Us v. Them -- Someone Wasn't Happy With Us

Last week, we finally published our interview with Louie Capponeccia, a young man who became a target of a prolonged campaign of harassment both on and offline due to an online altercation between he and another young man, named Brian Kolfage. During that time, Kolfage actually sued Louie for defamation, along with several other people that he believed were involved in harassing him. One of the people named in the lawsuit, failing completely to see the irony of the situation, threatened to sue Echoplex Media for the same offense (along with several others) after we released the interview, leading to a prolonged and often hilarious private message exchange on Facebook between he and one of our producers, while the latter was out having cocktails. The conversation proceeded to extend over the next three days, proving just what a whack job the person in question truly is. Echoplex Media is pleased to present that conversation in its entirety, as a final way of letting the asshole in question know that he doesn't have a fucking leg to stand on. Enjoy the butthurt, y'all!


Day One

Them (2/26, 8:15pm)
You didn't bother interviewing me BEFORE releasing that bullshit by Caponecchia ... and it is 100% BS - he didn't accomplish jackshit in court except to end up paying Kolfage off ... Dumbass actually emailed the judge directly in violation of the rules and expected his Motion for Summary Judgement to be granted? He even went so far as to provide Kolfage's lawyer with the material necessary to completely undermine his defense - directly by email no less.

Us (12/26, 8:25pm)
Hey, we just published the interview.

My opinion is that he came off as a crazy person.

Them (12/26, 8:26pm)
The problem is that there is still an active case going against Kolfage and Caponecchia has actually threatened to sabotage it - in favor of Kolfage, just to get at me.

Us (12/26, 8:27pm)
This interview has nothing to do with that.

It was his version of events.

Hey, I'm getting familiar with this extra potent cocktail right now.

Them (12/26, 8:32pm)
He claims *he* won in court - *I* am the guy who wrote the bulk of his legal briefs - which would have gotten him out of the lawsuit IF he hadn't sabotaged his own defense by emailing the judge and Kolfage's lawyer ... but he followed Thomas Clay's advice ... and lost ...

Us (12/26, 8:33pm)
Well, you asked that we pull the story. If you know me by reputation, you should know that there's no chance of that happening.

Them (12/26, 8:35pm)
I'm going to review what's said with my co-plaintiff ... Just remember, Kuhnen also ignored my suggestion to pull his article - he's now Kolfage's co-defendant.

And Kuhnen's lawyer fired him when the case in TN was re-opened ... the case in TN was stayed and then re-opened at our request. The defendants' lawyer submitted motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and LOST - against me.

With defamation PER SE - you don't have to prove damages .... and that's what Caponecchia's statements comprise ...

Them (12/26, 8:57pm)
Here's a nice screenshot of message from Caponecchia to Clay that someone got from Clay ... and there's an entire email screed where Caponecchia makes plain that he will help Kuhnen and Kolfage to do what's necessary to sabotage the case in TN ... which these "interviews" are his opportunity for wider exposure in that objective.

Us (12/26, 8:59pm)
I'm out and about. Let us know if you'd like an interview.

Them (12/26, 9:01pm)
Because of the ongoing court case, I am going to insist that you send any questions to me ahead of time - it will have to be a telephone interview as skype and other video streaming services take up too much bandwidth for my home satellite ISP.

Them (12/26, 9:04pm)
And I already told you once back on Sept 25 - which you'll see in this very PM thread that you never responded - "Not a problem .... I've got a couple of filings to work on this weekend, so Sunday might be a good day to go over things ... if you'd like email me an overview of what you'd like to know at: [redacted email address]]"

Us (12/26, 9:04pm)
Would you like to come on and respond?

Them (12/26, 9:10pm)
This will be the third time that I've told you- because of my involvement in an ONGOING court case, I will have to insist on you sending me whatever interview questions ahead of time. This is not something that is negotiable and is not something that violates any sort of "journalistic integrity" on your part.

Us (12/26, 9:10pm)
I won't do an interview like that.

Them (12/26, 9:10pm)
Then I will most probably be seeing you in court.

Us (12/26, 9:11pm)
For what? Publishing an interview?

Them (12/26, 9:11pm)
Yes.

You are responsible for the content of what was published.

Us (12/26, 9:12pm)
Yes I am. But we haven't harmed you.

Them (12/26, 9:12pm)
Defamation per se. look it up.

That's the second time I've told you.

Us (12/26, 9:12pm)
Nobody defamed you.

You sound like Kolfage

Them (12/26, 9:13pm)
No. I'm protecting my case against Kolfage.

Us (12/26, 9:13pm)
Your responsible for the content of his conversation. Which may also be published.

You're. Sorry.

Them (12/26, 9:13pm)
And by giving that idiot Caponecchia a platform, you are supporting those who attack me.

Us (12/26, 9:13pm)
Goodbye now

Us (12/26, 9:16pm)
Microsoft sued me. Do you think I give a fuck about you?

Them (12/26, 9:16pm)
Like I said - my co-plaintiff will be reviewing what was said - and if she determines that it's harmful to our case

Us (12/26, 9:17pm)
You get em, pal.

You have no legal right to tell us what to publish.

Fuck off.

Them (12/26, 9:18pm)
I do if it is defamatory ... and now you sound like Kuhnen

I sound like Kolfage and you sound like Kuhnen ... what a pair.

Us (12/26, 9:18pm)
Come get some. I'm sure a district judge will be equally mad that I published an interview.

Them (12/26, 9:19pm)
I doubt the district judge will have any feelings one way or another.

Us (12/26, 9:19pm)
Go away.

Them (12/26, 9:20pm)
But he did grant our motion to add Kuhnen as a defendant "just for publishing an article".

Us (12/26, 9:20pm)
Listen dude. Fuck off.

Them (12/26, 9:21pm)
now why are you being so rude?? You'd think I got under your skin when you were quite clear that you're not concerned ... having beaten MS and all.

Us (12/26, 9:22pm)
I didn't beat them, but they didn't rattle me either.

Take a bong hit. You need it.

Them (12/26, 9:25pm)
I don't do drugs ... except the occasional drink of wine or cocktail on weekends ... but that brings up the question: on what basis are you giving medical advice involving the use of (presumably) illegal drugs? Of course in CA, it's legal for medicinal purposes, but you should already know it's not legal in TN.

Them (12/26, 9:28pm)
Of course, you might have meant tobacco - but then you don't use a bong with tobacco ...

Them (12/26, 9:31pm)
Now - as to Caponecchia - he's a gnat - and if the interviews (the current one and the one in six weeks) don't find there way into court - then we won't bother you anymore ... and most likely they won't - Albritton has his hands full with what's gone on already ... of course, Kuhnen is an idiot, and he just might be that stupid - after all, he's the one suing Jan Vrotsos for forging her own signature.

Them (12/26, 9:33pm)
And the only reason I contacted you about taking the article down is CYA on my part - I asked nicely and you ignored me ...
and told me no.

You even resorted to using vulgar rude language ... thank you for that.

Day Two

Us (12/27, 9:53am)
You're trying to tell me to shut up, not to publish an interview because you don't like the content.

This is something I will not do and if you continue to bother me about it, I will publish this somewhat unhinged rant you've gone on here.

I have a right to publish any interview I want, and your name barely even came up in the interview.

Them (12/27, 11:37am)
Don't worry about me bothering you by PM - I already told you TWICE before- IF what Caponecchia said in that interview is used by anyone against me in court, then we'll be filing another motion to amend the complaint to add you as an additional defendant supporting Kolfage - because I will do whatever is necessary to protect the integrity of the case in TN. And if you continue to support Caponecchia by giving him a platform, you are most definitely attacking me.

Us (12/27, 12:20pm)
You self important prick. Your name came up but we didn't talk about you.

This song isn't about you, darling.

Them (12/27, 1:12pm)
I contacted you based on what Prager told me ... and only what Prager told me... he mentioned the *one* comment that Caponecchia made about me, but didn't tell me that was the only comment. And after dealing with Caponecchia's idiocy over the last 3 months (including clear threats that he intends to help Kuhnen and Kolfage), I took what Prager said at face value with an eye that there was probably more. My contact with you was premature. And I apologize for that. And after *just now* listening to whole thing, I see that even what Prager told me was "out of context" ... based on the ONE (and only) reference to me or Gann (she was indirectly referred to by Caponecchia - not by name) I admit that I didn't hear anything in that interview that could be used by Kuhnen in court ....

But I still don't see why that interview caused you to change your mind on covering the harm that misuse of social media can bring - especially with "trolls" and "doxing".

Prager, Downes and Loebe (as well as many others) will tell you I have become a bit "protective" of the case in TN ... I promised Gann that she would see justice against Kolfage, and I will be damned if I let anything or anyone undermine that. That's my mindset. But as I said - it seems I was a bit premature in my contact with you because I trusted Prager a bit too much it seems - because I was pressed for time since I have other more pressing writing to finish before tomorrow morning.- so I trusted Prager and others to give me the "Cliffs' Notes" version instead of listening to all 77 minutes myself. And for the misunderstanding on my part, I apologize.

Them (12/27, 1:13pm)
My internet was out for the last few minutes ... so this last was delayed in sending.

Us (12/27, 2:52pm)
I have not defamed you by not interviewing you.

We ditched the larger story because the interview with Louie and everything else we looked up was so convoluted and hard to understand. The interview was worth publishing though.

I dare you to come after us for having the temerity to publish an interview. Where the interview was published, California, we have strong Anti-SLAPP laws. SLAPP suits are designed to shut down people who publish something you don't like by wasting their money on defending themselves. Kolfage's suit falls under this category and it is the height of irony that you would threaten us with a similar action.

I have a business, we have a lawyer on retainer, and when I emailed him about all this, he called me back and laughed about it, telling me I wouldn't even need his services if people tried to come after me for publishing an interview. He said that any attempt to sue a media entity for publishing an interview with a 3rd party would be thrown out immediately, just like when Scientology went after Gawker.

Them (12/27, 3:40pm)

Why don't you just escalate that dare to a "double-dog dare" ?? I admitted to my rashness in contacting you based on an incomplete synopsis given to me by people I trust. And as you can see by Caponecchia's response on that Facebook thread - my concern about him and his promised interference is not unwarranted...

Day Three

Them (12/29, 5:39am)
BTW - Kuhnen also told me all about the half-dozen lawyers he has on retainer .. and you might want to take a second look at the scientology v gawker - it was about IP theft - not defamation.

Us (12/29, 10:45am)
In any case, you're not going to come after me for having a podcast.

California has anti slapp laws.

You seem kinda pathetic.

The contents of this message exchange are going to be published when I get around to it.

Add that to the list of things in your nonexistent law suit.

Them (12/29, 4:37pm)
First you're correct - I wouldn't sue you simply for having a podcast. Second, it wouldn't be in CA - it would be in Federal Court in TN. What you're proving is that you're just the flipside of the same coin as Kolfage and Kuhnen. And you might want to re-consider publishing anything about me - there's this nifty little thing called False Light ... ask your lawyer about that.

Them (12/29, 4:40pm)
It all has to do with your intent in publishing it - clearly it would be to harass and embarrass me ... all in support of your relationship with Caponecchia apparently.

And while you're researching False Light, look into "Calder Effects" - "purposeful direction"


That's all she wrote, folks. If 'Them' has anything else they'd like to add to the conversation at this point, 'they' should reach out to us so we can publish that, too. Hooray for pronouns!