Scott Allen Breitenstein

He charges huge sums of money to get slanderous and defamatory posts taken down, and he doesn’t care about the hurt this has caused unto others that result in ruined lives/reputations and ruined relationships. Also, he’s infamous for his revenge porn sites. DON’T PAY HIM OR ANY OF HIS ASSOCIATES (namely his family members) ANY MONEY FOR POST REMOVALS. It’s all lies! This bastard depends on food stamps and social security checks when he’s actually making millions off of others’ misery from being slandered and defamed on the internet. RemoveNames and NetReputation are two removal services that are part of his cyber extortion scheme.

29 Bidleman St Dayton OH 45410-1917
937-274-3692

Scott Allen Breitenstein has been reported as a cheater, scammer, fraudster and quack on internetcheaters.com. This report has been filed by anonymous to help others to avoid the same situation. You can use Internet Cheaters as a platform to report about any person or business.

You can submit the review, scam, fraud, quack & malpractice done by Scott Allen Breitenstein in the form mentioned below. Search for reviews, scams, complaints and lawsuits regarding Scott Allen Breitenstein on internet cheaters.

Do you think Scott Allen Breitenstein is a Legit? There could be an instance where someone deliberately wanted to ruin the reputation of an online or local business. We do not allow anyone to post false information about Scott Allen Breitenstein on Internet Cheaters. If you think this business has been falsely accused of the above information, we are always happy to help.

Reviews

  • Aaron Greenspan alias John Fuenchem alias Lauri.R.7

    Aaron Greenspan is using the alias Lauri.R.7 on another site. We have posted this on other site but Aaron Greenspan @plainsite.org @plainsite gets it removed under 12 hours. Google Lauri.R.7 to see the posts.

    Neil S. Greenspan November 10, 2018 3:26 am Reply
    • Aaron Greenspan plainsite.org

      You recently engaged with the RECAP initiative on Twitter. You may be interested in knowing that the Free Law Project has decided to charge other organizations money to access RECAP documents, and it now denies access to organizations which refuse to pay. The new version of the RECAP plug-in only uploads documents to the FLP’s own CourtListener site, while other sites, such as PlainSite, are no longer being updated in real time. The FLP’s Board of Directors made this decision in secret with no public discussion, and they made it despite the FLP’s stated position that court documents should be free and freely available to everyone.

      While the FLP is uploading court documents to the Internet Archive nightly, it is not uploading the metadata, meaning that other organizations cannot upload the documents to their own sites. While the FLP has promised it would upload the metadata to the Internet Archive once every three months, it has not done so yet, meaning that other organizations have been cut off from accessing RECAP data since October. Unitedstatescourts.org, which was the third-largest user of RECAP data, has shut down due to the FLP’s decision. Another bulk user of RECAP data, Docket Alarm, has sold itself to Fastcase. The FLP’s decision seems designed to squeeze out CourtListener’s competitors, and it appears to be working.

      I encourage you to read Aaron Greenspan’s original blog post at http://bit.ly/2zmyOBm and his update on the situation at http://bit.ly/2nSyExZ. If you need more information, you can e-mail Greenspan at [email protected]. He has told me that he may be willing to release his private conversations with the FLP’s Mike Lissner. You may also wish to read Harvard Business School professor Ben Edelman’s opinion on the FLP’s decision at http://bit.ly/2nHO3ld.

      I’m not sure why the FLP feels it is necessary to charge other organizations money for access to RECAP data. Edelman suggests that RECAP’s operating expenses shouldn’t be very high, especially considering that open source software development often does not entail paying developers anything at all. According to the FLP’s 2016 Form 990 (which is posted on its website), the FLP had total revenues of $54,528 that year, while Mike Lissner made a salary of $90,010.

      I hope you share my concerns about the FLP’s decision, and I hope you’ll consider expressing your concerns to the FLP’s Board of Directors: Lissner ([email protected]), Brian Carver ([email protected]), and Ansel Halliburton ([email protected]).

      I have had several e-mail exchanges with Lissner. When I asked him about the reasons for the FLP’s decision, he repeatedly refused to answer any of my questions and simply responded with vague statements, such as “Our goal is to make RECAP great and we think this is an important part of doing so.” He refused to confirm or deny that the FLP was attempting to charge other organizations money for access to RECAP data. At one point, Lissner said “I’m not sure we owe you an explanation of our relationships with other organizations.” Meanwhile, my repeated e-mails to Carver and Halliburton have gone completely unanswered.

      I hope you feel that public discussion about the issue is warranted, and I hope you’ll consider tweeting a link to one of Greenspan’s blog posts.

      Best regards,

      John

      Dr. Neil Sanford Greenspan November 10, 2018 3:31 am Reply
  • Aaron Greenspan alias John Fuenchem alias Lauri.R.7 plainsitw.org

    Toggle navigation
    Free Law Project
    Who is John Fuenchem and Why is he Contacting Me About Free Law Project and/or RECAP?
    “John Fuenchem” is an alias adopted by a RECAP user who is frustrated with the way Free Law Project is run, and in particular with some changes to the way the RECAP system works. These changes were announced in November 2017, and he has been waging an email and social media campaign on this topic since that time. We are sorry that he is contacting you today and absorbing your time. He has absorbed a lot of our time too, and this page serves to document who he is (as much as we know), and what he has done and continues to do.

    Since November 2017, when we released a new and vastly improved version of RECAP, “Fuenchem” has been contacting numerous journalists and individuals. His typical approach is to identify somebody that supports Free Law Project publicly, either on Twitter or elsewhere, and to send that person emails listing his grievances and encouraging that person to spread the word.

    In addition to contacting our supporters, he has also approached numerous journalists and individuals that are important in the legal world and encouraged them write articles or otherwise spread the word. Of the many journalists that “Fuenchem” has contacted, only one has chosen to write an article, despite many of them discussing the topic with our executive director, Michael Lissner.

    The one article that was written explains the changes that were made to RECAP in detail, and has several quotes from our executive director and others explaining the situation. It serves as a good place to get some background:

    https://www.lawsitesblog.com/2018/02/invective-intrigue-within-free-law-movement-recap-changes.html

    We had hoped that with that article published, “Fuenchem” would stop his crusade, but unfortunately he continued sending his emails to numerous people. Many of those people forwarded the emails to our executive director, who began keeping a log of the emails on Twitter:

    https://twitter.com/mlissner/status/965450638099230720

    “Fuenchem” has sent at least dozens of these emails, but he will not tell us precisely how many.

    At the same time that he was writing these emails, “Fuenchem” was also finding blog posts about Free Law Project or RECAP and posting his grievances as comments.

    After many months of these ongoing and voluminous communications, our executive director decided to attempt to address “Fuenchem’s” grievances head on by writing him an email. Perhaps, we thought, directly addressing his concerns would end the months-long crusade to discredit Free Law Project. After emailing with him for many days and answering dozens of his questions, our executive director had written more than 12,000 words in reply.

    Rather than be satisfied by these responses, “Fuenchem” converted them into a Q&A he posted on a blog he created for that purpose. This effectively doxed private emails from our executive director while putting them in a different context than they were intended. The “Q&A” can be found on the webpage created by “Fuenchem,” here:

    https://recapchanges.blogspot.com/2018/07/q-with-mike-lissner.html

    And archived, here:

    https://web.archive.org/web/20180721055300/https://recapchanges.blogspot.com/2018/07/q-with-mike-lissner.html

    When “Fuenchem” shared a draft of his “Q&A” with our executive director in July 2018, our executive director firmly requested that it not be published. It took his emails out of context (the emails were not written to be directly part of a Q&A), and the Q&A omitted critical details, such as those listed above regarding the email and social media campaign that “Fuenchem” had been waging over the previous six months.

    In recent days, “Fuenchem” has concluded that because our executive director won’t share detailed financial and donor records with him, that must mean there’s a secret that’s being hidden and a scandal to be uncovered. He continues asking questions and seems dead set on continuing to contact people. His latest email concludes with a clear threat to contact the IRS and additional journalists:

    If you continue refusing to answer these questions when I ask them, maybe you’ll be more forthcoming with various journalists or the IRS. These questions are not going away and neither am I.

    So at this point, we have tried ignoring him for around six months, tried addressing his grievances directly, and we have dealt with the questions he stirred up with journalists and RECAP users.

    As a very small organization we have limited resources for public outreach and, having learned that he is never satisfied with our answers and seems only to want to find conspiracy and scandal where there is none, we have concluded that we will no longer waste our limited resources on him. He has consumed a lot of our time and we again apologize if he has absorbed yours. We hope that you will just ignore his emails. We wish we had.

    If you have lingering questions, or if he has contacted you, please feel free to send us an email.

    Conclusions
    “Fuenchem” will not reveal who he is. He claims he is using the alias to protect himself, but he has been using it since at least 2015 according to a somewhat rude support request he sent us, which concludes:

    Overall, I find the browser extension to be frustrating and difficult to use. I have wasted many billable pages trying to figure out why documents weren’t uploading. Please do something to fix these problems.

    “Fuenchem” also refuses to speak to our executive director on the phone to discuss his grievances.

    “Fuenchem” has contacted dozens of people over a period of six months. He won’t say how many. Only one of those people has taken him up on his offer to write an article about the topic. The result was a well-researched piece explaining the changes and including supportive statements from leaders in the field.

    Despite protracted and strenuous attempts, “Fuenchem’s” grievances are not satisfied. It seems they never will be.

    It’s entirely unclear why Fuenchem has decided to wage this crusade against Free Law Project and RECAP.

    “Fuenchem” has absorbed an incredible amount of people’s time.

    Links
    Donate to FLP
    Join our Newsletter
    Data Services
    CourtListener
    RECAP
    Social
    Free Law Project
    CourtListener
    RECAP
    Facebook
    Github
    Latest Tweets

    © 2018 Free Law Project · Powered by pelican-bootstrap3, Pelican, Bootstrap
    Creative Commons License Content licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, except where indicated otherwise.

    Back to top

    Neil S. Greenspan November 10, 2018 3:27 am Reply
  • Aaron Greenspan alias John Fuenchem alias Lauri.R.7 www.plainsite.org

    You recently engaged with the RECAP initiative on Twitter. You may be interested in knowing that the Free Law Project has decided to charge other organizations money to access RECAP documents, and it now denies access to organizations which refuse to pay. The new version of the RECAP plug-in only uploads documents to the FLP’s own CourtListener site, while other sites, such as PlainSite, are no longer being updated in real time. The FLP’s Board of Directors made this decision in secret with no public discussion, and they made it despite the FLP’s stated position that court documents should be free and freely available to everyone.

    While the FLP is uploading court documents to the Internet Archive nightly, it is not uploading the metadata, meaning that other organizations cannot upload the documents to their own sites. While the FLP has promised it would upload the metadata to the Internet Archive once every three months, it has not done so yet, meaning that other organizations have been cut off from accessing RECAP data since October. Unitedstatescourts.org, which was the third-largest user of RECAP data, has shut down due to the FLP’s decision. Another bulk user of RECAP data, Docket Alarm, has sold itself to Fastcase. The FLP’s decision seems designed to squeeze out CourtListener’s competitors, and it appears to be working.

    I encourage you to read Aaron Greenspan’s original blog post at http://bit.ly/2zmyOBm and his update on the situation at http://bit.ly/2nSyExZ. If you need more information, you can e-mail Greenspan at [email protected]. He has told me that he may be willing to release his private conversations with the FLP’s Mike Lissner. You may also wish to read Harvard Business School professor Ben Edelman’s opinion on the FLP’s decision at http://bit.ly/2nHO3ld.

    I’m not sure why the FLP feels it is necessary to charge other organizations money for access to RECAP data. Edelman suggests that RECAP’s operating expenses shouldn’t be very high, especially considering that open source software development often does not entail paying developers anything at all. According to the FLP’s 2016 Form 990 (which is posted on its website), the FLP had total revenues of $54,528 that year, while Mike Lissner made a salary of $90,010.

    I hope you share my concerns about the FLP’s decision, and I hope you’ll consider expressing your concerns to the FLP’s Board of Directors: Lissner ([email protected]), Brian Carver ([email protected]), and Ansel Halliburton ([email protected]).

    I have had several e-mail exchanges with Lissner. When I asked him about the reasons for the FLP’s decision, he repeatedly refused to answer any of my questions and simply responded with vague statements, such as “Our goal is to make RECAP great and we think this is an important part of doing so.” He refused to confirm or deny that the FLP was attempting to charge other organizations money for access to RECAP data. At one point, Lissner said “I’m not sure we owe you an explanation of our relationships with other organizations.” Meanwhile, my repeated e-mails to Carver and Halliburton have gone completely unanswered.

    I hope you feel that public discussion about the issue is warranted, and I hope you’ll consider tweeting a link to one of Greenspan’s blog posts.

    Best regards,

    John

    Neil S. Greenspan November 10, 2018 3:29 am Reply

Leave a Review

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Menu