SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

COUNTY OF NEW YORK

-----------------------------------------------------------------------)[
Index No.: 15" q \'I G / Zc:)/ t( OWS MEDIA GROUP, INC.,
Plaintiff,
--against--
JUSTIN WEDES,
Defendant.
Date Purchased: September 17, 2014
SUMMONS
Venue is in New York County and is
based upon the place of plaintiff's
principal office.
Plaintiff's principal office address:
339 Lafayette Street
-----------------------------------------------------------------------)[ New York, New York 10012
TO: JUSTIN WEDES
YOU ARE HEREBY SUMMONED to answer the complaint in this action and to serve a
copy of your answer, or, if the complaint is not served with this summons, to serve a notice of
appearance on the Plaintiff within 20 days after the service of this summons, exclusive of the day of
service, or within 30 days after service is complete if this summons is not personally delivered to you
within the State of New York); and in case of your failure to appear or answer, judgment will be
taken against you by default for the relief demanded in the complaint.
DATED: Jamaica, New York
September 17, 2014
TH S J. HILLGARDNER, ESQ.
Attorney jor the Plaintiff
82-63 170
th
Street
Jamaica, New York 11432
(718) 657-0606
NOTICE: Pursuant to law (a) if this summons is served by its delivery to you personally within the
State of New York, you must answer or appear within twenty (20) days after such service; (b) If this
summons is served by delivery to any person other than you personally, or is served outside the
State of New York, or by publication, or by any means other than personal delivery to you within
the State of New York, you are allowed thirty (30) days after proof of service thereof is filed with the
Clerk of the Court within which to appear or answer.
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF New York
-----------------
------------------------------------------------------------------x
OWS MEDIA GROUP, INC.
- against-
JUSTIN WEDES
PlaintiffIPetitioner,
Defendant/Respondent.
------------------------------------------------------------------x
Index No. 159126/2014
NOTICE OF COMMENCEMENT OF ACTION
SUBJECT TO MANDATORY ELECTRONIC FILING
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the matter captioned above, which has been commenced by filing of the
accompanying documents with the County Clerk, is subj ect to mandatory electronic filing pursuant to Section 202.5-bb
of the Uniform Rules for the Trial Courts. This notice is being served as required by Subdivision (b) (3) of that
Section.
The New York State Courts Electronic Filing System (HNYSCEF") is designed for the electronic filing of
documents with the County Clerk and the court and for the electronic service of those documents, court documents,
and court notices upon counsel and self-represented parties. Counsel and/or parties who do not notify the court of a
claimed exemption (see below) as required by Section 202.5-bb( e) must immediately record their representation within
the e-filed matter on the ConsentlRepresent page in NYSCEF. Failure to do so may result in an inability to receive
electronic notice of document filings.
Exemptions from mandatory e-filing are limited to: 1) attorneys who certify in good faith that they lack the
computer equipment or (along with all employees) the requisite knowledge to comply; and 2) self-represented parties
who choose not to participate in e-filing. For additional information about electronic filing, including access to Section
202.5-bb, consult the NYSCEF website at www.nycourts.gov/efile or contact the NYSCEF Resource Center (phone:
646-386-3033; e-mail: efile@nycourts.gov; mailing address: 60 Centre Street, New York, New York 10007).
Dated: September 17, 20t4
____________ (Signature) _8_2_-_B_3_1_7_0_th __ S_tr_8_8_t _______ CA ddress)
_T_h_o_m_8_s_J_. _H_ill..=. g_8r_d_n_e_r, _E_s..,: q_. __ (Name)
Jamaica, NY 11432-2035
_T_h_om __ 8s_J_._H_il_lg_8_rd_n_er_, _E_sq_. ___ (Firm Name) 6_5_7_-0_60_6 ____ (Phone)
tomhillgardner@gmail,com (E- Mail)
To:
Justin Wedes
6/4/ 14
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK
-----------------------------------------------------------------------X
OWS MEDIA GROUP, INC., Index No.:
Plaintiff, Date Purchased: September 17, 2014

VERIFIED
--against-- COMPLAINT

JUSTIN WEDES,
Defendant.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------X

Plaintiff, OWS MEDIA GROUP, INC., by and through its attorney Thomas J. Hillgardner,
Esq., as and for a complaint in this action alleges as follows:
OVERVIEW
1. This is an action for conversion, trespass to chattel, a declaratory judgment, and
injunctive relief arising from the hijacking of a Twitter account by the defendant, one of the
administrators of the Twitter account and to whom its custody, control, and maintenance was
entrusted.
FACTS
2. Plaintiff OWS Media Group Inc. (Plaintiff) is a noncharitable corporation
organized pursuant to the Not For Profit Corporation Law of the State of New York.
3. Twitter is an online social networking service that enables users to send and read
short 140-character
4. Virtually anyone with Internet access can create an online Twitter profile on a web
page, a.k.a. a Twitter account, by signing up on www.Twitter.com and provided that they agree to
abide by the Twitter terms of service.
messages called "tweets." Since its launch in 2007 it has become one of the
most successful social networking services on the Internet with more than 271 monthly active users
sending more than 500 million tweets every day that both users and non-users worldwide can see on
both mobile and stationary computing devices.
2

5. Once a Twitter account is created, the user of that account may follow other
Twitter users and other Twitter users may follow the user such that Twitter users receive in their
individualized Twitter feed any tweet of any Twitter user they follow. Additionally, persons who do
not use Twitter are able to visit a page on the Internet that contains all of the tweets of any particular
Twitter user which, unless they are removed by Twitter for violation of Twitters terms of service,
are preserved or deleted by the account holder in his/her/its own and absolute discretion. Thus,
when set up to have the widest reach, the reach of each tweet is limited only by the number of
people who use the Internet.
6. In creating a Twitter account, Twitter grants all applicants who agree to abide by the
terms of service a non-transferrable license to use the Twitter software that creates the Twitter
services described above, while acknowledging that all of the content distributed over the Twitter
platform by users of the Twitter service remains the property of each individual Twitter user.
7. Twitter protects the security of each Twitter account so created by providing each
person creating such an account with a password that, together with their chosen Twitter user name,
allows the user to secure his/her/its account such that only he/she/it may tweet from such Twitter
account.
8. Plaintiff is the owner of a certain Twitter account known as @OccupyWallStNYC
and www.twitter.com/OccupyWallStNYC (hereinafter the Twitter Account).
9. AdBusters Media Foundation (AdBusters) is a not-for-profit corporation
organized and with a principal place of business located in the province of British Columbia,
Canada.
10. In the summer of 2011, in preparation for the peaceful protest that came to be
known as Occupy Wall Street and that took place in New York City commencing on September
17, 2011, AdBusters created the Twitter account OccupyWallStNYC by having one of its
3

employees sign up on the Twitter web site for accounts bearing that name and agreeing to abide by
the Twitter terms of service.
11. As September 17, 2011 drew near, and in responding to the intense interest on the
Internet to its plans for a protest on Wall Street on September 17, AdBusters determined that in
order to be most effective for activists on the ground in New York City, it would be most prudent
to transfer the Twitter Account to a local New York activist it could trust to set it up and operate it
to serve the communication needs of local New York City activists that were active organizing the
Occupy Wall Street protest.
12. On September 15, 2011, and in furtherance of its plans for the Occupy Wall Street
protest of September 17, 2011, AdBusters, by one of its key employees, Micah White, transferred all
of its right, title, and interest in the Twitter Account to Marisa Holmes (Holmes).
13. From September 15, 2011 until September 16, 2014, Holmes was the owner of the
Twitter Account.
14. On and after September 15, 2011, Holmes invited others to assist her in
administering the Twitter Account, to help develop content for distribution thereon, to help grow
the base of followers of the Twitter Account, and to otherwise use the Twitter Account to advance
to goals of the Occupy Wall Street direct action.
15. Since the time that Holmes accepted AdBusters transfer to her of the Twitter
Account, she has endeavored to see that it was utilized in an egalitarian manner as one of the voice
pieces of the Occupy Wall Street movement. To that end she worked with other loosely organized
groups, including Global Revolution TV, OccupyNYC, Tweetboat and the OWS Media
Working Group, to broadcast many messages from many different groups and individuals using the
Twitter Account.
4

16. Between September 15, 2011 and August 8, 2014, Holmes allowed others, including
defendant Justin Wedes (Wedes), to use the Twitter account.
17. Between September 15, 2011 and November 15, 2011, Holmes worked with others,
including Wedes, to organize a democratic way to administer the use of the Twitter account to best
further the goals of the Occupy Wall Street movement.
18. On and after October 1, 2011, Occupy Wall Street became a world-famous protest,
the web sites and social media pages associated with the name Occupy Wall St. became famous
and popular, and the number of followers of the Twitter Account increased exponentially.
19. The Twitter Account grew exponentially and then progressively over the next several
months, and even long after Occupy Wall Street as a direct action ended and it more or less
morphed into both a movement and a mantra, the Twitter Account continued to grow followers.
20. As recently as July 2014, the Twitter Account had more than 175,000 followers.
Whenever a tweet was sent out, more than 175,000 people could possibly see it on their Twitter
feed, and it was made available for viewing by anyone in the world with unrestricted Internet access.
21. Wedes was one of the individuals that Holmes invited to assist her in administering
the Twitter Account.
22. On or about September 15, 2011, Wedes was given authorization to be one of
several account administrators and was given the password associated with the Twitter Account.
23. With the password in his possession, Wedes was authorized and empowered to
perform all authorized administrative functions in connection with the maintenance and
administration of the Twitter Account.
24. One of the many administrative functions that account administrators with the
permissions held by Wedes may perform is to change the password on the account. However, if an
5

administrator changes the password on the account without distributing the new password to the
other administrators, he or she may lock all of the other administrators out of the account.
25. On or about August 8, 2014, Wedes, without authority or permission, changed the
account password on the Twitter Account without providing the password to any other
administrator thereby locking out all of the other administrators from accessing the Twitter Account
and making himself the sole person in control of the Twitter Account.
26. Upon information and belief the reason that Wedes seized the Twitter Account and
appropriated it to his own use is that he was unhappy with some of the content of the speech that
was being disseminated from the Twitter Account.
27. Shortly after appropriating the Twitter Account and locking out all of the other
administrators, Wedes posted a written statement on the web site justinwedes.com attempting to
explain his reasons and justify his actions.
28. On September 16, 2014, Holmes assigned all right, title, and interests that she had in
the Twitter Account to Plaintiff.
29. Wedes now controls the Twitter Account. For several days after seizing control of
the Twitter Account, the Twitter Account was quiet. However, since on or about August 20, 2014
Wedes is tweeting from the Twitter Account without the permission or authority of Holmes or
Plaintiff.
30. Wedes has no right, title, or interest in the Twitter Account.
31. Wedes has appropriated the Twitter Account and hijacked its audience for his own
personal use without the authorization or permission of Holmes or Plaintiff.
32. As a tool for the communication of ideas, ideals, and the vision of the Occupy Wall
Street movement, the Twitter Account represents several years of irreplaceable work by Holmes,
6

Global Revolution TV, OccupyNYC, the OWS Media Working Group, the Tweetboat collective,
and others building the audience of the Twitter Account.
33. Absent a court order directing Wedes to return control of the Twitter Account to
Plaintiff, all of the time, labor and money invested in growing the number of followers will be lost.
34. Each and every day that goes by while Wedes remains in control of the Twitter
Account is another day of Plaintiffs lost opportunity to speak to the Twitter audience that they
worked to cultivate and rightly should control.
35. Money damages cannot adequately compensate for Plaintiffs lost opportunity to
speak.
36. Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law.
AS AND FOR A FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
(Conversion)

37. Plaintiff is the owner of the Twitter Account.
38. Wedes, intentionally and without authority of either Holmes or Plaintiff, seized
custody, dominion, and control of the Twitter Account by changing the password associated with
the Twitter Account thereby locking out the other administrators, including Holmes and Plaintiff.
39. Wedes assumption and exercise of custody, dominion, and control of the Twitter
Account interferes with the possessory rights of Plaintiff in the Twitter Account.
AS AND FOR A SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
(Trespass to Chattel)

40. By withholding the account password from the other administrators, Wedes is
intentionally interfering with Plaintiffs possession of the Twitter Account.
41. Plaintiff, by its loss of an opportunity to speak, is harmed by the aforesaid conduct
of Wedes.
AS AND FOR A THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
(Declaratory Judgment)
7


42. Pursuant to CPLR 3001 plaintiff requests that this court declare Plaintiff to be the
owner of the Twitter Account entitled to exclusive use thereof.
AS AND FOR A FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Injunctive Relief)

43. Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law.
44. Plaintiff requests that this Court issue a preliminary injunction and order requiring
Wedes to secure the Twitter account by changing the password so that, during the pendency of this
proceeding, only he has it;
45. Plaintiff requests that this Court issue a preliminary injunction ordering Wedes,
during the pendency of this proceeding, to NOT tweet using the Twitter Account.
46. Plaintiff requests the Court to issue a permanent injunction directing Wedes to
surrender to Plaintiff possession, custody and control of the Twitter Account; and
47. Granting Plaintiff any such other and further injunctive and equitable relief that to
the Court seems just and proper.
WHEREFORE Plaintiffs demand the following relief:
a. A declaration that Plaintiff is the owner of the Twitter Account;
b. A declaration that Plaintiff is entitled to exclusive use of the Twitter Account;
c. An order compelling Wedes to immediately provide Plaintiff with the password for the
Twitter Account to permit Plaintiff to access the administrative dashboard of the Twitter
Account and change the password for the Twitter Account.
d. An order barring Wedes from interfering with the possessory rights of Plaintiff in
connection with the Twitter Account;
e. A money judgment in the amount of Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($500,000.00) for
compensatory damages; and
f. Granting Plaintiff any such other and further relief that to the Court seems just and
DATED:
proper.
Jamaica, New York
September 1 ~ 2014
STATE OF NEW YORK )
) ss,:
COUNTY OF KINGS )
TH S J. HILLGARDNER, ESQ.
Attorney for the P laintifft
82-63 170
th
Street
Jamaica, New York 11432
(718) 657-0606
VERIFICATION
MARISA HOLMES, being duly sworn, deposes and says: I am one of the directors of the
Plaintiff, a New York not-for-profit corporation; I have read the foregoing COMPLAINT and I
know the contents thereof; the same is true to my knowledge except as to matters alleged therein
to be based upon information and belief; and that as to those matters I believe them to be true.
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me on
REYJANE GAUDIN
Notary Public - State of New York
NO. 01GA6290172
Qualified in Kings County
My Commission Expires Oct 7. 2017
9