IsAnybodyDown: NPR interviews Craig Brittain — and Craig and Chance (almost) find more fake lawyers!

If you’ve been following the IsAnybodyDown.com controversy, this is an interview you have to hear to believe.  NPR’s On The Media interviewed Marc Randazza and one of the site’s founders, Craig Brittain (who enters at about 5:55).  Stay for the entire thingas Craig is told exactly what so many of the site’s victims likely want to tell him.

A few thoughts on the interview, along with some additional new accusations by Craig and Chance — that their adversaries aren’t lawyers at all.

First, NPR confirms that IsAnybodyDown.com is run by Craig Brittain and Chance Trahan.  Craig himself refers to “both of us” starting the site to make money.

Second, Craig furthers his delusional proclamations that he’s a “progressive” revolutionary striving to create a world where employers, friends, and family members won’t care if your nude photos are plastered over the internet:

“My eventual goal is that everyone will have public information posted about them, preferably naked, that it will be a normal thing.”

Of course, Craig hasn’t posted his own nude photos to his own site.  Craig will make martyrs of the unwilling, but he won’t make a martyr of himself.  In the meantime, Craig’s revolutionary ideals won’t stop him from from trying to get public records of his felony removed from the internet.

This is the key part of the interview:

“I have also been posted.  […] They posted naked photos of me.  So I do know exactly how those people feel, actually.  And I don’t send naked pictures of myself to strangers. [Why not?] Well, you could wind up on websites like the one I have. Or worse. There are worse people out there than us.  We’re being the focus of this like we’re evil or like we’re manipulative or we’re exploiting people and that’s not true.  The truth is that there’s a lot of actual predators out there that are dangerous.”

Note Craig’s moral condemnation in his blame-the-victim response.  It’s their fault they’re pictured on his site because they sent their pictures to ‘strangers’ — likely because Craig, Chance, or an enthusiastic fan get the photos by responding to unsuspecting Craigslist posters.  Note also that Craig admits that the photos are of people who sent them to “strangers.”  That implies that Craig acknowledges that the source isn’t jilted ex-lovers or self-submissions.

Craig concern-trolls by arguing that there are worse people than he and Chance — predators!  Maybe posting photos alongside contact information is a bad idea?  Maybe there’s a reason the people pictured on the site are afraid.

But Craig argues that he and Chance aren’t “exploiting” people.  They’re just making money by posting their photos against their will.  Craig and Chance: please consult a dictionary before going on national radio or issuing nonsensical legal threats and embarrassing yourselves.

Note also that Craig admits that his parents are aware of his enterprise.  Considering that in a similar lawsuit (PDF) shepherded by Randazza, ViaView is suing the parents of the proprietor of an involuntary porn site, that was an ill-considered admission.

Craig also can’t hear or speak his adversaries’ names.  He agreed to the interview on the condition that Marc Randazza not be mentioned.  Perhaps this is because Craig possesses an unyet-displayed sense of his impending world of legal hurt and that discussing Randazza or fake attorney “David Blade III”* might be a poor idea.  Or perhaps Craig is a coward. Not that this condition stops Craig: without mentioning Randazza by name, Craig attempts to curry favor by digging up an old Randazza quote about the media, but just can’t bring himself to say Randazza’s name.

Or perhaps Craig doesn’t want to discuss Randazza because he (or Chance) believe that Marc Randazza is not a real attorney.  (Um.  He is.)  In emails to NPR, Craig also accused Ken White of Popehat of being or employing fake attorneys, a conclusion Craig has reached by meticulous research. The post Craig cited as evidence of this theory refers to what may be a scam being run out of Georgia under the name “Kenneth White & Associates”.  Nevermind that Ken White practices in California and that’s not the name of his firm.

To help Craig understand the difference between California and Georgia, here’s a map:

And, of course, ignore the fact that the guys accused of running a fake lawyer scam are accusing their real-world lawyer critics of being fake lawyers. Craig, Chance: break out your dictionary again.  There’s a word for that, too.

Lastly, Craig told an NPR producer that David Blade is a real person and that the “Takedown Hammer” is independently owned and operated, making him the last person on earth to believe that.

  • Tali McPike

    “I have also been posted. […] They posted naked photos of me. So I do know exactly how those people feel, actually. And I don’t send naked pictures of myself to strangers.”

    Oh yeah, Craig…what about your Porn days on Myspace? IDK, but perhaps that’s how you ended up having nudes on the internet…ones you let strangers see?

  • Brian Tannebaum

    What?

  • Joe

    Great – he lied again about David Blade. And he continues to go on about how people consented to having their pictures posted. If that was the case, why would the “Takedown Hammer” be needed? Also, I seriously doubt the girls posted under the “Herps Confirmed” tab sent in pictures and also stated they had herpes – seriously he expects us to believe people did that?
    Facepalm.

  • dese1ect

    Wait… which one is California?

  • joe pullen

    Wait, apparently I’m being “paid” by Randazza as his “sock puppet”. Damnit man, where’s my check.

  • flip

    I am personally enjoying the fact that Craig posted on the OTM interview that the lawyers coming after him are just trying to steal his website content. It’s so ridiculous it broke my irony meter.

    • AdamSteinbaugh

      Seriously. He’s worried about someone stealing content that he doesn’t have the rights to — content he says he can post because its owners sent it to someone else. Why he alone is allowed to post it is beyond me.

      Not to mention that it would be monumentally stupid to spend weeks talking about how a site is not legal, then turn around and start running it — a betrayal which would almost certainly cost all involved their law licenses. So, trade however much Craig thinks Randazza is worth for… what, the $300,000 Craig thinks his site is worth?