I found it hard to believe or describe when I visited (in 2004). From one block north, the Forbidden City was obscured by smog on a cloudless day. It otherwise felt like you were smoking all the time.

I appreciate your point of view and maybe I won't change your mind, but will provide more about Hoppe v Klapperich:

“If the attorney proceeds upon facts stated to him by his client, believing those facts to be true, and if those facts, if true, would constitute probable cause for instituting such a prosecution, then the attorney is exonerated.”

Hoppe v. Klapperich, 224 Minn. 224, 242, 28 N.W.2d 780, 792 (1947).

If the client's claim was true, he paid a stranger in a sauna $850 in cash for a photo to use in advertising. He admits having no personal knowledge if the stranger actually owned the rights to the photo. I said was my photo, and was used without permission. They initially agreed with me...until I posted a web page. Then they reversed positions, said the stranger was the true photographer, and sued for defamation.

I had a certifcate of copyright registration, proof of prior publication, out-takes, the high-resolution file. I offered this evidence, they said they didn't want it.

Not wanting to pay the rightful owner when you are using stolen property is not probable cause to sue the rightful owner for defamation. That means the attorney is liable (under Hoppe) because the litigation lacked probable cause.

It might be akin to suing someone for defamation because they claim to own the house you are squatting in. They have title to the house, all the neighbors agree they have lived there for years, but you claim "I paid a stranger in a sauna $850 to live in this house". Probable cause does not allow for the absurd, and I believe such a claim is absurd.

The first element of malicious prosecution is legally defined in Minnesota as follows:

(1) an action is brought without probable cause or reasonable belief that the plaintiff will ultimately prevail on the merits

See Stead-Bowers v. Langley, 636 N.W.2d 334, 338 (Minn. App. 2001).

Showing the lawyer knew the client was lying is one, but not the only way, of showing lack of probable cause for the underlying action. And there really shouldn't be cases brought that lack probable cause under any standard, without having to pay the other parties costs.

I agree completely with your premise. But you can only require another person to stop damaging, false speech -- not demand they refrain from expressing opinion or saying things that are true.

In this particular case, they were demanding I remove information even if it was true (they wanted me to stop pointing out, accurately, the other side published photos of mine without permission). You also cannot sue over opinion ("there are no false opinions"). As the first judge on the case wrote, they can only demand I remove what they (allege) to be false, but they demanded I make "no speech" about their client...true, false, or opinion. The Court of Appeals has said that's not an abuse of process.

Under that standard, a politician can sue his opponent for saying he is the better candidate, and face no repercussions for abuse of process.

The other party allegedly gave "Zubitskiy" his phone number when they met in a sauna. I asked at trial to explain how he did so, since people don't usually bring either a cell phone or pen and paper into a sauna. "My phone number is easy to memorize". The phone number had no pattern to it, and the judge ruled this story to be a lie.

How did I show "Michael Zubitskiy" didn't exist?

1. Skip-trace background check -- no records anywhere in the US (phone, utility, driver's license, credit records, etc.).
2. West-Law People Search -- no trace of anyone by that name in the USA (this is the search used by law firms)
3. Subpoena of phone company, welfare records -- nobody by that name, or any similar name.
4. This alleged "web designer"'s name did not appear anywhere on the web.

They explained he simply lives underground and is impossible to find (yet is a working digital photographer who was able to produce ID to have his signature notarized).

At trial, only a fraction of this evidence was admitted before the judge put a stop to it, calling it "cumulative". In other words, it's beyond any doubt.

The attorney's client stated, under oath, he had no evidence to back up his version of events, and no personal knowledge (as to who created the photo). See Appellant's brief, p. 9. They ignored his admission to having no evidence and proceeded with the case. This is not because they "believed him", but if anything they didn't believe him.

Before trial, they even admitted they were not challenging the truthfulness of anything on my website, but still proceeded to trial (and were allowed to do so). Same brief, p. 15.

One of the claims against me was ruled to be "purely speculative" and was dismissed (Id. p. 13). Yet I can't go to trial because there is no hope of showing a "purely speculative" claim lacked probable cause. That's not most people's definition of probable cause.

The client -- the corporation's owner -- testified under oath he had no evidence to support his version of events, and no personal knowledge of who really took the photo. His lawyers were the architects of the litigation knowing their client admitted having no evidence.

A law firm in Minnesota was sanctioned $20k for continuing to defend a claim after their client admitted at deposition they were essentially liable for the suit against them. Under the rules of civil procedure, all claims are supposed to be supported by evidence, or you may face sanctions (having to pay the other party's costs).

I understand and partially agree with your reply, except that part about it being a silly post. But you are entitled to your opinion, and I completely respect your right to express it.

That's a valid point. There are a few, rare exceptions. I prevailed in prosecuting a claim for statutory damages for copyright infringement, and removal of copyright management information, against the other party. I was able to use the courts to actually collect the judgment, too. And I did this pro-se, or I would have paid around 40k-60k.

I spent about $7,000 in legal fees for advice on procedure, and estimate my lost income at $35,000. So no, I lost about $20,000. I could have avoided that by simply taking down the web page I was sued over. I have lost that money because I take the first amendment seriously.

I allow free non-commercial use of my photos. I recently authorized a non-profit in Europe to use photos I took at factories in China to raise awareness of harsh factory conditions. They were difficult photos to shoot, and I authorized use free of charge. I have provided images to non-profits at no charge every time I'm asked.

I object only to commercial, for-profit, advertising use of my photos without paying me the standard market rate. It might be like going after pirates who sell DVDs of a movie for profit, but granting permission for all other, non-commercial use.

Somehow I don't think that will affect your position, but I think it's relevant to the issue you raised.

I brought an anit-SLAPP motion. I did so as a motion to dismiss in 2007. Unfortunately, Minnesota's anti-SLAPP statute only applies to speech aimed at favorable government action. I argued my website sought, in part, others to join me in a complaint with the Minnesota Department of Commerce. Judge Montgomery ruled from the bench the anti-SLAPP statute didn't apply. Paying a lawyer $5,000 to do that for me would not have changed anything.

There is an exception if the client's story is an obvious falsehood. And that's a fact question for a jury. If I tell you I didn't steal this photo from your website, I bought if for $850 in cash from a Russian-speaking stranger I met only once in a sauna...and by the way, there is no trace he ever existed on the face of this earth...could a reasonable jury find that is an "obvious falsehood"?

If a reasonable jury could agree that's an obvious falsehood, I am allowed to proceed to trial (under the law). Everyone now agrees the story is a lie -- what changed? There is no new evidence, it's just as bogus when first told as it is today.

The client testified years earlier at deposition he had no evidence to back up his story. That is something his lawyers should have believed. The client also said he was not challenging my copyright. The lawyers decided to challenge my copyright on his behalf despite his truthful statements he had absolutely no evidence to do so.

I personally "believe" everyone in the world stole my car last night. A lawyer cannot take that case based on "believing me". There must be probable cause -- evidence. There was never the slightest hope the claims against me could prevail, which is why one was dismissed as pure speculation.