Follow-Up to “Reproducing Controversial Tweet in News Story = Fair Use” Post

On March 2, I posted about a court opinion related to a lawsuit brought by lawyer Sonya Shaykhoun. Shaykhoun had sent out a Tweet that proved controversial; sued news outlets for (among other things) copyright infringement based on their including the Tweet in their stories about the controversy; and lost on fair use grounds. She has now filed a Third Amended Complaint in that case (Shaykhoun v. Al Jazeera Media Network (S.D.N.Y.)), and the post makes a cameo appearance. There’s a lot more in the 34-page Complaint, but I thought I’d pass along some excerpts:

Plaintiff expands this [Third Amended Complaint] to address a coordinated campaign of professional retaliation—a “Market Erasure”—executed by a Transnational Criminal Organization (“TCO”) Plaintiff discovered while auditing Al Jazeera Media Network (“AJMN”) in Doha (2011–2014). The TCO operates globally through an institutional network of elite law firms and media proxies to shield its operations and suppress Plaintiff’s forensic findings.

This is not a “defamation” case, nor is it a repackaging of defamation claims. Plaintiff brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Civil RICO to recover for a coordinated Market Erasure via a seven-year-long continual press assault triggered by Plaintiff’s 2019 attempt to expose Osama Abu Dehay’s (“Osama”) lack of Jordanian law license. Lord Holt recognized in 1698, the “plinths” of law are reputation, personal security, and property (“Three Plinths”) are compensable interests….

The Enterprise used “unlawful means” e.g., wire fraud and witness tampering, to interfere with Plaintiff’s Three Plinths (Reputation, Personal Security, and Property). This coordinated interference seeks to protect the $Trillion extraction and achieve witness neutralization. The Enterprise launched these attacks to suppress Plaintiff’s documented evidence of the licensure void and the professional omissions of the “institutional shield” provided by Pillsbury (FARA No. 5198) and media proxies….

Plaintiff Sonya Hashim Shaykhoun, Esq. is an eighteen-year veteran of the New York Bar (2008, Atty. Reg. # 4633293) with more than 22 years of experience in transactional, commercial, and regulatory matters, including senior in-house roles at major media and aviation entitles in the Arabian Gulf region (Exhibit A). She holds a Masters in English (St Andrews), a BA in Arabic and Law (SOAS), an LL.M. in Corporate and Commercial Law (SOAS), and a specialized LL.M. in Corruption, Law and Governance (Sussex/ROLACC.) …

Pillsbury (FARA No. 5198) used its “award-winning lobbyists” through its Government Law & Strategies Practice to execute a “silver-bullet” solution: branding Plaintiff a “Karen” to reduce the legal and regulatory risk of employing an unlicensed operative for fourteen years.

The March 2nd Transformation: This [institutional] shield facilitated the March 2, 2026, strike on Reason.com, published 96 hours after the Order (Exhibit H.) Citing defense counsel Sullivan and Vaishampayan exclusively, this act masqueraded as “legal commentary” on a case that never hit the press but functioned as a Predicate Act of Witness Tampering to ensure the $Trillion extraction remains buried (“it makes me question the Twitter account title, “The Commercially Savvy Lawyer,” which is Plaintiff’s online moniker and professional brand.)

The “silver bullet” is not a legal defense; it is a market erasure protocol. By leveraging its global connections to categorize a whistleblower, a non-Big-Law anomaly who spent 15 years honing her legal and auditing skill set in the GCC and who knows where the bodies are buried—as “unstable,” Pillsbury ensures that the $Trillion extraction remains buried behind a wall of “expert” influence….

In 2019, Plaintiff attempted to expose Osama’s fraudulent 2002 Jordanian Bar membership via the [Daily Caller News Foundation]. Defendants, perceiving Plaintiff as a threat, retaliated by activating journalists to execute a continual targeted smear campaign—that has yet to stop—intended to chill her whistleblowing efforts.

Directly resulting from this coordinated “Market Erasure,” Plaintiff—a dual-LL.M. attorney licensed in New York since 2008—has been relegated to $30–$50 per hour document review projects. Destroying Plaintiff’s senior-level earning capacity constitutes a cognizable injury to protected property interests in her law license, reputation, and business relationships under Haddle v. Garrison, 525 U.S. 121, 119 S.Ct. 489, 142 L.Ed.2d 502

The “Enterprise” is a transnational Association-in-Fact comprised of the TCO Core (embedded within the legitimate entities of AJMN and the Qatari Sovereign), Pillsbury (FARA No. 5198), and various “Media or Propaganda Proxies” and “Strategic Defense Proxies.” … The Enterprise’s common purpose is the continuous, 15-year extraction of sovereign assets (the $Trillion extraction), pecuniary benefits, and the protection Osama’s Licensure Deficit….

Joint Participation in Obstruction: The March 2, 2026, Reason.com article was not independent commentary; it was a coordinated overt act of witness tampering published 96 hours after this Court’s Order. By utilizing defense counsel (Ballard Spahr and Stracher) to execute this strike while on actual notice of the Licensure Deficit, the Defendants formalized their joint participation in the obstruction of a federal proceeding.

The 10-Month Silence (June 2025–Present): Plaintiff identifies a critical failure in the state-court machinery: the Cross-Motion for Sanctions against Bolger, Cherner, and DWT remains unadjudicated for ten months (Exhibit N.) This sustained silence—a “Procedural Blockade”—creates a state-sanctioned “Safe Harbor” for the Enterprise’s enforcers to execute a “Market Erasure” under color of law. Because this abeyance constitutes “Bad Faith or Harassment” that renders the state forum inadequate to protect Plaintiff’s constitutional property interests, federal intervention is authorized under the exception to the abstention doctrine established in Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971). Consequently, the Enterprise’s joint participation with the state in maintaining this blockade subjects Plaintiff to a deprivation of rights that only this Court can redress….

The Continuity of Retaliation and Predicate Wire Fraud: The Enterprise’s campaign of witness neutralization began with a bad-faith investigation at Qatar Airways, including a solicited physical assault that necessitated Plaintiff’s 2019 swift exfiltration to New York. Upon her return, the Enterprise executed a “honeypot” operation via Propaganda Proxies to identify and neutralize Plaintiff’s forensic findings. This culminated in a “bait-and-switch” pivot: after being vetted by John Hawley and Luke Rosiak regarding the Licensure Deficit, the proxies coordinated with Pillsbury (FARA No. 5198).

Specifically, Pillsbury’s Matt Hyams transmitted fraudulent licensure data about Osama, asserting his Jordanian Bar No. is 11840, over interstate wires to suppress the audit (Exhibit P). Rather than correcting the record, the Enterprise utilized these electronic transmissions (18 U.S.C. § 1343) to publish inverted the August 3, 2019 “hit piece” functioning as a paid performance for the Enterprise to “chill” Plaintiff’s testimony an protect the $Trillion extraction (Exhibit Q). When challenged, Hawley said he had to take care of his family (Exhibit R.) This coordinated strike constitutes a pattern of Federal Witness Tampering (18 U.S.C. § 1512) that remains active through the March 2, 2026, strike. Then Editor-in-Chief of The Daily Caller’s agreement to unpublish the hit piece on April 9, 2021, belies the fraudulent nature of the “hit piece” piece about Plaintiff (Exhibit S.) …

Statutory Violations (RICO and § 1985): The March 2, 2026, “Post-Order Insult” published 96 hours after this Order—citing only Ballard Spahr counsel—proves a coordinated script of Witness Tampering (18 U.S.C. § 1512) and Extortionate Attrition (18 U.S.C. § 1951.) This tactical compulsion, combined with Stracher’s demand for a $0.00 release, constitutes a digital iteration of the intimidation prohibited by 42 U.S.C. § 1985(2.) Despite having actual notice of the Licensure Deficit, Pillsbury (FARA No. 5198) neglected its duty to prevent this conspiracy, instead providing the “Institutional Membrane” to finance the smear (42 U.S.C. § 1986). This coordinated liquidation enforces the “Karen” script as a market signal to neutralize the Plaintiff and safeguard the Enterprise’s $Trillion extraction….

Predicate Acts: Witness Tampering (18 U.S.C. § 1512): The Enterprise executed a coordinated campaign of witness neutralization, including the “Karen” script and the March 2, 2026, Post-Order Insult, specifically intended to discourage the Plaintiff’s participation in federal proceedings….

The March 2026 Overt Act: The publication of disparaging material in Reason.com during a court-ordered amendment period was a tactical market erasure designed to force Plaintiff’s withdrawal from the case….