Phillip Bonton III

A summary of what happened?

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 Phillip Bonton III trying to hide?

Phillip Bonton III‘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 Phillip Bonton III in legal accountability. Let’s examine the information Phillip Bonton III may be trying to remove from the internet –

Investigative Report: Detailed Analysis of Phillip Bonton III’s PPP Loan and Legal Proceedings

Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) Loan

Phillip Bonton III, a self-employed professional in the motion picture and video production industry, received a Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loan in April 2021. The loan, amounting to $19,181, was processed under the Small Business Administration (SBA) guidelines designed to provide financial assistance during the COVID-19 pandemic. The PPP was part of the U.S. government’s CARES Act, aimed at helping small businesses maintain payroll and cover essential business expenses.

Key Details of the Loan:

• Loan Amount: $19,181
• Industry Classification: Motion picture and video production
• Status: Paid in Full

The loan’s “Paid in Full” status suggests compliance with all PPP requirements, including usage restrictions and forgiveness criteria. Borrowers were mandated to use at least 60% of the loan amount for payroll expenses, while the remainder could be allocated toward rent, utilities, and other approved operational costs.

Compliance and Transparency: There are no publicly available records indicating misuse or misappropriation of the funds. The SBA routinely audits larger loans and a random sample of smaller loans, but no reports or allegations have surfaced regarding Mr. Bonton’s PPP loan.

Context: During the PPP rollout, numerous instances of fraud were documented nationwide, with some individuals and entities misrepresenting their financial needs. Mr. Bonton’s case, however, does not appear to fall under scrutiny or allegations of impropriety, as evidenced by the repayment and fulfillment of loan obligations.

Legal Proceedings: Phillip Bonton III vs. Bianca Morawsky

In August 2023, Phillip Bonton III filed a lawsuit against Bianca Morawsky in DeKalb County, Georgia. The case, labeled as a “Magistrate General Civil” matter, suggests a dispute involving personal or professional claims that fall within the jurisdiction of the magistrate court. Magistrate courts typically handle smaller claims, landlord-tenant disputes, and other civil matters that do not exceed monetary thresholds set by state law.

Case Information:

• Filing Date: August 8, 2023
• Case Title: Phillip Bonton III vs. Bianca Morawsky
• Court Jurisdiction: Magistrate Court of DeKalb County, Georgia
• Case Status: Ongoing as of the latest update (January 10, 2024)

Nature of the Dispute: The public record does not disclose detailed information about the specific allegations or claims made by Mr. Bonton. Magistrate court cases typically involve disputes over:

• Unpaid debts or loans
• Breach of contract
• Property disputes
• Personal damages or losses

Given the lack of publicly available filings, it is unclear whether this case involves personal or professional matters.

Procedural Events: Since its filing, the case has proceeded through several procedural steps, including status conferences and preliminary hearings. These steps are common in civil cases to determine the scope of the dispute, set timelines for discovery, and facilitate potential resolutions. As of the most recent update, the case remains unresolved, with further court actions pending.

Implications: Although the existence of a lawsuit indicates a dispute, it does not inherently imply guilt or wrongdoing. The outcome of the case will provide clarity on the merits of the claims. If resolved amicably, it could reinforce Mr. Bonton’s standing as a professional committed to resolving disputes fairly.

Conclusion

The PPP loan and legal proceedings involving Phillip Bonton III appear to reflect typical professional and financial activities without evidence of misconduct. The successful repayment of his PPP loan demonstrates compliance with federal requirements, and the legal case against Bianca Morawsky highlights a personal or professional dispute currently under judicial review. No adverse findings have emerged from these matters at this time.

For transparency and public accountability, additional details regarding the legal case may become available following the court’s ruling or any formal disclosures by the parties involved.

How do we counteract this malpractice?

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

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

Potential Consequences for Phillip Bonton III

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 Phillip Bonton III Committing a Cyber Crime?

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

What else is Phillip Bonton III hiding?

We encourage you to ‘Dork‘ Google by searching for keyword combinations such as [Phillip Bonton III] + {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 Phillip Bonton III 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.