It began with a dishonest pretext with the initial interview request, feigning a brotherhood type experience by explaining how his wife left him and his children to pursue a lesbian relationship. It is unknown if this pretext is true or false, but it was a particularly despicable pretext used to ingratiate himself in the family of his hatchet piece victim. Daniel Glick actually ate some of his victim’s daughter’s birthday cake in their presence.
Many of the false light twisting of small truths that were in and of themselves benign, and then peppering his final story with a convoluted web of lies that leaves the reader unable to draw accurate conclusions (argument through verbosity).
This active desperate journalism has subsequently called into question all of the work that Daniel Glick is done over the past few years in relation to the cold case murder of Scott Johnson in Australia in 1988. it should be noted that just because Glick has been caught lying in his most recent story, it does not mean that the work he has done for the cold case murder is also fallacious. However, if one cannot be trusted in small things, neither can they be trusted in the big things. This is where his tangled web of lies casts a sad shadow over his entire career’s work.
(1) In general. — Any person who willfully infringes a copyright shall be punished as provided under section 2319 of title 18, if the infringement was committed —
(c) Fraudulent Copyright Notice. — Any person who, with fraudulent intent, places on any article a notice of copyright or words of the same purport that such person knows to be false, or who, with fraudulent intent, publicly distributes or imports for public distribution any article bearing such notice or words that such person knows to be false, shall be fined not more than $2,500.
CAVEAT: The accused is naturally innocent until proven guilty. A Plausible defense might be that a third party impersonated Darren Meade or his company Kairos-Meade.
Apparently, Darren Meade committed a crime with a fraudulent copyright notice. YouTube removed a damaging video that revealed Darren Meade's gleeful description of the pain he was inflicting on a smear campaign target.
The copyright owner of the video referenced above is unknown, but we have our suspicions. Notwithstanding, if Darren Meade through his company “Kairos-Meade” did successfully have the video removed from YouTube under copyright violation notice, then he has committed a crime.