decoration decoration

When you want to know more...
For layout only
Site Map
About Groklaw
Legal Research
ApplevSamsung p.2
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Gordon v MS
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
MS Litigations
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
OOXML Appeals
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v Novell
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Unix Books
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.

Contact PJ

Click here to email PJ. You won't find me on Facebook Donate Paypal

User Functions



Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User

No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.

What's New

No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Darl, Norris, Bryan Cave Named as Defendants in IP Litigation - The Pelican Brief
Thursday, July 02 2009 @ 12:15 AM EDT

Well, my dreams are coming true. This is better than eagles. A new lawsuit with Darl McBride, Stephen Norris and Bryan Cave all named as defendants by Pelican Equity. The accusation? Theft of trade secrets.

No. Wait. Wait. Wait. It gets better. They are also accused of violating the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. There is a God! [passes out from joy]

All right. I'm kidding around. But it's true that those are the allegations, plus much more. Courthouse News reports the overview. Of course, as SCO taught us onlookers, anyone can claim anything in a complaint. That doesn't mean they are guilty as alleged.

... hahahahahaha...

I haven't even read the complaint [PDF] yet, so we can savor it together, and when they file their answers, I'll surely share that with you too. No doubt there is another side to the story. I seriously can't wait. This is so funny, though, like seeing a stern family-values guy hopping a quickie flight to Argentina and getting caught at the airport, if ya know what I mean.

Oh, and Rama Ramachandran makes an appearance as a defendant too, as does Robert Brazell and Talos Partners. And Darl McBride is called by a nym, in the complaint: "Skyline Cowboy". Whoa. Or maybe I should say, Yahoo! They are accused of "fraud and deceit" -- if you can believe that -- and Bryan Cave of malpractice. Maybe I need to read this complaint.

Here's the docket so far:

1:09-cv-05927 NRB Pelican Equity, LLC v. Brazell et al
Naomi Reice Buchwald, presiding
Date filed: 06/29/2009
Date of last filing: 06/29/2009


Doc. No. Dates Description
Filed: 06/29/2009
Entered: 06/30/2009
Summons Issued
Docket Text: SUMMONS ISSUED as to Robert V. Brazell, Stephen L. Norris, Talos Partners, LLC, Rama Ramachandran, Darl McBride, Bryan Cave LLP. (mbe)
Filed: 06/29/2009
Entered: 06/30/2009
Case Designation
Docket Text: Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein is so designated. (mbe)
Filed: 06/29/2009
Entered: 06/30/2009
Case Designated ECF.
Docket Text: Case Designated ECF. (mbe)
Filed: 06/29/2009
Entered: 06/30/2009
Docket Text: COMPLAINT against Robert V. Brazell, Stephen L. Norris, Talos Partners, LLC, Rama Ramachandran, Darl McBride, Bryan Cave LLP. (Filing Fee $ 350.00, Receipt Number 692929)Document filed by Pelican Equity, LLC.(mbe)
Filed: 06/29/2009
Entered: 06/30/2009
Rule 7.1 Corporate Disclosure Statement
Docket Text: RULE 7.1 CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT. No Corporate Parent. Document filed by Pelican Equity, LLC.(mbe)

Ah! Discovery looms. OMG. We'll get to hear all the details, thanks to discovery. Here's the opening section of the Complaint:

Pelican Equity, LLC, by its attorneys... for its Complaint against defendants Robert V. Brazell, Stephen L. Norris, Talos Partners, LLC, Rama Ramachandran, Darl McBride and Bryan Cave LLP, alleges as follows:


1. This action arises out of the defendants' theft of extremely valuable trade secrets, breaches of the fiduciary duties owed by business partners and company employees pursuant to written agreements, misappropriation and unfair competition, violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, malpractice by a major international law firm, and fraud and deceit.
If any of the defendants would like to tell their side, Groklaw is willing to publish whatever comments they'd like to make. Or I guess in the case of skylinecowboy, his collected works are already available online. I just can't believe Darl would spend his time posting on Yahoo! SCOX Message Board. I don't even have time for that. But that is the allegation. I'm really stunned by this complaint, and for sure I'll post the answers.

Update: Now that I've read it, I've made the article Members Only for now.

Update 2: I am making the article public, now that parties have had the opportunity to respond.


Darl, Norris, Bryan Cave Named as Defendants in IP Litigation - The Pelican Brief | 271 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Wow, some incredible stuff in there!
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 02 2009 @ 12:38 AM EDT
That's quite a story, should be interesting to watch unfold...

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: LocoYokel on Thursday, July 02 2009 @ 01:06 AM EDT
Please title error -> correction with details in body

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Corrections - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 02 2009 @ 02:23 AM EDT
Off Topic
Authored by: LocoYokel on Thursday, July 02 2009 @ 01:07 AM EDT
Interesting things you want to share.

Follow the posting guidelines and see the red text for HTML directions.

[ Reply to This | # ]

News Picks
Authored by: LocoYokel on Thursday, July 02 2009 @ 01:08 AM EDT
Please indicate which news pick you are discussing in your title.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Jilted Suitor perhaps?
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 02 2009 @ 01:31 AM EDT
Oh no you don't!
That was *our* deal.
You can not take the secret sauce from *our* deal
and spread it with *them*.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Civil vs. Legal?
Authored by: sproggit on Thursday, July 02 2009 @ 01:42 AM EDT
OK, a quick and ignorant question... If the plaintiff is citing a violation of
the Computer Fraud And Abuse Act, does this have the potential to make this a
criminal, as opposed to a civil case? What would the determining factor[s] be?

Secondly, kinda related, given the nature of this specific accusation, is there
[ or would one reasonably presume there to be ] a monitoring of civil cases
within organisations such as the SEC to check for potential criminal activity?

Obviously IANAL and so reading the complaint [ which is stunning ] it's
difficult to know if this would trigger regulatory interest.

It's just that, with the current financial climate and the public tolerance of
misuse of financial markets, there is always the possibility of a more official
level of scrutiny.


[ Reply to This | # ]

Would this be the Pelican Brief? ;) n/t
Authored by: SirHumphrey on Thursday, July 02 2009 @ 02:12 AM EDT

[ Reply to This | # ]

I have emailed the pdf converted to basic html if it helps.
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 02 2009 @ 02:25 AM EDT
I haven't corrected OCR errors or anything, but hopefully it's in a useful state

[ Reply to This | # ]

"Bulldog Puppet..."
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 02 2009 @ 02:28 AM EDT
(top o page 17)

haha... Whooooooo-da-thunk-it?! :))))))))))))))

When yer gifted, I guess yer gifted...

Is this really, really, REALLY real, PJ? Are you pulling my leg? Did I miss
April Fools? (I can almost see the karma-cops appearing through the mist in
full riot gear!)

You're right, though. We should all keep in mind that all defendants are
innocent until proven guilty. I wonder if Pelican Equity will have any
difficulty establishing a past history of smear campaigns. Might be difficult,
but who knows.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Heads up for PJ
Authored by: ausage on Thursday, July 02 2009 @ 02:33 AM EDT
Between 2:00am and 2:30am Pamela Jones was added to the web
site with a substantial reward.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Do SCO still want their jury trial now?
Authored by: DaveJakeman on Thursday, July 02 2009 @ 03:36 AM EDT
Put that in front of a jury.

How much bad karma can McBride absorb before he explodes?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Darl, Norris, Bryan Cave Named as Defendants in IP Litigation - The Pelican Brief
Authored by: Ian Al on Thursday, July 02 2009 @ 04:11 AM EDT
I had a look around the interweb for Mark Robbins and found another bounty out
on the skyline site. I also found a report that a Utah court had put out an
arrest warrant for him in relation to a $2M fraud.

This is a wonderful court case because it is a match between plaintif and
defendant made in heaven or, in the alternative, a hot place.

Ian Al

Linux: Viri can't hear you in free space.

[ Reply to This | # ]

The Skyline Cowboy(s)
Authored by: DaveJakeman on Thursday, July 02 2009 @ 05:37 AM EDT

Jaw dropping. A tale within a story within an epic. Soap can't hold a candle to this.

Having read the complaint, it isn't entirely clear what McBride's involvement in AIP was. It seems he was a minor player up to the point he started doing what he has a taste for: disparaging others. From what we've already seen, McBride's "little Bulldog Puppet" moniker fits the bill.

The Individual Defendants perpetrated the fraud and deceit willfully, wantonly and maliciously and with reckless and callous disregard for the truth.
Where have we seen that before?

In my view, the plaintiff should be asking for Talos to be transferred back or reincorporated into Pelican, after booting out the culprits and fining them. That's the only way I see the Pelican business being made whole again. Not sure if that has a prayer as a prayer for relief.

Those names: McBride, Norris, Brian Cave. All birds of a feather, apparently.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Tenuous Darl link
Authored by: NigelWhitley on Thursday, July 02 2009 @ 05:46 AM EDT
The complaint does not seem to contain any indication why they believe Darl is
behind There is a blank statement that he is and then some
allegations about the behaviour of The subsequent
"reward" offer could suggest the actual person behind the website is
mocking the Darl accusation. Alternatively it is a reckless double bluff. I'm
inclined towards the former.

After skimming through the complaint, I'm left with the impression that some of
the "facts" are optimistic. For example, there is an allegation that
Brazell got his brother to sabotage the web and mail servers then destroy all
evidence of wrongdoing. I'm compelled to ask how he knows that if the alleged
saboteur destroyed all evidence. Certainly Mr Brazell wouldn't be my choice to
read a prospectus with, but some of the allegations seem speculative.

As PJ indicates, discovery may provide more solid foundations.
Nigel Whitley

[ Reply to This | # ]

Well, I'm Still at Large
Authored by: Tim Ransom on Thursday, July 02 2009 @ 09:47 AM EDT
So I don't think PJ has much to worry about.

There was a $1500 'bounty' posted for me back in April and, despite having
Deadeye Darl on the case, I am still at large and the bounty went uncollected. I
made no effort at all to conceal myself.

Also, I was able to get them to alter the wording of their 'bounty' twice.

Firstly, the 'bounty' claimed that I was paid $50000 to "edit
Wikipedia" (same claim one Jeff Merkey made there while under ban - said
his "PI" deduced that I was PJ and was paid $50000 by OSDL to edit
Merkey's Wiki page).

So I contacted them through a series of proxies and disabused them of the notion
that I ever even had a Wikipedia account. I pointed out that this was a libelous
accusation. The bounty was altered and corresponding tweets deleted.

Then, on Twitter, it was again claimed that I am PJ(!).

I contacted them again and disabused them of the notion, pointing out that once
again they were violating their own TOS by libeling me. The tweet was removed.

Last year or so, a vicious troll on Yahoo abused their reporting system to
delete the posts and accounts of hundreds of people while simultaneously
stalking and harassing them. This troll worked 12-16 hours a day on their
campaign of harassment. At one point, having deleted literally everyone else,
the troll said to me "I have $249k that says I can get your account
deleted". My ISP is a Yahoo partner, making me a paying customer, so they
were unable to delete my account.

Fast forward to April. Part of the bounty for me that was added later had a
reward for "$249", meaning that "slampam", who
"hired" skylinecowboy to stalk me, is the *same person* who not only
stalked, harassed, and ultimately got the posts and accounts deleted of
virtually every single person on the Y!SCOX board, but was also doing the same
thing on the NOVL board for years. They also happen to be the *same person* who
claimed on Wikipedia that I am PJ.


Thanks again,

[ Reply to This | # ]

The BIG question is...
Authored by: rsi on Thursday, July 02 2009 @ 10:14 AM EDT
How will this affect SCO's feeble attempt to sell off SCO's assets to any third
party? Will it cancel it, and go directly to Chapter 7? Will it simply delay
the proposed sale, wasting more of Novell's money?

Inquiring minds want to know! ;^)

[ Reply to This | # ]

The Wild West
Authored by: The Cornishman on Thursday, July 02 2009 @ 10:40 AM EDT
What is it with the wild west imagery? Cattleback Holdings, and now (allegedly)
skylinecowboy? Maybe it feels different in the USA, but I think here the Wild
West has got a poor image: general lawlessness, small farmers in a state of
low-level warfare with big ranchers, not to mention the native American angle,
so I won't.

(c) assigned to PJ

[ Reply to This | # ]

Why computer fraud and abuse act
Authored by: jpvlsmv on Thursday, July 02 2009 @ 12:53 PM EDT
IANAL, but as far as I can tell, the computer fraud and abuse act allegations
are simply to get the matter into federal jurisdiction.

Of all the allegations, it is the only one that places this into a federal
court, otherwise it would be a state court matter. And while I can't judge the
legal reasoning behind them, they basically boil down to two claims: the accused
accessed their AIP email accounts to do things that were contrary to the
company's interest, and somebody connected to the accused was involved in some
sort of denial of service attack.

The former, while IMHO an abusive expansion of a well-intentioned law, is
supported by some precedent and writings by employment law specialists (see
google:computer fraud abuse employer email access). In fact, several of the
articles resulting from that search talk about how the CFAA is a "potent
weapon" against ex-employees because it moves the case to federal

The latter would be quite difficult to prove absent a "smoking gun"
email. There's lots of reasons why websites of new companies break.


[ Reply to This | # ]

Talos Partners recently added a Redmond Wa based Investment Banker as "affiliate"
Authored by: stats_for_all on Thursday, July 02 2009 @ 01:18 PM EDT
Msg 88269 of 88576 at 6/25/2009 8:52:56 AM by
Recs: 29 | Views: 241
In response to msg 81850 by Panglozz

Norris Watch: Talos Capital picks up an Affiliate- Redmond Wa. based investment banker Talos Capital, Stephen L. Norris other recent business combination with overlapping membership with Gulf Cap Partners, has updated its website.

Several names have dropped, but most energizing to my fashionable al-min-nium plated head gear is:
Talos has a new category: Authorized Affiliates, and a new member. A long-time Redmond, Washington-based capitalist: George Todd.

The thumbnail bio states succintly:

"He has expertise in the development and execution of strategic business and financial plans, strategic Intellectual Property development and has raised private equity capital through a broad network of high wealth individuals......"

Full Talos website bio:

Talos Authorized Affiliates

George Todd

George Todd brings to Talos Partners more than 20 years of experience building successful entrepreneurial technology companies. He has focused on strategic financial development, using his extensive background in building proforma plans, capitalization planning and early stage funding and executive planning. In the investment banking arena, Mr. Todd has provided strategic business development services to numerous technology companies. He was a Managing Director of Convergent Technology, an investment banking firm, and specialized in assisting early stage technology companies. He has expertise in the development and execution of strategic business and financial plans, strategic Intellectual Property development and has raised private equity capital through a broad network of high wealth individuals, venture capital and private equity funds. Over the last 10 years he has been involved with numerous software firms including those in the wireless software, smart parking, media, real estate and entertainment sectors. Mr. Todd's experience covers a number of other market sectors, including wireless data transfer, internet reseller/retail, various software markets, and plastics technologies. George Todd is based out of Seattle, Washington and services Talos' clients in the Pacific Northwest, including Seattle, Portland and Vancouver BC.

More info available at this archive:

[ Reply to This | # ]

No Corporate Veil
Authored by: DaveJakeman on Thursday, July 02 2009 @ 01:49 PM EDT
There has been much talk at Groklaw about piercing the corporate veil in SCO vs
[pick your defendant], but here we see Darl as a named defendant, with no
corporate veil to hide under. Darl is no stranger to corporate litigation; soon
we shall see him on the receiving end as an individual, funded out of his own
pocket. What better way to spend those ill-gotten bonuses than to feed them
back into very system he (ab)used to obtain them?

Judging by his posting at in the early hours of this morning,
I take it Darl really, really didn't appreciate having the spotlight shone on
him yet again. Strange how some people seem to shrink back from the Light of
Truth. Strange how some people simply cannot play their cards straight.

[ Reply to This | # ]

A question....
Authored by: tiger99 on Thursday, July 02 2009 @ 03:25 PM EDT
This is very interesting, but has anyone managed to make it even more interesting by finding a connection to a certain supplier of poor quality software in Redmond?

The reason I ask is that I have considered, for some time now, that Darl was merely a disposable pawn of the Monopoly. His usefulness at SCO is probably coming to an end, so it may be time to put him in a position, such as jail, where he can't incriminate certain people.

Or am I simply too suspicious, after 6 years of SCO?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Darl... "I'm not just an investor, I'm a client".
Authored by: Eeyore on Thursday, July 02 2009 @ 04:25 PM EDT
If I read this right, this is all about a "loan on stock" program,
right? Is Darl an investor, a customer or both? Keep in mind that he
supposedly has TONS of "valuable" SCO stock (and/or options) that he
can't really sell for "what it's worth". I wonder if he has
outstanding loans against said stock if the company that INSURED those loans
would consider the current value of those stocks a "risky" thing to
cover.... ;)

If you take out a insured loan on stocks that have artificially inflated
"value" does that constitute fraud? What if you are a principal in
the company that makes the loan?

[ Reply to This | # ]

American Institutional Partners, LLC Files For Chapter 11
Authored by: bigbert on Thursday, July 02 2009 @ 11:41 PM EDT
Link here Click

------------------------- -
Computo, ergo sum.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Darl, Norris, Bryan Cave Named as Defendants in IP Litigation - The Pelican Brief
Authored by: The Cornishman on Friday, July 03 2009 @ 07:48 AM EDT
I'm not clear about how Pelican Equity come to be the successors in interest to
AIP. The remark in the complaint about a transfer is sketchy, and my quick
trawl of the intarwebs yields nothing very much about Pelican Equity or Pelican
in relation to Mark Robbins or AIP.

Was Pelican set up solely to file this complaint and remove the litigation from
AIP itself?

(c) assigned to PJ

[ Reply to This | # ] is the strangest website
Authored by: HockeyPuck on Friday, July 03 2009 @ 03:17 PM EDT
This is SO strange, I have problems even thinking about, or why this site even

The situation is either comical or downright weird.

The real problem is the site is so strange, the courts will not understand its
purpose or dismiss this. It is so outrageous; who would believe it is real and
not satire?

However that said, SOMEONE put this together. The characters are real and that
means someone has knowledge to certain situations. And those are involved in
certain legal issues. They have something in common... Groklaw, SCO.

The content is suspect; almost pathological in content. But who are the authors?
Were does Darl REALLY fit in this? If Darl is involved and has direct knowledge
of the content of this site, then that SHOULD paint a different picture of this
'CEO'. However, what are the possible legal repercussions? It will have no
impact on bankruptcy. But could is provide some "motivation" in other

[ Reply to This | # ]

Darl, Norris, Bryan Cave Named as Defendants in IP Litigation - The Pelican Brief
Authored by: charlie Turner on Friday, July 03 2009 @ 05:17 PM EDT
I just clicked on the Courthouse Overview link, and it 404s.
That was a quick disappearance.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )