Jan Lynn Owen

A summary of what happened?

Jan Lynn Owen served as the Commissioner of the California Department of Business Oversight (DBO), a regulatory body overseeing financial services and products to protect consumers and ensure the integrity of California’s financial marketplace. In her official capacity, Owen was involved in several legal cases, primarily as a representative of the state’s regulatory interests. These cases often challenged the department’s enforcement actions and the constitutionality of certain California financial statutes.

Key Legal Cases Involving Jan Lynn Owen:

1. Nationwide Biweekly Administration, Inc. v. Owen
   • Case Overview: Nationwide Biweekly Administration, Inc. filed a lawsuit against Jan Lynn Owen, in her capacity as Commissioner, challenging California’s statutory requirements for prorater licenses. The company argued that the state’s licensing requirements violated the Dormant Commerce Clause by mandating in-state incorporation for licensure.
   • Court Findings: The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals found that Nationwide was likely to succeed on its claim regarding the Dormant Commerce Clause, as the in-state incorporation requirement discriminated against out-of-state economic interests. The court vacated the district court’s order denying a preliminary injunction and remanded the case for further proceedings.
     Justia Law
2. Shurnas v. Owen
   • Case Overview: Jason P. Shurnas and associated entities filed a lawsuit against Jan Lynn Owen, alleging that Section 25532 of the California Corporations Code was unconstitutional. They contended that the statute failed to provide adequate notice regarding the requirement to request a hearing within 30 days after receiving a desist-and-refrain order.
   • Court Findings: The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the district court’s dismissal of the complaint, stating that Section 25532 sufficiently described the remedies available to recipients of desist-and-refrain orders. The court emphasized that the state is not obligated to provide individualized notice of state-law remedies.
     Justia Law
3. People ex rel. Owen v. Miami Nation Enterprises
   • Case Overview: In this case, the California Department of Business Oversight, represented by Commissioner Owen, pursued legal action against Miami Nation Enterprises and associated entities involved in short-term deferred deposit lending, commonly known as payday loans. The department sought to enforce state lending laws against these entities.
   • Court Findings: The California Supreme Court examined whether the entities were entitled to tribal sovereign immunity. The court concluded that the entities did not qualify for such immunity and were subject to state regulations.
     Justia Law
4. People ex rel. Owen v. Media One Direct, LLC
   • Case Overview: The Department of Business Oversight, under Owen’s leadership, filed a lawsuit against Media One Direct, LLC, alleging violations of California’s financial statutes.
   • Court Findings: The California Court of Appeal upheld the department’s enforcement actions, affirming the regulatory authority of the DBO over entities operating within the state’s financial sector.
     FindLaw Case Law

Throughout her tenure as Commissioner of the California Department of Business Oversight, Jan Lynn Owen was involved in various legal proceedings aimed at enforcing state financial regulations and protecting consumers. The cases mentioned above reflect the department’s efforts to uphold California’s financial laws and the challenges faced in balancing regulatory authority with constitutional considerations. It’s important to note that these legal actions were directed at the department’s regulatory practices and the interpretation of state laws, rather than personal complaints or accusations against Owen herself.

Analyzing the Fake Copyright Notice(s)

Our team collects and analyses fraudulent copyright takedown requests, legal complaints, and other efforts to remove critical information from the internet. Through our investigative reporting, we examine the prevalence and operation of an organized censorship industry, predominantly funded by criminal entities, oligarchs, and disreputable businesses or individuals. Our findings allow internet users to gain insight into these censorship schemes’ sources, methods, and underlying objectives.

What was Jan Lynn Owen trying to hide?

Jan Lynn Owen‘s attempts to hide unfavourable content through the misuse of copyright notices while allegedly engaging in perjury present serious legal concerns. These actions suggest a calculated attempt to manipulate legal systems to suppress free speech, a fundamental violation of copyright law principles and an abuse of legal processes. The use of such tactics not only undermines the integrity of copyright protection but also potentially constitutes perjury, further entangling Jan Lynn Owen in legal accountability. Let’s examine the information Jan Lynn Owen may be trying to remove from the internet –

Investigative Report: Jan Lynn Owen – Scrutiny of a Public Official

Introduction

Jan Lynn Owen served as the Commissioner of the California Department of Business Oversight (DBO), overseeing the state’s financial regulatory framework. Her tenure involved enforcing financial regulations, protecting consumers, and managing legal disputes against organizations operating within California’s financial and corporate sectors. While her role was largely administrative, Owen’s actions, as the public face of the DBO, drew criticism and legal challenges, particularly regarding the department’s enforcement policies and their constitutionality.

This report examines the adverse news, lawsuits, and criticisms leveled against Jan Lynn Owen in her official capacity, exploring the broader implications for financial regulation in California.

Key Legal and Regulatory Controversies

1. Nationwide Biweekly Administration, Inc. v. Owen

• Case Summary:
  • Nationwide Biweekly Administration, Inc., a company offering services to facilitate mortgage payments, filed a lawsuit challenging California’s licensing requirements for proraters, overseen by the DBO. The statute required proraters to incorporate within the state, which Nationwide alleged violated the Dormant Commerce Clause by discriminating against out-of-state businesses.
• Criticism:
  • Critics argued that the DBO, under Owen, enforced outdated and restrictive regulations that stifled interstate commerce and innovation.
  • The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals found merit in Nationwide’s claims, ruling that the in-state incorporation requirement likely violated the Dormant Commerce Clause.
• Implications:
  • The case highlighted a tension between California’s regulatory authority and the need for uniformity in interstate business practices.

2. Shurnas v. Owen

• Case Summary:
  • Jason P. Shurnas and related entities contested Section 25532 of the California Corporations Code, which allows the DBO to issue desist-and-refrain orders. The plaintiffs alleged that the statute failed to provide adequate notice about the requirement to request a hearing within 30 days of receiving such an order.
• Court Ruling:
  • The Ninth Circuit upheld the statute, affirming that it provided sufficient notice of remedies. However, the case drew attention to the DBO’s aggressive enforcement of administrative penalties.
• Public Perception:
  • Critics viewed the case as emblematic of the DBO’s heavy-handed approach to enforcement, accusing the department of overreach and insufficient transparency in its administrative processes.

3. Payday Lending and Tribal Sovereign Immunity: People ex rel. Owen v. Miami Nation Enterprises

• Case Summary:
  • The DBO pursued enforcement actions against payday lenders affiliated with tribal entities, alleging violations of California’s lending laws, such as charging exorbitant interest rates and bypassing state consumer protection regulations.
  • The lenders claimed tribal sovereign immunity, arguing that the state had no jurisdiction over their operations.
• Court Ruling:
  • The California Supreme Court ruled that the entities did not qualify for tribal sovereign immunity, allowing the DBO to proceed with enforcement.
• Criticism:
  • The case raised questions about the DBO’s engagement with indigenous communities and the broader implications of challenging tribal sovereignty.
  • Some viewed the department’s actions as a necessary step to protect consumers, while others criticized it as an attack on tribal economic initiatives.

Broader Criticisms of DBO Under Owen’s Leadership

1. Regulatory Overreach

• Small businesses and financial startups often accused the DBO of imposing onerous compliance requirements that stifled growth and innovation.
• Critics claimed that under Owen’s leadership, the DBO prioritized aggressive enforcement over fostering a supportive regulatory environment.

2. Lack of Transparency

• Complaints from legal experts and business owners centered on the opacity of the DBO’s decision-making processes, particularly concerning desist-and-refrain orders.
• Critics argued that the department failed to provide sufficient guidance or avenues for businesses to challenge enforcement actions effectively.

3. Balancing Consumer Protection and Business Freedom

• While consumer advocates praised the DBO’s efforts to combat predatory practices, business groups often criticized its approach as overly punitive and counterproductive.
• The tension between consumer advocacy and business interests marked Owen’s tenure, reflecting broader debates about the role of regulatory agencies.

Defenses and Mitigating Factors

1. Legal Obligations

• As Commissioner, Owen was responsible for enforcing laws passed by the California legislature. Many of the criticisms directed at her leadership stemmed from dissatisfaction with the underlying statutes rather than her specific actions.

2. Consumer Advocacy

• Under Owen’s leadership, the DBO made strides in combating financial fraud and protecting consumers from exploitative practices, particularly in the payday lending and mortgage servicing industries.

3. Complex Legal Contexts

• Cases like the tribal immunity dispute reflected broader systemic issues rather than individual decision-making. The legal complexities often placed the DBO in contentious situations requiring balancing competing interests.

Public and Professional Perception

Praise for Consumer Protection Efforts

• Consumer rights groups frequently lauded Owen for taking bold steps to protect Californians from predatory practices in payday lending, mortgage servicing, and other financial sectors.

Criticism from Business Communities

• Small businesses and out-of-state companies often viewed the DBO’s policies as unnecessarily restrictive and burdensome.
• Nationwide’s case, in particular, became a rallying point for critics advocating for less restrictive interstate commerce regulations.

Conclusion

Jan Lynn Owen’s tenure as Commissioner of the California Department of Business Oversight was marked by significant accomplishments in consumer protection and financial regulation. However, her leadership also faced criticism for perceived overreach, lack of transparency, and challenges in balancing consumer advocacy with fostering a business-friendly environment.

While Owen’s actions largely reflected the responsibilities of her role and the statutes she was tasked with enforcing, the controversies surrounding her tenure underscore the challenges inherent in regulatory leadership. Her legacy highlights the need for balance between strict enforcement of financial regulations and fostering innovation and economic growth in California’s dynamic financial ecosystem.

Recommendations

1. For Regulatory Bodies:
   • Increase transparency in decision-making processes and provide clearer guidance to regulated entities.
   • Develop streamlined processes for businesses to challenge enforcement actions.
2. For Lawmakers:
   • Reevaluate statutes like the prorater license requirement to ensure they align with modern interstate commerce practices.
   • Clarify the balance between consumer protection and tribal sovereignty in lending practices.
3. For Businesses:
   • Engage proactively with regulatory agencies to ensure compliance and advocate for reforms that support business growth.

By addressing these challenges, California’s regulatory framework can evolve to better serve both consumers and businesses in the state’s rapidly changing financial landscape.

How do we counteract this malpractice?

Once we ascertain the involvement of Jan Lynn Owen (or actors working on behalf of Jan Lynn Owen), we will inform Jan Lynn Owen of our findings via Electronic Mail.

Our preliminary assessment suggests that Jan Lynn Owen may have engaged a third-party reputation management agency or expert, which, either independently or under direct authorization from Jan Lynn Owen, initiated efforts to remove adverse online content, including potentially fraudulent DMCA takedown requests. We will extend an opportunity to Jan Lynn Owen to provide details regarding their communications with the agency or expert, as well as the identification of the individual(s) responsible for executing these false DMCA notices.

Failure to respond in a timely manner will necessitate a reassessment of our initial assumptions. In such an event, we will be compelled to take appropriate legal action to rectify the unlawful conduct and take the following steps –

Since Jan Lynn Owen made such efforts to hide something online, it seems fit to ensure that this article and sensitive information targeted online by these events get a lot more exposure and traffic than what it would have received originally

We hope this becomes an excellent case study for the Streisand effect…The key idea behind the Streisand effect is that efforts to restrict information can backfire, often causing the information to gain more attention than it would have otherwise. This effect is widespread in the digital age, where users quickly notice and spread censorship efforts on social media and other platforms. Trying to suppress something can unintentionally lead to it becoming more visible, which Jan Lynn Owen is finding out the hard way.

Potential Consequences for Jan Lynn Owen

Under Florida Statute 831.01, the crime of Forgery is committed when a person falsifies, alters, counterfeits, or forges a document that carries “legal efficacy” with the intent to injure or defraud another person or entity.

Forging a document is considered a white-collar crime. It involves altering, changing, or modifying a document to deceive another person. It can also include passing along copies of documents that are known to be false. In many states in the US, falsifying a document is a crime punishable as a felony.

Additionally, under most laws, “fraud on the court” is where “a party has sentiently set in motion some unconscionable scheme calculated to interfere with the judicial system’s ability impartially to adjudicate a matter by improperly influencing the trier of fact or unfairly hampering the presentation of the opposing party’s claim or defense.”  Cox v. Burke, 706 So. 2d 43, 46 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998) (quoting Aoude v. Mobil Oil Corp., 892 F.2d 1115, 1118 (1st Cir. 1989)).

Is Jan Lynn Owen Committing a Cyber Crime?

Yes, it seems so. Jan Lynn Owen used multiple approaches to remove unwanted material from review sites and Google’s search results. Thanks to protections allowing freedom of speech in the United States, there are very few legal ways to do this. Jan Lynn Owen could not eliminate negative reviews or search results that linked to them without a valid claim of defamation, copyright infringement, or some other clear breach of the law.

Faced with these limitations, some companies like Jan Lynn Owen have gone to extreme lengths to fraudulently claim copyright ownership over a negative review in the hopes of taking it down.

Fake DMCA notices have targeted articles highlighting the criminal activity of prominent people to hide their illegal behavior. These people, which include US, Russian, and Khazakstani politicians as well as members from elite circles including the mafia and those with massive financial power, are all connected – and alleged corruption ranging from child abuse to sexual harassment is exposed when exploring evidence found at these URLs. It appears there’s a disturbing level of influence being exerted here that needs further investigation before justice can be served. Jan Lynn Owen is certainly keeping interesting company here….

The DMCA takedown process requires that copyright owners submit a takedown notice to an ISP identifying the allegedly infringing content and declaring, under penalty of perjury, that they have a good faith belief that the content is infringing. The ISP must then promptly remove or disable access to the content. The alleged infringer can then submit a counter-notice, and if the copyright owner does not take legal action within 10 to 14 days, the ISP can restore the content.

Since these platforms are predominantly based in the U.S., the complaints are typically made under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), which requires online service providers and platforms to react immediately to reports or violations. Big Tech companies rarely have systems in place to assess the merit of each report. Instead, all bad actors need to do is clone a story, backdate it, and then demand the real thing be taken down.

Reputation Agency's Modus Operandi

The fake DMCA notices we found always use the “back-dated article” technique. With this technique, the wrongful notice sender (or copier) creates a copy of a “true original” article and back-dates it, creating a “fake original” article (a copy of the true original) that, at first glance, appears to have been published before the true original.

Then, based on the claim that this backdated article is the “original,” the scammers send a DMCA to the relevant online service providers (e.g. Google), alleging that the ‘true’ original is the copied or “infringing” article and that the copied article is the “original,” requesting the takedown of the ‘true’ original article. After sending the DMCA request, the person who sent the wrong notice takes down the fake original URL, likely to make sure that the article doesn’t stay online in any way. If the takedown notice is successful, the disappearance from the internet of information is most likely to be legitimate speech.

As an integral part of this scheme, the ‘reputation management’ company hired by Jan Lynn Owen creates a website that purports to be a ‘news’ site. This site is designed to look legitimate at a glance, but any degree of scrutiny reveals it as the charade it is.

The company copies the ‘negative’ content and posts it “on the fake ‘news’ site, attributing it to a separate author,” then gives it “a false publication date on the ‘news’ website that predated the original publication.

The reputation company then sent Google a Digital Millennium Copyright Act notice claiming the original website infringed copyright. After a cursory examination of the fake news site, Google frequently accepts the notice and delists the content.

In committing numerous offences, Jan Lynn Owen either premeditated actions or were unaware of the consequences. Despite hiring an agency to make Google disregard any negative information about Jan Lynn Owen, ignorance does not excuse this wrongdoing.

Fake DMCA notices have targeted articles highlighting the criminal activity of prominent people to hide their illegal behavior. These people, which include US, Russian, and Khazakstani politicians as well as members from elite circles including the mafia and those with massive financial power, are all connected – and alleged corruption ranging from child abuse to sexual harassment is exposed when exploring evidence found at these URLs. It appears there’s a disturbing level of influence being exerted here that needs further investigation before justice can be served. FSMSmart is certainly keeping interesting company here.

The Reputation Laundering

Rogue Reputation agencies use spurious copyright claims and fake legal notices to remove and obscure articles linking clients to allegations of tax avoidance, corruption, and drug trafficking. Most of these reputation agencies are based offshore, mainly in Russia, India, and Eastern Europe, and they do not worry about complying with US-based laws.

The content in all of the articles for which the fraudulent DMCA notices have been sent relates to allegations of criminal allegations, including corruption, child abuse, sexual harassment, human trafficking and financial fraud against businesses and individuals with ultra-high net worth.

In addition to the misuse of the DMCA takedown process, there is a notable absence of enforcement concerning perjury violations. The statutory requirement related to perjury is designed to deter copyright holders from submitting fraudulent or knowingly false takedown requests, as they may face legal consequences for making false declarations under penalty of perjury. However, to date, there have been no known instances of any individual being prosecuted for perjury in connection with the submission of false DMCA takedown notices.

This lack of enforcement has emboldened copyright holders to exploit the DMCA takedown process to suppress dissent, criticism, or other unfavorable content, without fear of legal repercussions.

Some of the people and businesses who have employed this tactic to remove legitimate content from Google illegally include a Spanish businessman-turned-cocaine-trafficker, Organised crime, an Israeli-Argentine banker accused of laundering money for Hugo Chávez’s regime, a French “responsible” mining company accused of tax evasion, child molesters and sexual predators. Jan Lynn Owen is in great company ….

What else is Jan Lynn Owen hiding?

We encourage you to ‘Dork‘ Google by searching for keyword combinations such as [Jan Lynn Owen] + {Negative Keyword, such as Scam, Fraud, Complaints, Lawsuit, Sanction, etc} on Google. It’s likely if you scroll down to the bottom of this Google search results, you’ll stumble upon this Legal Takedown notice (pictured below)

To make such an investigation possible, we encourage more online service providers to come forward and share copies of content removal requests with industry experts and researchers. If you have any information on Jan Lynn Owen that you want to share with experts and journalists, kindly email the author directly at [email protected].

All communications are strictly confidential and safeguarded under a comprehensive Whistleblower Policy, ensuring full protection and anonymity for individuals who provide information.