|
'm working on a complaint to use if I ever get standing to sue Gordon
Roy Parker, alias Ray Gordon, for his threats. If he either files some
baseless complaint with a government agency because he doesn't like what
I have to say or he sues me claiming I defamed him in some fashion, then
I'll have standing to sue him and demand relief.
This is, of course, a rough draft as I only spent an hour or so and
haven't done any legal research on what cases to cite, but I thought I'd
pass it on as it might be of interest.
Comments and suggestions about this are welcomed. Feel free to pass
this on to other newsgroups or any place else. If it gives someone else
ideas or you think you can use it, help yourself.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE ______________ DISTRICT OF ____________
PAUL ROBINSON:
And all others similarly situated:
Plaintiff:
:
v: Case No.
:
GORDON ROY PARKER:
A/K/A RAY GORDON:
D/B/A SNODGRASS PUBLISHING COMPANY:
Defendant:
COMPLAINT FOR CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS UNDER 42 U.S.C. 1983
Table of Contents
Table of Contents2
Table of Authorities3
Cases3
Statutes3
Introduction3
Statement of Facts3
Argument4
Relief Sought4
Table of Authorities
Cases
Statutes
42 USC 1983
Introduction
Defendant Gordon Roy Parker is a well-known user of the Internet in a
section which permits the placing, reading and replying-to of messages
known as Usenet News. The messages which are sent back and forth among
thousands of users constitute a robust and healthy system of discussion
among various issues in the truest sense of the 1st Amendment to the
Constitution of the United States.
Defendant has objected to comments about him posted on Usenet News, and
has made spurious and fictitious claims of defamation, copyright
violation, and tortuous interference in his business, and threatens to
file, and does file, various lawsuits of nonexistent merit for the
purpose of chilling other people's speech in an attempt to silence
dissent against him.
Defendant routinely files suit in Federal Court against parties to
which he has no valid claim, as a pro-se plaintiff, for the express
purpose of causing unnecessary expense and baseless litigation as a
means to violate the 1st Amendment rights of class members including the
defendant.
Defendant's misconduct in filing and prosecuting cases as a pro-se
plaintiff has been referred to by at least one federal judge as a
"continued and inexcusable failure."
Plaintiff, on behalf of those who are also in the same class, wishes
not to be potentially subject to having to expend resources over
defendant's continued vexatious and meritless pro-se litigation
Plaintiff therefore asks for a permanent injunction prohibiting
defendant from filing any court cases in any federal or state court
against any member of the class unless he does so using a licensed attorney.
Statement of Facts
1.Plaintiff Paul Robinson is an individual and a citizen of the United
States and a resident of the Commonwealth of Virginia..
2.Defendant Gordon Roy Parker is an individual. On belief Plaintiff is
of the opinion that defendant is a citizen of the United States. On
Information supplied by the defendant in one or more lawsuits filed by
him states that he is a resident of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
3.Plaintiff and defendant are both users of the system of message
posting operated over the Internet known as Usenet News, and
specifically of the news group message area of Usenet News known by the
name alt.seduction.fast in addition to other news groups.
4.Plaintiff is the class representative of all persons who post
messages to Usenet News where the defendant may visit for the purpose of
reading and responding to messages posted there.
5.Plaintiff and class members engage in vigorous and free discussion of
their opinions of various issues using Usenet News to share such discussion.
6.Defendant also uses Usenet News to share his opinions.
7.Defendant has in some cases sued other persons on Usenet News due to
his disagreement with their opinions.
8.In every case where defendant has sued, he has done so in pro-se fashion.
9.Defendant has on several occasions objected to comments placed by the
defendant and class members on Usenet News regarding defendants remarks
and behavior, including defendant's vexatious filing of lawsuits in
Federal District Court. He has in some cases threatened people with
litigation.
10.Defendant's cases which are not currently in litigation are
routinely dismissed due to the defendant's lack of due diligence in
prosecuting cases, or because his cases are without merit, or because
the defendant is filing complex litigation where the defendant does not
know what he is doing.
11.Defendant files cases not because of an actual controversy or
because of real and provable injury, but as a means to silence dissent
and to prevent legitimate and robust discussion of his ideas,
specifically negative opinions of his ideas.
12.Defendant also files cases specifically to abuse the discovery
process to obtain personal identifying information of class members who
would otherwise post pseudononymously or anonymously of legitimate
comment and discourse.
13.Defendant's continued losses through dismissal will not stop his
vexatious filing of meritless pro-se court cases.
Argument
The defendant, Gordon Roy Parker, routinely files cases in federal
court which are without merit. He does so in pro-se fashion, and does
so in order to harass others who disagree with his opinions in an
attempt to silence them. He also files cases to abuse the discovery
process in order to find personal information of persons who disagree
with his opinions.
The defendant wastes valuable time of the federal courts over quixotic
battles having no merit for the purpose of attempting to chill free
speech and thus use the courts as a method to unlawfully violate the 1st
Amendment rights of the plaintiff and of class members, and is thus
acting under color of law in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1869,
42 USC 1983.
It is necessary to prevent the defendant from continuing to violate the
rights of plaintiff and class members, to which they have no other
method for relief available except to file suit against the defendant.
The plaintiff wishes to stop the defendant from filing further pro-se
lawsuits against plaintiff or any member of the class, and restrict him
to only filing any lawsuit if represented by an attorney.
There is historical precedent for the relief sought. The United States
Supreme Court, in the case of __________________________ , _ US _,
ordered a pro-se litigant to discontinue further filings unless
represented by counsel, in response to the appellant's continued
excessive litigation and filing of meritless petitions for certiorari
over parking tickets.
Relief Sought
Plaintiff does not wish to prevent the defendant from being able to
obtain judicial relief if he is legitimately injured as a result of an
actual defamation or subjected to actual injury as a result of a comment
posted on Usenet News. However, defendant and members of the class
should not have to put up with the defendant's continued pro-se abus
|
| |
| |
A very interesting idea Mr. Robinson.
In 1991, U.S. District Court Judge L.T. Senter barred attorney William
Bambach from filing further legal action on behalf of his client, one
Felix Uithoven, in an effort to retain ownership of his land being
sought by the Army Corps of Engineers. Senter deemed Uithoven's many
legal filings on the matter to be frivolous and unnecessarily extensive.
HS
|
| |
| |
<snicker>
|
| |
| |
<snicker>
------ Gordon Roy Parker threatening children, the sick and elderly --------
Subject: Re: May Lissa's Mom DIE PAINFULLY ANDROT IN HELL****
x-no-archive: yes
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1998 19:13:02 -0600
From: ray_ol@hotmail.com
Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion
Newsgroups: alt.sports.gymnastics
x-no-archive: yes
****Disclaimer: I was discriminated against on the basis of
gender today and told point-blank that this was the reason. Having been
taunted by the WHOREDENS and by Lissa over this, I consider it only fair
to return similar sentiments. When I get a full apology from Lissa, and
from Dave, and his website and RayFAQ go down, I will CONSIDER changing
my attitude.
Ray, first of all STOP CURSING, KIDS READ THIS TOO!! Dave, lol!
HA HAHA! dang! oh #@($! maaaaaan...! lol! hmmmaaaa! Ray's gonna sue you!
looool!!!! [laughing] #@($.... hire me as your lawyer. he he ha ha ha...
loooll
<----Stop Cursing? FUCK YOU. FUCK GYMNAST WHORES TOO. They
know DAMN well what goes on and what harmed me and they LAUGH at it.
May they all do a GOMEZ on vault and have the ambulance do a GRIVICH on
the way to the hospital if they are going to laugh at my career road
blocks, sexual road blocks that they CLAIM to disapprove of...except
when they need a job, so then it's okay to show a little ass, as long as
the boss doesn't try to touch that ass. FUCK THEM. They're moral
GARBAGE! They know it too; that's why they can't stand hearing it; if
it weren't true they wouldn't care. They're good for ONE THING and ONE
THING only, and they know that too. If they want me to be nice to them,
let them undo a few years of damage and apologize for THEIR attitudes.
They bring this #@($ on themselves with their arrogance. Spoiled BRATS.
You think my suing Dave and Dominique is a joke? Keep laughing.
Please. I'd love it if you did. You want to be Dave's lawyer? Go right
ahead. You punks think this is playtime; you're in for an awfully rude
shock. I gave fair warning. Dave(and Dominique through Dave) said "Go
for it." I will. I'll go for every last ounce of gold that resides in
both their scumbag pockets.
See, I was being a NICE GUY about this before. I decided not to
be NICE anymore. I get really FUCKING PISSED OFFwhen people mock my
pain, enough to where I start focusing my energy on THEIR pain. Lissa's
pain. The pain of watching her mother die the same death my secretarial
career died. Yes, that death. I know what it's like to watch something
you love die. Watching my father die right in front of my eyes at age
12 wasn't as painful as watching women get sexually harassed by their
bosses, but that was nothing compared to the pain of seeing women mock
the issue, like it were okay, like they couldn't have the courage to do
the right thing.
Lissa, watch your mom fade away and think of mycareer, and then
think of the fact that I can revive my career. Noone will be able to
revive your mom. No one. She's DYING, and she's DYING slowly. Does she
even remember your name anymore? I don't think so.....you think Dave's
such a nice guy? I don't. Hedoes that page for you, Missy, Dominique,
and all those wonderful girls who worship him. You think he's going to
get away with it? He's not. If you want to see God's punishment for your
treatment of me, watch it in your mom.
My last spell went to Jaycie's knees. She still competing?
Nope. The next one goes to Lissa's mom. Note her condition today and
see how she progresses from here. Don't mess with a psychic. After
this one is done I'll start REALLY wishing for some Gomez action on the
vault, and I'll start naming names and focusing ALL of my psychic energy
on it.
|
| |
| |
Paul Robinson wrote:
I'm working on a complaint to use if I ever get standing to sue Gordon
Roy Parker, alias Ray Gordon, for his threats. If he either files some
baseless complaint with a government agency because he doesn't like what
I have to say or he sues me claiming I defamed him in some fashion, then
I'll have standing to sue him and demand relief.
To the both of you! Shut the @$#* up already.
|
| |
| |
Howard Stanton wrote:
A very interesting idea Mr. Robinson.
In 1991, U.S. District Court Judge L.T. Senter barred attorney William
Bambach from filing further legal action on behalf of his client, one
Felix Uithoven, in an effort to retain ownership of his land being
sought by the Army Corps of Engineers. Senter deemed Uithoven's many
legal filings on the matter to be frivolous and unnecessarily extensive.
HS
Interesting case pointed out, however, has absolutely nothing to do with
these two idiots.
Mr. Parker, Gordon, whatever, has apparently filed a lawsuit against google
for archiving posts about him.
However, he is in a no win situation because of the old addage, "You can't
sue the newstand".
Nor can one sue the library because the library contains a book which
injures your reputation.
|
| |
| |
"Ray Gordon" <ray@cybersheet.com> wrote in
news:ckVnd.1341$VG.1066@trndny07:
<snicker>
I agree. I thought it was pretty funny also.
--
KTO
------------------
Everything I post is my opinion. If you don't like my opinions then
killfile me, if you have the balls.
|
| |
| |
"In a Class-Action case to protect tenure in one of the largest U.S.
universities (State University of New York), Federal Court Judge John T.
Curtin on September 20, 2000 RULED:
"1. IN FAVOR OF Plaintiffs' motion to amend the Class-Action filed by
two State University professors "pro se" on behalf of all (20,0000+)
professional employees in the State University of New York (SUNY); "
There are hundreds of other cases listed in Google and available to
anyone able to do a web search.
HS
Ray Gordon wrote:
<snicker>
|
| |
| |
Ray Gordon wrote:
<snicker>
Remember that thought, Ray, because that's exactly what everyone else
thinks of you when you threaten litigation.
To the best of my knowledge and belief the Supreme Court has ruled an
individual has the right to represent themselves in a case at the trial
level, and has not carved out some exception as to certain classes of
litigation. The right to appeal, however, is statutory and may be
subject to exceptions, which is why a pro-se who is not an attorney
cannot try an appeal before the Supreme Court.
But there is a difference between me and you, Ray. I am aware that this
sort of litigation is way over my head and I would find out more before
deciding if I was capable of filing this type of case, of perhaps
converting it to a straight lawsuit in place of a class action, or
perhaps getting counsel if I think it's necessary, or profitable.
The whole point is moot, however, because unless you file some agency
action against me or sue me I am powerless to act as I lack standing to
intervene. Remember that before you threaten me with filing claims or
suing me, because the moment you do I gain standing to file such a
complaint.
And before you accuse me of blackmail or extortion, be advised that the
law clearly exempts threatening someone with a lawsuit from being
extortion or blackmail because the law generally encourages people to
sue over using self-help.
Otherwise people could have had your ass prosecuted a long time ago for
all the litigation threats you've made.
|
| |
| |
Source: http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/PZarembka/AgeD.htm
"Although the court has granted plaintiffs' motion to file a second amended
complaint, plaintiffs are hereby advised that as non-attorney, pro se
litigants, they may not serve as representatives of the purported plaintiff
class. It is well settled in this circuit that non-lawyer, pro se litigants
cannot serve as class-representatives. 100,000 Victim Families Note Holders,
etc. v. Schulte Roth & Zabel, ____ F. Supp. ____, 2000 WL1100184 (S.D.N.Y.
2000); Walker v. Commissioner Glenn Goord, et. al, ____ F. Supp ____, 2000
WL 297249 (S.D.N.Y. 2000). The theory underlying this prohibition is that
pro se litigants cannot, ab initio, satisfy the requirement that a class
representative will "fairly and adequately protect the interests of the
class." Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 (a)(4). For this reason, plaintiffs may not rest
on the original complaint nor the first amended complaint filed herein. The
order on plaintiffs' motion to amend must be read as compelling plaintiffs
to serve and file a second amended complaint."
|
| |
| |
How odd that the very same case you quote includes THIS:
"Although the court has granted plaintiffs' motion to file a second amended
complaint, plaintiffs are hereby advised that as non-attorney, pro se
litigants, they may not serve as representatives of the purported plaintiff
class. It is well settled in this circuit that non-lawyer, pro se litigants
cannot serve as class-representatives. 100,000 Victim Families Note Holders,
etc. v. Schulte Roth & Zabel, ____ F. Supp. ____, 2000 WL1100184 (S.D.N.Y.
2000); Walker v. Commissioner Glenn Goord, et. al, ____ F. Supp ____, 2000
WL 297249 (S.D.N.Y. 2000). The theory underlying this prohibition is that
pro se litigants cannot, ab initio, satisfy the requirement that a class
representative will "fairly and adequately protect the interests of the
class." Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 (a)(4). For this reason, plaintiffs may not rest
on the original complaint nor the first amended complaint filed herein. The
order on plaintiffs' motion to amend must be read as compelling plaintiffs
to serve and file a second amended complaint."
"In a Class-Action case to protect tenure in one of the largest U.S.
universities (State University of New York), Federal Court Judge John T.
Curtin on September 20, 2000 RULED:
"1. IN FAVOR OF Plaintiffs' motion to amend the Class-Action filed by
two State University professors "pro se" on behalf of all (20,0000+)
professional employees in the State University of New York (SUNY); "
There are hundreds of other cases listed in Google and available to
anyone able to do a web search.
HS
Ray Gordon wrote:
|
| |
| |
Ray Gordon wrote:
<snicker>
---- 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.
|
| |
| |
"Ray Gordon" <ray@cybersheet.com> wrote in
news:R76od.4668$hJ6.4564@trndny01:
Source: http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/PZarembka/AgeD.htm
"Although the court has granted plaintiffs' motion to file a second
amended complaint, plaintiffs are hereby advised that as non-attorney,
pro se litigants, they may not serve as representatives of the
purported plaintiff class. It is well settled in this circuit that
non-lawyer, pro se litigants cannot serve as class-representatives.
100,000 Victim Families Note Holders, etc. v. Schulte Roth & Zabel,
____ F. Supp. ____, 2000 WL1100184 (S.D.N.Y. 2000); Walker v.
Commissioner Glenn Goord, et. al, ____ F. Supp ____, 2000 WL 297249
(S.D.N.Y. 2000). The theory underlying this prohibition is that pro se
litigants cannot, ab initio, satisfy the requirement that a class
representative will "fairly and adequately protect the interests of
the class." Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 (a)(4). For this reason, plaintiffs may
not rest on the original complaint nor the first amended complaint
filed herein. The order on plaintiffs' motion to amend must be read as
compelling plaintiffs to serve and file a second amended complaint."
Notice that you just reposted the same piece of #@($ again rather than
responding to the content of Paul's post.
Why is that, ray?
--
KTO
------------------
Everything I post is my opinion. If you don't like my opinions then
killfile me, if you have the balls.
|
| |
| |
|
