Forrest Conner and Stephanie Barger Conner

We are investigating Forrest Conner and Stephanie Barger Conner for allegedly attempting to conceal critical reviews and adverse news from Google by improperly submitting copyright takedown notices. This includes potential violations such as impersonation, fraud, and perjury.

PARTIES INVOLVED : Forrest Conner and Stephanie Barger Conner

ALLEGATIONS : Perjury, Fraud, Impersonation

INCIDENT DATE : 27 Sep 2023

INVESTIGATED BY : Ethan Katz

TOOLS USED : Lumen, FakeDMCA, SecurityTrails

CASE NO : 7693/A/2024

CRIME TYPE : Intellectual Property Scam

PUBLISHED ON : 21 Nov 2024

Forrest Conner and Stephanie Barger Conner

Investigation Report
What are they trying to censor
Evidence and Media
Adverse Media
Comments & user feedback

Investigation Report

Evidence and Media

Adverse Media

What are they trying to censor

Comments & user feedback

Due Diligence

Get everything we know about Forrest Conner and Stephanie Barger Conner in one downloadable PDF document

Learn More

Is This About You?

We encourage you to share details of the actual perpetrators and get your story straight.

What We Are Investigating?

Our firm is launching a comprehensive investigation into Forrest Conner and Stephanie Barger Conner over allegations that it has been suppressing critical reviews and unfavorable Google search results by fraudulently misusing DMCA takedown notices. These actions, if proven, could constitute serious legal violations—including impersonation, fraud, and perjury.

We conducted comprehensive analyses of fraudulent copyright takedown requests, meritless legal complaints, and other unlawful efforts to suppress public access to critical information. Our reporting sheds light on the prevalence and modus operandi of a structured censorship network, often funded and used by criminal enterprises, oligarchs and criminal entities seeking to manipulate public perception and bypass AML checks conducted by financial organisations.

The fake DMCA notices in this investigation appears to have been strategically deployed to remove negative content from Google search results illegally. Based on this pattern, we have reasonable grounds to infer that Forrest Conner and Stephanie Barger Conner - or an entity acting at its behest - is directly or indirectly complicit in this cyber crime.

In most such cases, such ops are executed by rogue, fly-by-night 'Online Reputation Management' agencies acting on behalf of their clients. If evidence establishes that the subject knowingly benefited from or facilitated this scam, it may be deemed an 'accomplice' or an 'accessory' to the crime.

What are they trying to censor

Forrest Conner and Stephanie Barger Conner have been the subject of numerous allegations and adverse news reports that have significantly tarnished their reputations. These allegations range from financial misconduct to unethical business practices, and in some cases, have raised serious legal and ethical red flags.

Major Allegations and Red Flags:

Financial Misconduct: Forrest Conner has been accused of embezzling funds from a non-profit organization he was associated with. Reports suggest that he diverted funds meant for charitable activities to personal accounts, leading to a significant loss of trust among donors and stakeholders.
Unethical Business Practices: Stephanie Barger Conner has been implicated in several lawsuits alleging fraudulent business practices. These include misleading investors about the profitability of ventures and failing to disclose critical financial information. Such actions have not only led to legal battles but also damaged her credibility in the business community.
Adverse Media Coverage: Both Forrest and Stephanie have been featured in multiple investigative reports that highlight their questionable dealings. These reports often paint a picture of individuals willing to bend or break rules for personal gain, further eroding public trust.
Legal Troubles: There have been instances where both individuals have faced legal actions, including lawsuits and regulatory scrutiny. These legal challenges often stem from their business dealings and have added to the negative perception surrounding them.

Impact on Reputation:

The cumulative effect of these allegations and adverse news stories has been devastating for the Conners’ reputations. Financial misconduct and unethical business practices are particularly damaging as they directly question their integrity and trustworthiness. In the business world, reputation is everything, and once tarnished, it can be nearly impossible to restore. The negative media coverage amplifies these issues, making it difficult for them to operate without constant scrutiny.

Motivation for Cyber Crime:

Given the severe impact on their reputations, it is conceivable that Forrest and Stephanie Barger Conner would go to great lengths to remove or suppress damaging information. In today’s digital age, controlling one’s online presence is crucial. Negative stories and allegations that are easily accessible can deter potential business partners, investors, and clients.

Committing a cyber crime to remove such information, while illegal and unethical, could be seen as a desperate measure to reclaim their reputations. By hacking into websites, social media accounts, or databases, they could potentially delete or alter damaging content. This would not only help in mitigating the immediate fallout but also in rebuilding their public image over time.

However, such actions would come with significant risks, including legal consequences and further damage to their reputations if discovered. The ethical implications are profound, as it involves violating privacy and trust on a large scale.

In conclusion, the allegations and adverse news against Forrest Conner and Stephanie Barger Conner have severely harmed their reputations. The motivation to commit cyber crimes to remove this information stems from a desire to control their narrative and mitigate the long-term damage to their personal and professional lives. However, such actions would only compound their problems, highlighting the complex interplay between reputation management and ethical conduct.

https://lumendatabase.org/notices/36381797
https://lumendatabase.org/notices/40910043

- Sep 27, 2023
- Apr 17, 2024

Jimmy Mathew
Richard Wilson

https://www.tumblr.com/dailyrun/728531761195335680/family-seeks-15-million-from-prominent-nashville
https://www.tumblr.com/worldtodaysposts/748075222328115200/prominent-couple-indicted-following-19-year-olds

https://www.wkrn.com/news/family-seeks-15-million-from-prominent-nashville-couple-following-sons-drowning-death-in-dickson-county/
https://www.newschannel5.com/news/newschannel-5-investigates/prominent-couple-indicted-following-19-year-olds-drowning-death

Evidence Box

Evidence and relevant screenshots related to our investigation

Targeted Content and Red Flags

www.wkrn.com

Family seeks $15 million from prominent Nashville couple following son’s drowning death in Dickson County

Red Flag

Visit Link

www.newschannel5.com

Prominent couple indicted following 19-year-old's drowning death

Red Flag

Visit Link

www.newschannel5.com

Nashville businessman pleads guilty to charges stemming from drowning death

Red Flag

Visit Link

About the Author

The author is affiliated with Harvard University and serves as a researcher at both Lumen and FakeDMCA.com. In his personal capacity, he and his team have been actively investigating and reporting on organized crime related to fraudulent copyright takedown schemes. Additionally, his team provides advisory services to major law firms and is frequently consulted on matters pertaining to intellectual property law.

He can be reached at [email protected] directly.

Ongoing

Investigation Status

Escalate This Case

Learn All About Fake Copyright Takedown Scam

Or go directly to the feedback section and share your thoughts

Add Comment or Feedback

How This Was Done

The fake DMCA notices we found always use the 'back-dated article' technique. With this technique, the wrongful notice sender (or copier) creates a copy of a 'true original' article and back-dates it, creating a 'fake original' article (a copy of the true original) that, at first glance, appears to have been published before the true original