Patty Nana Mcpeak or Nutracea – Insider Stock Manupulation & Defamation Victim

Case Study: NutraCea (NTZ)

McPeak vs. Various John or Jane Does

Superior Court of California, Santa Clara County, Case No. 109CV143831

BACKGROUND:

Mrs. Nana Patricia McPeak is the Plaintiff in a defamation action brought against certain John and/or Jane Does in the Superior Court of California, Santa Clara County, Case No. 109CV143831 for libelous postings made anonymously on this Yahoo forum for Nutracea.  Rexxfield LLC has been engaged by Mrs. McPeak and her attorney to provide digital forensic services and litigation support.  This statement has been authorized by and is on behalf of Mrs. McPeak.

PURPOSE:

This notice serves to shed some preliminary light on the status of the case in order to mitigate further damages to Mrs. McPeak’s reputation.

CEASE & DESIST WARNING

Furthermore, this notice serves a cease & desist warning to actual or potential malicious antagonists who have been, or are planning on participating in this Internet smear campaign.  Anonymity on the Internet is not as easily achieved as many might think, as demonstrated herein.

STATUS:

Certain actions have been undertaken whereby Yahoo has provided through subpoenas issued to them, information about certain Yahoo user accounts and/or screen names that have posted malicious and defamatory statements on this message board.

PRELIMINARY RESULTS:

The information provided by Yahoo states that the screen names responsible for some of the most malicious allegations were all posted from a single Internet Protocol Address (“IP Address), which is allocated to Cox Communications.

The address of this antagonist has been narrowed down to the Phoenix metropolitan area.  Supplemental subpoena compliance by Cox Communications should result in the positive identification of the antagonist who is actively resisting the production of the subscriber account information that we have requested.

In other cases we have investigated, a single IP address for multiple user names are usually controlled by a single individual attempting to project the impression of a grassroots outrage against their victim.  Whereas, in each case the diatribe has in the most part been public conversations by the antagonist (often with him or herself) under various pseudonyms.  It appears that the same scenario is playing out for the following user names:

  1. Ericp9977
  2. Thegoat7767
  3. Mrgoat636
  4. Zackinsac4u
  5. Abtim1185
  6. Maryandresok

The person or persons posting under the above Yahoo accounts and/or screen names have made specific defamatory and false statements in postings on the Yahoo stock message board for Nutracea about Mrs. Nana Patricia McPeak and appear to have misrepresented their own identity, past, current activities and geographical residency and/or location.

ADDITIONAL ANTAGONISTS OR “ENABLERS”:

There are two or three additional antagonists who have been positively identified and are currently negotiating settlements with Mrs. McPeak.

Additional subpoenas have been issued in an attempt to determine the identity of several other posters who have made specific defamatory and false statements in postings on the Yahoo stock message board for Nutracea about Mrs. McPeak.

SETTLEMENT AND INDEMNITY OFFER:

Parties seeking settlement or indemnity for their part in this smear campaign should make contact directly or anonymously through their attorney.  Information that might be helpful to this case will be appreciated and possibly rewarded with lenience.

CLOSING ADVICE:

Having personally experienced the anguish and vocational debilitation of vicious Internet smear campaign, I encourage all readers to think very carefully before posting derogatory comments about another on any web site.  These comments are universally available 24/7 and can be very damaging to the subjects.  Furthermore, they are often very difficult to retract even if you decide later to do so. A person who relies on his or her reputation to find gainful employment or to gain and retain contract customers is particularly susceptible to targeted Internet smear campaigns. His or her livelihood can be as thoroughly destroyed by a malicious and relentless anonymous blogger as that of a farmer who has had his livestock destroyed and barns set aflame by a vandal.