, although the fake job had been
Page 3 of 15
alluded to in the exchanges between the Claimant (under her false alias) and
~he
Defendant, the position of employment was not in fact offered, the
Claimant having made clear that the was unlikely to get the job. The Claimant
has sincerely apologised on many occasions to the Defendant for this error of
judgment on her part.
7. After investigating the position, the Defendant, who was understandably

angry, managed to identify the Claimant as being behind the false alias. At
first the Claimant denied that she was behind the false alias out of a sense of
embarrassment, but eventually accepted that she was behind the false alias.
The Claimant did so after the Defendant threatened to reveal what he
suspected she had done to his friend s and the internet community generally,
and also after the Defendant threatened to reveal the false alias to a client of
the Claimant's. After the Claimant deleted her false alias account, the
Defendant nevertheless proceeded to carry out his threat and revealed the
false alias to the Claimant's client, as a result of which the Claimant was fired
by the client.
8. In a series of disturbing text messages from the Defendant to the Claimant in

the 4-5 weeks prior to the publishing by the Defendant to the internet of the
blog in dispute, in what amounted to clear malicious communications under
the Malicious Communications Act 1988, the Defendant made threats to
inter alia cause physical harm to the Claimant and her son; made negative
reference to her mental and emotional state; and went so far as to accuse
her of wanting to kill her son and his friends at camp. The Defendant also
threatened in his text messages to publish a blog on the internet revealing
what the Claimant had done so as to damage and destroy her reputation .
9. On
5 th
August 2013, therefore, the Claimant emailed the Defendant to say, "I
filed charges against you for harassment (via text) with the Los Angeles Police
Department... My lawyer is also prepared to beef this up with a lawsuit based
on the harassing, violent, emotionally and physically distressing texts you
Page 4 of 15
have sent me and a cease and desist order regarding anything you write
<)bout me based on copyright material. .. I don't want to do any of this as I
think it will not be good for you (or myself for that matter} but as I have
continually asked for us to move on, you have not. I refuse to be threatened
in this manner by you . Please take down all your fake accounts, cease a plan
for writing a 'tell-all' blog to be distributed with the intent to ruin my career
and end this matter for good. Let's put this behind us and move on. This
should have ended long ago. There are no winners or losers, just bygones."
10. The Defendant not only threatened to post the Blog to the internet before
doing so in his text messages, but also to the general public on t he
Defendant's Twitter account. The Defendant has 3234 'Followers' of his
Twitter account, who receive his various Twitter posts. This inevitably and
intentionally caused further considerable alarm and distress to the Claimant.
For instance, he Tweeted as follows:
("CityJohn@Twitter")- [ 29.07.13)- "If it's not resolved ASAP expect to
see a very long blog exposing who it is and what she's done". The
Claimant notes that by this stage, she had disabled her false alias Twitter
account and had apologised several times to the Defendant for her
misjudged actions, such that there was contrary to what the Defendant
wrote in the said Tweet nothing in fact to 'resolve'.
11. Whatever initial provocation the Defendant felt, he had sufficient 'coolingoff' period in which to resile from his threat to publish the blog. It is to be
inferred that by proceeding to publish the blog he made a rational decision to
proceed to carry out his stated threat to damage and destroy the Claimant's
reputation and to cause her significant psychological harm.
12. The Defendant duly published the blog in dispute to the internet on
13th
August 2013, at the following address

http://fewerpedantic.wordpress.com/2013/08/14/jenny-frankfurt-inte rnet-
Page 5 of 15
stalker/, where it remains . A copy of the blog is attached as the Annexure to

~hese
Particulars of Claim.
13. In posting text exchanges between himself and the Claimant to his blog, the
Defendant opted to edit certain texts so as to remove his said threats to the
Claimant from their content.
14. The blog accuses the Claimant of being a 'Cyber-stalker' towards the
Defendant and of harassing him. The Claimant denies both charges. The facts
and admissions as pleaded in Paragraph 6 of these Particulars of Claim do not
support or justify the making of either allegation. For the avoidance of doubt,
the Claimant does not accept the majority of the truth of what the blog
asserts about her. Importantly, the truth or falsity of the content of the
Defendant's blog is entirely irrelevant to the question of harassment in these
proceedings and serves as no defence whatsoever to the claim as pleaded.
15. Whilst the Claimant has at no stage denied the right of the Defendant to be
angry with her for her misjudgment and actions, she nevertheless contends
that the Defendant's reaction has been wholly disproportionate in seeki ng to
cause considerable alarm and distress to her and damage to her reputation,
including unwarranted threats of vio lence towards her. The Defendant has
embarked upon a course of misguided revenge which far from its stated aim
of seeking to protect others from the Claimant (the Defendant having
published a Tweet on 29lh July 2013 prior to publication of the blog in
dispute, reading "[I have to do it) If only so other people have a warning1'),
has set about quite deliberately and cynical ly to cause maximum alarm and
distress to the Claimant and harm to her reputation .
16. The Defendant then actively sought to publicise the existence of his blog. For
instance, as follows:
Page 6 of 15
- ("CityJohn@Twitter") -13.08.13 - "The woeful tale of Jenny Frankf urt,

my internet stalker. Now with added voicemail and troll shaming! Please
RT" [ie Re-Tweet] [togethe r with a link to the Defendant's blog"]; and
- ("CityJohn@Twitter") -14.08.13 - "Here's the direct link to the really,
really interesting comment on my Jenny Frankfurt stalker blog [together
with link to the Defendant's blog].
17. On 31~t August 2013, the Claimant 's solicitors wrote a letter to the
Defendant, marked 'confidential', asking that he cease and desist from his
campaign and immediately disable the blog. The letter included the
following, " Whatever justification you consider you have for publishing the
attack upon our client, there is no justification in law. We invite you to
disable the blog on the basis of no admission of liability. Should you decline
to do so, this will be rel ied upon as Aggravation in legal proceedings that will
then follow." Rather than take up that reasonable suggestion so as to avoid
the necessity of legal proceedings, the Defendant instead posted the
confidential letter to his blog, where it remains and which he continues to
publish. He then immediately set about actively publ icising his blog again,
making reference to the inclusion of th e Claimant's solicitors' letter, in his
various Tweets and encouraged others to do likewise, including his girlfriend
or partner.
18. As a direct consequence, and having been left by the Defendant with no
other option, legal proceedings were issued by the Claimant and served upon
the Defendant by email on 11th September 2013, the Defendant having
chosen to accept service by email of proceedings having refused to divulge
his postal address.
19. On 14th September 2013, the Claimant emailed the Defendant as follows
(directly copying that email to the Claimant's father), "John, I am asking that
you please take the blog down. You've had it up for over a month and it's
nicely done the job you wanted to. I am suicidal and am putting my affairs in
Page 7 of 15
order to kill myself. I cannot get a job, I am taunted daily by you and yovr
acolytes. I have no money now and a child I cannot care for. I don't care what
you think of me. I am sorry I hurt you . The situation was not about you as I
told you many times. Nonetheless, this is not a lie or a meaningless threat.
You have, I assume, done what you wanted to do. Congratulations. My son's
name is Teddy. While I have had other depressive issues this has put me over
the top. Please take it down. I am asking kindly and nicely. It's time to move
on now. My attorney and father are copied on this letter." The Defendant's
reaction was to ignore that email and to continue to publish the blog in
dispute.
20. The following day, on 15th September 2013, and without prompting or prior
notice to the Claimant, the Claimant's father chose out of obvious and sincere
parental concern to email the Defendant direct. He said as follows, "I can only
plead with you ... I can do no less than beg with you" to relent. He referred to
his daughter's "authentically suicida l depression, by which I am terrified". He
added, "She has no job, and she fears that your blog about her will make it
impossible for her to find one. And her distress at the situation is significantly
impairing her ability (she is a single mother) to care for her five year-old son.
It seems to her, quite vividly I'm afraid, that your blog is running her life".
Alarmingly, and to the Defendant's considerable discredit, the Defendarnt
chose to ignore that plea for several days knowing that by doing so the
Claimant's father's concern would unnecessarily be exacerbated.
21. Some four days later on 19th September 2013, the Defendant chose to reply
to the Claimant's father, as follows, "Thank you for your concerned email. I
am afraid that I am not in a position to take the blog down due to the
continued threat of litigation against me ... You will note that her 'suicidal'
email to me failed to mention this. I cannot and will not correspond with you
further until the prospective litigation is concluded." The Claimant notes with
disdain and relies upon in aggravation the dismissive reference, in the
Defendant's own parenthesis so as to reject its sincerity, to the word
Page 8 of 15
'suicidal'. The Defendant's refusal to take the blog down entirely ignored the
request made in the Claimant's solicitor's initial letter of 31st August 2013, as
pleaded at paragraph 16 above, that he could do so on the basis of no
admission of liability.
22. The Defendant has boasted with satisfaction on his Twitter account of the
number of 'hits' or 'views' to his blog, and actively incites and encou rages
those reading it or following his Tweets to further publish the blog by ReTweeting a link to it. He also has indicate d a determination not to stop
publishing the blog in offensive terms, and apparently dismisses and mocks
the legal process commenced by the Claimant, for instance as follows :
("CityJohn@Twitter") - 01.09.13 - " I' m now being sued by my internet
stalker [together with link to the Defendant's blog]. Pis RT [ie Re-Tweet]
like there's no tomorrow";
("CityJohn@Twitter") - 04.09.13 - "My blog about internet stalker Jenny
Frankfurt has been viewed nearly 137,000 times";
("CityJohn@Twitter") - 05.09.13 - " I' m a pretty nice person. Until
someone unwarrantedly provokes me. Then - did not know WHO they
were fucking with. I break them";
("CityJohn@Twitter") - [Date unknown] - "Apparently I'm still being
sued by my internet stalker. Any RTs [a reference to 'Re-Tweet"] would be
greatly appreciated. 145k views [together with a link to his blog]";
("CityJohn@Twitter") - 10.09.13 - " Not backing down. I've done nothing
wrong and now I' m being sued. Fuck 'em";
("CityJohn@Twitter") -10.09.13 - " Bastards. All";
("CityJohn@Twitter") - [Date unknown] - "They've issued proceedings
against me", to which ("@rich108" - [Date unknown] - repl ied "Surely
not? And is the blog down now? How rid iculous"), to which
"CityJohn@Twitter" responded - [Date unknown] "No. As long as I'm
being attacked and litigation is a prospect it's staying up. It's a fucking
farce";
Page 9 of 15
("CityJohn@Twitter") - [Date unknown] - "They issued proceedings

against me. Which, as you can imagine, are laughable";
("CityJohn@Twitter") - [Date unknown] - "J urisdiction. It's all
meaningless"; and
{"CityJohn@Twitter") - [Date unknown]- " Incredibly. Thankfully I have
great friends (on Twitter an d elsewhere) and massive legal backup. Won't
back down to bullies", in response to "@ Naughtypob" - [Date unknown]
- "CityJoh n it's going viral. Which is good."
23. As a result of the posting of the blog, the Claimant has been forced to take
down her blog " hitchyourwagon.wordpress.com" from the internet which
she had published for more than 2 years, due to the on line abuse it was
receiving from those who had read the Defendant's blog and been directed
by him or his blog to it.
24. The Defendant created a false Twitter account under the alias "@ barrysaber"
with the intent to further harass the Claimant and damage her reputation . On
g th
September 2013, the Defendant published the following Tweet, "Have a
look@ Barry Saber's account. You may find it amusing". As a direct result,
menacing messages were posted to "@ barrysaber" including a suggestion
that the Claimant sho uld burn in Hell. The "@ barrysaber" account was
subsequently disabled by Twitter but only after the Claimant raised a number
of understandably alarmed complaints in respect of it.
25. Further, a Guardian computer journalist, Jack Schofield, has posted to his
blog a link to the Defendant's blog, a summary of the Defendant's version of
5
events, and the Claimant's solicitors' confident ial letter of 31 t August, for
which the Claimant holds the Defendant liable, it being a natural and
foreseeable result of his original publication and subsequent encouragement
of third parties to republish it.
Page 10 of 15
26. A standard Google and Yahoo search on the Claimant's name now reveals as
9ne of the immediate links available, "Jenny Frankfurt - Internet Stalker",
being a link to the Defendant's blog and posted by him on 14th August 2013.
The standard Google search also contains the link, "Please get the story of
Jenny Frankfurt, my internet stalker, out there. Needs to be read by
everyone", being a further link to the Defendant's blog and posted by him on
15th August 2013.
27. As a single mother, the Claimant is the only source of income for herself and
her young child. Typically, that income would arise from requests to edit
screenplays which arrived over the internet. As a direct result of the
Defendant's actions in posting the blog and seeking to damage the Claimant
by his Twitter posts, and by his deliberately 'following' the Claimant's Twitter
'followe rs', many of whom were sources of work for the Claimant (thereby
linking his Tweets about her to them), that source of income has dried up.
The Defendant has indicated that more than 150,000 people have now
visited his blog, primarily in the UK and US, where most of her work contacts
are centered. The Claimant contends that work that was previously sourced
from the internet is no longer available because of the damage done by the
Defendant to her reputation .
28. The Claimant finds it difficult to sleep and go about her daily life in the
manner she considered normal prior to the publication of the blog.
29. If that were not bad enough, as a direct result of the Defendant's blog and
actions, the Claimant has suffered such a level of alarm and distress that she
became suicidal. To address this, she has had friends staying with her on
what was in effect at its worse stage a 'suicide watch' and is currently in
therapy and on anti-depressant medication. She considers that the
experience has affected every aspect of her life - financial, parenting,
physical, mental and emotional health. Although in law the Defendant must
take the 'victim' as he finds her, insofar as she had bouts of pre-existing
Page 11 of 15
depression, what makes matters considerably worse in the present

circumstances is that both the Claimant herself and separately and without
prompting her father alerted the Defendant to these suicidal tendencies, only
for him to cast doubt on them and fail to disable the blog. The Defendant can
therefore have no proper grounds to assert that he is not liable for his actions
in actual knowledge of the Claimant's level of alarm and distress and should
be held to account accordingly having carried out his threats and acts with his
'eyes wide open' and with a reckless disregard for the serious consequences
that have followed.
30. The Claimant intends to apply in these proceedings for permission to join the
Claimant's girlfriend or partner, Ms.
Defendant to these proceedings. Ms. under the name '
as a Second
operates a Twitter account
' and has 1035 followers who receive her
Tweets. The Claimant has never met with nor spoken to Ms. -
who
has actively so ught to encourage readership and republication of the

Defendant's blog on more than one occasion, and has publicly and libelously
asserted that the Claimant is an internet stalker of herself (in addition and
separate to being an internet stalker of the Defendant) thus engaging in a
course of conduct with the effect of causing alarm and distress to t he
Claimant. Further, according to the Defendant's own Tweets, Ms. actively gathered much of the information, much of which is false, concerning
the Claimant that was published in the Defendant's blog and is therefore
equally responsible for its creation, content and publication. For instance, she
has Tweeted as follows:
Upon publication of the Defendant's blog to the internet,
') - 13.08.13 - "as promised! The scary and sad

portrait of @CityJohn's and my internet stalker! [with a link to the blog in
dispute]. Please RT ['Re-Tweet']";
('
') -13.08.13 - "She's a festering c### [Claimant's
solicitor's deletion] of the highest order";
Page 12 of 15
')-13.08.13 - " Re-tweeted by.
', the Tweet
from @CityJohn reading, "The woeful tale of Jenny Frankfurt, my internet

stalker. Now with added voicemail and troll shaming! Please RT" [ie ReTweet] [together with a link to the Defendant's blog"];
('
') - 14.08 - "if you haven't seen it, please read a
profile of @CityJohn's and my internet stalker" [together with a link to

the Defendant's blog];
') -14.08.13 - "she was a 'friend' of John's for
years";
') -14.08.13 - "filth ;)"
('
') - 14.08.13 - "PSA [standing for Public Service
Announcement]: if you haven't seen it, please read a profile of

@CityJohn's and my internet stalker [together with a link to the blog}
(sorry for repeating! x);
')- 14.08.13 - "Re-tweeted by.
', the Tweet
from @CityJohn reading, "Here's the direct link to the really, really
interesting comment on my Jenny Frankfurt Stalker blog [together with a
link to the Defendant's blog]";
('
')-14.08.13- "Stalkers and fraudsters and trolls,
oh my! [together with a link to the Defendant's blog] (now with trolling
tweets)";
')-01.09.13 -
II
',the Tweet
from @CityJohn reading, "I'm now being sued by my internet stalker! You
couldn't make this up [together with a link to the Defendant's blog]. Pis
RT [ie Re-Tweet] like there's no tomorrow";
' ) - 03.09.13 - "so @CityJohn's internet stalker is
threatening to sue if he doesn't take his blog down by 3pm. Read it while
you can [with a link to the blog in dispute, on which was scanned a legible
copy of the Claimant's solicitors confidential initial letter before claim]";
')-[Date unknown] - "ha ha! Don't you mean
mental hospital?", in reply to "@Stuart Wilks - [Date unknown) - "what
Page 13 of 15
about the arrest of that scoundrel who plagues your twitter account? (by
which I mean @CityJohn";
('
') - [Date unknown ] - "860. I'm keeping a log of
how much we milk this bitch for". The reference to '860' is a reference
to the Claim Form issue fee which appears on the face of the Claim Form
as served on the Defendant alone, and which he has plainly disclosed a
copy of the Ms.-
This Tweet was quickly deleted by Ms.
and
') - [11.10.13) - "I'm just J's stalker account;)".
31. For the reasons pleaded above, the Defendant is liable for the serious course
of conduct of harassment he has deliberately subjected the Claimant to.
AND THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS:
(1) Damages (including Aggravated and Exemplary Damages) pursuant to sections 1

and 3 of the Protection of Harassment Act 1997;
(2) A Permanent Injunction to restrain the Defendant, or anyone at his direct ion or
encouragement, from further publishing the blog complained of and from further
engaging in a course of conduct of harassment to the Claimant; and
(3) Indemnity Costs.
Page 14 of 15
STATE\I EYf OF TRUT H

I believe that the facts stated in these Particulars of Claim are true.
'\\
Signed...~.
Jenny Frankfurt
Dated this
Served this
11th day
11th
of October 2013.
day of October 2013 by Simon M. Smith, Solicitors for the Claimant.
Page 15 of 15

Jenny Frankfurt Particulars of Claim

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Jenny Frankfurt Particulars of Claim

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Jenny Frankfurt - Particulars of Claim

IN THE CENTRAL LONDON

CLAIM NO. 3CL02233

JENN Y FRAN KFURT