|
|
|
|
| |
| |
The following can be found in the archives as being pointed out to
plaintiff several times.
"PORTLAND, ORE.The voluntary appearance of an internet message board
poster has been upheld by a federal district court, which confirmed an
earlier ruling by a federal district magistrate, who had granted leave
to the John Doe defendant to defend and make counterclaims in an
internet defamation lawsuit in which the plaintiff alleged $18 million
in damages against the poster.
Mr. Nick Lindesay, a director of The Foundation, believes that the case
is unusual, in that when the poster revealed his true identity to the
court and to the plaintiff, and voluntarily filed an answer, the
plaintiff immediately filed motions to strike the defendants pleadings
and to block him from further participation in the lawsuit. The
plaintiff also claimed that John Doe had no right to defend, because a
summons had not been served on him, and because the anonymous poster had
not been identified by his true name in the lawsuit or in the case
caption.
But the Doe defendant argued that the plaintiff had, in fact, identified
the individual as a John Doe defendant and specifically identified the
individuals posts as the allegedly defamatory comments which had been
published on the www.johndoes.org web site. The court agreed, pointing
out that the voluntary appearance of the defendant was proper under the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and established case law which permit a
voluntary appearance even though a defendant is not identified in a
complaint by his proper name. The court also allowed the defendant to
file counterclaims, including a claim of abuse of process, against the
plaintiff and others in the case.
Obviously, we are pleased with the courts ruling, stated Mr.
Lindesay, as it recognizes the right of a fictitiously named defendant
to appear and defend in federal court. We have already seen a number of
these voluntary appearances permitted in the various state courts.
It also sends a clear message to would-be plaintiffs in these cases,
most of whom are small-cap publicly traded corporations and their
respective management, that they had better be prepared to face the
consequences of bringing frivolous litigation against shareholders and
otherwise harmless anonymous internet publishers who are exercising
their First Amendment right to free speech.
Ray Gordon wrote:
Let's see what the Third Circuit says.
I have an unshakable faith in the higher courts of this land. The
federal ones, anyway. My pleadings are designed for them, not for
the lower courts.
I'm sure many have faith in the ruling quoted above. This ruling
directly applies to this the current case as well.
HS
Ray Gordon wrote:
Face it, Parker, you don't know what you're doing and its time
for you to end your case and make proper restitution of costs with
LTSC, and apologize to all the other dismissed defendants.
|
| |
| |
"PORTLAND, ORE.-The voluntary appearance of an internet message board
poster has been upheld by a federal district court, which confirmed an
earlier ruling by a federal district magistrate, who had granted leave
to the "John Doe" defendant to defend and make counterclaims in an
internet defamation lawsuit in which the plaintiff alleged $18 million
in damages against the poster.
Right. The Doe became a defendant by entering an appearance in the
underlying case.
That's not the same as one who has never been served.
|
| |
| |
Concerning the previous message detailing the court ruling "PORTLAND,
ORE.The voluntary appearance of an internet message board poster has
been upheld by a federal district court...", with the most recent legal
filing, there are at least 50,102 John Does and named persons who could
file against plaintiff according to the ruling quoted.
The most interesting possibility is that of hundreds, if not thousands,
of individual actions being filed in numerous jurisdictions, both
nationally and internationally. Being a commercial internet interest,
the problem of muti-national litigation, based on predatory commercial
speech that violates legislation of other nations, could be a
significant problem. Germany, for instance, takes a dim view of
predatory commercial internet activities. Microsoft is currently being
forced to deal with the consequences of its own such predatory activity
across Europe.
HS
Internet Cockroach wrote:
Face it, Parker, you don't know what you're doing and its time for you
to
You idiotic @$#*in slug, you wont know what's hit ya.
|
| |
| |
The John Doe in the quoted ruling was not served, just as is the case in
both the LTSC case and the Google case.
"The plaintiff also claimed that John Doe had no right to defend,
because a
summons had not been served on him, and because the anonymous poster had
not been identified by his true name in the lawsuit or in the case
caption.
But the Doe defendant argued that the plaintiff had, in fact, identified
the individual as a John Doe defendant and specifically identified the
individuals posts as the allegedly defamatory comments which had been
published on the www.johndoes.org web site. The court agreed, pointing
out that the voluntary appearance of the defendant was proper under the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and established case law which permit a
voluntary appearance even though a defendant is not identified in a
complaint by his proper name."
HS
Ray Gordon wrote:
Right. The Doe became a defendant by entering an appearance in the
underlying case.
That's not the same as one who has never been served.
|
| |
| |
The John Doe in the quoted ruling was not served, just as is the case in
both the LTSC case and the Google case.
"The plaintiff also claimed that John Doe had no right to defend,
because a
summons had not been served on him, and because the anonymous poster had
not been identified by his true name in the lawsuit or in the case
caption.
I would welcome any Doe who wants to show up and defend.
The Doe entered an appearance; no one in this case did so within the time
limit for service. Does were dismissed, not people.
The general precedent is that a Doe is a separate entity from the underlying
party. It comes up whenever someone has to substitute the names.
|
| |
| |
"Ray Gordon" <ray@cybersheet.com> wrote in message news:<B4K_c.951$Gi5.407@trndny05>...
The John Doe in the quoted ruling was not served, just as is the case in
both the LTSC case and the Google case.
"The plaintiff also claimed that John Doe had no right to defend,
because a
summons had not been served on him, and because the anonymous poster had
not been identified by his true name in the lawsuit or in the case
caption.
I would welcome any Doe who wants to show up and defend.
The Doe entered an appearance; no one in this case did so within the time
limit for service. Does were dismissed, not people.
The general precedent is that a Doe is a separate entity from the underlying
party. It comes up whenever someone has to substitute the names.
Frankly, it does not matter inasmuchas you FAILED TO SERVE the Does by
either their real or internet alias names. That's why your case was
dismissed - YOU FAILED TO PROCEED PROPERLY BY FAILING TO SERVE THE
DEFENDANTS!
What part of that are you having trouble with? If you do not effect
service during the period allowed, your case will be dropped - it's
black letter law.
Get a clue and get a lawyer for your next go-round on this or you will
have the same, similar or even more pervasive difficulties, as has
been demonstrated in the last two cases you FAILED to bring to trial!
Sheesh!
Lee Darrow, C.H.
http://www.leedarrow.com
|
| |
| |
The general precedent is that a Doe is a separate entity from the
underlying
party. It comes up whenever someone has to substitute the names.
Frankly, it does not matter inasmuchas you FAILED TO SERVE the Does by
either their real or internet alias names. That's why your case was
dismissed - YOU FAILED TO PROCEED PROPERLY BY FAILING TO SERVE THE
DEFENDANTS!
What part of that are you having trouble with? If you do not effect
service during the period allowed, your case will be dropped - it's
black letter law.
Get a clue and get a lawyer for your next go-round on this or you will
have the same, similar or even more pervasive difficulties, as has
been demonstrated in the last two cases you FAILED to bring to trial!
A few refutations here:
First off, 90 percent of the conduct I'm suing over has ceased: websites
have been torn down, and ISPs have finally gotten the message that they
can't turn the other way when their users go astray. Now that distributor
liability for defamation is here (Grace v. Ebay), search engines also have
been put on notice not to leave crap in their archives. While future
lawsuits may include the internet users if need be, the ISPs are now the
ones facing the greatest liability risks. This, of course, is causing them
to enforce their TOS policies now.
Second, the "black letter law" of service time limits says that I should
have been granted the extension of time when I filed for it in APRIL (no
ruling until JULY on that). Since several of the names were tied up in
subpoenas that were being contested, there was no way to get them. The
court was well aware of this. This is clear "good cause" for not serving.
If the court abuses its discretion, I have to take it to the Third Circuit
for reversal.
Third, I have introduced a method of "substitute service" which the court
(or the third circuit) may accept, which is to serve the ISP with the
Complaint and have them forward it to the user.
Finally, the defendants were dismissed WITHOUT PREJUDICE. A case can easily
be refiled against them and even include more recent conduct. A new case
would simply be consolidated with this one, which is why it shouldn't have
been dismissed.
Let's also not forget that the two named defendants were served relatively
swiftly (there was a delay due to the need to gather some evidence).
The internet landscape has changed a great deal since this case was filed.
There are some loose ends to tie up in this case, but overall, conditions
have improved dramatically thanks to common sense washing over the ISPs,
with a little help from Grace v. Ebay. The internet user who defames me now
will find his access being yanked swiftly, in most cases.
|
| |
| |
"Ray Gordon" (aka Gordon Roy Parker, aka Shit For
The internet user who defames me now will find
his access being yanked swiftly, in most cases.
Really?
Trying to censor that bastion of free speech known as USENET again you sick
twisted no-life fake seducer NETLOON!
PS. I forgot to add PEDOPHILE to that, sorry.
|
| |
| |
A few refutations here:
First off, 90 percent of the conduct I'm suing over has ceased: websites
have been torn down, and ISPs have finally gotten the message that they
can't turn the other way when their users go astray. Now that distributor
liability for defamation is here (Grace v. Ebay), search engines also have
been put on notice not to leave crap in their archives. While future
lawsuits may include the internet users if need be, the ISPs are now the
ones facing the greatest liability risks. This, of course, is causing
them
to enforce their TOS policies now.
Ray, you're claiming victory where there is none. People still hold the same
opinions about you and express them with as much freedom and as little fear
as before!
Which ISPs have got the message? Name one!
Second, the "black letter law" of service time limits says that I should
have been granted the extension of time when I filed for it in APRIL (no
ruling until JULY on that). Since several of the names were tied up in
subpoenas that were being contested, there was no way to get them. The
court was well aware of this. This is clear "good cause" for not serving.
If the court abuses its discretion, I have to take it to the Third Circuit
for reversal.
Get a lawyer, you freak! If I want someone to fix my car, I hire a mechanic.
If I want someone to fix my tap, I hire a plumber.
Nothing has stopped you from applying for a full-time job and securing one
over the last few years - you have no-one to blame for your failure and your
enormous penis-envy other than yourself. If you got some money in, you could
hire a lawyer instead of wasting your days on USENET, living out your
moronic fantasy that we and ISPs tremble in fear at your abject stupidity.
Third, I have introduced a method of "substitute service" which the court
(or the third circuit) may accept, which is to serve the ISP with the
Complaint and have them forward it to the user.
Finally, the defendants were dismissed WITHOUT PREJUDICE. A case can
easily
be refiled against them and even include more recent conduct. A new case
would simply be consolidated with this one, which is why it shouldn't have
been dismissed.
You lost. Your day in court never happened. You don't know what you're
doing.
Let's also not forget that the two named defendants were served relatively
swiftly (there was a delay due to the need to gather some evidence).
There was another defendant in PA, yet YOU failed to serve him.
The internet landscape has changed a great deal since this case was filed.
There are some loose ends to tie up in this case, but overall, conditions
have improved dramatically thanks to common sense washing over the ISPs,
with a little help from Grace v. Ebay. The internet user who defames me
now
will find his access being yanked swiftly, in most cases.
Dream on, you muppet. Name ONE ISP whose behaviour has changed since this
judgement. You can't - it hasn't happened - the internet landscape has not
changed.
The minute it does change, you will lose internet access very quickly
because of your own behaviour.
What a loser with enormous penis envy! What's up, the other boys pick on you
in the showers at school?
--------------------------------
Ray wants Google to stop archiving his USENET posts.
But he said to me about something I wrote,
"The truth is that people get sued pretty harshly for what you've been
pulling on me. You also have called yourself a shill, and like it or not, I
can quote that with impunity."
Can Google also quote his USENET posts with impunity?
|
| |
| |
in article aMV_c.1105$%N6.758@trndny01, Ray Gordon at ray@cybersheet.com
wrote on 9/6/04 5:06 AM:
First off, 90 percent of the conduct I'm suing over has ceased: websites
have been torn down, and ISPs have finally gotten the message that they
can't turn the other way when their users go astray. Now that distributor
liability for defamation is here (Grace v. Ebay), search engines also have
been put on notice not to leave crap in their archives. While future
lawsuits may include the internet users if need be, the ISPs are now the
ones facing the greatest liability risks. This, of course, is causing them
to enforce their TOS policies now.
Not true if Gordon is still posting.
|
| |
| |
archives. While future
lawsuits may include the internet users if need be, the ISPs are now the
ones facing the greatest liability risks. This, of course, is causing
them
Ray, you're claiming victory where there is none.
If that's true, why did so many ISPs make amicus briefs against the finding
in Price v. Ebay?
People still hold the same
opinions about you and express them with as much freedom and as little
fear
as before!
You're talking about a business turf war, not people's REAL opinions.
Those who support me have no reason to subject themselves to harassment for
doing so. They show their support by GENERATING REVENUE for me.
Did you know Britney Spears and Howard Stern are hated by many? If you meet
either of them, make sure to make that the sole focus of your conversations
with them. You'll be a big hit.
Which ISPs have got the message? Name one!
The proof is on USENET. Sites taken down (despite claims that this would
*never* happen, yet it did) most users stopping their defaming, etc.
The lawsuit against Google will be cutting defamation off at the archive
level as well.
|
| |
| |
archives. While future
lawsuits may include the internet users if need be, the ISPs are now the
ones facing the greatest liability risks. This, of course, is causing
them
to enforce their TOS policies now.
Not true if Gordon is still posting.
Alex can't seem to grasp that the ISPs don't have a problem with *my* posts.
As I said before, it's what's no longer on this group that shows what I've
accomplished in getting people held accountable for what they do: no more
anonymous remailer defamation, no more illegal websites, no more other b/s,
and no one repeating some of the more vulgar lies that were commonplace a
year ago.
The only sticking point now is to establish a better legal presence in the
UK so that the people there who think they're immune to justice learn
otherwise.
|
| |
| |
Alex can't seem to grasp that the ISPs don't have a problem with *my*
posts.
I am sure that ISPs would kick you off the internet if the rest of us were
as persistant in reporting your posts as you seem to be ours.
Do you think AOL or Verizon would approve of you threatening to taunt the
parents of children who have committed suicide because they said something
which was correct in every way but you did not like?
As an irregular poster but regular reader of ASF, it strikes me that the
freedoms you are seeking to curtail for others will also bring your own
accounts into question.
As I said before, it's what's no longer on this group that shows what I've
accomplished in getting people held accountable for what they do: no more
anonymous remailer defamation, no more illegal websites, no more other
b/s,
and no one repeating some of the more vulgar lies that were commonplace a
year ago.
Again, this is in the eye of the beholder, Ray. Everything seems completely
normal to me here.
The only sticking point now is to establish a better legal presence in the
UK so that the people there who think they're immune to justice learn
otherwise.
Ray, you're a joke. Do you remember posting this the other day...
If someone were truly interested in bringing a real case against someone,
the last thing they'd be do is publicizing this on USENET.
Ray, you fool, if you can't even serve defendants in your own state, I doubt
that people in the rest of the US have anything to fear, let alone the
world.
I have never said anything about you which I know to be untrue - and you
know it. This is just another penis envy bluff by you because you are
determined to be the big man of ASF. In standard internet communities,
either on newsgroups or web discussion forums, ideas and the expression
thereof establish presence and respect, not lawsuits. You do not understand
this and cling to the following two fallacies - a) that this is a
heavily-trafficked newsgroup which contributes substantially to the sales of
seduction-related products, and b) that everyone who dislikes your ideas on
seduction or anything else is part of an international world-wide cartel to
put you down.
For both ideas, you can provide no proof whatsoever. Your website does
pitiful business turnover through link-traffic and would only value your
website at $30K at the very height of dot-com valuations. You can also
provide no proof that I or anyone else has a product to sell. You are
delusional, Ray - they are both in your head and are untrue.
I have told you before that your threats to stop me giving my honest opinion
on some of your rants do not frighten me at all, because I am sure of the
ground I stand on. Any attempt to initiate legal action against me will
result in a legal action against you, and I think you know that I am a
position to do this. However, I will never place the first lawsuit as it is
just not important enough to do so. There are a load of posts available
online where you have been downright offensive about me and others while
providing no explanation or reason to do so. You will lose when your own
history is brought into consideration.
Now, don't let the flies get to you. And read again http://tinyurl.com/42q7t
for an indication of how foolish you look sometimes by your own hand.
--------------------------------
Ray wants Google to stop archiving his USENET posts.
But he said to me about something I wrote,
"The truth is that people get sued pretty harshly for what you've been
pulling on me. You also have called yourself a shill, and like it or not, I
can quote that with impunity."
Can Google also quote his USENET posts with impunity?
|
| |
| |
Ray Gordon wrote:
archives. While future
lawsuits may include the internet users if need be, the ISPs are now
the
ones facing the greatest liability risks. This, of course, is causing
them
to enforce their TOS policies now.
Alex can't seem to grasp that the ISPs don't have a problem with *my*
posts.
Well, to be honest, Ray, I don't think I know any other poster being as
abrasive as you are. At the same time you behave like the perfect
hypocrite. In my opinion, before ISPs could ban anyone from posting they
should ban you a hundred times.
[snip]
Johannes
|
| |
| |
Ray Gordon wrote:
What part of that are you having trouble with? If you do not effect
service during the period allowed, your case will be dropped - it's
black letter law.
Get a clue and get a lawyer for your next go-round on this or you will
have the same, similar or even more pervasive difficulties, as has
been demonstrated in the last two cases you FAILED to bring to trial!
A few refutations here:
First off, 90 percent of the conduct I'm suing over has ceased: websites
have been torn down, and ISPs have finally gotten the message that they
can't turn the other way when their users go astray.
I have not seen any change; http://www.Ray-Gordon.COM is still up and
running last time I checked. Nor have I seen anyone do less posting
about your misconduct. Or maybe you're just committing less misconduct,
hard to say.
Now that distributor liability for defamation is here (Grace v. Ebay),
As usual, you read the case backward. Ebay isn't a search engine, it's
a website where people put up items. Since eBay can monitor and change
content they might not have the same exemption that a search engine
does. Beyond which, eBay won because of their TOS. The court in no way
ruled that search engines do not have immunity, which is what federal
law gives them. You're comparing apples and cumquats.
search engines also have been put on notice not to leave crap in
their archives. While future lawsuits may include the internet
users if need be, the ISPs are now the ones facing the greatest
liability risks.
So that's what I hear. Only from you, but that's what I hear. The law
says something entirely different and you apparently misread Grace v.
eBay in order to spin the case in an entirely different direction from
what it actually said. Wishing and hoping again, Gordo? Just because
you WISH things were a certain way, and HOPE that they were that way,
doesn't MAKE them that way. And you will find out.
I'll grant you this premise: you may very well be correct about what you
claim. (I don't really think so but I'll grant it for the sake of
argument.) And if you were represented by counsel skilled in filing
federal cases and knowledgeable in defamation and libel, and counsel
knowledgeable in copyright law, then you conceivably could have a case.
None of these factors obtain in your case. Thus you have no case and
will certainly do something wrong to botch it.
And I really wonder, when you lose again - which I am all but certain
you will - will you really file an appeal? And if you do file an
appeal, will you be talking all nice-nice about how you respect the
appellate courts when you lose again?
No, by then you'll be criticizing how biased, or paid-off, or crooked,
or incompetent they are. You're right and everyone else is wrong.
This, of course, is causing them to enforce their TOS policies now.
Bull#@($. If ISPs routinely enforced their TOS policies they would have
kicked your ass off the systems you infest a long time ago!
Second, the "black letter law" of service time limits says that I should
have been granted the extension of time when I filed for it in APRIL (no
ruling until JULY on that). Since several of the names were tied up in
subpoenas that were being contested, there was no way to get them. The
court was well aware of this. This is clear "good cause" for not serving.
If the court abuses its discretion, I have to take it to the Third Circuit
for reversal.
We'll see what happens. Whether you do appeal or not, I don't know,
But I have a suspicion you will not get relief. Presuming you even had
a case to begin with - a point I am not convinced of - you'll screw up
somewhere and the appeals court will toss your ass out the courthouse
door too.
Third, I have introduced a method of "substitute service" which the court
(or the third circuit) may accept, which is to serve the ISP with the
Complaint and have them forward it to the user.
In the absence of state law, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
require personal service. Now, Pennsylvania allows service by postal
mail but I think it has to be because it's impossible to reach the
persons in question and there is an address to mail them.
Please point me to a section of the statutes of the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania that permit service by ISP. You will find none.
An ISP is not the agent of the customer and is under no obligation to
serve them with anything. Do you think you can sue a customer of the
telephone company by serving Verizon with a subpoena in care of the
customer? How about the gas company or the electric company?
Gordo, you're always trying to think of new scams to get around what the
law says you are required to do. And none of them work.
Finally, the defendants were dismissed WITHOUT PREJUDICE. A case can easily
be refiled against them and even include more recent conduct. A new case
would simply be consolidated with this one, which is why it shouldn't have
been dismissed.
"As soon as you can get a judge to agree with this you're good to go."
Let's also not forget that the two named defendants were served relatively
swiftly (there was a delay due to the need to gather some evidence).
And from what I'm seeing, it still looks like you're going to lose, and
lose big time. We shall see.
The internet landscape has changed a great deal since this case was filed.
There are some loose ends to tie up in this case, but overall, conditions
have improved dramatically thanks to common sense washing over the ISPs,
with a little help from Grace v. Ebay.
I have a strong suspecion the part you think supports your case is mere
"dicta," does not hold as case law, and might not be good law in your
circuit. Further, if I remember the case, I don't think the court
voided the statute, I think it was saying it might not be applicable
because ebay wasn't an ISP. But the whole issue is moot since eBay won.
The internet user who defames me now
will find his access being yanked swiftly, in most cases.
I think one of these days you're going to grab hold of some tar baby and
discover you sued the wrong person. It's going to be shown that YOU
have unclean hands and have acted in bad faith. And you will be in deep
doo-doo when that happens. That party is going to countersue and maybe
get some serious judgment against you, maybe strip you of every asset
you own, perhaps even denying you further pro-se access to the
courthouse or to the Internet, in whole or in part.
And that will be the sorriest day you ever had.
|
| |
| |
Alex can't seem to grasp that the ISPs don't have a problem with *my*
posts.
I am sure that ISPs would kick you off the internet if the rest of us were
as persistant in reporting your posts as you seem to be ours.
Not even close.
Do you think AOL or Verizon would approve of you
<snip>
Long as I'm not opening them to liability for defamation, they won't give a
@$#*.
As I said, 90 percent of what I'm suing over has already ceased. I'm in the
process of mopping up the remainder.
|
| |
| |
Ray Gordon wrote:
Ray, you're claiming victory where there is none.
If that's true, why did so many ISPs make amicus briefs against the finding
in Price v. Ebay?
What case are you talking about? I can find no record of a case of
"Price v. eBay".
|
| |
| |
Ray Gordon wrote:
the ISPs are now the ones facing the greatest
liability risks. This, of course, is causing them
to enforce their TOS policies now.
Not true if Gordon is still posting.
Alex can't seem to grasp that the ISPs don't have a problem with *my* posts.
Only because they are not enforcing their TOSs against scum
h
h
h
h
h
excrement like you, Ray Ipso Loquitur.
Hmm, maybe that should be your new nickname...
As I said before, it's what's no longer on this group that shows what I've
accomplished in getting people held accountable for what they do: no more
anonymous remailer defamation, no more illegal websites, no more other b/s,
and no one repeating some of the more vulgar lies that were commonplace a
year ago.
Of course the simple answer is that some of them have done what I
suggested more than a year ago: go away and quit trying to protect the
public - who are capable of protecting themselves - from such as you,
there are more important things than that. People will learn of what
you are quite easily and they will be innoculated against the loathsome
disease that you represent.
("Dear Mr. Robinson. Calling Mr. Gordon a loathsome disease is a
scurrilous lie and is false and defamatory. First, I do not believe Ray
ever has or ever been close to the level of a loathsome disease, and
thus referring to him as one, would be a step up in his standing.
Furthermore, for you to claim one such as Ray Gordon even rises to the
level of, say, a loathsome and/or reprehensible disease is a vile and
reprehensible lie and a slap-in-the-face to the reputation of every
disease in existence. On behalf of every disease in the world I DEMAND
that you make a formal, public apology for such libelous remarks, or it
may be necessary to take legal action to restore the unjustly tarnished
reputation of every loathsome disease in the world.")
I thought you were my subconsious, why are you speaking to me in the
third-person?
("I do that to everyone, it's the way my legal department insists I
treat everyone equally.")
The only sticking point now is to establish a better legal presence in the
UK so that the people there who think they're immune to justice learn
otherwise.
How you, who have no money, can afford to have a UK legal presence in a
country where they do not permit cases to be filed on a fee-splitting
basis - you have to pay all costs and fees up front, in advance - and
where, if you lose, you are liable for the winner's court costs and
attorney's fees too, is quite funny.
|
| |
| |
and no one repeating some of the more vulgar lies that were commonplace a
year ago.
Funny, what you call 'vulgar lies' are your own words, child molester:
- Proof of Gordon Roy Parker (aka Ray Gordon) wishing death on a child :
Path: news.alt.net!anon.lcs.mit.edu!nym.alias.net!mail2news
Cc: caveman21@nni.com
Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 07:58:08 -0400
Subject: Ray Takes FULL RESPONSIBLITY For The Michelle Mistake
Message-ID: <20000628.075839.-285523.10.The______Seduction_________Library@juno.com>
X-Mailer: Juno 2.0.11
X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 2-3,6-9,17-18,20-21,29-30,40-41,48-49,61-62,71-72,84-85,94-95,105-106,
115-116,126-127,133-134,154-155,164-165,178-179,187-188,196-199,201-202,206-207,212-213,
215-216,219-220,222-226,228-231,237-238,241-246,249-250,257-258,264-265,274-275,289-290,293-300
X-Juno-Att: 0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: The Seduction Library <the______seduction_________library@juno.com>
Mail-To-News-Contact: postmaster@nym.alias.net
Organization: mail2news@nym.alias.net
Newsgroups: alt.romance
Lines: 307
Xref: news alt.romance:246369
WARNING: If Oedipus, Krusty or Tusky respond to this message in any way,
I will return to ASF immediately. If they want me off that newsgroup
they can stay the hell out of my threads.
Read up. I post this not for myself, because I don't care what people
think of me. I post this for my METHOD, because it's being destroyed by
attacks on its creator.
I am going to clear the record on a few things here:
1. I DID wish death on Michelle's daughter Cierra. I did so in an
attempt to snap her back to reality after she had used others' defamation
of me as leverage to get me to want her. Why did I "hurt" her? I DID
NOT TALK TO HER. That's correct: my crime with Michelle was not falling
back in love with her after she had fallen in love with me for four
months, IMing me constantly, E-mailing me constantly, BEGGING me to love
her the way I "loved" "Dominique" (these two are in quotes because I
neither loved her nor necessarily knew her).
2. Wishing death on someone is not a crime. The words were spoken in
anger, after MONTHS of provocation
- Proof of Gordon Roy Parker stating women deserve to be raped & murdered :
From: r____a___y_gordon@juno.com (Outfoxing The Foxes)
Subject: Re: Need A Piece Of Advice
Date: 1998/11/02
Message-ID: <19981102.144604.26486.3.r____a___y_gordon@juno.com>
Organization: mail2news@nym.alias.net
Mail-To-News-Contact: postmaster@nym.alias.net
X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0-1,3-5,10-14,23-29,32-45,47-50,55-58,60-61,74-77,
79-87,95-97,99-102,105-112,121-122,130-131,138-139,146-147,
156-157,160-161,163-164,181-182,196-197,199
Newsgroups: alt.romance
Look at the way women treat "losers" and you will see
why they wind up beaten, murdered, raped, robbed, disrespected, and
oppressed. It is because women DESERVE it. The ones who harmed me
should thank their lucky stars that I didn't react like a primate and
just dump them six feet underground. Unfortunately, premeditated murder
would ruin this ethical thing I have going for me, although on a primal
level it is quite appealing.
- Gordon Roy Parker (aka Ray Gordon) on 9/11 :
"There was no significant loss of life in those towers. Not
a one."
- Gordon Roy Parker (aka Ray Gordon), September 11, 2001
"This attack happened in my HOMETOWN, a hometown I do not
live in or work in because of illegal behavior. I hope those
who swiped my ability to live there enjoy the message they got from GOD
today.........."
- Gordon Roy Parker (aka Ray Gordon), September 11, 2001
"In that building existed little more than a bunch of companies
which hire "office whores" and the like. I have no sympathy for
employment discriminators, and if someone had to die in this attack, I
couldn't think of a better group of people for the terrorists to pick."
- Gordon Roy Parker (aka Ray Gordon), September 11, 2001
|
| |
| |
Ray Gordon wrote:
How you, who have no money, can afford to have a UK legal presence in a
country where they do not permit cases to be filed on a fee-splitting
basis - you have to pay all costs and fees up front, in advance - and
where, if you lose, you are liable for the winner's court costs and
attorney's fees too, is quite funny.
That's what the fool doesn't understand. The UK legal system is completely
different to the US one - Britain is not a place where frivolous lawsuits
like this take place because the payments system is completely different.
And you wouldn't need a normal solicitor to do this - one who handles
conveyancing and divorce law would not be able to prosecute this frivolous
lawsuit.
Plus, it is a central tenet of the law of libel in the UK that the person
alledging defamation has a reputation to damage. This is something Ray does
not have. He is a gimboid hater with penis envy.
--------------------------------
Ray wants Google to stop archiving his USENET posts.
But he said to me about something I wrote,
"The truth is that people get sued pretty harshly for what you've been
pulling on me. You also have called yourself a shill, and like it or not, I
can quote that with impunity."
Can Google also quote his USENET posts with impunity?
<snicker>
|
| |
| |
Again, too easy... (also note that Ray does NOT attribute where the
post came from, which could be a false light portrayal...
"Ray Gordon" <ray@cybersheet.com> wrote in message news:<aMV_c.1105$%N6.758@trndny01>...
A few refutations here:
First off, 90 percent of the conduct I'm suing over has ceased: websites
have been torn down, and ISPs have finally gotten the message that they
can't turn the other way when their users go astray. Now that distributor
liability for defamation is here (Grace v. Ebay), search engines also have
been put on notice not to leave crap in their archives. While future
lawsuits may include the internet users if need be, the ISPs are now the
ones facing the greatest liability risks. This, of course, is causing them
to enforce their TOS policies now.
So you are dropping your actions against the ISP's? Also, READ Grace
v. eBay for content, please.
Second, the "black letter law" of service time limits says that I should
have been granted the extension of time when I filed for it in APRIL (no
ruling until JULY on that). Since several of the names were tied up in
subpoenas that were being contested, there was no way to get them. The
court was well aware of this. This is clear "good cause" for not serving.
If the court abuses its discretion, I have to take it to the Third Circuit
for reversal.
Clock starts ticking the MOMENT you FILE and the case is docketed.
READ your Rules of Civil Procedure, please - for content this time.
Third, I have introduced a method of "substitute service" which the court
(or the third circuit) may accept, which is to serve the ISP with the
Complaint and have them forward it to the user.
No, the 3rd refused your alternative method based on black letter law
which states that service must be in person and done by a third person
not a party to the action. Black Letter Law.
Finally, the defendants were dismissed WITHOUT PREJUDICE. A case can easily
be refiled against them and even include more recent conduct. A new case
would simply be consolidated with this one, which is why it shouldn't have
been dismissed.
Yes, you could re-file again and again until someone stands up to you
and countersues - of course that is predicate on your serving ANYONE.
Let's also not forget that the two named defendants were served relatively
swiftly (there was a delay due to the need to gather some evidence).
And the case was STILL dropped!
The internet landscape has changed a great deal since this case was filed.
There are some loose ends to tie up in this case, but overall, conditions
have improved dramatically thanks to common sense washing over the ISPs,
with a little help from Grace v. Ebay. The internet user who defames me now
will find his access being yanked swiftly, in most cases.
RIIIIGHT! Just like AOL has yanked yours for repeated violations of
their Terms Of Service? I really doubt that will happen should
someone continue to complain about your threats and ad hominem
attacks. Even if some of your threats rise to the level of suit
against you. Frankly, I have the feeling that a certain search engine
company's attorneys (yes, plural) are going to deal with you rather
harshly should your "case" ever get to trial.
But that's just a guess, of course, no threat intended or implied.
Lee Darrow, C.H.
http://www.leedarrow.com
|
| |
| |
First off, 90 percent of the conduct I'm suing over has ceased: websites
have been torn down, and ISPs have finally gotten the message that they
can't turn the other way when their users go astray. Now that
distributor
liability for defamation is here (Grace v. Ebay), search engines also
have
been put on notice not to leave crap in their archives. While future
lawsuits may include the internet users if need be, the ISPs are now the
ones facing the greatest liability risks. This, of course, is causing
them
to enforce their TOS policies now.
So you are dropping your actions against the ISP's? Also, READ Grace
v. eBay for content, please.
I haven't had to sue a single ISP yet. Google is not an ISP, but a website.
In Grace v. Ebay, the court explicitly ruled that distributor liability can
apply to an ISP. They ruled in that specific case that Ebay's user
agreement trumped their ruling.
Second, the "black letter law" of service time limits says that I should
have been granted the extension of time when I filed for it in APRIL (no
ruling until JULY on that). Since several of the names were tied up in
subpoenas that were being contested, there was no way to get them. The
court was well aware of this. This is clear "good cause" for not
serving.
If the court abuses its discretion, I have to take it to the Third
Circuit
for reversal.
Clock starts ticking the MOMENT you FILE and the case is docketed.
READ your Rules of Civil Procedure, please - for content this time.
Turning a deaf ear to something I've said repeatedly won't change the facts.
I had good cause for not serving, and if you read the rules, you'd
understand that.
Once again, let the Third Circuit check in with an opinion before you draw
any conclusions.
Third, I have introduced a method of "substitute service" which the
court
(or the third circuit) may accept, which is to serve the ISP with the
Complaint and have them forward it to the user.
No, the 3rd refused your alternative method based on black letter law
which states that service must be in person and done by a third person
not a party to the action. Black Letter Law.
Substitute service is also "black letter law." Let's see what the higher
courts say.
Finally, the defendants were dismissed WITHOUT PREJUDICE. A case can
easily
be refiled against them and even include more recent conduct. A new
case
would simply be consolidated with this one, which is why it shouldn't
have
been dismissed.
Yes, you could re-file again and again until someone stands up to you
and countersues
Oooh, I'm shaking!.
Let's also not forget that the two named defendants were served
relatively
swiftly (there was a delay due to the need to gather some evidence).
And the case was STILL dropped!
Not against those two. Where are you getting your facts again?
The internet landscape has changed a great deal since this case was
filed.
There are some loose ends to tie up in this case, but overall,
conditions
have improved dramatically thanks to common sense washing over the ISPs,
with a little help from Grace v. Ebay. The internet user who defames me
now
will find his access being yanked swiftly, in most cases.
RIIIIGHT! Just like AOL has yanked yours for repeated violations of
their Terms Of Service? I really doubt that will happen should
someone continue to complain about your threats and ad hominem
attacks. Even if some of your threats rise to the level of suit
against you.
That's his professional opinion <snicker>.
Frankly, I have the feeling that a certain search engine
company's attorneys (yes, plural) are going to deal with you rather
harshly should your "case" ever get to trial.
Oooh, I'm SHAKING!
Of course, they would say that they can't control what individuals who have
no clue about them would say on the net.
The search engine lawsuit is quite clean in that it deals with issues that
have long been known to be likely to wind up in court one day.
But that's just a guess, of course, no threat intended or implied.
No intelligence inferred, either.
|
| |
| |
"Ray Gordon" <ray@cybersheet.com> wrote in
news:aMV_c.1105$%N6.758@trndny01:
The general precedent is that a Doe is a separate entity from the
underlying
party. It comes up whenever someone has to substitute the names.
A few refutations here:
First off, 90 percent of the conduct I'm suing over has ceased:
websites have been torn down, and ISPs have finally gotten the message
that they can't turn the other way when their users go astray. Now
that distributor liability for defamation is here (Grace v. Ebay),
search engines also have been put on notice not to leave crap in their
archives. While future lawsuits may include the internet users if
need be, the ISPs are now the ones facing the greatest liability
risks. This, of course, is causing them to enforce their TOS policies
now.
Second, the "black letter law" of service time limits says that I
should have been granted the extension of time when I filed for it in
APRIL (no ruling until JULY on that). Since several of the names were
tied up in subpoenas that were being contested, there was no way to
get them. The court was well aware of this. This is clear "good
cause" for not serving. If the court abuses its discretion, I have to
take it to the Third Circuit for reversal.
Third, I have introduced a method of "substitute service" which the
court (or the third circuit) may accept, which is to serve the ISP
with the Complaint and have them forward it to the user.
Finally, the defendants were dismissed WITHOUT PREJUDICE. A case can
easily be refiled against them and even include more recent conduct.
A new case would simply be consolidated with this one, which is why it
shouldn't have been dismissed.
Let's also not forget that the two named defendants were served
relatively swiftly (there was a delay due to the need to gather some
evidence).
The internet landscape has changed a great deal since this case was
filed. There are some loose ends to tie up in this case, but overall,
conditions have improved dramatically thanks to common sense washing
over the ISPs, with a little help from Grace v. Ebay. The internet
user who defames me now will find his access being yanked swiftly, in
most cases.
so sad
|
| |
| |
"Takahesi Ogamori" <takahesiogamori@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:o2%_c.132345$a66.39976@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk:
Dream on, you muppet. Name ONE ISP whose behaviour has changed since
this judgement. You can't - it hasn't happened - the internet
landscape has not changed.
And if by some chance you do find it within yourself to toss out the name
of an ISP "whose behaviour has changed since this judgement" then you
better provide verifiable proof or I will not, and I suspect most others
will not, believe you because you make way to many outrageous statements
and almost NEVER provide verifiable proof of them.
Check your posting record - you can't deny it.
|
| |
| |
"Ray Gordon" <ray@cybersheet.com> wrote in
news:tS0%c.875$9P4.479@trndny02:
archives. While future
lawsuits may include the internet users if need be, the ISPs are
now the ones facing the greatest liability risks. This, of course,
is causing
If that's true, why did so many ISPs make amicus briefs against the
finding in Price v. Ebay?
I don't know and I doubt that you do. I DO notice that you didn't provide
the answer to your question even though it was stated as if you did know
the answer.
People still hold the same
opinions about you and express them with as much freedom and as
little
fear
You're talking about a business turf war, not people's REAL opinions.
No, Ray, you're wrong here, at least about me. While you claim that I'm a
shill you know I'm not so it's NOT a "business turf war."
I dislike you because of your posts to this newsgroup, almost none of which
have anything to do with seduction. That is my REAL opinion.
Those who support me have no reason to subject themselves to
harassment for doing so. They show their support by GENERATING
REVENUE for me.
Based on your previous posts to this newsgroup where you make claims that
you do not, and I suspect cannot, support with verifiable proof I
absolutely disbelieve the above paragraph.
Did you know Britney Spears and Howard Stern are hated by many? If
you meet either of them, make sure to make that the sole focus of your
conversations with them. You'll be a big hit.
You've done this dance before. Don't even try to equate yourself with
Britney Spears or Howard Stern - you're not, you never have been, you never
will be.
Which ISPs have got the message? Name one!
The proof is on USENET. Sites taken down (despite claims that this
would *never* happen, yet it did) most users stopping their defaming,
etc.
Well, since I've never defamed you I guess you can't say that I've stopped
defaming you - what never happened can't be stopped because (I hope you can
figure out how to understand this) it never happened in the first place!
The lawsuit against Google will be cutting defamation off at the
archive level as well.
You wish. You gotta win first and while you claim that if you lose you will
just appeal so you didn't really lose - did it ever occur to you that if by
some astronomical chance Google lost they would appeal? Would you then
claim that they didn't really lose because they were appealing? I suspect
not.
You will notice that I responded to your post without snipping anything,
thereby not altering the meaning of any part of your post. If you bother to
respond I expect the same consider | | |
