m THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LUZERNE COUNTY

SUNDANCE VACATIONS, INC.

Plaintiff,

NO. 12-CIV-8006
v.

t~vJ

ALBERT WHITEHEAD, Defendant.

o

C^ C

1
-o x -.v

: J

ro

PLAINTIFF SUNDANCE VACATIONS, INC.'S

PETITION TO ENFORCE CONTEMPT ORDER

AND FOR ADDITIONAL SANCTIONS

Plaintiff Sundance Vacations, Inc. ("Sundance Vacations"), by and

through its undersigned counsel, hereby seeks an Order enforcing the Court's January 18, 2013 Order finding Plaintiff Albert Whitehead in contempt and imposing additional sanctions against Mr. Whitehead for his continuing violation of that Order and, in support thereof, states the following:

1.

This action arises out of the flagrant, contemptuous and

continuing breach, by Mr. Whitehead of his contractual obligation to refrain from

in any way disparaging Sundance Vacations.

2.

By Amended Order dated October 23 , 20 1 2, this Court

preliminarily enjoined Mr. Whitehead from further breaches of the contractual obligations owed to Sundance Vacations under the parties' Settlement Agreement

and directed Mr. Whitehead to remove the "Boycott Sundance Vacations" page (referred to hereinafter as "the Boycott page") that he admittedly administered on
Facebook using the false name "John Flannagan." (A true and correct copy of the October 23, 2012 Amended Order is attached hereto as Exhibit "A.")

3.

Notwithstanding his concession to entry of the preliminary

injunction, Mr. Whitehead flagrantly and willfully continued to violate the terms

of the Settlement Agreement as well as the October 23, 2012 Amended Order. Specifically, Mr. Whitehead administered the "Boycott" page using another false
name, "Mary Smith 4158," beginning on October 17, 2012 and continuing through at least November 16, 2012 (the date that Facebook produced records identifying the "Boycott" page administrators). (See Tr. of Proceedings on January 18, 2013 at 20, 1.9 to 2 1 , 1. 1 1 .) (A true and correct copy of the transcript of the January 1 8, 2013 hearing is attached hereto as Exhibit "B.")

4.

Upon receipt of records from Facebook confirming Mr.

2

Whitehead's continued involvement in administering the "Boycott" page under the

name "Mary Smith 4158," Sundance Vacations filed an Emergency Petition for
Contempt Sanctions and for Order Compelling Compliance With October 23, 20 1 2 Amended Order on December 21,2012.
on January 18, 2013.

A hearing on the motion was held

5.

At the hearing, Sundance Vacations offered unrebutted proof

that Mr. Whitehead continued to administer the "Boycott" page after October 23, 2012 using his Verizon internet account and the false name "Mary Smith 4158"

and that he had the ability to but did not discontinue the "Boycott" page despite the October 23, 2012 Amended Order compelling him to do so.

6.

Following the hearing, this Court entered the Order dated

January 18, 2013 finding Mr. Whitehead in contempt of the October 23, 2012

Amended Order. The January 18, 2013 Order directed Mr. Whitehead to send a
letter to Facebook within five (5) days of the date of the Order requesting that the
"Boycott" page be removed and also that Mr. Whitehead "undertake efforts to personally remove" the "Boycott" page from Facebook within three (3) days of the date of the Order. The Order further directed that failure by Mr. Whitehead to

comply with the Order "will result in a sanction of $250 per day thereafter" and

that Mr. Whitehead "shall reimburse [Sundance Vacations] for counsel fees and filing costs associated with [its] emergency petition and hearing" on January 18, 2013. (A true and correct copy of the January 18, 2013 Order is attached hereto as

Exhibit "C.")1

7.

In a half-hearted and belated effort to comply with the Court's

Order, Mr. Whitehead sent a letter to Facebook on or about January 30, 2013. Mr.

Whitehead made no reference in his letter to the finding of contempt or his use of the false name "Mary Smith 4158," but rather stated that he was "reluctantly compelled" to request removal of the page based on a purported "oversight" (rather than a knowing breach of his contractual obligations). While Mr. Whitehead acknowledged his use of the name "John Flannagan" in the letter, he

did not make clear that he used the false name to administer and post messages on
the "Boycott" page or that he continued to do so using a second false name, "Mary
Smith 4158," after the Court preliminarily enjoined him from doing so. Moreover,

Mr. Whitehead sabotaged any effort to have the "Boycott" page removed by
claiming that he lacked "standing and/or authority to personally remove" the page

and by characterizing his request that Facebook remove the page as an "ineligible

1 Sundance Vacations is filing under separate cover an itemization of the counsel fees
and expenses required to be reimbursed by Mr. Whitehead.
4

request." (A true and correct copy of the January 30, 2013 letter is attached hereto

as Exhibit "D.")2 Given the equivocal nature of Mr. Whitehead's letter and his
refusal to take down the page himself, Facebook has refused to remove the
"Boycott" page. (A true and correct copy of the March 15, 2013 letter to Facebook' s counsel confirming this position is attached as Exhibit "E.")

8.

Although Mr. Whitehead had the ability to remove the

"Boycott" page himself, (see Tr. of Proceedings on January 18, 2013 at 27, 1.21 to

29, 1.9), he has willfully failed and refused to do so. Importantly, counsel for
Sundance Vacations arranged for a video conference on Friday, February 22, 2013

with Mr. Whitehead and his counsel to assist Mr. Whitehead in performing the few keystrokes necessary to remove the "Boycott" page. (A true and correct copy of

the letter dated February 20, 2013 arranging for the video conference is attached
hereto as Exhibit "F.") Mr. Whitehead, however, refused to participate in the
video conference and has made no effort to remove the page himself.

9.

In addition, Mr. Whitehead has failed and refused to remove

disparaging posts that he made concerning Sundance Vacations on internet blog

2 Mr. Whitehead also copied Facebook' s counsel on a letter which he sent to this Court on or about January 23, 2013. That letter conveys no request to remove the "Boycott" page but rather suggests (without justification) that there is no basis for the Court's January 18, 2013
Order and that he is unable to comply with the Order.
5

spots, including posts made using the false name "Dolores" on

http://sundancevacationsccp.blogspot.com. http://naskiewicz.blogspot.com. and

http://sundancevacationsmanipulation.blogspot.com using an AOL email address

TrubbIinparadise@.aol.com. (See Tr. of Proceedings on January 18, 2013 at 29,

1.14 to 35, 1.3.) Those posts remain viewable by the public on the internet as of the

date of the filing of this petition.

10.

Mr. Whitehead's continuing refusal to remove the "Boycott"

page and other disparaging posts is willful, flagrant and contemptuous and warrants imposition of the most severe sanction both to coerce compliance with

the Court's Orders and to protect and preserve the authority of this Court.

11.

Mr. Whitehead has demonstrated the utmost contempt for the

Orders issued by this Court as well as his contractual obligations and therefore
additional, more severe sanctions are necessary and appropriate.

12.

Accordingly, Sundance Vacations hereby moves for an Order

enforcing the January 18, 2013 Order of Court by imposing additional sanctions both to punish Mr. Whitehead for his intransigence and to coerce compliance with
the Court's Orders.

WHEREFORE, Sundance Vacations, Inc. respectfully requests that the Court impose additional sanctions to enforce the October 23, 2012 Amended Order and the January 18, 2013 Order of Court by, inter alia:

(a)

Compelling Mr. Whitehead to pay to Sundance

Vacations the amount of $14,000.00, which represents the $250.00 fine for each
day from January 1 8, 2013 to the present that Mr. Whitehead was in violation of the Court's January 18, 2013 Order (with the assessment of the daily fine continuing due to Mr. Whitehead's ongoing contempt);

(b)

Increasing the daily fine to $500.00 for each day forward

that Mr. Whitehead continues to refuse to comply with the terms of the January 18,
2013 Order;

(c)

Imposing a conditional order of imprisonment confining

Mr. Whitehead to the Luzerne County Jail unless and until he removes the "Boycott" page and all posts that he made on other online platforms concerning
Sundance Vacations; and

(d)

Such other and further relief as the Court deems

appropriate under the circumstances.

Respectfully submitted,

Daniel T. Brier Donna A. Walsh Attorneys for Plaintiff, Sundance Vacations, Inc. MYERS, BRIER & KELLY, L.L.P. Suite 200, 425 Spruce Street Scranton, PA 18503 (570)342-6100 Date: March 20, 2013

VERmCATIQlS

I, John Dowd, President and CEO of Sundance Vacations, Inc.,

hereby certify that the facts contained in the foregoing Petition To Enforce
Contempt Order and for Additional Sanctions are true and correct and are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to

authorities.

John Dowd

Date: 3 ' ( ^ ^ 3

Exhibit A

SUNDANCE VACATIONS, INC., r

Plaintiff
V8

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF

LUZERNE COUNTY

ALBERT WHITEHEAD, Defendant

CIVIL ACTION - LAW :

NO. 1I-CIV-8006
feai
fw* (".-T.,

r-iso

AMENDED ORDER

fea'/-'

jr

AND NOW, tbls 23rd dy of October, 2012, at /J:zd Btm upon

n for Preliminary consideration of Plaintiff Sundance Vacations, Inc.'s Petitio

rgument introduced Injunction and supporting memorandum as well as testimony/a

at the hearing this date,

is enjoined IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant Albert Whitehead

February 6, from existing and future breaches uf the Settlement Agreement dated
activity concerning 2007 pending further Order of Court. Further, all posts and
Albert Whitehead Sundance Vacations, Inc. in any manner made by Defendant on Facehook or any posing as "John Fionnagan" or using any other pseudonym

other platform shall be removed immediately.

Further, Defendant Albert Whitehead shall not interfere with the efforts of Sundance Vacations Inc. to remove the posts and shall cooperate with Sundance
s" Vacations Inc. in directing Facchookto remove the ''Boycott Sundance Vacation
page.

Security shall be entered in the amount of $100.00 (one hundred dollars) in accordance with Pa.R-Civ. P. 1531(b)

The Prothonotary is directed to forward a copy of this order to all parties

pursuant to Pa. ItC.P. 236,

BY THE Q

DERANTONI

Exhibit B

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS

OF LUZERNE COUNTY

PENNSYLVANIA

SUNANCE VACATIONS, INC.,

Plaintiff,

CIVIL ACTION

ALBERT WHITEHEAD,
Defendant

NO. 8006

of

2012

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

BEFORE:

The Honorable Fred W. Pierantoni, III, J. Courtroom No. 5 Luzerne County Court House 200 North River Street Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania 18711-1001

Commencing Friday, January 18th, 2012

APPEARANCES: DONNA WALSH, Esq. For The Plaintiff

MATTHEW J. CARMODY, Esq. For The Defendant

COPY

INDEX TO WITNESSES

PLAINTIFF'S WITNESSES

DIRECT
11

CROSS

REDIRECT

RECROSS

Dennis Dean Cheng

John M. Downs

38
42

John Dowd

44

1
2

THE COURT: We have Plaintiffs petition,

emergency petition for contempt sanctions and for

1 2

We sent a draft letter to Mr. Whitehead's counsel asking that he send that letter to Facebook

3 4

order compelling compliance with October 23rd, 2012 amended order. Correct?

3
4

asking them to take down the page and they have

blatantly refused to do that.

5 6 7 8
9

MS. WALSH: Thafs right, Your Honor. THE COURT: Let me just have the introduction of counsel for the record. MS. WALSH: Donna Walsh for Sundance

5
6

THE COURT: Was that the November 1st letter

attached to your petition?

7 8 9

MS. WALSH: There were two letters, Your Honor, October 24th and November 1st. THE COURT: They were prepared by your office

Vacations, Your Honor.

10
11

MR. CARMODY: Mat Carmody for the Defendant,

Albert Whitehead.

10
11

and not sent as far as you know?

MS. WALSH: Correct, Your Honor.

12

THE COURT: Attorney Walsh.

12

THE COURT: You may continue.

13
14 16 16 17 18
19

MS. WALSH: Your Honor, we moved for sanctions

as a result of Mr. Whitehead's wiiiflii failure to comply with Your Honor's October 23rd preliminary Injunction which barred him from in any way posting messages in any online forums relating to Sundance Vacations, and also compelled him to cooperate with
Sundance Vacations In removing a page on Facebook

13
14 15

MS. WALSH; So that's the first area in which

there's been a violation of Your Honor's order. In addition to that, Judge, Mr. Whitehead has refused

16

to take any action to remove posts that he made on

17
18 19 20 21

other Internet sites. For example, we've confirmed

that he's posted on three blog spots using false names. We've confirmed that through discovery and Mr. Whitehead refuses to remove those posts. But the real kicker, Your Honor, is we've

20

called Boycott Sundance Vacations.

21 22
23 24 26

By way of background. Judge, there was an employment discrimination case that began in 2004
that resulted in a settlement agreement in February of 2007. Pursuant to that agreement Mr. Whitehead promised he would never again post In any fashion

22
23 24

learned through discovery that Mr. Whitehead, after

Your Honor ordered him to stop posting, he began another false name. He began to administer the

25

same Boycott Sundance Vacations page using the

1
2

in any forum any messages in any way referencing

Sundance Vacations.

false name Mary Smith. He did that from October

2 3
4

17th, 2012 continuing thereafter. We have witnesses here today that I would like
to present that will verify and confirm that Mr.

3 4 5

We filed this lawsuit in April of 2012 contending that he breached his obligations by administering a page on Facebook called Boycott

5 8 7
8

Whitehead is, in feet, Mary Smith; that he administered the Facebook page Boycott Sundance Vacations after October 23rd, and that he continued
to post messages on that page after that date in

6
7

Sundance Vacation, and we also brought a claim for

tortious interference. Through the course of

8
9

discovery we were able to confirm that Mr. Whitehead had administered the page using the false name John Flannagan, and that prompted us to move
for a preliminary Injunction before Your Honor, and

9
10 11 12 13

willful violation of the Court's order. So we have

three witnesses, Your Honor, we would like to present testimony from concerning these matters. THE COURT: Mr. Carmody.

10
11

12 13
14
15
16

Your Honor entered, with the consent of Mr. Whitehead, the injunction on October 23rd again preventing him from posting -- prohibiting him from
posting in any online forum and also requiring him
to cooperate with us in removing the Boycott

MR. CARMODY; Thank you. Your Honor. Just to

14
15
16

try to address each issue that Plaintiffs counsel

addressed. She mentioned In paragraph seven of her
motion there were three blogs that they found after

17
18 19 20 21 22

Sundance Vacations page that he actively administered under the false name John Flannagan.
Subsequent to that date, Your Honor, we discovered three things. First, Mr. Whitehead refuses and continues to refuse to cooperate with Sundance in removing the page. Your Honor clearly

17 18 19

the Court's order. These are the printouts of those blogs. As you could see, those blogs are March of '09, August of '09, and March of 2010, two

20
21 22
23

years after your October 2012 order. Those blogs

on the last page will show that they were drafted or written by Dolores, who's been proven through
discovery -

23 24
25

directed him on October 23rd that he is required to cooperate with Sundance to get the page down and he
has refused.

24
25

THE COURT; Your position is these were

before?

1 of 13 sheets

COPY

Page 2 to 5 of 53

1 2 3

MR. CARMODY: Correct. And those were by Dolores who, discovery has shown, has been a display name that my client has used In the past.

1
2

create it and therefore he doesn't have the right

or the authority to tell Facebook you got to take

3 4 5 6 7
8

this down. Frankly, he would have been out of line. THE COURT: Out of an abundance of caution,

4 5
6

Exhibit F of Plaintiff's motion shows that Dolores was a display name for JohnF712@hotmail.com, and
for trubbiinparadise@aol.coni. And if you look at

couldn't a letter have been sent? MR. CARMODY:

what you would like.

7 8
9
10

Exhibit E of the motion, both lnjbbllnparadise@aol.com and JohnF@hotmail.com have

both been deleted.
I'm not sure if Your Honor is aware, but if

We could send a letter if that's

THE COURT:

I think If you sent a letter, even

10
11
12

If It had no effect, at least you would have

complied more thoroughly with the order.
MR. CARMODY: Correct.

11

you create an email account, go on the Internet and

12 13 14
15

put a blog on the Internet, and subsequent to that you delete that email address, you can't go back and remove something from cyberspace. It's there
permanently. So my client has no ability to go

13
14

THE COURT:

Continue.
Third, the Plaintiff presents

MR. CARMODY:

16 16 17 18

Exhibits G, H and I, and she claims that - the Plaintiff claims that these exhibits identify my client, the Defendant, as the current administrator of the Facebook page.

16
17

back to a blog from 2009 and 2010 and remove them

at this time.

18
19

The next issue that Plaintiff's counsel has is

with the Boycott page. As Your Honor is aware, we

19

If you take a look at these exhibits they

20

submitted an affidavit from our client saying that

20
21
22 23

don't say any of that. They identify a user name

and they identify Facebook records, but they don't
show what pages this person was on. It doesn't show ~ it doesn't say he was an administrator or

21 22

he was not the creator of that page, and because he is not the creator of that page, he doesn't have

23
24
25

the authority or the ability to take that down.

THE COURT: Did you ever correspond with
Facebook?

24 26

not an administrator. It says nothing. It just shows that this was a Facebook name and he was

MR. CARMODY: No.

I felt it was inappropriate

logged in on Facebook. It doesn't say what pages

for Plaintiffs counsel to send me a pre-drafted

he was logged in on, and most importantly,

3
4 5

letter for me to sign and for me to send to

Facebook. I didn't think It was ethical on my part to submit a letter that I knew not to be true

3
4

Plaintiff alleges in their motion that there were

defamatory statements made, yet there is not one

6
6

defamatory statement made in any of the exhibits

that they attached.

6 7 8 9
10 11

factually, based upon my client's representations, for me to send a letter to Facebook stating facts or allegations that I knew not to be true and based upon my client's representations I knew not to be
true. Nothing in your court order ~ THE COURT: Part of the order from October

Based on that, Your Honor, the motion lacks

8
9

any evidence and, therefore, Plaintiff didn't meet

their burden to sustain a motion for sanctions.

10
11

THE COURT: You are prepared to offer

testimony today?

12 13 14
15
16

23rd contains an entry that your client would cooperate with Sundance in directing Facebook to remove the Boycott Sundance Vacations page. Did
you undertake any attempt to contact Facebook by
your own letter?

12

MS. WALSH: Yes, Your Honor.

13 14

THE COURT: I could understand Mr. Canmody's concern about sending a letter to Facebook that may

16
16
17

be composed by your office, but if such a letter

was forwarded to Facebook, would that solve the
problem in any way for you?

17
16
19

MR. CARMODY: No. Respectfully, Your Honor,

we disagreed with that portion of your order.
THE COURT: You may disagree with it, but it's

18
19
20 21
22

MS. WALSH: It would go toward solving the

problem, Judge, but the real problem here is that
Mr. Whitehead, once he's caught using one name, he Just changes his name. We caught him as John
Flannagan so he became Mary Smith.

20
21

an order. What harm would there have been to send

a letter?

22

MR. CARMODY: The response to your order was

23 24
25

to get a sworn affidavit from our client saying that, Your Honor, I understand you made this part
of your order, but the fact is that he didn't

23
24

THE COURT:

Do you have any belief that he

could direct Facebook to take any page down?

25

MS. WALSH: I do, Your Honor, and we have

2 of 13 sheets

COPY

Page 6 to 9 of 53

1
2
3

proof here today that we'll establish that ~ THE COURT:

Carmody?

1
2

University. Training there Included data management

analysis, computer networking, and advanced mathematics

Did you discuss that with Mr.

3
We have discussed, not In great

Q.

Can you tell the Court, please, about your

4 5 6

MR. CARMODY:

4 5

work experience In the area of Information technology.

detail, but we have discusses It.

networking, and computer forensics?

THE COURT:

I will give everybody a 20-mlnute

If there still

6 7 8 9

A.

Since about 1995 I've been employed In various

7
8

recess to discuss your differences.

positions that Indude the management, upkeep, development

of computer Infrastructure. I have served as advisor to

Is an Issue we'll come back and we'll take

testimony.

9
10 11
12

numerous Internet operations. I have served as HIPAA

MS. WALSH: Thank you. Your Honor.

[Whereupon, after recess:]

10
11 12

security officer for medical operations, and I have

performed forensic analysis for legal cases.

THE COURT:

I appreciate counsel's discussion

Q.

Do you have any spedalized training In

13
14

of the matter before coming back.

MR. CARMODY: Your Honor, I spoke with my

13
14
15

computer technology?

A.

I have attended numerous courses hosted by

15 16 17 18
19 20

dient. In regards to your suggestion about

Access Data Corporation that makes forensic tools.

submitting the letter to Face book and requesting them to take the page down, he Is In agreement that

16 17
18 19

Q.

Your r^sum^ Identifies you as a security

officer, that you served as security officer for a period of

time in the go's at Clinical Laboratories. Can you describe

he would do that. I have exchanged that message

with counsel.

that for the Court, please.

THE COURT:

Let's start with that point. You

20 21

A.

Part of that included the protection of health

21 22

will send a letter on behalf of your client, your

information, data protection, and incident response and

Investigation.

dlent will correspond with Facebook to undertake

whatever he can. Understood? We'll have that done
within five days.

22 23
24

23
24

Q.

Did you have an opportunity to work with law

enforcement?

25

MR. CARMODY:

Okay.

25

A.

We have. As part of the HIPAA security

11

13

1 2

THE COURT:

Attorney Walsh.

1 2

officer, as well as internal employee investigations, we

worked with law enforcement.

MS. WALSH: Your Honor, we would call Dennis

Cheng. Your Honor, If I could hand up a copy of
our exhibits. THE COURT: Proceed.

3
4

3
4

Q.

Now you are the founder and you work at Two By

Two Solutions, correct?

5
6

5
6

A.
Q. A.

Correct.
What is the business of Two By Two Solutions? Two By Two Solutions provides consulting

.....

7 8 9

DENNIS DEAN CHENG, called as a witness on

7 8
9 10

behalf of the Plaintiff, having been duly sworn,

was examined and testified as follows:

services for legal firms.

Q.

How long have you worked in the field of

10
11 12 13
14
BY MS. WALSH;
DIRECT EXAMINATION

information technology working In computer forensks?

11
12 13
14

A.

Full-time since 1995. MS. WALSH: Your Honor, I'd offer Dennis Cheng

as an expert in the area of information technology. infrastructure and networking, as well as computer
forensics.

Q.

Dennis, can you turn, please, to what's been

15 16 17 18

marked Exhibit R In the binder before you.

15 16

A. Q.

Sure. Can you tell us, please, whether that is a

THE COURT; Any voir dire, Mr. Carmody?

17
18 19
20
VOIR DIRE EXAMINATION

true and correct copy of your curriculum vltae?

19
20

A.
Q.

It is.
Can you tell the Court about your educational

BY MR. CftRMPPY?
Q. Mr. Cheng, we're here today -- a large basis
of the daims here today are dealing with the Facebook

21
22 23
24

background, please.

21
22

A.

The relevant parts of my educational

background, I attended the University of Michigan Ann Arbor

23 24 25

website. What's your experience with Facebook In terms of

IT?

for my undergraduate studying, among other things, computer science and advanced mathematics. Graduated Johns Hopkins

25

A.

I am familiar with Facebook's operation. Any

3 of 13 sheets

COPY

Page 10 to 13 of 53

1
2

claims that we will be talking about here today I've tested.

As you know, Facebook Is a public company, secretive. Even
within Facebook somebody can't say this is exactly how it

1 2
3
4

Q.

Can a person have more than one persona on

Facebook, or more than one name on Facebook?

3
4

A.

In practice, yes.

behaves because of something called A. B. Testing, which I'm

happy to explain.

Q.
A.

How does that work?

Ifs as simple as filling out another

5 6 7
We'll recognize you as an expert,

6
7

MR. CARMODY: I have no objection to him as an

expert

enrollment to create another account^ although it's expressly forbidden in the Terms of Use.

8
9

THE COURT: sir. Proceed.

Q.
A.

But ifs possible to do it?

Very possible.

9
10 11 12 13
14

10
11 12

PY MSi WfttiSH'
Q. Dennis, have you had an opportunity to examine
a page on Facebook called Boycott Sundance Vacations?

Q.

Were you able to reach any conclusions as to

the location of the person using the name marysmith4158?

A.

Yes, all accesses from that user account

13
14

A.
Q. A.

I have.
What Is that, please. It is a Facebook page apparently devoted to

originated from the same IP address. I performed analysis

on that IP address and it was registered to Verizon as a
consumer DSL.

15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22
23
24

16 16 17

discussions of Sundance Vacations, and specifically devoted

to stopping business with the organization.

Q.
a little bit.

Dennis, I'm going to ask you to slow this down

Q. A.

Is that a page that's open to the public? It is.

18
19
20

A.

It was located In the metropolitan

Philadelphia area.

Q.
A.

Ifs viewable by members of the public?

It is.

Q.

Thank you. Can you show us, please, where in

21 22

the Facebook records you see an IP address associated with

marysmith4158@hotmaii,com.

Q.

I'm going to ask you to turn to Exhibit H In

the binder In front of you. As the certificate suggests. these are records that were produced to Sundance Vacations

23
24
though.

A.

Ifs in Exhibit H. There's no page numbers.

25

by Facebook in response to our subpoena for information

25

Q.

In Exhibit H, about half of the way through

15

17

1
2

identifying the administrators of the Boycott page, and the

response identifies five different administrators for the

1
2 3 4 5

there's a reference to marysmith4158@hotmail.com.

MS. WALSH: Your Honor, the exhibits are

3
4 5
6

page, and the names would be Fran Wilson, Mary Smith,

marYsmithl2079 and marysmith4158, Nancy Vosicka, and Mark
Adomo.

printed in the binder that was handed up.

THE COURT: Thank you.
BY MS. WALSH;

Before we get into those details, can you teO

6
7

Q.

So Is the IP address Information for all of

7 8 9 10

us, what are administrators of a Facebook page?

the marysmith4158 logins the same.

A.

A Facebook page Is a site on Facebook devoted

8 9

A. Q.

Yes. What research did you do to Identify the

to a cause, a business or a group. Because of that there

are individuals or user accounts that are assigned as
administrators. So an administrator has elevated privileges

10 11
12 13
14

person or persons associated with that IP address?

11
12 13 14 15
16

A.

We had, as I said, we have identified It as a

on that page so that they can post, delete, manage, and otherwise manipulate the operations of the page.
Q.
the page?

Verizon IP address. We happen to have a subpoena response

from Verizon, and cross-referring that IP address it was Indeed the IP address of Albert Whitehead.

Are administrators basically the managers of

15

Q.
A.

Tell the Court what an IP address is.

An IP address is computer terminology that is

A.
Q,

Yes, they are.

In this case there are five administrators.

16

17 18

17
18

used In networking that essentially operates much like a

phone number where a public computer endpoint has this

Is this common with Facebook that more than one person can
serve as an administrator?

19
20

19
20

address, so that it is used to broker communications.

A.
Q.

There's nothing preventing that.

Do administrators have the ability to post

Q.

Are IP addresses unique to the user, or can

21 22 23 24

21
22

many different users share the same IP address.

messages on a Facebook page?

A.
location.

The IP address is usually restricted to one

A.

They have the ability to post both as

23
24

themselves and as the page itself. They can use either

identity.

Q.
A.

Who assigns IP addresses?

In the case of something like home DSL or

26

25

4 of 13 sheets

COPY

Page 14 to 17 of 53

residential services. It's done by the ISP, or in this case

Verizon.

1
2

A. Q.
account?

It is. When did marysmith4158 register for a Facebook

2 3 4 5

Q.

So you've traced this IP address in the Mary

3
4

Smith records to Verizon?

A,

It was listed In the Facebook exhibit. First

A.

Correct.

6
6 7

use or registration?

6
7

Q. You mentioned DSL or home account, is that a

common Internet service that's provided to individuals?

Q.

When did she register for a Facebook account?

A.

Thafs at the end of the records. Looks like

8
9

A.

Most civilians or most regular people have

8 9 10 11 12 13
14

August 13th, 2012.

residential service, so either by cable modem or DSL

Q. If 1 have Internet access In my home, there

Q,

Help us put into context this individual using

10
11

the name Mary Smith, when this individual logged on to the

Facebook account. We had a preliminary injunction ~ a

would be an IP address associated with my address?

12
13
14

A. Q.

Correct. Did you reach any conclusion as to the IP

hearing, I should say, on this case on October 19th. When

did the person using the name marysmith4158 first logon to

Facebook?

address that the person claiming to be Mary Smith used to logon to Facebook?

15
16

15
16 17

A.
16th, 2012.

The first logon indicated here is November

A.

Yes, that IP address was, as I said, the one

17
18 19

that was allocated to Albert Whitehead. Q. Can you identify for the record the number of

Q.
last logon.

I'm sorry, is that the first logon? Not the

18
19 20

that IP address?

A.

I apologize, this Is sort of in reverse order.

20

A.
Q.

It Is 72.78.191.60.
I'm going to ask you to turn to Exhibit I in

It should be, and It Is, October 17th, 2012. My apologies. Q. So the first logon for Mary Smith is October

21
22

21
22

the records before you.

17, 2012. What page are you referring to?

23
24 25

MR. CARMODY; I'm sorry, the IP address you

23 24

A.

Marysmith4158 there is a section mid page it

stated, what number was that?

THE WITNESS: 72.78.191.60.

says logout. It's the entry right above that.

Q. Is that the first login for marysmlth4158?

25

19

21

1 2

MS. WALSH: For clarification. Your Honor,

1 2

A. Q.

It appears to be, yes. During what period of time do these records

there are two Mary Smiths associated, and it's the

marysmith4158@hotmaii.com that's associated with

3
4

3
4 5

show that marvsmith4158 was logging on to Facebook?

this IP address. THE COURT: Is that correct, sir?

THE WITNESS; Yes.

A.

According to these records from October 17th,

5
6

2012 through November 16th, 2012. I noted that the records

were generated on the 16th of November, so ifs not to say
that it stopped at that point.

6
7

7 8 9

THE COURT:
BY MS. WALSH!

Continue.

8
9

THE COURT: It stopped on that date? THE WITNESS: The records were generated obviously they couldn't go into the future, so it was current as of generation. THE COURT: Was there any check to see if
they're current today?

Q. Turn please to Exhibit I. MS. WALSH: I will represent to the Court these are records that were subpoenaed from Verizon with regard to IP addresses associated with Mr.
Whitehead's residence.

10 11
12 13 14 15

10

11
12 13 14

MS. WALSH: That's in process, Your Honor.

THE COURT: So be It.

Q.

Dennis, tell the Court, please, what is the

15
16
17

16
17

last known IP address associated with Mr. Whitehead

according to these records?

MS. WALSH: Facebook is In California and as

Your Honor

18
19

A.

The last known IP address as of the Verizon

18

THE COURT:

Go ahead.

letter was 72.78.191.60.

19
20
21 22

20
21 22

Q.

Can you tell us, please, what page of the

Q.

Dennis, what on these records tells us that

exhibit you're referring to?

the records are printed only through 11/16/2012?

A.

It Is, I believe, the last page of the exhibit

A.

At the head of each target page there is a

23 24 25

and there's a table for Albert Whitehead.

Q. Is that the same IP address associated with

23 24
25

field called date range, and in this report it Indicates

creation, so account creation to November 16th, 2012.

marysmlth4158 In the Facebook records?

Q.

Did you do an investigation to determine

S of 13 sheets

COPY

Page 18 to 21 of 53

whether marysm(th4158 posted messages on the Boycott page during this period of time from October 17, 2012 to November
16, 2012.

1
2 3

we'll go through specifically some of the examples?

2
3 4
5

A.

Okay. Any one of these communications or

messages that were identified as coming from the

A.

Yes, I did.

4
5

administrator, they're time-stamped. So we compared the

time stamp of that message to the windows of time between a

Q. A.

And what did you conclude? I concluded that there were a number of times

6 7 8

6
7 8

login and logout event, and eliminating periods of dme where there were multiple parties logged In concurrently, we

that we could prove marysmlth4158 did Indeed post to the

Boycott Sundance Vacation page.

could Identify periods of time where only Mr. Whitehead was logged on.

9
10

Q. There were other administrators. Were you

able to rule out that the other administrators posted In

9
10 11
12

Q.

Can you tell us, please, what Exhibit N

11
12 13 14
16 16

lieu of or Instead of Mary Smith?

represents, N as In Nancy?

A. Q.

I did. How could you determine that she was the

A.
response.

N Is summary data inputted from the Facebook

13
14
15

exclusive poster of messages during this period?

Q.

Does this show the particular administrator's

A.

We have comprehensive login and logout times

login and logout Information?

for all the other users and so we could Identify windows of

16 17

A,

It does.

17
18 19

time where marysmith4158 was the only user with

administrator privileges logged In to Facebuok.

Q.

Have you done anything to make this

18
19 20
21
22

presentation consistent with local time as opposed to UTC

time?

Q.

Let's go through some of those records. First

20
21
22

of all, I ask If you can Identify for the record what we

have marfced as Exhibit M? A, These appear to be screen shots of posts to

A,

Yes, I directed and supervised the conversion

of UTC timestamps to eastern localized time.

Q.
conversion?

Why did you do that? Why did you make that

23 24 25

the Boycott Sundance Vacations page.

23
24 25

Q.

During what period of time?

A.

Because the screen shots from Facebook are

A.

This one, it appears to be November 5th, 2012.

displayed in eastern time, so just for the sake of simple

23

25

1
2 3 4
5

Q.

Did you do an investigation to analyze the IP

1
2
3
4

comparison and not having to know daylight savings rules, we

performed that conversion.

data received from Facebook with respect to the

administrator appearing on these pages?

Q.
correct?

So you're trying to compare apples to apples,

A.
Q.

I did.
First, can you tell the Court how you can

5
6
7

A.

Correct.

6
7 8

Identify a message that was posted by the administrator as

opposed to a user of the site?

Q.

Let's go back to Exhibit M and let's go

through some of these examples. There's a post on the

bottom of the page from the Boycott Sundance Vacations
administrator dated November 9th, 2012 at 4:43 p.m. Do you

A.

The messages are the - the comments In this

8
9 10 11 12

9 10 11
12 13 14 15
16 17

case are identified with the name Boycott Sundance Vacations

and happens to have the logo of the - I dont know what you
call that, the red cross through Sundance Vacations.
Q. Looks like it's the Sundance Vacations name

see that on the first page of Exhibit M? A.

Q,

I do.
What can you tell us about the Identity of the

with a cross through it? A. Q. Uh-hum. Is that the sign that this post Is from an

13
14
15

administrators who were logged on on November 9, 2012 at

4:43 p.m.

A.

I referenced the last page of the Facebook

administrator as opposed to a user?

16
17
18

logs and, this is sorted by date and time, identified a window of time from November 9th at 1:34 p.m. -- I'm sorry.

A.

Yes, It is.

18

Q. You were telling us about the investigative work that you did to determine whether any particular administrator post was made by marysmith4158 or one of the

November 9th at 4:21 p.m. until 9:41 p.m. where

marysmlth4158 was logged in. I then compared other administrators and see that the latest time In proximity to that was 4:33. So any time after 4:33 until some period after the 9th the only administrator logged in was marysmlth4158.

19
20

19 20 21 22
23
24

21
22

other administrators. I wonder If you could walk us through what you did to make that determination?
A. Okay. Should we speak to a specific post

23
24 26

here, maybe the November 9th one?

Q. Tell the Court generally what you did and then

Q. On November 9th at 4:43 p.m. the only

administrator logged on was marysmlth4158?

25

6 of 13 sheets

COPY

Page 22 to 25 of 53

1 2 3
4 5 6

A.

Correct.

1 2

A.

We ran tests and It Indicated that any single

Q. Let's go to the third page in Exhibit M.

There Is a reference there to a post made by the Boycott

administrator had rights to take down the page with Immediate effect.

3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Sundance Vacations administrator on October 30, 2012 at 7:51

a.m. Did you do any Investigation to determine whether one

Q. Can you describe for the Court, please, the

process by which an administrator can remove a Facebook page?

or more than one administrator for the Boycott page was logged In on that date at that time?

7
8

A.

Ifs fairly simple. There are either one or

A.

Yes, I did. It Identified marysmlth4158 as

two steps. The first step is to remove other administrators

the sole login at that time.

from the page, and then under one of the settings pages for
the page there Is a quick link to delete the page, Ifs a one dick deal and two confirmations.

10 11 12
13 14

Q.
In Exhibit N?

Is that also apparent from the charts that are

11 Yes, I believe so.

12 13
14

A.

Q. I ask you please to turn to Exhibit K and I

will ask you to Identify Exhibit K for the Court, please.

Q. Can you explain that? A. Forgive me, this Is difficult to parse. There

A.

Yes, this Is the page settings page that I

15 16 17
18

Is a login event for marysmlth4158 on October 28th, and It

15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23
24

awkwardly described previously.

stays logged In -- thafs the login for marysmlth4158.

Q. Is that the page that the administrator would

go to In order to complete the process of removing a

During that time unti the 30th there was one Mark Adomo
logged out on the 29th, but then we have the post on the

Facebook page?

19 20 21
22 23
24

30th at 7:51 a.m., so by the process of elimination again,

A.

Correct. At the bottom of the page there's a

It was the only person that was logged on at that time.

Q. So there was no other administrator logged on

bottom that says, save changes, and Immediately before that there Is a section that says, delete page. One just has to dick the link and then confirm the choice. MS. WALSH: I will represent to the Court the information blacked out is the personal Information of the Facebook user that formed the basis for

on October 30 at 7:51 a.m. other than marysmith4158? A. Q. Correct. Lefs go through one last example for October

25

19, 2012, which Is the date that we were here In court on

25

27

29

1
2 3 4

the preliminary injunction hearing. I ask you, Dennis, to

printing this page.

turn to the 19th page, which I apologize, the pages are not appropriately numbered, but the 19th page of Exhibit M. I

2
3
4

BY MS. WAkSH:
Q. How long would It take an administrator to

ask If you can see a post there dated October 19, 2012 at
9:53 a.m. on the bottom of the page?
Yes, I do.

remove a Facebook page?

5
6 7 8

5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15

A.

Being generous with mouse skills and time, I

would say less than a minute.

Q.

Is that a post that was made by the Boycott

Q.

What Information or resources would a user

Sundance Vacations administrator?

need to have to delete a page?

9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17
18

A. Q.

It was. Did you do an investigation to determine

A.
Q.

A computer and a working login.

Mr. Whitehead daims in papers filed in this

whether one or more than one of the administrators was logged on to Facebook on that date at that time? A. My determination was that only marysmlth4158

court that only creators can delete a Facebook page; is that

accurate?

A. Q.

That is not accurate. Did you also perform an investigation to

was logged In at that time.

Q.

We've gone through some examples. Are there

determine whether Mr. Whitehead posted messages on other

other examples that would show us that marysmith4158, which is associated with Mr. Whitehead, was the only administrator
logged on making posts during the period covered by the
Facebook records?

16
17

Internet sites that made reference to Sundance Vacations,

that Is aside from the Boycott page?

18 19 20 21
22

A. Q.
A.

I did. What did you condude?

I conduded that there are a number of Wog

19 20 21 22 23
24

A.
Q.

I'm sure of it.

Who has the ability to remove a Facebook page?

spot sites that are actively referenced by the Boycott

Sundance Vacations Facebook page that are, like I said. actively referred to. I think there are three of them.

A.
Q.

An administrator of that page.

Is it sufficient for one administrator to take

23
24

down the page, or do all of the administrators need to join

together to do that?

Q.

Can you Identify for the Court, please, what

25

25

we have marked as Exhibits P, Q and R in the binder before

7 of 13 sheets

COPY

Page 26 to 29 of 53

1 2 3 4 5

you?

Q. You concluded that independently based on your

investigation, connect?

A,

P Is a printout of one of these pages, I

believe the title of It Is the Sundance Vacations Sweepstakes versus Do Not Call.

3
4
5

A.

Correct.

Q. I ask you to turn briefly to Exhibit E of the

binder In front of you, and I represent to the Court that
Exhibit E Is the response that we received from AOL to the

Q. Can you tell us what Exhibit Q Is?

A. Q Is another one of these blog spot pages

6 7

6 7 8 9

titled Sundance Vacation Manipulations.

subpoena that was served seeking screen name and account

information for Albert Whitehead. Dennis, can you turn please to page six of

8
9

Q. And R?

A.

R Is ~

10 11
12 13 14
15 16

Q. I apologize, Exhibit 0?
A. 0 is Sundance Vacations Complaints and

10 11
12

Exhibit E and tell us what are the screen names that appear
on Exhibit 6?

Cancellation Procedures blog spot page.

A.

Would you like me to read them all?

Q. Are Exhibits 0, P and Q reflective of online

posts made by Mr. Whitehead?

13
14 15

Q.

Lefs see If we can cut through this. What is

an AOL screen name and how Is It used?

A. Q.

Yes. After my analysis, yes. Can you tell the Court briefly what you did In

A.

In AOL there is a master account and from that

16
17 18

one can create multiple identities. The proper use of It Is

17 18 19 20 21
22

terms of your analysis to Identify Mr. Whitehead as the

author of these biogs?

sort of a family might want to get an email address for the

wife and the kids. In this instance one can make numerous Identities that would have capabilities of both sending and receiving email and communicating via Instant Messenger,

A.

All three biogs have their publicly facing

19
20
21 22 23 24

identification, or the person who's responsible for this are

false names. I believe there's a Google response somewhere

among other things.

in here that identifies the true owner of these biogs. Q. A, I ask you please to turn to Exhibit F? Yes. MS. WALSH; I will represent to the Court that

Q.

Would a person with an AOL account, would

23 24

their AOL email address include their chosen screen name?

A.

They could send and receive email. For

25

25

example this Deserie account, Deserie@aol,com would be a

31

33

1
2 3
4

this Is a response that we received from Google In

response to a subpoena that was served for records Identifying the author of three biogs. Including
SundancevacatlonsCCP, Nasklewlcz2.blog.spot, and
Sundancevacatfonsmanlpulatlon.

1
2

valid email address.

Q.

The screen names associated with Mr. Whitehead

3
4

include the term Beware Sundance and Sundance Vac. Do you see that?

5
6

5 6

A.

I do, yes.

Q. What does that mean? Does that mean that Mr.

Whitehead Is sending and receiving emails using the account

Q.

What do these records tell you about the email

7 8 9 10

8 9
10

address associated with the Individual who posted on the

bewaresundance@aol.com and sundancevac@aol.com?

three biogs that 1 mentioned. MR. CARMODY: Your Honor, we already

essentially admitted this morning that my client

A.
Q.

Very well could have, yes,

Does he also have the ability to communicate

11
12 13 14 15

11
12

online through Instant messaging using these screens name?

did author these three biogs back In 2009 and

2010 --

A. Q.

Yes. Or did. Do the AOL records show the IP address

13
Prior to the order. So noted. I
Move on to another area.

THE COURT:
have them here.

14 15

associated with Mr. Whitehead.

A.
yes.

There are a number of IP addresses listed but.

16
17 18

MS. WALSH: Thank you. Your Honor. WLMS. WAUSH=

16
17 18

Q.

Do you see an IP address in these that you've

Q.

For the record, please, can you tell the Court

seen before In the Facebook records or the Verizon records?

19 20
21

the email address thafs associated with these biogs?

19 20 21
22

A. Q.

I have. What is that?

A.

Ifs a misspelling but in English translation

it's tnjbbilnparadlse@aol.com.

A.
Q.

Our familiar 72.78.191.60.

During what period of time, did Mr. Whitehead

22

Q.

Thafs a service associated with Mr.

23
24

Whitehead, correct, pursuant to the stipulation we've Just

heard?

23
24

use that IP address?

A.

As late as November 5th, I believe, and as

25

A.

Yes.

25

early as it has to be August of 2012.

8 of 13 sheets

COPY

Page 30 to 33 of 53

1 2
3 4 5
6

Q. Just so the record Is dear, the dates of use

would be apparent from the IP session logs that are Induded
in Exhibit E, correct?

1
2

A.

Yes.

Q.
A.

What Is that opinion?

My opinion Is that he has Indeed posted on

3
4 S

A.

Numerous ones, yes.

other sites other than Facebook.

Q. There's been an allegation that once an

Individual makes a post on a blog that that cant be
removed; is that accurate?

Q.
A.

Do those posts remain viewable by the public?

They do.

6 7

7 8

Q.
those posts?

Does Mr. Whitehead have the ability to remove

A.

No, that's not accurate.

8
9

9 10
11
12

Q. Can you tell us what an individual would need

to do In order to take down a post he or she made in a post such as this?

A.

I believe he does.

10 11

Q.

Do you give these opinions within a reasonable

degree with professional certainty?

A.

We are spedficaliy speaking to blog spot.

12 13 14
15 16

A.

I do.
MS. WALSH: No further questions.

13 14
15
16

Although the email address might no longer be valid, the

account Is separate and exduslve of the email address. So

If the credentials for that account are still available, one

THE COURT: Thank you. Cross. MR. CARMODY: Your Honor, without my dlent

could login and destroy the post. Alternatively, if the

having a similar expert to review documents that we

17

account credentials are no longer available, one could

request the host of the blog to take It down providing adequate proof of ownership.

17 18 19 20
21 22

received last month, and additional documents that we received today, I don't believe I would have any appropriate cross-examination questions for Mr.
Cheng, and with that -- so I have no

18 19
20

Q. In your experience, does it usually work to

ask a blog to be taken down?

21
22

cross-examination. I would ask If Plaintiff's

counsel - are you going to submit additional
witnesses?

A.

I've seen It done, yes.

23 24
25

Q. The blog spots that we have identified, which

are Exhibits 0, P and Q, are those visible on the Internet
today?

23

24
25

MS. WALSH: Yes. Two very brief witnesses.

Your Honor.

35

37

1
2 3
4 5

A.
Q.

They are.
Viewable by the public?

1
2 3

THE COURT:

Let me ask you. You believe that

an Individual can have a page or post removed.

THE WITNESS: Yes.

A.
Q.

They are.
Do you have an opinion as to whether Mr.

4
5

THE COURT: Other than the administrator? THE WITNESS:

blog spots, yes.

Whitehead administered the Boycott page on Facebook under

Speclflcally speaking to the

6 7
8

the page marysmlth4158 after October 23, 20X2?

A. Q. I do. What is your opinion?

6 7
8 9

THE COURT: How would that be done? What

would an individual have to do? THE WITNESS: They have a login and password,

9 10 11
12

A.

My opinion Is that Albert Whitehead did

administer the Boycott Sundance Vacations page under the

marysmlth4158 alias.

10 11
12 13

and If they still have that login and password they could login and destroy the page. Lefs Just say that that Information is no longer available. I

Q.
this period?

Did he also post messages on Facebook during

13
14 15

believe that the individual or the Court could

request, with proper documentation, the takedown of
those pages.

A.
Q.

Yes.
Do those posts remain viewable by the public?

14
15

16
17 18

A.
Q,

They do.
Do you have an opinion as to whether Mr.

16
17 18 19

THE COURT:

Anyone want to follow up? Call

your next witness. Anyone plan to recall this

witness?

Whitehead has the ability to remove the Boycott Sundance

Vacations page?

19

MS. WALSH: THE COURT:

Not at the present time. Sir, you are free to stay or

20
21
22

A.
Q. A.

I do.
What Is your opinion? My opinion Is that he does have that ability.

20
21
22

leave, whatever your schedule dictates.

MS. WALSH; We call Joe Downs.

23
24

Q.

Do you have an opinion as to whether Mr.

23
24

Whitehead authored messages on other Internet sites that are

disparaging of Sundance Vacations?

2BSEPH M. POWNS, called as a witness on behalf

of the Plaintiff, having been duly sworn, was

25

25

9 of 13 sheets

COPY

Page 34 to 37 of 53

1 2
3 4 5

examined and testified as follows:

-

1
2

her sister when she was 16 years of age and she had a daughter by Mr. Whitehead.

DIRECT EXAMINATION

3
4

Q. Did you do anything to investigate the

Identity of the other Individuals associated with the
Facebook page, and I will go through them one by one. Mark Adomo. Were you able to, through your investigative
efforts, locate an individual named Mark Adomo who Is

BY MS. WALSH:
Q. Can you please state your full name for the
record.

5
6 7

6
7 8 9
10

A.

Joseph M. Downs, D-o-w-n-s.

8 9
10

affiliated with the Facebook page?

Q.
A.

What Is your occupation, sir?

1 am a licensed private detective in the State

A.

Yes, ma'am, I was.

Q. Were you able to confirm that Mark Adomo Is

the administrator, is the poster, or did your investigation

11
12

of Pennsylvania.

11
12 13 14

Q.

Can you describe your work background, please.

prove fruitless in that regard?

13 14 15

A.

Yes. 1 spent almost 25 years with the Federal

A.

I learned that Mark Adomo is actually Mark

Bureau of Investigation. Prior to that I spent 14 years in

Martin who resides at 76 Village Drive in Shanksvilie,

the Philadelphia police department serving as a highway

patrol officer, detective for the District Attorney, and
also a street sergeant.

IS

Pennsylvania, and that his wife is Ruth Martin with a maiden name of Adomo. It was my understanding that the Facebook
page was registered to a Mark Adomo, which Is his wife's
maiden name.

16
17 18 19 20

16
17 18 19
20

Q.

Did you do anything to investigate to

determine whether the administrator, or I should say, the

Q. Is there an individual named Mark Adomo based

on your Investigation, or is that a conglomeration of other names?

person Identified as an administrator of the Facebook page

going by the name Nancy Vosicka, whether she has any
connection to that page?

21 22
23
24

21 22 23 24 25

A.
person as

Weil, I believe that Mark Adomo Is the same

A.

Yes. I spoke to Miss Vosicka on January the

2nd by telephone --

MR. CARMODY; Objection. THE COURT: Sustained. Calls for conjecture.

25

MR. CARMODY: Your Honor, I object to the

39

41

1
2 3 4 5 6
7

hearsay.

Rephrase your question.

BY MS. WALSH:

MS. WALSH:

I believe It fits within an

2
3 4 5

exception, Judge. I would like to ask what this

Q.

To summarize, sir, were you able to locate any

witness' investigative steps were. I intend to ask him about family and reputationai information which
falls within an exception to the Hearsay Rule, and
I plan to ask about the witness' expression of her
state of mind.

Individuals, any real, live, in-person Individuals that

share the name of the administrator - strike that.
Were you able to locate the real live

6
7

individuals whose names are associated with the Facebook page Boycott Sundance Vacations, or did your investigation
show something else?

8
9

So none of the information is being offered

9 10 11
12

10
11
12

for the truth of the matter asserted, I Just want

to get into this witness' investigative steps.

A.

Yes, ma'am, the answer Is yes to your former

question. I did locate a Richard Harris and I did speak to

him.

And, as I said, the information about family and

reputationai background which fails within the
exclusion under P.A. Rule of Evidence 80319.
THE COURT:
to another area.
BY MS. WALSH:

13 14 15 16 17 18 19

13
14 IS

Q. A.

What did you determine from Mr. Harris? That he was not
MR. CARMODY: Objection.
THE WITNESS: -did not give permission to

Objection is sustained. Move on

16 17
18

anyone to use his

Q.

Were you able to track down a Nancy Vosicka

THE COURT:
questions?

Sustained. Stricken. Any other

with a link to the Facebook page? A. Yes, ma'am, I was.

19
20
21 22

20
21

MS. WALSH: THE COURT:

No, Your Honor. Mr. Carmody, any questions? No, Your Honor.

Q. Was ~ does Nancy Vosicka have any connection

or relationship with Albert Whitehead?

22
23 24

MR. CARMODY: THE COURT:

A.

Yes, ma'am, she does.

23
24

Counsel approach. Off the record.

Q. What is that relationship?

[Whereupon, an off-record discussion occurred

25

A.

About 40 years ago Mr. Whitehead Impregnated

25

at sidebar, after which a short recess was taken.]

10 of 13 sheets

COPY

Page 38 to 41 of S3

1 2
3 4
5

THE COURT: Continue, please, Attorney Walsh.

1
2

MS. WALSH: Your Honor, we call John Dowd.

CROSS EXAMINATION

3
JOHN DOWD. called as a witness on behalf of

BY MR. CARMODY;

the Plaintiff, having been duly sworn, was examined

and testified as follows:

5
6 7

Q.

Mr. Dowd, you said you're the president, CEO

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15

of Sundance Vacations?

A.

Yes.

PIRECT EXAMIWAHQN

8 9

Q.

How many stores does that Indude, or how many

business locations?

BY MS. WALSH:

10

A.

Currently there are four sales locations.

Q.
Vacations?

John, what is your relationship with Sundance

11
12

Q. A.

Where are they located? One In New Jersey, one In King of Prussia,

A.
Q.

Owner and president.

How long have you been associated with the

13
14
15
16

Pennsylvania, one in Harrisburg, and one In Illinois.

Q.
Vacations?

How long have you been president of Sundance

business of Sundance Vacations?

16
17 18

A. Q.

Since 1991. Just briefly, can you tel the Court the

A.
Q.

Since It started In '91.

In the last 20-plus years as president of

17
18

business that Sundance Vacations is In?

Sundance Vacations, in your position as president, have you become aware of complaints about Sundance Vacations?

19 20 21 22 23
24

A. Q.

Marketing sales of wholesale vacations. Did you have an opportunity to investigate

19 20

MS, WALSH: Objection, Your Honor. It exceeds

whether the persons who are identified as Facebook administrators, whether they were ever customers of Sundance Vacations or affiliated with the company In any way?

21
22

the scope of direct. Ifs not relevant to any

Issue ~

23
24 26
sir.

THE COURT: Overruled. If you can answer,

A.

We checked our databases, which we keep

25

extensive databases, and five people that are administrators

THE WITNESS: Again, please

43

45

1 2

of the page have never had any contact with our company,

1
2

BY MR. CARMOPY:
Q. In your role as president of Sundance ever the

never received any marketing calls, have never visited any of our locations, never purchased any of our products.
Q. How has the Boycott page affected the business

3
4 5 6
7 8

3
4 6

last 20 years, have you received complaints about Sundance

Vacations service or products?

of Sundance Vacations?

A.

As with any business, our business is not

A.

Ifs the single worse thing that's happened to

6 7 8 9 10 11
12

perfect. We've had complaints from legitimate customers

from time to time.

our business since we started it. Ifs cost us millions of dollars over the past few years. We laid off over a hundred people as a result of problems caused by this page. People believe what they see on the Internet. They think that
stuff is credible.

Q.

Are you aware of any local television

9 10

reporting that's been shown on television regarding

complaints about Sundance Vacations?

11
12

A.

I am not.

Q,
Court for?

What is the relief that you are asking this

Q.

Are you aware of any newspaper ads that have

13
14

13

been written from aggrieved customers of Sundance Vacations?

A.

Mr. Whitehead signed an agreement not to do

14 15 16

A. Q.

I am not. So, as you sit here today, the only complaints

15 16

this in a federal court case In '07 and he continues to do

It since then. I don't know what he will listen to. I

you're familiar with are ones that were submtted personally

to you?

17 18
19
20

don't know what language he listens to. He hasn't listened

to your order to date. I don't know what we could do to
force him to stop other than Jail time.
MR. CARMODY: Objection.

17
18 19 20
21

A.

That's a broad question. I don't want to say

the wrong thing.

Q.

Let me back up. You said you were aware of

21
22

THE COURT: Sustained.

past complaints from customers. How did you become aware of

those complaints?

MS. WALSH: Thank you. No other questions.

THE COURT : Dowd? Mr. Carmody, any questions for Mr.

22
23 24

23
24

A.

We have a large customer service department

that fields calls for anybody that might have any Issues
regarding any contact with our company. They could have a

25

MR. CARMODY:

Yes, Your Honor.

25

11 of 13 sheets

COPY

Page 42 to 45 of S3

1 2 3 4
6

problem with a vacation they've taken.

1
2 3
4

Whitehead Is In contempt of
THE COURT ;
testimony, sir? MR. CARMODY: No, Your Honor. As I

Q.
A.

How would you have been notified?

I'm not necessarily notified of every

Mr. Carmody, are you offering any

complaint Many complaints are handled by the people who do that everyday.

5
6

represented to this Court, based on my client's

health, he has not appeared for any of these hearings. THE COURT: III come back to your argument Let me come back to Ms. Walsh. Go ahead.
MR. CARMODY: Yes, Your Honor.

6 7 8
9 10

Q.

But you're not aware of any news programs on

television that have broadcasted stories about Sundance Vacations?

7 8

A.
Q,

I am not.
And you're not aware of any newspaper ads that

9
10

11
12 13
14

have been written as editorials regarding complaints about

Sundance Vacations?

11 12 13 14
15

MS. WALSH: Your Honor, we'd ask for a finding

based on the unrebutted expert evidence that we've entered today. We ask first. Your Honor, I'd move for the admission of Exhibits A through R
which are In the binder that was handed up earlier today.

A.

There was an op-ed piece in the Philadelphia

They were customers. This was not an

paper some time ago.

op-ed.

15 16 17 18
19 20

Q.
A.

Who was the author of that?

I don't recall.

16
17

THE COURT: Any objection, Mr. Carmody? MR. CARMODY; No objection.

THE COURT; So moved. We admit all exhibits

Q.
that story?

Do you know the what was the synopsis of

18
19

A.

I would say on balance it was just

20 21
22

In that binder. Go ahead.

21
22

Informative. It was neutral. Someone had just investigated

MS. WALSH; We'd ask Your Honor for a finding that Mr. Whitehead is In contempt of Your Honor's
October 23rd, 2012 order by, first of all.

their Interactions with the business and published what they found. I don't recall the specifics. Q. Did that article involve complaints about

23
24

23
24 26

continuing to administer the Boycott Sundance

Vacations page under the name Mary Smith 4158 after

25

Sundance Vacations services?

47

49

1
2
3 4

A.

I don't recall.

1
2 3
4

the entry of the October 23rd order. We'd also ask for a finding that Mr. Whitehead
Is In contempt of this Oourt's order by refusing to
cooperate with Sundance Vacations In asking Facebook to take down the Boycott Sundance
Vacations page.

Q.

You testified that because of Mr. Whitehead

your business has suffered tremendously?

A. Q. It has. How do you know that to be true?

5
6
7

5 6 7

A.

When customers ask to have refunds for travel

packages they purchased because they've seen the Boycott

Finally, we'd ask for a finding that Mr.

Whitehead Is In contempt for refusing to remove

8 9 10

Sundance page and have Interacted with him. We have gotten

letters from customers saying they wanted to obtain refunds
that were written by Albert Whitehead.
Q. Did these customers, did they Identify news

8
9

posts that he made on other pages using pseudonyms containing messages disparaging of Sundance
Vacations.

10

11
12

11
12 13

stories that they saw on television regarding Sundance

Vacations services?

We'd ask Your Honor that Mr. Whitehead be

compelled to send a letter to Facebook requesting

13
14
16

A. Q.

No, because there have been none. Did they reference any newspaper ads

14 15

that the page be taken down. We'd ask that Your

Honor compel him to remove the Boycott Sundance

16

concerning services of Sundance?

16 17
18 19

Vacations page pursuant to the method that was outlined In evidence here today, and we ask that Your Honor give a date certain to do that or face a certain consequence, which would be a term of
conditional Imprisonment until he complies, or In

17
18 19

A.

The newspaper article you are referring to I

believe was seven or eight years ago, so Ifs not recent

history. '

20
21
22

MR. CARMODY: That's aH I have. THE COURT: Any redirect?

MS. WALSH: No, Your Honor.

20 21
22

the alternative a daily fine of $500 per day until

he compOes.
Finally, Your Honor, we'd ask that Mr.

23 24

THE COURT; Anything else. Attorney Walsh? MS. WALSH; Just to summarize. Judge. We'd ask the Court to enter an order finding that Mr.

23
24

Whitehead be compelled to reimburse Sundance

Vacations for the costs and fees Incurred In coming

25

25

12 of 13 sheets

COPY

Page 46 to 49 of 53

1 2 3

back to this Court repeatedly for relief. Respectfully, Judge, we had an agreement in 2007 and Mr. Whitehead has continually failed to

1
2
3 4

complaints of Plaintiff.
THE COURT: Anything else, counsel?
MS. WALSH: Very briefly, Your Honor.

4 5

live up to It. When we found out that he was posing as John Flannagan we came to the Court and

The Defendant has had the documents that were

5 6

produced by Facebook and Yahoo and Google for weeks now. There was nothing new presented today from

6
7 8 9
10

asked for relief, and Mr. Whitehead conceded that

relief was appropriate. And now it's been established through the evidence today that he defied that order. He's broken his own promise yet
again.

7 8 9 10
11

any of those entities. With regard to the order, we respectfully disagree. We need a finding of contempt by this Court and an appropriate entry of an order of
sanctions Just to enforce the agreement, to enforce

11

We ask that Your Honor impose an order or

12 13 14

enter an order with appropriate sanctions and appropriate teeth just to prevent us from having to come back here again.

12 13 14
16

Your Honor's order, and to prevent us from having to come back here today. THE COURT:
say?

Mr. Carmody, anything you want to

16
16

THE COURT: Attorney Carmody, we'll hear from

you, sir.

16

MR. CARMODY: That's Just not correct. There

17

MR. CARMODY: Thank you, Your Honor.

17 18
19

were certain documents that were not provided to me until 10:00 this morning, so I did not have the
appropriate amount of time to review it or consult

18 19
20

The last half of Ms. Walsh's argument, we have agreed at the outset before testimony was taken
today that the Defendant was going to submit a

20

with my client on his thoughts of those documents.

21

letter within five days. The meat and potatoes of

21
22

THE COURT: In accordance with the Plaintiffs

emergency petition for contempt sanctions and order

22 23
24 25

this whole case is this Facebook page, the Boycott page. This letter that you've already ordered my
client to submit within five days should clean up any issues that the Plaintiff has, assuming their
51

23 24 25

compelling compliance with the October 23rd, 2012 amended order, and after evidentiary hearing on same along with counsel, the order will be as

53

allegations are correct that he is the

1 2 3
4

follows:

Number one. Defendant Albert Whitehead is

2
3

administrator or he has the authority or capability

to do it, that this letter should be sufficient to

found in contempt of court, the order dated October 23rd, 2012. Number two. Defendant shall send a

4
5 6

take the page down, thereby addressing any concerns

and needs the Plaintiff may have. In regards to the testimony that was presented

letter to Facebook within five days requesting

5
6

removal of the Boycott page In accordance with the

October 23rd, 2012 court order. Number three, the

7 8
9

here today, a lot of these exhibits, specifically the exhibits regarding at what time a person made a
post, one of the administrators, these are

7 8 9 10
11 12

defendant shall undertake efforts to personally remove the Boycott page from Facebook and/or any other platforms within three days of the date of this order. Number four, failure of Defendant to
comply with the above-stated will result in a sanction of $250 per day thereafter. Number five,

10
11

documents. Your Honor, that I just received when we

came up before you. I did not have appropriate

12

time to review that. I would ask that any further

13
14

order beyond compelling the letter within five

days, I would ask that the Court holds off or gives

13
14

Defendant shall reimburse Plaintiff for counsel

fees and filing costs associated with this

16
16

the Defendant an extension of time to, number one,

look at these new documents. Number two, get a

16

Plaintiff's Emergency Petition and hearing this

16
17 18 19 20 21 22
23

date. Six, Defendant shall comply with this and

all previous court orders. That will conclude the proceeding. I thank both counsel for their presentations. Thank you. MS. WALSH: Thank you, Your Honor. MR. CARMODY: Thank you. Your Honor. [Whereupon, the proceeding was concluded.]

17
18

copy of the transcript so that I may present that

to my client. And that In the event he believes

19 20

that certain testimony was not correct, or in the event he Is willing to spend money on an expert of

21
22

his own, that he may want to rebut certain

allegations.

23
24

At the end of the day I believe that your

order to submit this letter within five days should

25

dean up most of or should address most of the

26

13 of 13 sheets

COPY

Page 50 to 53 of S3

CERTIFICATION

I HEREBY CERTIFY that the proceedings are contained fully and

accurately in the notes of testimony taken by me on the proceedings of the above matter, and that this is a true and correct transcript of the same.

isitDanklfl. @oJi
Daniel J. Coll, Official Court Reporter

Exhibit C

.-22' 13 (THE) 09:211

P. 002

S IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEA

OF LUZERNE COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA

SUNDANCE VACATIONS. INC.,

Plaintiff,
Vs;

CIVIL ACTION

ALBERT WHITEHEAD.
Defendant.

% VU*'
NO. 8006 of ^ 20liA" A*

* A
mMMM
3, in accordance with the AND, NOW, this 18th day of Januaiy, 201
pt Plaintiffs emergency petition for contem nce sanctions and order compelling complia

e er, and after evidentiary hearing on the sam ord ed end am 2 201 , 23'* r obe Oct the with
the order will be as follows: along with opposing counsel,

found In contempt of court, the order No. 1, Defendant, Albert Whitehead, Is

dated October 23*. 2012.

Faoebook within five days requesting No. 2. Defendant shall send a letter to

removal of the boycott page in accordance with

the October 23,l,l 2012 court order.

in three days of ths date of

efforts to personally remove the No. 3, the Defendant shall undertake

other platforms with boycott page from Faoebook and/or any

this order.

with the above-stated will result in a No. 4, failure of Defendant to comply

ftor. sanction of $250 per day thersa . .

1.-22* 13 (Ml 1)9:211

P. 003

No. 6, Defbntant shall reimburae Plaintiff for counsel fees and filing costs

associated with Plaintiffs emergency petition and hearing this date. No. 6, Defendant shall comply with this and aii previous court orders.
BY THE

Fred n. Plerantoni. ill

THE PROTHONOTARY OF LUZERNE COUNTY. PENNSYLVANIA SHALL GIVE NOTICE OF THIS ORDER TO ALL

PARTIES PUR8URANTT0PA. RXXP.

236.

-2-

Exhibit D

January 30th, 2013

Certified Mail No. 7009 1410 0001 4770 2195

Theodore W. Ullyot, Esquire VP, General Counsel and Secretary

Facebook, Inc. Legal Department 1601 Willow Road Menlo Park, CA 94025

Albert Whitehead

842 No. 27'h Street

Philadelphia, PA. 19130-1832 (215) 235-1308 (Day & Night) Email: PhilaPA3 12@aol.com

Re: Sundance Vacations v. Albert Whitehead Luzerne County, Pennsylvania - Civil Action No. 2012-08006
Dear Mr, Ullyot:

Under court order in the above captioned matter, I am reluctantly compelled to request that Facebook remove the "Boycott Sundance Vacations" page from its' platform.

During the spring of 2012, 1 was one of many administrators solicited as a "Content Creator" using the pen name of "John Flannagan" and, consequently, put in a position of inadvertently disregarding a 6 year old settlement agreement that I believed was revoked, only to find out that it was not. Nonetheless, that Facebook account (John Flannagan) has been permanently deleted as a means of making an effort to rectify the aforementioned oversight.
Obviously, I completely understand that I have no standing and/or authority to personally remove the "Boycott Sundance Vacations" Facebook page, now totaling 1,125 members, but I am reluctantly compelled by Court Order to submit this ineligible request that the "Boycott" page be removed.

Sincerely yours,

Albert Whitehead
AW/aw

cc: Prothonotary Of Luzerne County, Pennsylvania

File

Exhibit E

m b k

myers brier& kelly.

' ATTOSMeys AT UAW 7

March 15, 2013

VIA ELECTRONIC AND FIRST-CLASS MAIL

Ryan Spear, Esquire

Perkins Coie LLP 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900

Seattle, WA 98101-3099

Re; Sundance Vacations. Inc. v. Albert Whitehead - No.2012-8006

Dear Ryan:

This will confirm our discussion yesterday. Specifically, you advised that Facebook is unwilling to remove the "Boycott Sundance Vacations" page from its platform. You

offered two reasons for your client's refusal: (1) it is not clear from Albert Whitehead's January 30, 2013 letter that he admits administering the "Boycott" page; and (2) it is not clear why Mr. Whitehead refuses to take down the page himself. You also noted that Facebook is not the subject of any court order directing the removal of the page.
If this is incorrect in any way, please advise me in writing immediately. Sincerely,

Donna A. Walsh
DAW:rcs

425 Spruce Street 1 Suite 200 | P.O. Box 551 j Scranton, PA 18501-0551 | p (570) 342-6)00 | f (570) 342-6147 | www.mbklaw.com

Exhibit F

m b k

my/,sob/6i,r&kelly-

February 20, 2013

VIA FACSIMILE & FIRST CLASS MAIL

Matthew J. Carmody, Esquire Elliott Greenleaf & Dean 39 Public Square, Suite 1000
Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania 18701

Re:
Dear Matt:

Sundance Vacations. Inc. v. Albert Whitehead - 12-CV-8006

Albert Whitehead continues to disregard the Court Orders dated October 23, 2012 and January 18, 2013. On January 18, Judge Pierantoni questioned why you had not communicated with Facebook personally after entry of the October 23 Order. (See Transcript of Hearing (January 18, 2013) pp. 6:24 to 8:13). Judge Pierantoni then directed you - and you agreed - to write Facebook on behalf of your client to ensure the Boycott Sundance Vacations page was taken down, (See Transcript of Hearing (January 18, 2013) pp. 8:5 to 8:12, and 10:20

to lO^S).1 Yesterday you advised that you had not taken this critical step. This is particularly
troubling because Albert Whitehead's contempt is irreparably harmful to Sundance Vacations

and his communications with the Court and Facebook are disingenuous and misleading. Albert Whitehead's January 23 letter to Judge Pierantoni (copy to Facebook) states "contrary to [Sundance Vacation's] arguments, there are no comments of any nature posted [on the Boycott Sundance Vacations page] by Mary Smith and I challenge the Plaintiff to produce any such comments." A true and correct copy of the January 23 letter is attached as
Exhibit "A."

Albert Whitehead's letter is disingenuous. He does not tell Judge Pierantoni that

1 Later in the hearing you stipulated that Albert Whitehead authored three Google Blogspots that
remain accessible to the public at httD://sundancevacationsccD.blogspot.coin/. httD://naskiewicz2.blogspot.com/. http://siindancevacationsmanipulation.blogspot.com/. (See Transcript of Hearing (January 18, 2013) p. 31:10 to 31:13).

425 Spruce Street | Suite 200 : P.O. Box 551 [ Scranton, PA 18S0 1-0551 i p (570) 342-6100 [ f (570) 342-6147 ] www.mbklow.com

Matthew Carmody, Esquire

February 20, 2013

he is "Marysmith4158," that "Marysmith4158" is an administrator2 of Boycott Sundance

Vacations, or that "Marysmith4 158" posted disparaging comments about Sundance Vacations as the page administrator. The unrebutted expert testimony and documentary evidence on January 18 proved all of these things. (See Transcript of Hearing (January 1 8, 2013) pp. 22: 15 to 27:22). Albert Whitehead is "Marysmith4158." Id. "Marysmith4158" is one of five administrators for Boycott Sundance Vacations. Id "Marysmith4158" first logged in two days before the October 19, 2012 hearing, and "Marysmith4158" posted on Boycott Sundance Vacations as an
administrator on October 19, 2012, October 30, 2012, November 9, 2012, and other days. Id.

On behalf of Sundance Vacations, I request that you please clarify these issues with the Court. Albert Whitehead's January 30 letter to Facebook's General Counsel (copy to the Prothonotary) is also misleading. A true and correct copy of this letter is attached hereto as

Exhibit "B." In this letter, Albert Whitehead states that Facebook solicited him in the spring of 2012 as a "Content Creator using the pen name of John Flanagan." Purporting to have "rectified]" his "inadvertent disregard[ ] of a 6 year old settlement," Albert Whitehead told Facebook that he "permanently deleted" the "John Flanagan" Facebook account. Albert Whitehead then told Facebook he has "no standing and/or authority to personally remove the Boycott Sundance Vacations Facebook page," but that he is "reluctantly compelled by Court Order to submit this ineligible request that the Boycott page be removed." The unrebutted expert testimony and documentary evidence confirms that Albert Whitehead administers Boycott Sundance Vacations as "Marysmith4 1 58," that he posted as an administrator after October 23, and that he has authority to take down this site. (See Transcript of Hearing (January 1 8, 2013) pp. 22:15 to 27:22). By omitting reference to "Mary Smith," Albert Whitehead suggests falsely to Facebook and the Court that he no longer has any involvement with Boycott Sundance Vacations. This must also be clarified with Facebook and
the Court.

To move toward compliance with Judge Pierantoni's Orders in a manner that

accounts for Albert Whitehead's purported health limitations, I have made arrangements for a
WebEx Conference Call on Friday February 22, 2013 at 1 p.m. I will participate in the call with

Mr. Dennis Cheng on behalf of Sundance Vacations, and I request that you and Albert
Whitehead also participate. The object of the conference call will be to lend Mr. Cheng's
expertise to Albert Whitehead in taking down the Google Blogspots and Boycott Sundance

Vacations. At the time of the meeting, Mr. Whitehead will need to have access to a telephone
and a computer with internet connection. He will need his Facebook administrator's credentials
for Boycott Sundance Vacations and the password for the Google Blogspot accounts.

2 Citing an unattached verification and pledging oaths on family members, Albert Whitehead's
letter to Judge Pierantoni denies having conceived, designed, composed, or published Boycott Sundance Vacations. Conspicuously absent is any mention whether Albert Whitehead is an administrator of Boycott Sundance Vacations.

Matthew Carmody, Esquire

February 20, 2013

If the preceding arrangements do not result in the sites being taken down on Friday February 22, 2013, Sundance Vacations expects you will act in accordance with Judge Pierantoni's direction and make a personal request - on behalf of your client - that the offending sites be taken down. Judge Pierantoni clearly assumes that our offices will cooperate to achieve compliance with the Court's Orders. If we have not achieved compliance by Wednesday
February 27, Sundance Vacations will seek an emergency conference with Judge Pierantoni to

discuss again the enforcement of his Orders.

Sincerely,

(s John B. Dempsey
JBDxak
Enclosures

cc:

Donna A. Walsh, Esquire Catherine M. del Fierro Anderson, Esquire

EXHIBIT A

January 23rd, 2013

VIA FArsiMTT p. and ppbttptt^d mah, no. lopg 1410 QQQi 4770 21

The Honorable Fred A. Pierantoni, in Court of Conunon Pleas of Luzerne County

Luzerne County Courthouse

200 North River Street Wilkes-Barre, PA. 18711 TEL 570-830-5144; FAX 570-825-1518

Albert Whitehead

842 No. 27a Street

Philadelphia, PA. 19130-1832

(215) 235-1308 (Day & Night) Email: PhilaPA3] 2@aol.com

In Re: Sundance Vacations v. Albert Whitehead - Civil Action No. 2012-08006

Dear Judge Pierantoni: I submit this correspondence, wjth a i t. due respect, as I am the defendant in the above captioned case and a 72 year old a cancer survivor with various other health problems consequently, I am virtually homebound. I do not seek sympathy, I merely wish to inform the Court as to why I could not attend the last "Show Cause" hearing (1/18/13) to offer my personal testimony, which

now seems to put me in the unfortunate position of having to prove a negative, but I will try!
Although to date represented by highly ethical and competent counsel, albeit financially restrained, I am now rnMPPT i.F.n to write the Court directly for two reasons:

(1) I can no longer afford extended representation, beyond this instant issue, because my children used part of their inheritance to defend me, but those limited funds are exhausted. (2) I am literally stunned because the Court has issued an extensive order, to perform a task that is virtually impossible for me to accomplish and I will elaborate as briefly as is possible, while attempting to offer the Court a clear picture of this litigation without all the legal
gobbledygook. I'm an articulate, but indigent old man appealing to the essence of American

justice - this Court. And, in this case, this unbiased jurist (Hie Honorable Fred A. Pierantoni, m) who represents justice for all, even die indigent insignificant old man being persecuted hv the youthful and powerful millionaire!

The foundation of this litigation is based on a "settlement agreement" signed on February 6th, 2007 and, as was my sincere belief, revoked on February 7th, 2007. Be that as it may, the plaintiff is now
suing me for inadvertently violating that agreement by virtue of the fact that I posted comments

about the plaintiff, Sundance Vacations, in violation of that agreement. The plaintiff further avers that those comments were made on a Facebook page entitled "Boycott Sundance Vacations." The essence of the litigation against me is that I, under the pen name of "John Flannagan" and others, have caused economic damage to Sundance Vacations, and to their reputation, in violation

of that settlement agreement of February 6th, 2007. Fair enough, so let's first look at the
"reputation" of Sundance Vacations, considering the following irrefutable facts. (1) July, 2005, "Sundance Vacations was investigated by the state of New Jersey for failure to comply with Federal and state minimum wage laws. The investigation resulted in 32 employees

being paid a total of $19,762.62 in back wages. The company also paid administrative fees of $1,976.26 and penalties of $3,000." (Quoted from the New Jersey Department of Labor and
Workforce Development, as publicly posted on the Internet.)

(2) November 6, 2006, a consumer fraud civil law suit was filed against Sundance Vacations, Inc. and Sundance Vacations Network, Inc. The fraudulent misrepresentation claim was filed in the
Superior Court of New Jersey, Bra-gen County, docket number L-8256-06. The civil suit detailed

numerous violations of NJ.S.A. 56:8 et seq. of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, by utilizing "false pretenses through the use of unconscionable commercial practices." (As pubhshed on the Internet)

(3) August 9th, 2009, in the Sunday Philadelphia Inquirer, consumer reporter Jeff Gelles exposed Sundance Vacations' questionable marketing and sales practices, in conjunction with the fact that Sundance Vacations' ignores The Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices And Consumer Protection Law (201-7. Contracts: Effect Of Rescission)
(4) May 20th, 2010, the state of New Jersey published, on the internet, the results of an investigation into Sundance Vacations' questionable marketing and sales practices. Incidentally,

many civil law suits have been filed against Sundance Vacations, in Bergen County, New Jersey {Thomas vs. Sundance Vacations, Inc.) and there are approximately three other plaintiffs, all
alleging the same "unconscionable commercial practices."

(5) July 6th, 2010, Ohio consumer reporter, Mike Bowersock, (NBC 4) aired a TV expose of
Sundance Vacations* questionable marketing and sales practices. The two Ohio two sales offices have subsequently closed.

(6) November 1st, 2010, that "Boycott" page was first published. (That information is publicly
available on that "Boycott" page, that now numbers 1,120 members.)

(7) May 17th, 2012, "Boycott" page member Kara Kenney, who also happened to be an Indiana
Consumer Reporter (RTV6), reads all the horror stories on the "Boycott" page. She also conducted a 3-month undercover investigation of Sundance Vacations' affiliates in Indiana (Dowd
Marketing/SmarTravel/TAN) and then, on 5/17/2012, she airs 7 minutes of the undercover video

exposing the questionable marketing and sales practices from A to Z. That particular sales office subsequently closed.

(8) January 3rd, 2013. As of that date there were approximately 7 civil law suits filed against
Sundance Vacations for "unconscionable" marketing and sales practices, in New Jersey and Wisconsin. The Wisconsin attorney, DeVonna Joy, publicly commented on that "Boycott" page and
2

was subsequently threatened in writine. personally, by the Sundance Vacations' CEO, John Dowd, Imagine threatening an attorney for doing their job! That type of thinking is insane, literally! Ms. Joy publicly responded and also notified her associates. Consequently, over 100 members of the

legal community rallied around Ms, Joy, became members of that "Boycott" page, and some attorneys publicly commented on that "Boycott" page while offering pro bono legal advice.
The point being Your Honor, the plaintiff is not as innocent as portrayed to this Court during the

testimony offered on January IS0*, 2013. Moreover, their "reputation" preceded that "Boycott"
page. All that "Boycott" page did was offer the consumers a public platform and support network. A public platform and support network that Sundance Vacations is attempting to shut-down by

devious means. It is frightening when private enterprise attempts to suppress the I81 Amendment!
I am also aware of the fact that the plaintiff has retained "Keystone Intelligence Network, Inc." in Philadelphia, PA. (Private Investigators) The individual PI (Joseph M. Downs) has picked-up my trash, (which is admittedly legal) followed me and others while also showing up at their homes unannounced, repeatedly called and harassed innocent people, some of whom I have not seen in
literally 50 years and have absolutely nothing to do with this litigation, absolutely nothing!

I now address the issue of that "Boycott" page, which this Court has ordered ME to facilitate its removal and that is the essence of my dismay! In addition to the "Verification" attached, I take an oath on the souls of my deceased mother and deceased sister that I did not conceive of that "Boycott" page, I did not design that "Boycott" page, I did not compose that "Boycott" page and, most importantly, I did not publish that "Boycott" page, period! So what does the plaintiff want of me? I cannot perform impossibilities*. And, again, WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, it is unfair for this Court to order me to accomplish those impossibilitiesl I may be old and sick, but I'm not senile or stupid! I'll comply with gnx Court Order, but it must be appropriate and within my human capabilities! I ask you, is that so unreasonable Your Honor? ..

Let me offer the Court a profound and accurate analogy. I write and publish a tell-all book, in violation of a non-disclosure "settlement agreement." That book is then placed on the book store shelves for sale. Now comes the plaintiff demanding not only that the published book be removed from the shelves, but that the entire book store be closed down! That is, in effect, what the plaintiff is demanding. A demand that is beyond the purview of this litigation, and a demand that I personally cannot accomplish! What abilities, power or authority do / possess to shut-down the entire book store? Notwithstanding the obvious question as to why should I?
My attorney submitted a Motion For Judgment On Liability and the Court granted that motion. So how does a Facebook "Boycott" page suddenly become the issue, as opposed to damages and injunctive relief? It's painfully obvious that the plaintiff is using this litigation as a means of attempting to remove a public forum that the Facebook authorities have declined to remove because there was no slander, libel or defamatory comments that would violate their Terms Of Service (TOS), so the "Boycott" page survived despite the plaintiff's constant attacks. I chose my words carefully Your Honor and when I say "attack" that's precisely what I mean. The plaintiff has attacked anyone and everyone who has dared to exercise their protected speech and share their experiences on a public forum. A public forum the plaintiff seems obsessed with shutting down by any means necessary! Why do they fear a public discussion forum while attempting to use me as a fall-guy to accomplish that which they have failed to accomplish by every legal means, including

appeals to Facebook authorities! I simply do not have the ability to do anvthins to that "Boycott"

page! The plaintiff argues that I logged-on to Facebook using the name of "Mary Smith" and maije disparaging comments. Nevertheless, contrary to the plaintiffs arguments, there are no comments of any nature posted by Mary Smith and I challenge the plaintiff to produce any such comments. I
reiterate, there are no disparaging, or any other type of comments, posted on that "Boycott" page by "Mary Smith" at any time since its inception, and I again challenge the plaintiff to produce those

alleged comments! Hie plaintiff has submitted pounds of Exhibits that they allege support their allegations. Those Exhibits are esoteric, but / fully understand their significance, or lack thereof. Those Exhibits, in conjunction with specious, albeit somewhat persuasive testimony, was not disputed because it was
detrimental to my physical well-being to travel to Wilkes-Barre, from Philadelphia, a trip that takes

about 2V2 hours one-way, requiring the use of seat belts. Since I have a prosthetic mesh screen stapled inside my abdomen, to repair an incisional hernia resulting from cancer surgery, the extended use of seat belts is painful, (driver or passenger). But now I have no other choice because I did not expect the plaintiff to offer mendacious testimony with distorted Exhibits, that / clearly understand and emphatically dispute the plaintiffs' offered interpretation of those "Exhibits."

In conclusion, I beseech the Court to reconsider the orders dated October 23Td, 2012 and January 18th, 2013 simply because it is not possible for me to honestly comply. In the alternative I ask the
Court to stay the orders with an opportunity to appear before this Court and offer my own sworn testimony in rebuttal of all the unchallenged allegations, despite the inevitable physical pain and burden of traveling to Wilkes-Barre, from Philadelphia. I assure Your Honor, the Court's time will not be wasted and my rebuttal testimony will be irrefutably documented and persuasive. This Court has heardfrom everyone but me, and I implore the Court to grant me that opportunity considering the extensive sanctions imposed!
In the final analysis, I submit this litigation is tantamount to the abuse of process, plain and simple!

Thanking you, in advance, for your time and consideration, while anxiously awaiting your reply.

Respectfully submitted,

ALBERT WHITEHEAD

AW/aw

Attachment (1): Signed Verification

Cc: Matthew Carmody, Esquire - Elliot Greenleaf & Dean Theodore W. Ullyot, Esquire - VP, General Counsel - Facebook, Inc.
file

EXHIBIT B

January 30th, 201 3

Certified Mail No. 7009 1410 0001 4770 21 95

Theodore W. Ullyot, Esquire

VP, General Counsel and Secretary Facebook, Inc. Legal Department

1601 Willow Road Menlo Park, CA 94025

Albert Whitehead

842 No. 27,h Street

Philadelphia, PA. 19130-1832

(215) 235-1308 (Day & Night)

Email: PhilaPA312@aol.com

Re: Sundance Vacations v. Albert Whitehead

Luzerne County, Pennsylvania - Civil Action No. 2012-08006

Dear Mr. Ullyot: Under court order in the above captioned matter, I am reluctantly compelled to request that Facebook

remove the "Boycott Sundance Vacations" page from its' platform.

During the spring of 2012, 1 was one of many administrators solicited as a "Content Creator" using the pen name of "John Fiannagan" and, consequently, put in a position of inadvertently disregarding a 6 year old settlement agreement that I believed was revoked, only to find out that it was not. Nonetheless, that Facebook account (John Fiannagan) has been permanently deleted as a means of making an effort to rectify the aforementioned oversight. Obviously, I completely understand that I have no standing and/or authority to personally remove the "Boycott Sundance Vacations" Facebook page, now totaling 1,125 members, but I am reluctantly compelled by Court Order to submit this ineligible request that the "Boycott" page be removed.

Sincerely yours,

Albert Whitehead
AW/aw

cc: Prothonotary Of Luzerne County, Pennsylvania

File

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS

OF LUZERNE COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA

SUNDANCE VACATIONS, INC., Plaintiff, CASE NO. 12-CV-8006

v.
CJ->
TO

3-

ALBERT WHITEHEAD, Defendant.

ro

O
-c

SSc
'X-'J'i

zsro

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Donna A. Walsh, hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the

foregoing Petition to Enforce Contempt Order and for Additional Sanctions was

served upon the following counsel of record via first class mail, postage prepaid,
on this 20th day of March, 2013:
Matthew J. Carmody, Esquire Elliott Greenleaf & Dean
39 Public Square Suite 1000
Wilkes-Barre, PA 18701

Donna A. Walsh