A Free OSINT Lesson: “Google Scholar,” the OSINTers Dream That No One Uses
We at Permanent Record Research love a good project, especially when the law is involved. From advocacy work to the public and indigent legal defence, we hack and slash, to working with human rights organizations and simply investigating the shit out of someone for a client; our hands are thoroughly chapped from mouse clicks, and our eyes burn from reading trial transcripts, case law, and court dockets.
A great place to start looking for all that case law is Google Scholar. Who would have thought? Not me. But here’s the best part—that shit is an OSINTers wet dream, brimming with selectors ready to be run down.
If you are interested in having PRR help you with an investigation or a project, please drop the team a message here.
Right from the start, I need to be clear that the following IS NOT a project we are working on, nor do we have a client looking at the case below. This is purely an example. However, we have similar cases, and the process I’m showing you here is one I’ve used fairly often.
Last week, Canadian fashion mogul and multi-millionaire Peter Nygard was convicted of multiple sexual assaults. While he is still dealing with a whole bunch of other allegations and legal issues, the dude is going to prison for 11 years. You can read more about it here, and I don’t need to go into details. To sum it up, a rich asshole is going to prison, justice is being served, and a renewed faith has been restored in me that the universe may actually self-correct and karma truly does exist.
For the purpose of this post, Nygard is a MacGuffin. We could replace his name with the name of anyone, any company, any corporation, any group, whatever. If they have ever been involved in a legal case, their name may pop up. Moreover, Nygard has some celebrity status. Your target may not. So, from an OSINT perspective, the targets of your investigation may have less proverbial blood in the water. It doesn’t matter.
When you get to Google Scholar, click “Case Law” and enter your keywords. So, a basic Google Scholar search for “Peter Nygard” brings up tons of legal disputes. Four pages worth.
He’s high profile. Your target may not be. However, even a single hit has the potential of opening way more selectors and providing you context for your case.
So, let’s just take one example.
Ebker v. Tan Jay International.
Now, it's a real thriller about a deal in 1984 that Nancy Ebker, a well-respected fashion designer, says Peter Nygard screwed her on. Nygard promised they would be 50/50 partners in a new fashion business. When he didn't keep his promise, she sued him.
This is useful information, sure. We have some context. Nygard has a paper-trailed history of allegedly screwing people over. This may be useful to you. It may not matter. It all depends on your tasking and what you need.
Perhaps you need to get more information on Nygard himself? Or hey, you need to sort out Nygard's business dealings for a client, and you're performing due diligence? Maybe you want to build a web of contacts who knew Nygard around a specific date or time for a possible future legal case? Could be working on a target report and need every selector you can find? Perhaps you're just a vindictive fucker who just wants to rip apart a sexual predator? Whatever milks your Guernsey.
Now, this court record has some useful stuff. First, we searched for Peter Nygard and got a hit regarding a woman named Nancy Ebker, who knew Nygard very well. Maybe she knows others who roamed in the same circles as Nygard? Does Nancy have information that isn't public? Perhaps Nancy knows something useful or has documents or could be a valuable source? Is there anything about Nancy herself that could lead to more selectors on Nygard such as images or interviews or social media posts? Depending on your rules of engagement, you could even contact Nancy. Ring her up.
Well, fuck.
But all is not lost! You found her son! Mothers and sons speak on occasion. Perhaps he has information? Documents? Records? It’s still a useful selector and could hold clues that are useful.
Back to the case!
In it, we learn Nygard owned a clothing company back in the 1980s called Tan-Jay that was based in my hometown, Winnipeg, Canada (my mom wore Tan-Jay back in the 80s and 90s because they had a store in a mall right by our house).
Information about Tan-Jay alone could lead to a whole host of selectors. People who used to work with Nygard. Businesses Addresses. Old email accounts. Now, remember, Nygard is famous. Your target may not be. However, this could easily be a record of a now-defunct company that your target once owned and ran. Selectors galore!
Reading through the case, we get another name. Leamond Dean.
Who is this guy? He was there at the meetings? What does he know? Who does he know?
Now, Leamond passed away in 2020. But remember, Nygard is simply a MacGuffin. Your investigation into your target will have different results. The point is that we now have a company and two names. Moreover, this case file has the names of about five other companies that were tied into this deal in one way or another. That’s a lot of information from one document.
Depending on your circumstances, you could do further searches in Google Scholar. So, in my case, I would also search for other cases related to “Tan-Jay,” Nancy, and Leamond. They knew Nygard. Traveled with him. Ate with him. Had significant business dealings with him. This web could be larger than you know.
Ok! Let’s try another one!
Oh, the words “billionaire,” “smear campaign,” and “Peter Nygard” in the same sentence. Page 3 looks juicy.
Some brief background here is that McKinney modelled for Nygard and worked as his assistant at times back in 2011 to about 2016. Bacon, a billionaire who lived next door to Nygard’s property in the Bahamas, had a feud with him and essentially used McKinney by plying her with alcohol and drugs to spill dirty secrets about Nygard. It escalated until her life was threatened. It’s a real mess.
A quick aside, and I’m being serious, the feud started in 2004 over Nygard extending the length of the shared driveway between their two properties.
Dumb rich people shit right here.
But, from an OSINT perspective, and just gently reminding you that your target may not be “Nygard famous,” you suddenly have the names of your target’s neighbour and a former employee. Moreover, you now know they have a property in the Bahamas.
These are valuable pieces of information you did not have before, and could lead to more valuable insights. Your target not playing nice with his neighbours aside, this driveway feud may have more to it. Perhaps legal documents were filed in the Bahamas? Perhaps the neighbour is willing to talk to you? The same goes for Mckinney. Perhaps she may have further insights into your target? Perhaps there are social media posts? Who knows?!
Moreover, Bacon himself sued Nygard, and there is a whole record of that with mentions of other people involved. So by finding this case, we found another related case with more selectors that may be valuable.
The best part is that you gained all this information from one or two court records! It's like 20 minutes of reading, and I already know a lot about my target.
Now, one other thing—the “How Cited” link.
Each case also has a link to show you who else cited this case in other legal proceedings.
This Ebker v Tan-Jay case has a bunch. However, the top hit features a follow-up record—a court opinion from 1990—six years after the one we found and tied to the Nygard case.
And Lo! More names that were not originally mentioned in the previous record!
Another person with close ties to the parties involved.
Oh!
And another name!
On top of that, this court opinion report goes into much more detail as to the goings-on of the case itself. Again, from a due diligence perspective, you get a sense of the type of person Nygard is. You gain valuable context, which matters more than people think in an investigation.
The caveat here is the obvious fact that your target is mentioned in a court case. But! Remember, in your research, you may have names of other individuals or even companies that are close to your target. Running those selectors may bring up useful information that could tie back to your target, such as information about residences, family, friends, businesses, and so on.
For me, personally, in other cases, what ends up happening is that I build up a giant web of all this information purely from court records, and then I start my investigation into each of those selectors and basically triage them. Some end up being highly valuable. Some end up being dead ends.
The main benefit though is that you end up saving valuable time because it’s all there for you in a legal brief, often with explanations of who everyone is. Someone else did the work for you; you just have to string it together.
Time for a well-deserved Coke Zero. Good hunting.
I love Google Scholar. It’s a good resource for certain types of investigations. Also want to shout out Interlibrary Loans for hard to access resources.