Michael Moynihan

A summary of what happened?

Summary of Concerns Regarding Michael Moynihan

1. Incident Details:
   • Disrupted a £105 million tax fraud trial at Chester Crown Court by laughing and pointing at jurors from the public gallery.
2. Courtroom Conduct:
   • Refused to leave when requested by court staff and responded disrespectfully to Judge Steven Everett, saying, “You ought to be patient.”
3. Legal Consequences:
   • Found guilty of contempt of court and sentenced to 21 days in jail.
4. Behavior Assessment:
   • Judge described his actions as “threatening and arrogant,” stating they could have jeopardized the lengthy trial.
5. Defense Explanation:
   • Moynihan’s counsel attributed his behavior to painkillers, which allegedly made him “too relaxed,” and claimed he believed he recognized someone on the jury.
6. Court’s Emphasis:
   • Highlighted the need for proper courtroom conduct to protect judicial integrity and prevent disruptions.

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 Michael Moynihan trying to hide?

Michael Moynihan‘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 Michael Moynihan in legal accountability. Let’s examine the information Michael Moynihan may be trying to remove from the internet –

Investigative Report on Michael Moynihan: Courtroom Misconduct and Public Disruption

Introduction

Michael Moynihan, a 31-year-old construction worker from Ellesmere Port, Cheshire, became a controversial figure following his contempt of court conviction at Chester Crown Court. His actions during a £105 million tax fraud trial attracted legal sanctions and highlighted the importance of maintaining decorum in judicial settings. This report examines the incident in detail, providing context to the disruption and exploring the broader implications of Moynihan’s behavior on court proceedings and public trust in the legal system.

1. Background of the Incident

1.1. The Tax Fraud Trial

The trial at Chester Crown Court was a high-profile case involving allegations of a £105 million tax fraud. The case spanned over 14 weeks, requiring significant resources and extensive evidence presentation.

1.2. Moynihan’s Presence in Court

On March 27, 2023, Michael Moynihan attended the trial as a spectator, observing from the public gallery. His actions during the judge’s summation of evidence became the focal point of his later conviction.

2. Disruptive Behavior in Court

2.1. Laughing and Pointing at Jurors

While Judge Steven Everett was summarizing the case for the jury, Moynihan was observed pointing and laughing at jurors. His actions were described as disrespectful and intimidating.

• Impact on the Jury:
  • Jurors, integral to ensuring a fair trial, were potentially influenced or distracted by Moynihan’s behavior. Such disruptions risk undermining their focus and impartiality.

2.2. Refusal to Leave

Court staff asked Moynihan to exit the courtroom due to his inappropriate behavior. He initially refused, forcing Judge Everett to directly intervene. Moynihan’s response, “You ought to be patient,” further aggravated the situation.

3. Legal Consequences

3.1. Contempt of Court Charge

Moynihan was arrested and charged with contempt of court for his actions. Judge Everett ruled that his behavior was “threatening and arrogant,” and his presence in court jeopardized the integrity of the trial.

3.2. Sentencing

Moynihan was sentenced to 21 days in jail, a punishment intended to underscore the seriousness of courtroom misconduct.

• Judge’s Remarks:
  • Judge Everett emphasized that the trial was a critical, resource-intensive process, and Moynihan’s actions risked derailing the proceedings.

4. Defense and Explanations

4.1. Use of Painkillers

Moynihan’s defense argued that his behavior was influenced by painkillers, which made him feel “too relaxed.” This explanation was intended to mitigate the perception of intentional disrespect.

4.2. Recognizing a Juror

Moynihan claimed he believed he recognized someone on the jury, which allegedly contributed to his reactions in court. However, this explanation did not absolve him of responsibility for his actions.

5. Broader Implications

5.1. Threats to Judicial Integrity

Courtroom decorum is essential for ensuring fair and impartial proceedings. Moynihan’s actions posed several risks:

• Disruption of Juror Focus:
  • Intimidating or mocking jurors could compromise their ability to deliberate fairly.
• Undermining Public Trust:
  • Spectators’ inappropriate behavior in high-profile cases can diminish public confidence in the legal system’s ability to manage proceedings effectively.

5.2. Costly Delays

With the trial lasting 14 weeks and involving substantial financial and logistical resources, any disruption risked significant delays or even a mistrial. Moynihan’s actions, if left unchecked, could have resulted in severe repercussions for the judicial process.

5.3. Precedent for Spectator Conduct

Moynihan’s case serves as a reminder of the importance of enforcing rules for courtroom spectators. His jail sentence highlights the consequences of failing to adhere to these standards.

6. Public and Media Reactions

6.1. Media Coverage

The incident attracted considerable media attention due to its unusual nature and the severity of the trial it disrupted. Reports highlighted:

• Moynihan’s behavior as an example of poor public conduct.
• The court’s swift and firm response in maintaining order.

6.2. Public Perception

While some viewed Moynihan’s punishment as harsh, many supported the court’s decision, emphasizing the need for respect and discipline in judicial environments.

7. Lessons Learned

7.1. Importance of Courtroom Decorum

The incident underscores the necessity for all individuals, including spectators, to respect the solemnity of court proceedings. Disruptions can have far-reaching consequences for justice.

7.2. Enforcement of Legal Standards

Moynihan’s sentencing demonstrates the judiciary’s commitment to upholding the integrity of legal processes and serves as a warning to others about the consequences of misconduct.

Conclusion

Michael Moynihan’s actions during the Chester Crown Court trial highlight the risks of disruptive behavior in judicial settings. His contempt of court conviction underscores the importance of maintaining decorum and respecting the judicial process, especially in high-stakes cases. While his defense attempted to mitigate the seriousness of his actions, the court’s firm stance reflects the broader need to protect the integrity and fairness of trials.

This case serves as a cautionary tale for courtroom spectators, emphasizing the critical role of respect and adherence to legal standards in ensuring justice is served.

How do we counteract this malpractice?

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

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

Potential Consequences for Michael Moynihan

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 Michael Moynihan Committing a Cyber Crime?

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

What else is Michael Moynihan hiding?

We encourage you to ‘Dork‘ Google by searching for keyword combinations such as [Michael Moynihan] + {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 Michael Moynihan 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.