|
|
|
Lately it seems like Gordon Roy Parker, alias Ray Gordon, is failing to
take whatever medication he's supposed to take to suppress the symptoms
of his mental illness. He's stopped being funny for his obviously
stupid remarks and has started becoming tediously repetitious.
The most recent example of his obviously erroneous misaplication of
First-Amendment-protected commentary in general about evidence with the
practice of law is so clear evidence of his lack of mental stability to
make it obvious he's off his medications again.
What do other people think?
|
| |
| |
I think he is completely nuts. His legal arguments do not even make good
sense, and he is taking any criticizm of his pontifications as "threats" and
"RICO" violations. He is getting tedious....and now some people have begun
to dredge up his blatherings from as far back as 97, where he was threating
underaged gymnasts.
In my opinion, this is a man that needs to be committed to a mental facility
where he can be helped. Leaving him out on the loose is nothing but asking
for trouble. Nobody should be as miserable as he is. I think I will go put
on my white coat, and have a white russian.....LOL
BM
Lately it seems like Gordon Roy Parker, alias Ray Gordon, is failing to
take whatever medication he's supposed to take to suppress the symptoms of
his mental illness. He's stopped being funny for his obviously stupid
remarks and has started becoming tediously repetitious.
The most recent example of his obviously erroneous misaplication of
First-Amendment-protected commentary in general about evidence with the
practice of law is so clear evidence of his lack of mental stability to
make it obvious he's off his medications again.
What do other people think?
|
| |
| |
In my opinion, this is a man that needs to be committed to a mental
facility where he can be helped.
I have the right to find out who is making a threatening remark such as this
one. AT&T knows who you are, and I know where they can be served.
You are also trying to incite others to harm me, showing a depraved
indifference.
How much you want to bet that this cockroach is being paid by someone to do
this? No one takes these risks for free over something supposedly so
irrelevant.
What you are doing now is pure harassment, bordering on cyberstalking, which
is a felony. You're also threatening a litigant, which can lead to a prison
term of up to ten years under federal law.
|
| |
| |
in article qQfjd.2244$vH3.1782@trndny06, Ray Gordon at ray@cybersheet.com
wrote on 11/6/04 9:33 PM:
In my opinion, this is a man that needs to be committed to a mental
facility where he can be helped.
I have the right to find out who is making a threatening remark such as this
one. AT&T knows who you are, and I know where they can be served.
No reasonable person could infer a threat from the quoted remark.
Thus, Gordon infers one.
You are also trying to incite others to harm me, showing a depraved
indifference.
No reasonable person could infer incitement or depraved indifference from
the quoted remark.
Thus, Gordon infers them.
How much you want to bet that this cockroach is being paid by someone to do
this? No one takes these risks for free over something supposedly so
irrelevant.
No reasonable person would think the person making the quoted remark was
taking a risk.
Thus, Gordon thinks so.
What you are doing now is pure harassment, bordering on cyberstalking, which
is a felony. You're also threatening a litigant, which can lead to a prison
term of up to ten years under federal law.
No reasonable person would see the quoted remark as harassment,
cyberstalking or threatening.
Thus, Gordon sees it as such.
Disingenuousness or stupidity?
You make the call.
|
| |
| |
in article qQfjd.2244$vH3.1782@trndny06, Ray Gordon at ray@cybersheet.com
wrote on 11/6/04 9:33 PM:
In my opinion, this is a man that needs to be committed to a mental
facility where he can be helped.
No reasonable person could infer a threat from the quoted remark.
Thus, Gordon infers one.
No reasonable person could infer incitement or depraved indifference from
the quoted remark.
Thus, Gordon infers them.
No reasonable person would think the person making the quoted remark was
taking a risk.
Thus, Gordon thinks so.
No reasonable person would see the quoted remark as harassment,
cyberstalking or threatening.
Thus, Gordon sees it as such.
Disingenuousness or stupidity?
You make the call.
It's both, I'm afraid.
|
| |
| |
In my opinion, this is a man that needs to be committed to a mental
facility where he can be helped.
I have the right to find out who is making a threatening remark such as
this
one. AT&T knows who you are, and I know where they can be served.
No reasonable person could infer a threat from the quoted remark.
At the least it's prima facia defamation. If someone posted it about you,
you'd sue.
|
| |
| |
In article <l5ijd.2494$EM3.1439@trndny07>, "Ray Gordon"
<ray@cybersheet.com> wrote:
In my opinion, this is a man that needs to be committed to a mental
facility where he can be helped.
I have the right to find out who is making a threatening remark such as
this one. AT&T knows who you are, and I know where they can be served.
No reasonable person could infer a threat from the quoted remark.
At the least it's prima facia defamation. If someone posted it about you,
you'd sue.
I believe you have stated under oath that you were diagnosed with
bipolar disorder.
Your behaviour online supports those statements, and in fact points to
a worsening of symptoms, according to accepted medical literature made
available to the public.
You have also posted that you find the idea of committing premeditated
murder appealing.
|
| |
| |
Ray Gordon wrote:
In my opinion, this is a man that needs to be committed to a mental
facility where he can be helped.
I have the right to find out who is making a threatening remark such as this
one.
If you think that is a threat you are so clueless as to definitely need
mental help just to come up to the level of mentally ill.
AT&T knows who you are, and I know where they can be served.
Hahaha, yeah, right, we all know how good you are at serving process on
people.
You are also trying to incite others to harm me, showing a depraved
indifference.
You have no idea what you are talking about. I see no incitement and no
duty to provide care or concern which would trigger a claim of depraved
indifference.
How much you want to bet that this cockroach is being paid by someone to do
this? No one takes these risks for free over something supposedly so
irrelevant.
That's your opinion that someone has put themselves at risk over
something. I would gather that your opinion is incorrect as it usually is.
What you are doing now is pure harassment, bordering on cyberstalking, which
is a felony. You're also threatening a litigant, which can lead to a prison
term of up to ten years under federal law.
Ray, you are aware that if your opinion is wrong it is the statutory
definition of libel for which you could be sued? Claiming someone has
committed a crime or has a loathsome disease is per se libelous unless
true.
You had better be careful because one day your taunts are going to get
YOU in trouble because if you keep this up you will do something to
trigger an action against you in court that you cannot duck and is very
serious. All it takes is for you to piss off someone who doesn't take
you as the wacko you are and decides to respond with legal action
against you.
|
| |
| |
Ray Gordon wrote:
In my opinion, this is a man that needs to be committed to a mental
facility where he can be helped.
I have the right to find out who is making a threatening remark such as
this
one. AT&T knows who you are, and I know where they can be served.
No reasonable person could infer a threat from the quoted remark.
At the least it's prima facia defamation.
Only if you can prove it is both false and with malice. You're a public
figure. I think your comments would lead a reasonable person to believe
the statement is true. Wishing death on people, considering innocent
victims of terrorist attacks to be deserving of them, and demanding that
people kill you to shut you up are not within the realm of what most
people consider it normal.
If someone posted it about you, you'd sue.
People generally wouldn't because the other poster doesn't act like an
asshole. And more likely than not, they'd dismiss it or insult the
other party back. Most people have more important things than suing
some asswipe on USENET because they insulted them.
|
| |
| |
<http://www.geocities.com/d3p1k/>
http://www.geocities.com/d3p1k/
|
| |
| |
Since when is going to the hospital a threat bonehead?
BM
In my opinion, this is a man that needs to be committed to a mental
facility where he can be helped.
I have the right to find out who is making a threatening remark such as
this one. AT&T knows who you are, and I know where they can be served.
You are also trying to incite others to harm me, showing a depraved
indifference.
How much you want to bet that this cockroach is being paid by someone to
do this? No one takes these risks for free over something supposedly so
irrelevant.
What you are doing now is pure harassment, bordering on cyberstalking,
which is a felony. You're also threatening a litigant, which can lead to
a prison term of up to ten years under federal law.
|
| |
| |
Stupidity in my opinion.
BM
in article qQfjd.2244$vH3.1782@trndny06, Ray Gordon at ray@cybersheet.com
wrote on 11/6/04 9:33 PM:
In my opinion, this is a man that needs to be committed to a mental
facility where he can be helped.
No reasonable person could infer a threat from the quoted remark.
Thus, Gordon infers one.
No reasonable person could infer incitement or depraved indifference from
the quoted remark.
Thus, Gordon infers them.
No reasonable person would think the person making the quoted remark was
taking a risk.
Thus, Gordon thinks so.
No reasonable person would see the quoted remark as harassment,
cyberstalking or threatening.
Thus, Gordon sees it as such.
Disingenuousness or stupidity?
You make the call.
|
| |
| |
Lately it seems like Gordon Roy Parker, alias Ray Gordon, is failing to
take whatever medication he's supposed to take to suppress the symptoms
of his mental illness. He's stopped being funny for his obviously
stupid remarks and has started becoming tediously repetitious.
They just don't make gurus like they used to.
EVERYBODY SING !!!!!
"..OHHHHHHHHHHHHH <me me me me me..U U U U U...>
A-nod-har Sat-urd-ay nite and he ain't got no-boddieeee
...he got no money and he can't get laid..
So he haunts the Net till his, um, 'hellen' goes limp-wrist..
...It sure sucks to be ray...
(CONGA LINE !!!!!)
A-nod-har Sat-urd-ay nite and he ain't got no-boddieeee
...he gots no money while he can't get laid..
.....he haunts the Net till his dollies goes nite-nite..
...It sure sucks to be ray...
(NOW, a SOLO from Fuz da BUN ! )
...it's always Saturday nite and he can't scam no ladies:
...he got no money and 'hellen' just can't get paid..
...REALITY is so much fun, come join us and party....
...oppps..I forgot.., the loser's's name is ray..
(NOW JUST THE WOMEN)
A-nod-har Sat-urd-ay nite and he ain't got no-boddieeee
...even if with tons of money we just laugh his way
HEY, his dolly(s) get more HOT action then he does....
...It sure sucks to be ray... HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
(now the men..)
HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA
...IT SURE SUCKS TO BE RAY....
<in closing, for those of U on drugs....>
A-nod-har Sat-urd-ay nite and he ain't got no-boddieeee
...he got no money and he can't get laid..
So he haunts the Net till his, um, 'hellen' goes nite-nite..
...It sure sucks to be ray...
G U R you..?
<I'm not at ALL happy with the Flash-Card section !!!!!>
|
| |
| |
In article <qQfjd.2244$vH3.1782@trndny06>
"Ray Gordon" <ray@cybersheet.com> wrote:
I have the right to find out who is making a threatening remark such as this
one. AT&T knows who you are, and I know where they can be served.
The fact that Gordon perceives the above as a "threatening remark"
is indicative of his mental illness.
You are also trying to incite others to harm me, showing a depraved
indifference.
How much you want to bet that this cockroach is being paid by someone to do
this? No one takes these risks for free over something supposedly so
irrelevant.
What you are doing now is pure harassment, bordering on cyberstalking, which
is a felony. You're also threatening a litigant, which can lead to a prison
term of up to ten years under federal law.
In an attempt to eliminate disruption caused by this individual in the
alt.seduction.fast newsgroup, along with spam and misinformation, alt.seduction.fast
now also has a website and discussion forums in which this individual is prevented
from posting. The website forums have proven extremely popular and successful since
off-topic material and bad behavior is prevented there. See the footer in the message
for more information.
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
New visitors to alt.seduction.fast are welcomed and directed to the main website
http://www.fastseduction.com
Most seduction discussion has been relocated to the forums on this website, which
can be accessed through your news reader just like this newsgroup, or through a
web interface. The forums were created as an alternative to the large amount of
spamming, misinformation, and offensive behavior by a high-volume poster known to
unfotunately suffer disabling mental illness, in the regular alt.seduction.fast
newsgroup.
Anyone can read forum articles but registration is required (which can be done
through an anonymous email account) in order to post articles. This effectively
prevents disruptive individuals from posting and results in a MUCH more useful and
productive forum.
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
|
| |
| |
<snip>>
At the least it's prima facia defamation. If someone posted it about you,
you'd sue.
There is no such thing as prima facia defamation. Stick something you know
about, and leave the law to lawyers.
BM
|
| |
| |
Claiming someone has committed a crime or has a loathsome disease is per se
libelous unless true.
So is saying they need to be committed to an institution.
Or it's just harassment and tortious interference with their employment
prospects (since the motive seems to be to get the search engines to pick it
up under one's birth name).
|
| |
| |
Since when is going to the hospital a threat?
Incitement, or at the last, defamation per se.
|
| |
| |
Claiming someone has committed a crime or has a loathsome disease is per
se libelous unless true.
So is saying they need to be committed to an institution.
Or it's just harassment and tortious interference with their employment
prospects (since the motive seems to be to get the search engines to pick
it up under one's birth name).
If Gordon thinks someone telling him to go to a hospital is unnecessary,
then he shouldn't act in a way that makes people think he should.
|
| |
| |
Claiming someone has committed a crime or has a loathsome disease is per
se libelous unless true.
So is saying they need to be committed to an institution.
Or it's just harassment and tortious interference with their employment
prospects (since the motive seems to be to get the search engines to pick
it up under one's birth name).
If Gordon thinks someone telling him to go to a hospital is unnecessary,
then he shouldn't act in a way that makes people think he should.
No court in the world would recognize the legitimacy of anyone on this group
thinking I should be committed. However, if I want to establish a MOTIVE
for a few doing that, that's what discovery is for.
I'm guessing you're getting paid for what you're doing, since people don't
take the risks you just took for free. Combine this with your claims that I
have asked people to kill me, and I consider you a threat to my physical
safety.
You know what a private criminal complaint is? It's initiated by a citizen
and doesn't require the police to decide to press charges. With it comes
subpoena power and the ability to bring the charges myself.
Please stop harassing me.
|
| |
| |
In article <Fmqjd.2496$Zl2.2456@trndny01>, "Ray Gordon"
<ray@cybersheet.com> wrote:
Claiming someone has committed a crime or has a loathsome disease is per
se libelous unless true.
So is saying they need to be committed to an institution.
Or it's just harassment and tortious interference with their employment
prospects (since the motive seems to be to get the search engines to pick
it up under one's birth name).
If Gordon thinks someone telling him to go to a hospital is unnecessary,
then he shouldn't act in a way that makes people think he should.
No court in the world would recognize the legitimacy of anyone on this group
thinking I should be committed. However, if I want to establish a MOTIVE
for a few doing that, that's what discovery is for.
I thought Discovery was for nature and science related programming.
Oh, that's right, you can't afford cable. My bad.
I'm guessing you're getting paid for what you're doing, since people don't
take the risks you just took for free. Combine this with your claims that I
have asked people to kill me, and I consider you a threat to my physical
safety.
Given that you have posted that you find premeditated murder appealing,
combined with your claims that some persons deserve to be abused and
murdered, and ... well, anyone can connect the dots.
You know what a private criminal complaint is? It's initiated by a citizen
and doesn't require the police to decide to press charges. With it comes
subpoena power and the ability to bring the charges myself.
I believe you have discussed this before. I do not believe anyone in
this newsgroup has been served with a private criminal complaint.
You are simply using the threat of litigation to attempt to wield
censorship-level control over this newsgroup
Please stop harassing me.
Please demonstrate that you have changed your opinion that women
deserve to be raped, and that you have changed your opinion that you
find premeditated murder appealing.
"Search DejaNews [http://www.dejanews.com] and put my names (Ray
Gordon or Gordon Roy Parker) in, and check the posts [...] Let go of
my anger? Not a chance. I have a few favors to return, and an amount
of power to return them that you couldn't even comprehend. I know who
has harmed me, who has stood by and did nothing, and who has helped
me. Each group will be treated accordingly. [...] I'm just a 'loser.'
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
[19981102.144604.26486.3.r____a___y_gordon@juno.com] (Read the full
message and thread in Google Groups [http://www.dejanews.com] for
context.)
|
| |
| |
Since when is going to the hospital a threat?
Incitement, or at the last, defamation per se.
Oh stop trying to appear intelligent, those of us that are can see right
through it. It just makes you look more pitiful than you already do. You
are not a lawyer, a fact that has been pointed out to you again and again.
You don't know the law, another fact that has been pointed out to you again
and again. The more you rant, the more demented you look.
Anyone but you can see how horribly twisted you are, and full of hate. In
my opinion, the best thing that could happen to you is to be committed and
get some help. Normal people don't rant and rave like you do.
You call people whores and cunts, and then whine about defamation by others,
you won't get to first base with your rantings, in court or on this board.
Everyone is sick of you. Go away.
BM
|
| |
| |
in article l5ijd.2494$EM3.1439@trndny07, Ray Gordon at ray@cybersheet.com
wrote on 11/7/04 12:08 AM:
In my opinion, this is a man that needs to be committed to a mental
facility where he can be helped.
I have the right to find out who is making a threatening remark such as
this
one. AT&T knows who you are, and I know where they can be served.
No reasonable person could infer a threat from the quoted remark.
At the least it's prima facia defamation. If someone posted it about you,
you'd sue.
Backpedaling already?
And no, it's not defamation to express the opinion that someone is crazy.
Gordon has actually said much worse about me.
|
| |
| |
in article L6qjd.3182$XQ1.1134@trndny03, Ray Gordon at ray@cybersheet.com
wrote on 11/7/04 9:16 AM:
Claiming someone has committed a crime or has a loathsome disease is per se
libelous unless true.
So is saying they need to be committed to an institution.
Not if you can show the claim is true.
Gordon won't be able to duck the psych eval for that one.
Or it's just harassment and tortious interference with their employment
prospects (since the motive seems to be to get the search engines to pick it
up under one's birth name).
Apparently, Gordon is now able to read minds over the internet.
|
| |
| |
in article 8cqjd.1440$gS1.1028@trndny04, Ray Gordon at ray@cybersheet.com
wrote on 11/7/04 9:21 AM:
Since when is going to the hospital a threat?
Incitement, or at the last, defamation per se.
I had no idea ANYONE could run backwards so quickly.
And he's still wrong.
|
| |
| |
in article Fmqjd.2496$Zl2.2456@trndny01, Ray Gordon at ray@cybersheet.com
wrote on 11/7/04 9:33 AM:
Claiming someone has committed a crime or has a loathsome disease is per
se libelous unless true.
So is saying they need to be committed to an institution.
Or it's just harassment and tortious interference with their employment
prospects (since the motive seems to be to get the search engines to pick
it up under one's birth name).
If Gordon thinks someone telling him to go to a hospital is unnecessary,
then he shouldn't act in a way that makes people think he should.
No court in the world would recognize the legitimacy of anyone on this group
thinking I should be committed. However, if I want to establish a MOTIVE
for a few doing that, that's what discovery is for.
Gordon continues to confuse discovery with a fishing expedition.
I'm guessing you're getting paid for what you're doing, since people don't
take the risks you just took for free. Combine this with your claims that I
have asked people to kill me, and I consider you a threat to my physical
safety.
You know what a private criminal complaint is? It's initiated by a citizen
and doesn't require the police to decide to press charges. With it comes
subpoena power and the ability to bring the charges myself.
Gordon continues to think he can intimidate and threaten people with his own
private use of the court system.
Please stop harassing me.
Turn off your computer and go outside.
It's really quite nice out today.
|
| |
| |
In article <BDB3BFCC.3D77C%akaufmann@nyc.NOSPAM.rr.com>, Alex
<akaufmann@nyc.NOSPAM.rr.com> wrote:
in article Fmqjd.2496$Zl2.2456@trndny01, Ray Gordon at ray@cybersheet.com
wrote on 11/7/04 9:33 AM:
Claiming someone has committed a crime or has a loathsome disease is per
se libelous unless true.
So is saying they need to be committed to an institution.
Or it's just harassment and tortious interference with their employment
prospects (since the motive seems to be to get the search engines to pick
it up under one's birth name).
If Gordon thinks someone telling him to go to a hospital is unnecessary,
then he shouldn't act in a way that makes people think he should.
Gordon continues to confuse discovery with a fishing expedition.
He seems to expect to have some unlimited powers of digging up any dirt
possible on everyone, and then trumping up that dirt as the reason for
and crux of the lawsuit.
I believe that is the reason why the lawsuit appears to be precise but
is actually quite vague and rambling. The alleged preciseness is
designed to attract the court's attention and gain entryway to
discovery. Then, without actually having to accuse anyone of anything
specific (hence the "John Does"), Mr. Parker wants to have unlimited
and unfettered access to anyone's personal records. Any dirt he finds
will then be "exposed" as "attorney" Parker changes hats and becomes
"journalist" Parker, all the while promoting (change hats)
"pornographer" Parker's website of (change hats) "author" Parker's
writings about (change hats) "handicapper" Parker's sports picks,
(change hats) "stockbroker" Parker's stock picks, and (change hats)
"guru" Parker's thoughts about women, which include a statement that
women deserve to be raped, and a statement that Mr. Parker (change
hats?) finds premeditated murder--and I quote Mr. Parker--"appealing."
This doesn't include the hats for chess champion, Olympic-level
gymnastics coach, multi-millionaire software company CEO, and
world-class-search-engine author.
He *will* be held accountable for what he has posted. He can bank on
it. 23 days before I become Mr. Parker's neighbor.
I'm guessing you're getting paid for what you're doing, since people don't
take the risks you just took for free. Combine this with your claims that I
have asked people to kill me, and I consider you a threat to my physical
safety.
You know what a private criminal complaint is? It's initiated by a citizen
and doesn't require the police to decide to press charges. With it comes
subpoena power and the ability to bring the charges myself.
Gordon continues to think he can intimidate and threaten people with his own
private use of the court system.
Well, how many lawsuits is he currently clogging the system with?
Please stop harassing me.
Turn off your computer and go outside.
It's really quite nice out today.
Alternatively, he can turn off his computer and go read a good book.
May I suggest "Uncle Vanya?"
Alternatively, if that book is beyond his reading comprehension skills,
he can read "Fox in Socks."
If that's beyond his abilities, then I suggest turning off the computer
and turning on "Teletubbies" and "Sesame Street."
|
| |
| |
At the least it's prima facia defamation. If someone posted it about
you,
you'd sue.
Backpedaling already?
And no, it's not defamation to express the opinion that someone is crazy.
So odd that Barry Goldwater won a lawsuit over an article that tried to
"psychoanalyze" him. The level of specificity people here have gotten to is
going to lead to a lawsuit.
Gordon has actually said much worse about me.
Said the man with no cites.
Either way, given that those saying this are well aware of how archiving
works on the internet, they show malice, and are definitely trying to cause
damages, also knowing full well that I have lawsuits already initiated
against others here, so it seems they're trying to intimidate me in
retaliation for that.
Oh, another thing: keep publicly posting opinions on my legal matters to
this group and you can be sued by me for the damages you cause in helping
others to feel empowered enough to ignore that they might be violating my
rights. You're just a chicken#@($ running his mouth who ducked when named
in a suit.
You wouldn't do this to anyone else, and if you think you can do it to me,
you're wrong.
|
| |
| |
Or it's just harassment and tortious interference with their employment
prospects (since the motive seems to be to get the search engines to
pick
it up under one's birth name).
If Gordon thinks someone telling him to go to a hospital is unnecessary,
then he shouldn't act in a way that makes people think he should.
No court in the world would recognize the legitimacy of anyone on this
group
thinking I should be committed. However, if I want to establish a MOTIVE
for a few doing that, that's what discovery is for.
Gordon continues to confuse discovery with a fishing expedition.
All your ranting here won't stop me from proving you wrong where it counts.
You could have shown up when sued, but chose to duck instead. That says all
about you you'll ever need to know: you're a coward.
|
| |
| |
Since when is going to the hospital a threat?
Incitement, or at the last, defamation per se.
Oh stop trying to appear intelligent, those of us that are can see right
through it. It just makes you look more pitiful than you already do. You
are not a lawyer, a fact that has been pointed out to you again and again.
You don't know the law, another fact that has been pointed out to you
again and again. The more you rant, the more demented you look.
Anyone but you can see how horribly twisted you are, and full of hate. In
my opinion, the best thing that could happen to you is to be committed and
get some help. Normal people don't rant and rave like you do.
You call people whores and cunts, and then whine about defamation by
others, you won't get to first base with your rantings, in court or on
this board. Everyone is sick of you. Go away.
gee, an NLP guru says that it's "exaggerated communication" when one tries
to invoke "everyone."
Don't pick on people who know how to defend their rights if you don't want
to follow through. You chose to cross the lines with me; no one but *you*
made you do that.
|
| |
| |
Claiming someone has committed a crime or has a loathsome disease is per
se
libelous unless true.
So is saying they need to be committed to an institution.
Not if you can show the claim is true.
Gordon won't be able to duck the psych eval for that one.
An expert who drew a conclusion like that without justification could lose
his license. A court order doesn't change the laws on practicing medicine.
Someone maliciously abusing process to try to get a psych exam ordered could
easily wind up with a countersuit or sanctions on their hands, and any
*attorney* who tried it could be named, as could the expert, for conspiracy.
Alex, who isn't a lawyer, seems to feel free to give his legal opinions
regarding my cases to third parties, despite the fact that I have standing
to sue over that action alone.
Or it's just harassment and tortious interference with their employment
prospects (since the motive seems to be to get the search engines to pick
it
up under one's birth name).
Apparently, Gordon is now able to read minds over the internet.
Lots of cases litigate motive. It's for a jury to make the final
determination. When people make explicit references to search engines and
what they do, it's a pretty safe bet to say they're aware of how the
mechanism works.
Beyond the same dozen or so loudmouths who post here, most people don't
share their opinions at all and a good many probably resent seeing all the
off topic posting.
Of course, Alex could have shown up and answered my complaint the first
time, but he chose not to instead.
|
| |
| |
In article <ogujd.3370$XQ1.1155@trndny03>, "Ray Gordon"
<ray@cybersheet.com> wrote:
Claiming someone has committed a crime or has a loathsome disease is per
se
libelous unless true.
So is saying they need to be committed to an institution.
Not if you can show the claim is true.
Gordon won't be able to duck the psych eval for that one.
An expert who drew a conclusion like that without justification could lose
his license. A court order doesn't change the laws on practicing medicine.
Someone maliciously abusing process to try to get a psych exam ordered could
easily wind up with a countersuit or sanctions on their hands, and any
*attorney* who tried it could be named, as could the expert, for conspiracy.
Are you trying to say that you plan to sue anyone who orders a
psychiatric exam?
Are you planning to sue Judge Brody for maliciously ordering a
psychiatric exam and engaging in a conspiracy?
Are you planning on sanctioning Judge Brody?
I plan to hold you personally accountable for your posts--something you
have apparently avoided for years. You may feel free at any time to
demonstrate that your opinion has changed regarding women deserving to
be raped and your view of committing premeditated murder as
"appealing."
Alex, who isn't a lawyer, seems to feel free to give his legal opinions
regarding my cases to third parties, despite the fact that I have standing
to sue over that action alone.
Or it's just harassment and tortious interference with their employment
prospects (since the motive seems to be to get the search engines to pick
it up under one's birth name).
Apparently, Gordon is now able to read minds over the internet.
Lots of cases litigate motive. It's for a jury to make the final
determination. When people make explicit references to search engines and
what they do, it's a pretty safe bet to say they're aware of how the
mechanism works.
Beyond the same dozen or so loudmouths who post here, most people don't
share their opinions at all and a good many probably resent seeing all the
off topic posting.
Of course, Alex could have shown up and answered my complaint the first
time, but he chose not to instead.
Search DejaNews [http://www.dejanews.com] and put my names (Ray
Gordon or Gordon Roy Parker) in, and check the posts [...] Let go of
my anger? Not a chance. I have a few favors to return, and an amount
of power to return them that you couldn't even comprehend. I know who
has harmed me, who has stood by and did nothing, and who has helped
me. Each group will be treated accordingly. [...] I'm just a 'loser.'
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. [19981102.144604.26486.3.r____a___y_gordon@juno.com]
(Read the full message and thread in Google Groups
[http://www.dejanews.com] for context.)
|
| |
| |
Ray Gordon wrote:
Claiming someone has committed a crime or has a loathsome disease is
per se libelous unless true.
So is saying they need to be committed to an institution.
Or it's just harassment and tortious interference with their employment
prospects (since the motive seems to be to get the search engines to
pick it up under one's birth name).
If Gordon thinks someone telling him to go to a hospital is unnecessary,
then he shouldn't act in a way that makes people think he should.
No court in the world would recognize the legitimacy of anyone on this
group
thinking I should be committed. However, if I want to establish a MOTIVE
for a few doing that, that's what discovery is for.
I'm guessing you're getting paid for what you're doing, since people don't
take the risks you just took for free. Combine this with your claims that
I have asked people to kill me, and I consider you a threat to my physical
safety.
You know what a private criminal complaint is? It's initiated by a
citizen
and doesn't require the police to decide to press charges. With it comes
subpoena power and the ability to bring the charges myself.
Please stop harassing me.
disagreeing with someone in a public forum that they don't | | |
