It’s Not Defamation if No One Knows it’s You

Sammy Hagar BookAs the old saying goes, if a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound?* In the context of defamation law, the saying could be, “if no one knows it’s you, is the statement still defamatory?” The answer is no.

I get a surprising number of calls like this. Now that anyone can publish a book with a few mouse clicks, more people are publishing their life stories, and those stories always manage to irritate someone. That someone then calls me, stating that some person in the book is them, and they want to sue for defamation. They go on to explain that the name given is not theirs, that the geographic location given is someplace they have never lived or visited, and the gender has been changed, but they know it’s them and damn it they want to sue. In some cases it is clear that the caller made the whole thing up in their mind, but in other cases it is clear that the person referenced really is the caller. Even so, if the author changed the identity so much that no one would recognize them, there is no case.

Today’s example involves rocker Sammy Hagar. He wrote a book called “Red: My Uncensored Life in Rock“, which tells a story of a woman he had sex with following a concert, who later claimed to be pregnant.  He explains that he paid her some support during the alleged pregnancy, but that no child was ever born and he now thinks the entire thing was simple extortion. Had he named her, that would have supported a claim for defamation since he accuses her of a criminal act, but she is identified only as a “Playboy bunny from California”. Apparently the woman in question was a Playboy bunny, but Hagar changed the state from Michigan to California, perhaps specifically to make her less identifiable.

Nonetheless, the still unidentified “Playboy bunny from California” sued Hagar for defamation and infliction of emotional distress. Not surprisingly, the trial court today threw out the case.

U.S. District Court Judge Linda Reade ruled that Hagar did not defame the woman because he did not refer to her by name in the book – identifying her erroneously as a “Playboy bunny from California” – and the woman did not prove she suffered any financial, reputational or emotional injuries from his statements. Only individuals who already knew about their relationship, not the general public, would have understood Hagar was referring to her in the book, she added.

Although Hagar’s statements in ‘Red’ brought back painful memories for Doe, the evidence does not support a finding that Hagar’s conduct was extreme enough to permit the court to find outrageous conduct sufficient to support Doe’s intentional infliction of emotional distress claim, Reade wrote.


* It’s a deep thought, but I’ve always thought it was kind of silly because of course a falling tree makes a sound. The laws of physics don’t stop just because no one is there.

Posted in Case Results, Defamation, Internet Defamation, Libel, Verdicts | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Is Discrimination Against Redheads Illegal in the Workplace?

redheadWhen I am explaining the concept of at-will employment, to illustrate the point that an employer can fire an employee for anything so long as it does not violate public policy or statute, I will sometimes say, “He could decide he doesn’t like the color of your hair and fire you for that.” But an interesting case out of New Jersey might prove me wrong.

According to an article in the New York Post, the NYPD sent out an anti-bias message this month to Manhattan sergeants and lieutenants, who were told that redhead harassment would not be tolerated.

“We’re apparently victims now,” said one cop with ginger locks. “We’re protected from discrimination.”

No lawsuit has been filed against the city, but the feds say a claim alleging unfair treatment over red hair would be supported by federal law, which bars workplace bias against applicants and employees based on race, national origin, skin color, religion, sex or disability.

Wait a second. What does hair color have to do with any of those protected classes? That’s were things get interesting. Think about it. If you had to guess the nationality of someone with red hair, what would you pick? You’d probably guess Ireland, because people with red hair are found in higher numbers in Britain and Ireland than elsewhere, according to the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. So if someone could prove discrimination against redheads, that would mean that there is a disparate impact against those of Irish dissent, and nationality is a protected class.

These are the sort of mental games that only attorneys play. In the real world, it would be very unlikely that anyone is going to suffer adverse job action or discrimination based on being a redhead. As one retired officer quoted by the New York Post stated, “To put redheads in a protective class — that’s ridiculous!” However, the analysis is still useful to illustrate how a seemingly “innocent” form of bias can create illegal discrimination.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Demand Letters Can Stray Into Civil Extortion — Miguel Mendoza v. Reed K. Hamzeh

Watch movie online The Transporter Refueled (2015)

If the threat of getting in trouble with the State Bar is not enough, maybe the threat of both civil and criminals actions will get attorneys to toe the line.

You know that it is an ethical violation for an attorney to threaten criminal action as a means to extract a civil settlement. For example, California’s Rules of Professional Conduct state that “a member shall not threaten to present criminal, administrative, or disciplinary charges to obtain an advantage in a civil dispute.” (Rule 5-100.)

Then there are the criminal extortion laws:

“Extortion is the obtaining of property from another, with his consent . . . induced by a wrongful use of force or fear. . . .‟ (Pen. Code, § 518.) Fear, for purposes of extortion ‘may be induced by a threat, either: [¶] . . . [¶] 2. To accuse the individual threatened . . . of any crime; or, [¶] 3. To expose, or impute to him . . . any deformity, disgrace or crime[.]’ (Pen. Code, § 519.) ‘Every person who, with intent to extort any money or other property from another, sends or delivers to any person any letter or other writing, whether subscribed or not, expressing or implying, or adapted to imply, any threat such as is specified in Section 519, is punishable in the same manner as if such money or property were actually obtained by means of such threat.’” (Pen. Code, § 523.)

Despite these prohibitions, some attorneys can’t resist throwing a threat of criminal action into their demand letters. They apparently think (if they give it any thought at all) that an express or veiled threat of criminal action will be protected under the litigation privilege, but that is not the case. If you include a demand for money in a letter that threatens to pursue criminal action, you have committed extortion, and as Flatley v. Mauro held, that is not protected speech because criminal acts are not protected.

The most recent example of this was discussed in the just published decision of Miguel Mendoza v. Reed K. Hamzeh. According to the opinion, an attorney named Reed K. Hamzeh was representing a client named Guy Chow, seeking to recover money allegedly owed to Chow by Miguel Mendoza. The dispute concerned Mendoza’s employment as the manager of Chow’s print and copy business. Hamzeh sent a letter to Mendoza’s attorney, which according to the opinion stated:

“As you are aware, I have been retained to represent Media Print & Copy (“Media”). We are in the process of uncovering the substantial fraud, conversion and breaches of contract that your client has committed on my client. . . . To date we have uncovered damages exceeding $75,000, not including interest applied thereto, punitive damages and attorneys’ fees. If your client does not agree to cooperate with our investigation and provide us with a repayment of such damages caused, we will be forced to proceed with filing a legal action against him, as well as reporting him to the California Attorney General, the Los Angeles District Attorney, the Internal Revenue Service regarding tax fraud, the Better Business Bureau, as well as to customers and vendors with whom he may be perpetrating the same fraud upon [sic].”

The letter goes on to list Mendoza’s alleged transgressions, including failure to pay Media‟s employees, sales taxes and bills.

What followed next was Flatley all over again, with some additional twists. In May 2011, Mendoza responded to the demand letter by filing an action against attorney Hamzeh, asserting causes of action for civil extortion, intentional infliction of emotional distress and unfair business practices. Just as in Flatley, Hamzeh thought his letter was protected under the litigation privilege, and brought an anti-SLAPP motion to strike Mendoza’s complaint. But here, the plaintiffs counsel had the benefit of the already decided Flatley, and wrote to Hamzeh to say that the anti-SLAPP motion would be frivolous since the facts fell squarely under that decision. Hamzeh decided to go ahead regardless, and after the court denied the motion it awarded attorney fees on the grounds that the motion had, indeed, been frivolous. Hamzeh then appealed from the denial of the anti-SLAPP motion, and lost. The action against Hamzeh for civil extortion and the other causes of action will now proceed.

The takeaway from Hamzeh’s experience is that the standard for civil extortion is very low. On appeal, Hamzeh argued that his demand letter was not nearly as egregious as the one utilized in Flatley, which was true, but as the court found, the issue is not how far the letter goes, it is whether it amounts to civil extortion as a matter of law. As you can see from the Penal Codes above, that requires only a demand for money in conjunction with a threat to “expose, or impute to him . . . any deformity, disgrace or crime . . . .” That standard is incredibly broad! It doesn’t even matter whether or not a crime occurred that can be properly reported. Further, as I just realized in preparing this article, the threat doesn’t even need to concern criminal conduct; it is enough to threaten “disgrace”. If an attorney wrote a letter suggesting that the defendant should settle to avoid having his family realize what he had done, it appears that would constitute civil extortion.

Posted in anti-SLAPP, Article, Civil Extortion, Law | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Do You REALLY Want to Fight that Case?

Don't Fight a Case with no Defense

Too many attorneys and their clients defend against cases that have no defense.Watch movie online The Transporter Refueled (2015)

You took out a loan, your financial circumstances went south, and you were not able to repay the loan. Now you have been served with a complaint from the lender, so you take it to an attorney to see what can be done. So far so good, but consider your options very carefully. Some attorneys are more than happy to take your money and pursue a defense, but do you have a defense? Delaying the action for a year while you try to get your finances back in shape might have some appeal, but a defense can sometimes leave you in much worse circumstances. Here are two cases from my practice that illustrate what I am talking about.

The case of the defaming doctor.

In the first case, we brought an action against a doctor who had defamed our client. When the doctor’s contract at a hospital was not renewed, she decided our client was to blame. She took to the Internet and posted false comments about his job performance, in some cases assuming the false identity of a nurse and in others a patient. When we presented irrefutable proof that she had published the anonymous comments, she admitted what she had done. If ever there was a case that should have settled, this was one, but her insurer picked up coverage and for unknown reasons decided to fight the case right through trial, despite our very reasonable settlement demand.

The result was disastrous for the doctor. The case went to a jury verdict, and since the verdict was now a matter of public record, I was free to write about it, as were other attorneys and news organizations who found the story interesting. An Internet search of her name now brings up news of her bizarre behavior in multiple places on the first page of the search results, including the top position on Google.

A complaint contains only allegations, and anybody can allege anything about anyone. It might be frustrating to have those allegations in the public domain, but at that point the claim can still be made that they are only allegations, and a settlement can keep the entire matter confidential. Once the matter goes to verdict, the claims are no longer allegations, they are proven facts, and can be reported as such. I am the first to suggest fighting the good fight, but this doctor admitted she posted the false, defamatory comments. Where did her counsel think he was going to go with that? Taking the matter to trial only made a bad situation far worse. I can’t imagine anyone hiring this doctor after reading about what she did. The information posted about this case will undoubtedly be a source of embarrassment for this doctor for years to come, and that could have been easily avoided.

The case of the unpaid loan.

But if the doctor’s fate was bad, it pales in comparison to the unfortunate defendant who failed to repay a loan to our client. The defendant in this case is a wheeler-dealer who as far as I can tell has never held a day job, but promotes various business ventures and raises money for those ventures. Our client loaned over $200,000 to the defendant, and in pursuing the case we learned that he obtained the loan under false pretenses. I decided to add a cause of action under the criminal code for theft, which if successful would entitle our client to treble damages and all attorney fees. Continue reading

Posted in Business, Case Results, Cases, Defamation, Law | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Watch Logan (2017) Full Movie Online Streaming Online and Download

Quality: HD
Title : Logan
Director : James Mangold.
Release : 2017-02-28
Language : English,Español.
Runtime : 135 min.
Genre : Action, Drama, Science Fiction.
Synopsis :

Movie ‘Logan’ was released in February 28, 2017 in genre Action. James Mangold was directed this movie and starring by Hugh Jackman. This movie tell story about In the near future, a weary Logan cares for an ailing Professor X in a hide out on the Mexican border. But Logan’s attempts to hide from the world and his legacy are up-ended when a young mutant arrives, being pursued by dark forces.

Incoming search term :

Logan (2017)
Logan (2017) English
Watch Logan (2017)
Watch Logan (2017) English
Watch Movie Logan (2017)
Watch Movie Logan (2017) English
Watch Movie Online Logan (2017)
Watch Movie Online Logan (2017) English
Watch Full Movie Logan (2017)
Watch Full Movie Logan (2017) English
Watch Full Movie Online Logan (2017)
Watch Full Movie Online Logan (2017) English
Streaming Logan (2017)
Streaming Logan (2017) English
Streaming Movie Logan (2017)
Streaming Movie Logan (2017) English
Streaming Online Logan (2017)
Streaming Online Logan (2017) English
Streaming Full Movie Logan (2017)
Streaming Full Movie Logan (2017) English
Streaming Full Movie Online Logan (2017)
Streaming Full Movie Online Logan (2017) English
Download Logan (2017)
Download Logan (2017) English
Download Movie Logan (2017)
Download Movie Logan (2017) English
Download Movie Online Logan (2017)
Download Movie Online Logan (2017) English
Download Full Movie Logan (2017)
Download Full Movie Logan (2017) English
Download Full Movie Online Logan (2017)
Download Full Movie Online Logan (2017) English

Posted in Internet Defamation | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Appeal Victory: Treble Damages for Theft Affirmed Against Defendant

As we reported in October of 2011, we persuaded an Orange County Superior Court Judge to apply Penal Code section 496(c) – making it illegal to receive stolen goods – to a case where the defendant had failed to repay a loan. The loan agreement did not provide for attorney fees, so by bringing the civil action under Penal Code section 496(c), our client was entitled not only to recovery of all of her attorney fees, but treble damages as well.

The case involved a loan made by our client to the defendant, who we will call Joe Badguy. Badguy and his entities failed to repay the loan, and we were retained by the plaintiff to sue. I am always bothered by cases where the worst that can happen to the defendant is that he is made to repay the money that he borrowed in the first place (plus interest). Most attorneys would have pursued this as a garden variety breach of contract case. However, since the loan agreement did not provide for attorney fees, Badguy would face no downside in fighting such an action. Sure, he would incur his own attorney fees, but at the end of the day the case would likely have settled for less than what was owed, or gone to trial and resulted in a judgment for only the loan amount. Our client would have been left far from whole.

We figured out a better way. Penal Code section 496(c) makes it illegal to receive stolen property, and provides for a civil action to recovery any losses that result from violation of that criminal code. We included a cause of action under that statute, arguing that Badguy had used a false pretense to obtain the money from our client. Basically, he told her he had a certain valuable trademark, and that the money from the licensing of that trademark would be used to repay the loan. It turned out he did not own that trademark, and he made no money from its licensing.

A quick aside for an important concept. Picture that an aluminum salesman comes to your door and sells you aluminum siding for $12,000. He presents you with and you sign an agreement for the installation of the aluminum siding, you pay the $12,000, and then he never installs it. You sue for breach of contract, but during discovery you find out that he is not even a licensed contractor and has no access to aluminum siding. You can add a claim for fraud, and that gives you a shot at punitive damages, but basically your damages are the same under both the breach of contract and fraud causes of action — the $12,000 you paid for the aluminum siding that was never installed.

But here’s the thing. If he had come to your door, put a gun in your face and stolen the $12,000, everyone would understand that was a theft. The fact that he used a bogus contract instead of a gun to steal the money from you does not make it any less of a theft. That reality is so self-evident, but it escapes many judges. Kudos to Judge James Di Cesare who understood that a theft is a theft, whether by way of burglary, robbery or bogus contract.

Let me make this perfectly clear. It a party enters into a contract, and simply fails to perform, that is still nothing more than a breach of contract. But if a party enters into a contract in order to obtain money or other property from the other party to the contract, knowing that he has no ability to perform, that is both fraud and theft. Badguy argued on appeal that if the court affirmed this verdict, all breach of contract actions would become claims for theft. As you can see, that simply is not true.

And now back to our story. The Judge agreed that this was more than a simple breach of contract, and amounted to receipt of stolen property (the money). Although he expressed that he didn’t like it, because it afforded a set “penalty” with none of the considerations of a punitive damages claim, he agreed that the criminal statute applied, and awarded three times the damages, and all of our attorney fees. Our client had loaned Badguy $202,500, but the total judgment was just under $700,000.

Although Judge Di Cesare saw this as a bad thing, from the viewpoint of the victim and her attorney, this application of Penal Code section 496(c) affords another huge benefit. The same result (albeit without the attorney fees) could be achieved with a fraud action and the award of punitive damages. However, punitive damages require a showing of the defendant’s net worth and the ability to pay the damages. That can be a huge hurdle when the defendant is someone like Joe Badguy, because he won’t have any property in his name or show any personal income. The purpose of punitive damages — punishing a wrongdoer — is sometimes thwarted where it is most appropriate, if the defendant is successful at hiding his assets. Conversely, the treble damages under 496(c) are a fixed penalty, and require no such showing.

Joe Badguy appealed the treble damages aspect of the judgment, claiming (1) his conduct did not amount to a theft; (2) that a civil action could not proceed under 496(c) unless he had first been criminally convicted; and (3) if he was the party who stole the money, he could not be convicted for receiving it.

The Court of Appeal rejected his arguments, and affirmed the judgment. The Court found that the criminal statute means exactly what it says. It agreed with us that theft by false pretense (the bogus contract) is still a theft, that there need not first be a criminal conviction, and that even the person who steals the money is still liable for receiving it. As icing on the cake, the Court of Appeal decided that our application of the statute, and the fact that the statute has generated no appellate decisions, made the opinion worthy of publication. In the future, when we advance this theory and encounter a judge who just can’t wrap his or her mind around the concept, we can cite to our own case as authority.

Here is the published opinion.

Watch movie online The Transporter Refueled (2015)

Posted in Article, Business, Case Results, Cases, Law, Verdicts | Tagged , , | 2 Comments

Parents Claim Yoga Classes Violate First Amendment

Yoga as violation of First Amendment
“Foolery, sir, does walk about the orb like the sun. It shines everywhere.” — William Shakespeare

Parents in San Diego are objecting to yoga classes offered at a grade school, claiming they violate the First Amendment. As reported by the New York Times, the parents claim that yoga promotes Hindu religious beliefs.

The Times quoted Mary Eady, the parent of a first grader, who stated, “They’re teaching children how to meditate and how to look within for peace and for comfort. They’re using this as a tool for many things beyond just stretching.”

The problem is that the parents have fallen prey to a false syllogism. Here is how it played out. The yoga program at the school is supported by a nonprofit organization called the Jois Foundation. Some members of that foundation have the view that yoga is part of a spiritual experience that goes beyond exercise and stretching. Since they believe and espouse that, the parents therefore believe that yoga is part of a religious belief.

However, any activity can be found to have religious significance, and it is the participant who decides whether to ascribe the religious tie-in. To use an analogy, if I bought a pool for a public school, and then gave a speech about how I believe swimming is akin to receiving a Christian baptism, then should all parents pull their children out of any swim classes on First Amendment grounds because of my beliefs? This point becomes even more obvious when you consider that even the Foundation members don’t agree. “We’re good Christians that just like to do yoga because it helps us to be better people,” Foundation member Russell Case told the Times.

I did enjoy the quote from the school’s superintendent, Tim Baird. “If your faith is such that you believe that simply by doing the gorilla pose, you’re invoking the Hindu gods, then by all means your child can be doing something else,” he told the Times.

Posted in Law | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Watch Kong: Skull Island (2017) Full Movie Online Streaming Online and Download

Quality: HD
Title : Kong: Skull Island
Director : Jordan Vogt-Roberts.
Release : 2017-03-08
Language : English.
Runtime : 118 min.
Genre : Science Fiction, Action, Adventure, Fantasy.
Synopsis :

Movie ‘Kong: Skull Island’ was released in March 8, 2017 in genre Science Fiction. Jordan Vogt-Roberts was directed this movie and starring by Tom Hiddleston. This movie tell story about Explore the mysterious and dangerous home of the king of the apes as a team of explorers ventures deep inside the treacherous, primordial island.

Incoming search term :Watch movie online The Transporter Refueled (2015)

Kong: Skull Island (2017)
Kong: Skull Island (2017) English
Watch Kong: Skull Island (2017)
Watch Kong: Skull Island (2017) English
Watch Movie Kong: Skull Island (2017)
Watch Movie Kong: Skull Island (2017) English
Watch Movie Online Kong: Skull Island (2017)
Watch Movie Online Kong: Skull Island (2017) English
Watch Full Movie Kong: Skull Island (2017)
Watch Full Movie Kong: Skull Island (2017) English
Watch Full Movie Online Kong: Skull Island (2017)
Watch Full Movie Online Kong: Skull Island (2017) English
Streaming Kong: Skull Island (2017)
Streaming Kong: Skull Island (2017) English
Streaming Movie Kong: Skull Island (2017)
Streaming Movie Kong: Skull Island (2017) English
Streaming Online Kong: Skull Island (2017)
Streaming Online Kong: Skull Island (2017) English
Streaming Full Movie Kong: Skull Island (2017)
Streaming Full Movie Kong: Skull Island (2017) English
Streaming Full Movie Online Kong: Skull Island (2017)
Streaming Full Movie Online Kong: Skull Island (2017) English
Download Kong: Skull Island (2017)
Download Kong: Skull Island (2017) English
Download Movie Kong: Skull Island (2017)
Download Movie Kong: Skull Island (2017) English
Download Movie Online Kong: Skull Island (2017)
Download Movie Online Kong: Skull Island (2017) English
Download Full Movie Kong: Skull Island (2017)
Download Full Movie Kong: Skull Island (2017) English
Download Full Movie Online Kong: Skull Island (2017)
Download Full Movie Online Kong: Skull Island (2017) English

Posted in Case Results, Internet Defamation, Verdicts | Tagged , , | 1 Comment

Judge Orders Man to Apologize to Ex-Wife on Facebook

Facebook Censorship by Contempt

Clients sometimes ask me to seek a letter of apology as part of a defamation settlement. I have managed to do so on a number of occasions, but I usually recommend a letter of retraction as opposed to a letter of apology, because the latter is often a deal breaker.

In our society, a true apology is a big deal (as opposed to an “I apologize if you were offended” type of apology). Many defendants would rather pay money than to apologize, which is somehow viewed as weak. After all, a real apology seeks forgiveness from the other side, so it sticks in the craw of most defamers that they are basically asking the victim to pass judgment on them.

With this mind set in mind, one can fully appreciate the frustration of Mark Byron. He and his wife were divorcing and fighting over the custody of their son. When the judge issued an order limiting his custody, he went to his Facebook page to vent, posting:

“… if you are an evil, vindictive woman who wants to ruin your husband’s life and take your son’s father away from him completely — all you need to do is say that you’re scared of your husband or domestic partner… , “

But there was a problem. Continue reading

Posted in Cases, Defamation, Defamation Solutions, Internet Defamation, Libel | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Watch Movie Online Zoolander 2 (2016) subtitle english

Poster Movie Zoolander 2 2016

Zoolander 2 (2016) HD

Director : Ben Stiller.
Writer : Justin Theroux, Ben Stiller, Nicholas Stoller, John Hamburg.
Producer : Jeff Mann, Clayton Townsend, Scott Rudin, Stuart Cornfeld, Ben Stiller.
Release : February 6, 2016
Country : United States of America.
Production Company : Scott Rudin Productions, Red Hour Films.
Language : English.
Runtime : 100 min.
Genre : Comedy.

Buy Now on Amazon Zoolander 2 (2016) Full Movie

‘Zoolander 2’ is a movie genre Comedy, was released in February 6, 2016. Ben Stiller was directed this movie and starring by Ben Stiller. This movie tell story about Derek and Hansel are modelling again when an opposing company attempts to take them out from the business.

Do not miss to Watch movie Zoolander 2 (2016) Online for free with your family. only 2 step you can Watch or download this movie with high quality video. Come and join us! because very much movie can you watch free streaming.

Watch movie online Zoolander 2 (2016)

Incoming search term :

Zoolander 2 2016 live streaming movie
Zoolander 2 2016 For Free online
Zoolander 2 movie trailer
Watch Zoolander 2 2016 Online Free megashare
Zoolander 2 2016 HD Full Episodes Online
watch Zoolander 2 movie now
film Zoolander 2 2016
Zoolander 2 2016 English Episodes Free Watch Online
film Zoolander 2 trailer
Watch Zoolander 2 2016 Online Putlocker
download Zoolander 2 2016 movie
watch full Zoolander 2 2016 film online
Zoolander 2 2016 HD English Full Episodes Download
watch full Zoolander 2 movie
streaming movie Zoolander 2
Watch Zoolander 2 2016 Online Free Putlocker
Zoolander 2 2016 Online Free Megashare
Zoolander 2 2016 film download
Zoolander 2 2016 English Full Episodes Free Download
Zoolander 2 2016 Full Episodes Online
Zoolander 2 2016 movie download
Zoolander 2 movie streaming
Zoolander 2 2016 Episodes Watch Online
Zoolander 2 2016 For Free Online
Watch Zoolander 2 2016 Online Viooz
Watch Zoolander 2 2016 Online Megashare
Zoolander 2 2016 Full Episode
download movie Zoolander 2
Zoolander 2 2016 English Full Episodes Watch Online
Zoolander 2 2016 Full Episodes Watch Online
Zoolander 2 2016 English Episode
Watch Zoolander 2 2016 Online Free putlocker
Zoolander 2 2016 Watch Online
Zoolander 2 2016 English Full Episodes Download
Zoolander 2 2016 Episodes Online
watch Zoolander 2 movie online now
Zoolander 2 2016 English Episodes
Watch Zoolander 2 2016 Online Free
watch full Zoolander 2 movie online
Watch Zoolander 2 2016 Online Free Viooz
Zoolander 2 2016 English Full Episodes Online Free Download
film Zoolander 2 online streaming
Zoolander 2 live streaming film

Posted in Article, Defamation, Internet Defamation, Law, Libel | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment