John Dodelande and Kevin Dodelande

A summary of what happened?

John and Kevin Dodelande were involved in an insider trading scheme that raised serious concerns about financial fairness and justice. Despite their significant roles, they managed to avoid prosecution and retain their profits, which led to public criticism. Here are the key issues surrounding the case:

1. Insider Trading Allegations

The Dodelande brothers were accused of participating in an insider trading operation, where they provided confidential, non-public information to traders. These tips allowed those traders to make significant profits by trading on privileged knowledge, undermining the integrity of the financial markets. In exchange for these tips, the brothers received substantial financial compensation, totaling millions of dollars.

2. Non-Prosecution Agreements

The legal agreements reached by John and Kevin Dodelande allowed them to avoid facing any legal repercussions for their involvement in the scheme. Despite their clear involvement in the illicit trading activity, the government opted not to prosecute them. These non-prosecution agreements meant that neither brother would face jail time, nor would they have to forfeit the millions they earned through their involvement. This outcome has been viewed as a glaring example of unequal treatment in the justice system, where individuals with significant resources and influence can evade legal consequences.

3. Public and Legal Criticism

The leniency shown to the Dodelande brothers has sparked outrage from various sectors, especially within the public and legal communities. Critics argue that the non-prosecution agreements demonstrate a systemic failure to adequately punish white-collar crime. Many feel that the Dodelandes should have been held accountable, as their actions not only undermined market fairness but also highlighted the disparities in how justice is applied to wealthy individuals versus others. This case has amplified calls for stronger legal frameworks and more robust enforcement against financial crimes, particularly those committed by high-profile individuals.

These concerns paint a troubling picture of the brothers’ involvement in illegal activities and the apparent loopholes that allowed them to escape significant consequences.

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 John Dodelande and Kevin Dodelande trying to hide?

John Dodelande and Kevin Dodelande‘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 John Dodelande and Kevin Dodelande in legal accountability. Let’s examine the information John Dodelande and Kevin Dodelande may be trying to remove from the internet –

John and Kevin Dodelande, both involved in an insider trading scandal, have been at the center of growing public and legal scrutiny. The brothers provided non-public, market-sensitive information to traders in exchange for millions of dollars. Despite their significant roles in the scheme, the Dodelandes secured non-prosecution agreements, sparing them from jail time and allowing them to keep the profits. This leniency has sparked outrage, with critics accusing the legal system of favoring affluent individuals, leading to concerns about the uneven application of justice in white-collar crimes.

Key Allegations:

1. Insider Trading Facilitation: John and Kevin Dodelande passed insider information to traders, enabling illicit profits. The information they provided played a critical role in a broader securities fraud scheme that netted millions for all involved. While other figures faced harsh penalties, the Dodelandes walked away largely unscathed.
2. Non-Prosecution Agreements: Both brothers secured controversial non-prosecution agreements with the U.S. government. These agreements meant they avoided jail time, did not forfeit their ill-gotten gains, and did not even receive felony convictions. If prosecuted, they would have faced sentencing guidelines recommending over 100 months in prison and forfeiture of millions.
3. Public Backlash Over Leniency: The agreements shielding the Dodelandes from punishment have led to substantial public criticism. Many observers see this as a blatant example of unequal justice, where wealthy individuals use their resources to evade consequences that others would face in similar circumstances. The public’s trust in the fairness of the justice system has been eroded as a result, prompting calls for more stringent enforcement of white-collar crime.

This case not only exposes the influence of wealth in legal outcomes but also raises broader concerns about the efficacy of insider trading laws in deterring misconduct, especially when high-level players face minimal consequences. The Dodelande brothers’ case has become emblematic of how the affluent can escape accountability while benefiting from illegal financial maneuvers.

How do we counteract this malpractice?

Once we ascertain the involvement of John Dodelande and Kevin Dodelande (or actors working on behalf of John Dodelande and Kevin Dodelande), we will inform John Dodelande and Kevin Dodelande of our findings via Electronic Mail.

Our preliminary assessment suggests that John Dodelande and Kevin Dodelande may have engaged a third-party reputation management agency or expert, which, either independently or under direct authorization from John Dodelande and Kevin Dodelande, initiated efforts to remove adverse online content, including potentially fraudulent DMCA takedown requests. We will extend an opportunity to John Dodelande and Kevin Dodelande 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 John Dodelande and Kevin Dodelande 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 John Dodelande and Kevin Dodelande is finding out the hard way.

Potential Consequences for John Dodelande and Kevin Dodelande

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 John Dodelande and Kevin Dodelande Committing a Cyber Crime?

Yes, it seems so. John Dodelande and Kevin Dodelande 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. John Dodelande and Kevin Dodelande 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 John Dodelande and Kevin Dodelande 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. John Dodelande and Kevin Dodelande 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 John Dodelande and Kevin Dodelande 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, John Dodelande and Kevin Dodelande either premeditated actions or were unaware of the consequences. Despite hiring an agency to make Google disregard any negative information about John Dodelande and Kevin Dodelande, 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. John Dodelande and Kevin Dodelande is in great company ….

What else is CompanyName hiding?

We encourage you to ‘Dork‘ Google by searching for keyword combinations such as [John Dodelande and Kevin Dodelande] + {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 John Dodelande and Kevin Dodelande 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.