VIRGINIA:

WILLIAM MENJIVAR

Plaintiff,

v

ADAM MARTIN BESTHOFF

9029 Lee Hrvy

Fairfax, Virginia 22031

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF F'AIRF'AX COT]NTY

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

I

Case No. CL

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Defendant.

COMPLAINT

This is a defamation action against Adam Martin Besthoft who posted a video on

YouTube falsely claiming that it showed Witliam Menjivar being arrested for child molestation.

Mr. Menjivar has never molested a child and has never been accused of molesting a child. Mr.

Besthoff made the accusation maliciously, knowing it to be false, for the purpose of harming Mr.

Menjivar's reputation and standing in the community. He succeeded, and therefore must be held

accountable.

PARTIES

l. Ptaintiff William Menjivar is, and at all times relevant hereto was, a citizen and

resident of the Commonwealth of Virginia.

2. Defendant Adam Martin Besthoffis, and at all times relevant hereto was, a citizen

and resident of the Commonwealth of Virginia. Mr. Besthoff is employed as a plumber.

b

ôô

c

Case 16-01186-RGM Doc 6-1 Filed 09/29/16 Entered 09/29/16 12:21:35 Desc

 Exhibit(s) No. 1 Page 1 of 6
FACTS

3. Mr. Menjivar and Mr. Besthoffare next-door neighbors; their townhouses share a

common wall.

4. For over ayeaÍ,Mr. Besthoff has verbally and physically harassed Mr. Menjivar

(who is Hispanic), using derogatory racial epithets like o'spic" and threatening to "get [Mr.

Menjivar] deported."

5. Mr. Besthoff will often bang on the parties' common wall for extended periods of

time for the sole purpose of interfering with Mr. Menjivar's reasonable and comfortable use and

enjoyment of his home.

6. On or about :ll'4ay 2,2015, Mr. Besthoff took the harassment to a new level by

posting a video on YouTube.com along with explanatory text claiming that Mr. Menjivar was

"getting arested for child molestation." As of the date of this writing, the video is posted at

https ://www.youtube.com/watch?v:mb9rKPx3 M-0.

7. Mr. Menjivar was not "getting arrested for child molestation." The statement was

a complete fabrication designed to destroy Mr. Menjivar's reputation and career.

8. The video shows Mr. Menjivar being led away from his home in handcuffs. On or

about the previous evening, Mr. Besthoff had called the police to make a frivolous complaint of

excessive noise coming from Mr. Menjivar's residence. When several police offers appeared that

night on his doorstep, demanding in aggressive tones that Mr. Menjivar come outside, Mr.

Menjivar responded that he would not come outside if the police did not have a warrant requiring

him to do so. The police left, obtained a warrant for "obstruction ofjustice,'o and returned to Mr.

Menjivar's residence and led him away in handcufß. The charges were promptly dropped.

2

Case 16-01186-RGM Doc 6-1 Filed 09/29/16 Entered 09/29/16 12:21:35 Desc

 Exhibit(s) No. 1 Page 2 of 6
g. Mr. Besthoff knew that Mr. Menjivar was not being arrested for child

molestation, as he was the person who called the police (for an alleged noise violation), and he

was the one who shot the video.

10. The video, which Mr. Besthoff published using the alias "ish," refers to Mr.

Menjivar as a..little taco bean eating punk ass boy" and asserts (with reference to the "child

molester" allegation) that o'the facts weighing against him is pretty strong'"

11. There are several young children in Mr. Menjivar's neighborhood. There is also a

bus stop for a Fairfax County elementary school directly across the street from Mr. Menjivar's

home. As a result, school-aged children pass frequently in front of Mr. Menjivar's house.

lZ. The statements Mr. Besthoff made about Mr. Menjivar on YouTube.com (the

.,Statements") are false, and Mr. Besthoff knew the Statements were false at the time he made

them.

13. Mr. Menjivar has suffered severe humiliation, embarassment, and reputational

harm as a direct result of the false Statements on YouTube'

COUNT I - DEFAMATION

14. Mr. Menjivar repeats and realleges the allegations contained in paragraphs 1

through 13, inclusive, as if fully set forth herein.

15. Mr. Besthoff published the Statements to numerous third parties.

16. The Statements are actionable because they concem and harm the reputation of

Mr. Menjivar; they can reasonably be interpreted as assertions of fact; they are false; they are

defamatory in nature; and they caused (and continue to cause) harm to Mr. Menjivar and his

reputation.

J

Case 16-01186-RGM Doc 6-1 Filed 09/29/16 Entered 09/29/16 12:21:35 Desc

 Exhibit(s) No. 1 Page 3 of 6
t7. Mr. Besthoff knew or should have known that the Statements were false, yet he

published them willfully, maliciously, and in conscious regard for Mr. Menjivar's rights and

reputation.

18. Altematively, if Mr. Besthoff actually believed the Statements to be true, then he

lacked a reasonable basis for such belief, andlor acted negligently in failing to determine the

facts upon which the Statements were basedß. The Statements constitute defamation per se because they falsely impute crimes

of moral turpitude to Mr. Menjivar.

20. As a direct result of the defamatory Statements posted by the Defendant, Mr.

Menjivar's reputation and good standing in the community have been severely damaged.

21. Mr. Menjivar's remedy at law is not completely adequate. If the Statements are

not removed from Internet search indices, the various pages containing the Statements will

continue to come up when people search for Mr. Menjivar online, and as a result, Mr. Menjivar

will continue to suffer ongoing harm to his reputation, potentially in perpetuity. This cannot be

adequately compensated by money damages22. The following URL either presently contains the defamatory Statements, or once

contained the Statements and needs to be not only removed from the Intemet but deleted from

search engine indices : https ://www.youtuLe. con/rn'atch?v:mb9lKPx3 M-0

23. Iqjunctive relief is the only way to ensure that Mr. Mer{ivar's reputation does not

suffer any more than it already has.

24. The balance of hardships favors Mr. Menjivar, as the irreparable harm he would

suffer if an injunction is not granted greatly outweighs the harm that the Defendant would suffer

if the injunction is granted.

4

Case 16-01186-RGM Doc 6-1 Filed 09/29/16 Entered 09/29/16 12:21:35 Desc

 Exhibit(s) No. 1 Page 4 of 6
25. No equitable defenses exist to Mr. Menjivar's request for injunctive relief.

26. Granting an injunction would be in the public interest'

COUNT II - DECLARATORY MENT

27. Mr. Menjivar repeats and realleges the allegations contained in paragraphs I

through 26, inclusive, as if fully set forth herein.

28. An actual controversy exists between Plaintiffand Defendant with respect to

whether the Statements are false, defamatory, or otherwise unlawful.

29. Mr. Menjivar is entitled to a declaratory judgment, pursuant to Va. Code $ 8.01-

184, adjudicating and determining that the URL located at

https://www.voutube.com/watch?v:rnbgrKPx3M-0 contains false, defamatory, and unlawful

content.

30. A declaratory judgment will facilitate the removal of the defamatory URL from

the Internet, as search engines like Google and Bing are much more likely to agree to de-index

the URL when presented with a declaratory judgment clearly informing them that a particular

URL contains defamatory or otherwise unlawful statementsPRAYER FOR RELIE{

WHEREFORE, Mr. Menjivar prays that the Court grant the following relief:

(a) award compensatory damages in the amount of $100,000.00 for injury to

reputation, humiliation, and embarrassment;

(b) award punitive damages in the amount of $200,000.00;

(c) enter a preliminary and permanent injunction that issues the following orders

against Mr. Besthoffand his agents and assigns:

(1) Prohibiting Mr. Besthoff and his agents and assigns from any further acts

of defamation or publishing of false, misleading, and/or private

5

Case 16-01186-RGM Doc 6-1 Filed 09/29/16 Entered 09/29/16 12:21:35 Desc

 Exhibit(s) No. 1 Page 5 of 6
statements, conìments, or information regarding Plaintiff on YouTube'com

or any other website or publication;

(2) Mandating that Mr. Besthoff and his agents and assigns take all reasonable

actions th"y r* under the law to remove the offending content in

question, including but not limited to personally removing the content

e-ach published and requesting that YouTube.com remove all defamatory,

dispaiaging, scandalous, false and materially misleading statements about

ff4r. frrfen¡ivar that Mr. Besthoffposted or caused to be posted on the

Internet;

(3) Mandating that Mr. Besthoff and his agents and assigns take all reasonable

actions they can under the law to secure the removal of

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v:mbgrKPx3M-0 and any duplicate

content from the Internet search engines and indexes, including but not

limited to Google, Yahoo!, and Bing; and

(4) Mandating that, as it is possible that the above-referenced URL and the

Statements contained therein will appear on additional web pages or

search engines in the future, including but not limited to index, directory,

and search results pages, to take all reasonable actions available under the

law to attempt to remove all such web pages from the Internet, including

requesting removal of all such web pages from the search engines Google,

Yahoo!, and Bing, and any other search engines on the Internet.

(d) enter a declaratory judgment that Defendant's statements posted on the Internet

about Plaintiff are false, unlawfi.rl, and constitute an invasion of privacy; and

(e) award such other relief as the Court deems just and equitable.

TRIAL BY JURY IS DEMANDED.

39609)

WILLIAM MENJTVAR

By Counsel

Lee E.

Berliklaw,LLC

l8l8 Library Street

Suite 500

Reston, Virginia 20190

Tel: (703) 722-0588

Fax: (888) 772-0161

LB erlik@berliklaw. com

Counselfor Plaintiff

6

Case 16-01186-RGM Doc 6-1 Filed 09/29/16 Entered 09/29/16 12:21:35 Desc

 Exhibit(s) No. 1 Page 6 of 6