UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
NORTHERN DIVISION AT COVINGTON
SARAH JONES, a/k/a/
RECORDINGS LLC dba
KARAMIAN aka NIK
RICHIE aka CORBIN
GRIMES, DIRTY WORLD,
LLC dba THEDIRTY.COM,
and DIRTY WORLD
Case No. 2:09-cv-00219-WOB
Judge William O. Bertelsman
AFFIDAVIT OF NIK LAMAS-RICHIE
IN SUPPORT OF
DEFENDANTS DIRTY WORLD, LLC
AND NIK RICHIE’S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
I, NIK LAMAS-RICHIE, declare as follows:
My name is NIK LAMAS-RICHIE. I am a resident of the State of California, am over the age of
18 years, and if called to testify in court I could and would truthfully testify to the following
information based upon my own personal knowledge.
1. I am currently employed as the manager of Defendant DIRTY WORLD, LLC
(“Dirty World”) which owns and operates the website www.TheDirty.com. In addition to acting
as editor-in-chief of www.TheDirty.com, I am also the founder and creator of a website called
www.DirtyScottsdale.com which I started in March 2007.
2. When I first started www.DirtyScottsdale.com, the site was focused almost
entirely on Scottsdale, Arizona. Initially, I used the site as a forum to post my thoughts,
comments and observations about a variety of topics that I felt were interesting, important, or
deserving of criticism such as certain “fake” (a/k/a “dirty”) residents of Scottsdale.
3. The typical subject matter for my early posts on www.DirtyScottsdale.com was
anything “dirty” or humorous, such as drunken people making fools of themselves in public; i.e.,
an intoxicated college student urinating on a public sidewalk or someone passed out on a toilet in
4. Another favorite subject was the “$30k millionaire”—this is a derogatory term
used to refer to young people (usually males in their early 20s) who live far beyond their
financial means—driving expensive cars they cannot afford and living a lavish lifestyle often
funded by maxed-out credit cards. I focused my criticism on $30k millionaires because I
genuinely believe this overly materialistic lifestyle is socially destructive and morally
unacceptable. For those same reasons, I also frequently posted stories about “beer-bong-
chugging athletes, puking co-eds, drunken drivers and provocatively posing clubbers”; basically
anyone who acted stupidly or attempted to attract unwarranted attention to themselves was a
potential subject of discussion and criticism on www.DirtyScottsdale.com.
5. I started the www.DirtyScottsdale.com website in my spare time, with almost no
money, working mainly from home. At first, the site had only a tiny amount of traffic – maybe a
few hundred visitors per day. Within a very short period of time, the site began receiving local
media coverage from television stations such as Fox 10 and ABC 15 in Phoenix, both of which
ran lengthy news stories about the site in mid-2007.
6. In 2008, the site began receiving national media coverage, and as a result our
traffic exploded literally overnight. In December 2008, the Arizona Republic ran an article about
me and the site, naming me “One of 2008’s Most Intriguing Arizonans” and stating: “what
makes him interesting is that his site has prompted a dialogue about public and private space and
about what is and is not celebrity.”
7. As of September 2011, the website now receives an average of 18 million hits per
month or around 600,000 hits per day. As the site increased in popularity, it expanded to cover
more than 50 different U.S. cities and more than 20 cities in Canada. In the process, the site
adopted a more geographically neutral name—www.TheDirty.com.
8. As the site has grown, its focus and format has changed. In the beginning, I
created nearly all of the content posted on the site and, in fact, it was impossible for users to
upload anything directly to the site. This is no longer true. For the last several years, users of
the site (who colloquially refer to themselves as “The Dirty Army”) have been permitted to
“submit dirt” which can include news, photos, video or text. Users can also post their own
comments about material submitted by others. The majority of stories, photos and material
appearing on www.TheDirty.com are now comprised of submissions uploaded directly to the site
by third party users.
9. Users of www.TheDirty.com may submit posts to the site on any topic
10. As of September 2011, www.TheDirty.com contains approximately 90,000
unique posts on a wide variety of topics and millions of comments from users. The site receives
thousands of new submissions each week.
11. Many posts submitted to www.TheDirty.com relate to stories, news, gossip and
other forms of commentary about local individuals who are not public figures, but not all posts
are of this type. On the contrary, in addition to posts about “non-celebrities”, material appearing
on www.TheDirty.com covers an extremely broad variety of more ordinary topics including, but
not limited to:
a. President Barack Obama; see Exhibit A;
b. Donald Trump’s presidential campaign; see Exhibit B;
c. Politicians playing solitaire; see Exhibit C;
d. Sports, including the 2010 World Series; see Exhibit D;
e. Stories involving the arrest of celebrities; see Exhibit E;
f. L.A. Lakers basketball player Kobe Bryant; see Exhibit F;
g. Falling values of U.S. dollars vs. Canadian dollars; see Exhibit G;
h. Myself; see Exhibit H.
12. Attached hereto as Exhibit I are screenshots showing the form located at
http://thedirty.com/submit_a_tip/ that a visitor to the site can use to submit news, tips, or similar
“dirt” to the site. As reflected in these screenshots, the form is 100% content neutral; it does not
ask users to post anything about any particular individual, nor does the site suggest what the
author should say. The only instructions given by the site are as follows: “Tell us what’s
happening. Remember to tell us Who, What, When, Where, Why.” The form reflected in Exhibit
I was in place on the site during all of 2009–10.
13. As part of the submission process, users are asked to enter a “title” for their
submission, along with basic information about the material they are submitting. Specifically,
users are asked to identify the “City”, “College”, and “Category” for their submission.
14. In terms of categories, the user is required to pick from a list of more than 40
different options provided by the site which include: “I HAVE NO IDEA”, “Business”, “News”,
“Spring Break” and so forth.
15. Regardless of the category selected by a user for his/her submission, in most cases
I will briefly review each new submission to ensure that inappropriate or unduly offensive
material is removed such as nudity/obscenity, threats of violence, profanity, racial slurs, etc.
Also, as a general rule I will typically make a short, one-line comment about the post with some
sort of humorous or satirical observation, but I never materially change, create, or modify any
part of the user-generated submission, nor do I “fact check” user submissions for accuracy.
16. I am aware that this case arises from several posts on www.TheDirty.com about
the Plaintiff. Copies of each post are attached hereto as follows:
17. As a general rule, except for clearly denoted editorial comments which are always
in bold-face text and always signed “- nik”, I do not create any of the posts appearing on
www.TheDirty.com. Any time I do make comments about posts, our computer system
automatically formats my additions with bold-face text so that they are easily and immediately
distinguishable from other third-party text.
18. As to the posts about Plaintiff, the text in the body of each post and the title of
each post was created entirely by a third party user of www.TheDirty.com and each post was
published exactly as it was submitted to the site without any changes other than a standard
introduction which read “THE DIRTY ARMY:” to accurately reflect that each post was
submitted to the site by a third party user. This introduction is automatically added to every post
we receive from a third party user of the site.
The first post about Plaintiff appeared on the site on October 27, 2009 bearing the title “Graham
Does It Again”. This post was subsequently updated on January 9, 2010 when I added an
additional editorial comment to the bottom of the page as reflected by several asterisks. Other
than this update, the October 27, 2009 and January 9, 2010 posts were identical. Because any
pages on the site are automatically overwritten once an update or revised version is published, the
original version of the October 27, 2009 post (i.e., the one without the January 9, 2010 update) is
Exhibit Post Date Title
October 27, 2009 Graham Does It Again
K December 7, 2009 The Dirty Bengals Cheerleader
L December 9, 2009 Bengals Cheerleader Boyfriend
N December 28, 2009 Teachers Can’t Be Cheerleaders
O December 29, 2009 More Bengals Cheer Squad
P December 29, 2009 The Bengals Cheerleaders Are BEAT
January 9, 2010 **UPDATE** Graham Does It Again
19. To be clear—I did not create any of the posts about Plaintiff, nor did I create the
titles to any of these posts. I did not edit, change, alter, or modify these posts or their titles in
any manner. I did not ask or encourage anyone else to submit these posts on my behalf, nor did I
ask the site’s viewers to submit anything regarding Plaintiff. All of this material originated
solely with a third party or parties.
20. Before the first post concerning Plaintiff was submitted, I did not know Plaintiff,
had never met or spoken to Plaintiff, and although I was generally familiar with the Cincinnati
Bengals football team and its players, I had no idea who Plaintiff was.
21. After the initial October 27th
post was submitted, I made a brief sarcastic
comment about it which stated: “Everyone in Cincinnati knows this kicker is a Sex Addict. It is
so secret… he can’t even keep relationships because his Red Rocket has freckles that need to be
touched constantly.- nik”. This comment was not a reference to Plaintiff, it was a reference to
the Bengals player depicted in the photo—Shane Graham.
22. After the December 7th
post was submitted, I made a brief satirical comment
about it which read: “Why are all high school teachers freaks in the sack?- nik”.
23. This comment was not a factual assertion about Plaintiff’s character or chastity,
but rather was intended as a rhetorical and hyperbolic expression of my opinion about a common
stereotype—i.e., that high school teachers often publicly portray themselves as conservative
while privately they may have a sexually wild adventurous side.
24. After the December 9th
post was submitted, I added a short editorial comment
about the post which read: “Cool tribal tat man. For a second yesterday I was jealous of those
high school kids for having a cheerleader teacher, but not anymore.- nik”. This statement was a
reference to the male individual appearing in the photograph who had some sort of “tribal” tattoo
on his arm, and it was also an expression of my opinion about Plaintiff’s physical appearance.
25. I am informed that Plaintiff filed this lawsuit on December 23, 2009. I am also
informed that at the time this action was commenced, the defendant was a California-based
entity called “Dirty World Entertainment Recordings, LLC” which operated a website called
26. I do not have, nor have I ever had, any relationship of any kind with either
www.thedirt.com or with “Dirty World Entertainment Recordings, LLC”. Likewise,
www.thedirty.com is owned and operated by Dirty World, LLC, not “Dirty World Entertainment
27. On December 28, 2009, several popular national media sources, including The
Huffington Post, began reporting about this lawsuit. A copy of one such article from The
Huffington Post is attached hereto as Exhibit M. This story erroneously stated that Plaintiff had
filed a lawsuit against www.thedirty.com, when, in fact, she had only sued the operator of
28. On December 28, 2009, a third party submitted a post entitled “Teachers Can’t Be
Cheerleaders”, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit N. As stated above, I did not create
or modify this post in any way. Because this post was the first time I became aware of this
lawsuit, I asked one of my attorneys to investigate and to determine of there was any record of a
lawsuit against Dirty World in Kentucky as the media had reported. The response I received
from my attorney was: “I just checked the court docket for all federal courts in Kentucky, and
there’s no record of this case being filed,” and I included an editorial comment to the post which
explained this. Apparently my lawyer was unable to locate this case because at that time, Dirty
World, LLC had not been sued.
29. On January 9, 2010, I added an updated comment to the first post about Plaintiff
which read: “**So crazy that ‘my guy’ told me to take the Jets heavy and the over because
Shayne Graham will be shaving points today. He said he has been paid off to throw the game.
Printing money today…thanks Red Rocket.” These statements were a reference to the 2009
NFL playoffs and had nothing to do with Plaintiff.
30. Although I believed that I was not legally required to do so, after I became aware
that Plaintiff had commenced litigation concerning the October 27, December 7th
and January 9th
Posts, I removed them from www.TheDirty.com.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United
States of America that the foregoing is true and correct.
EXECUTED ON: September 21, 2011.