The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.
|
 |
 
|
Public Announcement by rachmiel
Poast new message in this thread
Date: June 15th, 2007 12:42 PM Author: Vivacious lodge I understand there is some suspicion as to why I wasn't named in this complaint, which, given its level of quality and my sense that professors would not want to waste their time writing such a thing, I suspect either Mike Fertik or Brittan Heller was at least partly responsible for drafting. The inclusion of the copyright claims also sounds to me like something a student would come up with.
I admit I'm curious why I wasn't named in this sham, too, seeing as the whole purpose of the suit seems to be to name as many people as possible. What I can tell you is that I'm not "conspiring" with anyone, and I'd have no interest in doing so. My only interest is in offering what I've already offered in the past to these girls, but oddly enough, could never get a solid commitment in return toward putting the issue to rest.
After talks with Reputation Defender died, I contacted Heide Iravani by e-mail. I gave her my personal cell phone number and explained I wasn't comfortable corresponding with her via e-mail, as I didn't want to have to worry about my e-mails being forwarded off to some third-party, but that I wished to resolve the issue for her. I suggested that, if she were concerned about her privacy, she could use a blocked caller ID when calling me. She told me she was too tired to talk. Maybe she really is an insomniac after all, I don't know. But she never made any attempt to contact me, even though I had very clearly stated that I wanted to resolve the issue, meaning take down the threads.
Just as I offered in the past, I have reiterated my offer to these people: I will take down the threads in question and implement some level of community moderation, as I was already going to before this mess occurred. In fact, I will even make a special effort to oversee that these two people do not feel harassed anymore. If their chief concern is to remove threads and feel safe, then by this point they surely know I'll gladly help them.
If, however, they find themselves more motivated by vengeance, and wish to try to obtain IPs for the sake of actually trying to harm people's careers (in contrast to their own dubious claims of personal injury to their careers), I suspect they won't be successful. For a long time it has been widely known my policy is not to collect personal information, including IPs, unless someone is spamming. If the next step is that I should be accused of negligence for failing to collect this information, then so be it. I was never aware of any regulations mandating the collection of this data. |
 |
Date: June 15th, 2007 12:44 PM Author: Rough-skinned den ratface You the man, dawg. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=645361&forum_id=2#8258496) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2007 12:46 PM Author: Laughsome Trump Supporter Lay I second this. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=645361&forum_id=2#8258506) |
|
Date: June 22nd, 2007 1:43 PM Author: underhanded mustard school cafeteria pocket flask tintcr (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=645361&forum_id=2#8286436) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2007 12:49 PM Author: Galvanic hall place of business I'm behind you. But at what point does this site become more trouble than it's worth for you? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=645361&forum_id=2#8258520) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2007 12:51 PM Author: Vivacious lodge A long time ago, actually, if you want to measure it financially.
But, I still dare to dream. |
|
Date: June 15th, 2007 1:00 PM Author: salmon karate You, sir, are awesome. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=645361&forum_id=2#8258570) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2007 2:03 PM Author: painfully honest institution Aren't you supposed to be calling her DOE, now? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=645361&forum_id=2#8258860) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2007 2:07 PM Author: Infuriating mind-boggling electric furnace fuck that. they'll always be brittan and heide to my real xoxo peeps. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=645361&forum_id=2#8258887) |
|
Date: June 23rd, 2007 1:46 PM Author: diverse heaven partner yeah, the fact that they're calling themselves does is SO laughable. we all know who they are. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=645361&forum_id=2#8290212) |
|
Date: June 24th, 2007 1:29 AM Author: abusive light organic girlfriend lettuce ... as will OCI interviewers who previously wouldnt have cared. this suit is evidence of how personal they let this get, how touchy they are, and their propensity to take poor advice (from fertik instead of from actual lawyers w/ experience) (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=645361&forum_id=2#8293161) |
|
Date: January 24th, 2008 12:26 AM Author: Comical rehab http://www.xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=750882&mc=10&forum_id=1#9198165 (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=645361&forum_id=2#9212317) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2007 5:05 PM Author: Irradiated Cobalt Spot Puppy Awesome.
tytytytyty |
|
Date: June 15th, 2007 6:35 PM Author: Hideous theatre Ur the man dood. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=645361&forum_id=2#8260330) |
|
Date: November 24th, 2007 2:08 AM Author: Bat-shit-crazy federal center Rachmiel, can you please delete this thread:
http://www.xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=720986&mc=86&forum_id=2
Some posters are providing harmful information and intentionally interrogating in efforts to harm people's careers/career outlooks. In other words, they are posting links to people's e-mail addresses for Facebook and their corresponding Facebook password, and trying to out them and the potential for harm is evident... thank you. |
Date: June 15th, 2007 12:45 PM Author: wonderful sandwich dog poop WGWAG (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=645361&forum_id=2#8258499) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2007 12:51 PM Author: Arousing digit ratio TITCR (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=645361&forum_id=2#8258522) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2007 12:51 PM Author: Translucent Glittery Macaca Internal Respiration TITCR (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=645361&forum_id=2#8258524) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2007 2:37 PM Author: cocky yellow philosopher-king TITCtitcr (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=645361&forum_id=2#8259087) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2007 12:51 PM Author: Translucent Glittery Macaca Internal Respiration TITCR (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=645361&forum_id=2#8258523) |
|
Date: June 16th, 2007 2:09 AM Author: Slate Razzle Box Office TITCR. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=645361&forum_id=2#8262026) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2007 12:52 PM Author: Insecure dingle berry house excellent, ty rach (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=645361&forum_id=2#8258526) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2007 12:56 PM Author: unholy crotch Ever go to Yacco's Hot Dogs? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=645361&forum_id=2#8258550) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2007 1:01 PM Author: Vivacious lodge I live within walking distance of the original. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=645361&forum_id=2#8258576) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2007 1:05 PM Author: racy carnelian double fault wagecucks yocco's (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=645361&forum_id=2#8258594) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2007 12:57 PM Author: Exciting harsh gas station can you expand a little about your actual practices involving ip addresses? when logging is off, there's no data collected at all? what happens to the logs created during a spamming episode? what's stopping you from just taking down the threads now? also, thanks for all you do to maintain the site. |
|
Date: June 15th, 2007 1:05 PM Author: Vivacious lodge I won't take down threads if I can't be guaranteed that there is a commitment on the other side toward putting this publicity hounding bullshit to rest. Who's to say if I take down the threads and something else pops up, the backlash won't resume if I don't deal with it immediately? I'd like to be able to look to the future, rather than being bogged down with reporters and haters and all sorts of things from the past. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=645361&forum_id=2#8258591) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2007 1:31 PM Author: Exciting harsh gas station after this is over, will you consider some kind of informal notice and takedown system if threads with real names start showing up in google? why are the off-topic threads showing up in the google results anyway? i thought google only searched on-topic threads. |
|
Date: June 15th, 2007 4:59 PM Author: Brilliant supple jap community account Subject: I might ask this same question. In fact I have. If, upon reflection, "outing" is a bad thing, and some form of moderation admittedly makes sense, why not implement the new policy now rather than wait for a lawsuit to play itself out? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=645361&forum_id=2#8259900) |
|
Date: June 16th, 2007 1:39 AM Author: concupiscible trailer park We'll be in touch with you if another moderator gig opens up. Thank you for your interest. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=645361&forum_id=2#8261931) |
|
Date: June 17th, 2007 10:19 AM Author: Brilliant supple jap community account Subject: I have never had any interest. I just think SOMEBODY should do the job (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=645361&forum_id=2#8265958) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2007 2:23 PM Author: Crystalline Charismatic Boltzmann Perhaps you could take some or all of the threads down as a good will gesture to get those forward looking discussions started. I think it would show good faith, and it would stem whatever flow of harm/distress the Does are feeling, whether real or perceived.
|
|
Date: June 15th, 2007 3:40 PM Author: Frum maize mood school Rach and GTO have shown nothing but bad faith since the beginning of this whole ridiculous set of incidents. That's the whole reason for the lawsuit, I presume. To show good faith now would go against everything the administrators stand for. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=645361&forum_id=2#8259424) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2007 3:38 PM Author: Frum maize mood school Note the lack of answers to the real questions posed about IP logging...
What a cowardly little shit. Living by basic rules of human decency would have avoided this entire fiasco (i.e., deleting the threads when the first requests to delete them were made), but the morons that run this site just couldn't act like adults, and have to concoct these ridiculous policies to cover for their own immaturity. Pathetic. |
|
Date: June 15th, 2007 5:38 PM Author: Vivacious lodge A coward would yield or bend over for a bully. I've offered to take down the threads, but I never received as much as a call or follow-up e-mail from Iravani after writing to her. Heller's another story; she's been sending threats and enlisting third-parties, including Brian Leiter, to do her dirty work for a long time.
I wasn't really around at the time Iravani's incident occurred, so I wouldn't have been able to authorize any removal. I wasn't even taking calls from GTO; I was taking a break. It all happened over a relatively brief period of time, about a month. By the time I had come back, the Washington Post was calling me for an interview, and things had turned into a big spectacle in which GTO and I were set to play Antagonist.
When I offered to take down the threads and Reputation Defender refused before even consulting their two "clients", I still reached out to Iravani and apologized for not receiving her initial e-mails. I assured her that I wanted to resolve the issue for her. This was not cowardly.
Without a meeting of the minds, and in light of the fact that Reputation Defender seemed to be interested in a greater campaign against the board, I couldn't be sure that the issue would be considered resolved if I were to take a unilateral action out of good will. She chose not to talk to me. If she would have, I am sure this would be over. |
|
Date: June 15th, 2007 5:45 PM Author: Irradiated Cobalt Spot Puppy Thanks for coming out and telling us what is going on. It makes us feel much more comfortable. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=645361&forum_id=2#8260084) |
|
Date: June 17th, 2007 11:10 AM Author: Purple swashbuckling kitchen hominid It doesn't seem like you're in a position to make demands. This blew up because you were unreasonable in the first place. "I wouldn't take the posts down because she was MEAN to me." Dumbass. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=645361&forum_id=2#8265989) |
|
Date: June 19th, 2007 2:37 PM Author: Vivacious lodge If someone writes a message to me and is rude or ridiculous, I'm usually going to ignore it, whether it's an e-mail or some idiot on the board calling me a name, like "Dumbass." BH struck me as a problem-child (I was correct in this assessment) and, maybe for the purposes of risk-aversion, I should have been extra-accommodating to her. But I chose to ignore her, because that's usually what I do with idiots.
As far as I know, the people pursuing this aggressively are the ones making demands. I've simply offered to remove content, as I've already done several times before with this same issue, if things can be put to rest. For the sake of the posters, or others who would go so far as to try to obtain injunctive relief in order to get what they could also get by simply writing an e-mail.
If the threads stay there forever, it doesn't really matter much to me. All of this seems to matter a lot more to BH than it does to me. |
|
Date: June 19th, 2007 7:50 PM Author: narrow-minded location sneaky criminal again, i must say - you da man, dawg. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=645361&forum_id=2#8275284) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2007 12:58 PM Author: Insecure dingle berry house what chances do u think this has of actually making it to trial? if it does how many of the defendants will actually be in suit? could the majority be dropped? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=645361&forum_id=2#8258560) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2007 12:59 PM Author: dull theater stage marketing idea So if there are no IP logs, then this seems like the end of the lawsuiTTT. But what if one of the defendants registered with a legit e-mail address? That would be a misfortune for them. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=645361&forum_id=2#8258561) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2007 1:00 PM Author: Exciting harsh gas station i wonder if they can still get pauliewalnuts through the googlepages thing. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=645361&forum_id=2#8258567) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2007 1:01 PM Author: Arousing digit ratio I really hope so, I really hope all his information becomes public and his future career ended (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=645361&forum_id=2#8258574) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2007 1:05 PM Author: dull theater stage marketing idea Credited (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=645361&forum_id=2#8258592) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2007 1:06 PM Author: kink-friendly mental disorder parlor I don't think his loss would be widely mourned. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=645361&forum_id=2#8258596) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2007 9:27 PM Author: yapping aquamarine point we can celebrate it with a "hands across xoxo" type thing. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=645361&forum_id=2#8260912) |
|
Date: October 9th, 2007 1:38 PM Author: Hilarious Splenetic Office Windowlicker (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=645361&forum_id=2#8747304) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2007 4:24 PM Author: Titillating Parlour Rigor I don't think that the website can legally be forced to disclose the IP addresses, can it? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=645361&forum_id=2#8259677) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2007 4:36 PM Author: passionate low-t tattoo Sure, that would be discoverable. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=645361&forum_id=2#8259765) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2007 4:57 PM Author: Titillating Parlour Rigor How?
This would probably be the standard (ability to survive a summary judgment motion). http://www.internetcases.com/archives/2005/10/delaware_decisi.html
|
|
Date: June 16th, 2007 11:00 AM Author: Aqua Regret delaware standard dooder. that is nowhere close to binding authority, even if based on federal concerns (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=645361&forum_id=2#8262320) |
|
Date: June 17th, 2007 1:34 AM Author: Titillating Parlour Rigor might not be binding, but what other standard might the court use? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=645361&forum_id=2#8265406) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2007 4:40 PM Author: heady apoplectic depressive Hate to say anything here that would help the plaintiffs, but even if there's no IP address logging on this site, ISPs that handle the email address accounts of the defendants might have reliable session-based IP logs. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=645361&forum_id=2#8259790) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2007 4:47 PM Author: Ruby motley stage messiness When would you be logged in to xo through your email session? They don't even require a real email to register. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=645361&forum_id=2#8259823) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2007 4:59 PM Author: smoky cuck blood rage lol seriously
|
|
Date: June 15th, 2007 1:03 PM Author: kink-friendly mental disorder parlor Cool, thank you.
By the way, what's up with those numbered posts on the sticky thread? |
|
Date: June 15th, 2007 1:04 PM Author: Translucent Glittery Macaca Internal Respiration what the hell are you worried about? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=645361&forum_id=2#8258586) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2007 1:15 PM Author: mewling frisky volcanic crater church So how many IPs have you collected so far? Was it just for banned posters like Madame Cunt? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=645361&forum_id=2#8258622) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2007 1:17 PM Author: Insecure dingle berry house based on what you have said i guess mediation would be a strong possibility. given that you were going to give the P's what they wanted. i hope you saved that email (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=645361&forum_id=2#8258625) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2007 1:20 PM Author: mewling frisky volcanic crater church GIVE US AN UPDATE ON GTO PLS.
Some of us are sort of worried about him. First losing his job, now the lawsuit. |
|
Date: June 15th, 2007 1:33 PM Author: Blathering Violent Ceo If you take down the threads now, I think you will seriously undermine an important aspect of their lawsuit against GTO and the others.
This aint legal advice and I aint your attorney. You should probably consult an attorney and retain him to review this developing situation for the time being, if you havent already.
|
|
Date: June 15th, 2007 1:37 PM Author: salmon karate Or at least move them to offtopic so they eventually won't come up at the top of the search results on Google. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=645361&forum_id=2#8258705) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2007 3:30 PM Author: passionate low-t tattoo I don't think that's the real distinction between what is and is not cached. Rach said a while ago that he doesn't use robots.txt. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=645361&forum_id=2#8259357) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2007 3:34 PM Author: cocky yellow philosopher-king TITCgeekfu (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=645361&forum_id=2#8259387) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2007 1:41 PM Author: self-centered soul-stirring field I srsly doubt his original post was prepared without the assistance of an attorney - at least, I HOPE it wasn't...
|
|
Date: June 15th, 2007 1:43 PM Author: Blathering Violent Ceo i think an attorney would have told him to just stfu.
|
|
Date: June 15th, 2007 1:44 PM Author: Ruby motley stage messiness Yeah I can't see an attorney telling him to create a STICKY about this. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=645361&forum_id=2#8258743) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2007 1:47 PM Author: sable pit His dad is an attorney, iirc. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=645361&forum_id=2#8258758) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2007 2:37 PM Author: boyish khaki dilemma If he takes the threads down, the Freedom Haters win. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=645361&forum_id=2#8259089) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2007 1:37 PM Author: smoky cuck blood rage Thanks Rach. Fuck Fertik and the plaintiffs. SS Big Changes full speed ahead! (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=645361&forum_id=2#8258701) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2007 1:39 PM Author: Ruby motley stage messiness You should have removed them in the first place instead of being so stubborn. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=645361&forum_id=2#8258712) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2007 1:45 PM Author: salmon karate It is his only leverage though. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=645361&forum_id=2#8258748) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2007 1:46 PM Author: Ruby motley stage messiness Leverage for what? If the threads are gone, what are they going to complain about? The whole problem arose from the tolerance for such posts. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=645361&forum_id=2#8258754) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2007 1:47 PM Author: sable pit You really dont see leverage here? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=645361&forum_id=2#8258763) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2007 1:49 PM Author: Ruby motley stage messiness He wouldn't need this leverage if he deleted the threads. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=645361&forum_id=2#8258768) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2007 1:50 PM Author: Magenta startling university Dude. How dense are you? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=645361&forum_id=2#8258775) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2007 1:57 PM Author: Blathering Violent Ceo I agree with him. dont think he's dense at all.
his removing the threads wouldnt be admissible at trial either. subsequent remedial measure.
|
|
Date: June 15th, 2007 2:01 PM Author: Umber cowardly fortuitous meteor really? aren't SRMs limited to defects and/or negligence? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=645361&forum_id=2#8258843) |
|
Date: June 16th, 2007 11:02 AM Author: Aqua Regret yes, there is an actual *rule* on this (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=645361&forum_id=2#8262326) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2007 2:01 PM Author: Magenta startling university I'm not operating under the assumption that there will be a trial. I just think it would be a useful bargaining chip to still have in the event of any settlement negotiations that may occur. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=645361&forum_id=2#8258848) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2007 2:04 PM Author: Ruby motley stage messiness I'm not talking about now. Obviously he needs the leverage during the lawsuit. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=645361&forum_id=2#8258871) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2007 2:07 PM Author: Blathering Violent Ceo removing them will make it a lot easier to argue to the judge at every opportunity (dispositive motions, scheduling conferences at which many federal judges expect you to argue the merits of your case, etc) that "Your Honor, this case is totally overblown. If you google the plaintiffs' names on your computer right now at this very moment, you won't find anything about them from xoxo." (or something to that effect).
if you can convince the judge to be skeptical of the claims at the very outset, that makes life a lot easier on all subsequent issues. discovery fights, motion work, and if you manage to get all the way to trial, evidentiary rulings and jury instructions.
|
|
Date: June 15th, 2007 2:08 PM Author: sable pit This is a ridiculous post. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=645361&forum_id=2#8258896) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2007 2:10 PM Author: Blathering Violent Ceo good one
|
|
Date: June 15th, 2007 2:12 PM Author: Ruby motley stage messiness Don't mind him, he's always like this. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=645361&forum_id=2#8258929) |
|
Date: June 16th, 2007 11:06 AM Author: Aqua Regret what the fuck are you talking about? all the claims are for past injuries -- the remedies sought are damages -- and subsequent remedy isn't remedy at all here. copyright infringement and defamation claims don't evaporate if the infringing statements are removed SEVEN MONTHS after they were posted. it stops damages from accruing, maybe. plz stop being dumb. tytyty.
This is not legal advice, and I'm not an attorney. Moreover, any statements herein that appear to make representations about any individuals do not in fact make any representations at all. They are purely fictive responses to fictive scenarios. |
|
Date: June 15th, 2007 2:00 PM Author: Ruby motley stage messiness If he had deleted the threads and not tolerated people continuing to post such things, then there would have been much less damage done and I doubt it would have come to this point. I know it is too late now and I'm not saying if he deletes the threads this problem will vanish, but his reasoning for not deleting the threads is ridiculous. If there was say only a handful of threads about it and they were deleted at the first request, why would they continue to generate all this drama, if they are just interested in saving their reputations? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=645361&forum_id=2#8258838) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2007 2:08 PM Author: Magenta startling university Obviously he should have deleted them a long time ago.
Obviously had he done so, things would be different.
Meanwhile, this is the present, and what he could have and perhaps should have done in the past is quite irrelevant to the question of whether he should remove the threads now.
As to your last question about why they would continue to generate all this drama if they are just interested in saving their reputations, take a second to think back on the whole thing, and ask yourself if there are other relevant parties who may have interests they are trying to advance through all of this. |
|
Date: June 15th, 2007 2:10 PM Author: Ruby motley stage messiness My original post in this thread was only commenting on the limited issue of what he ought to have done to nip this thing in the bud. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=645361&forum_id=2#8258917) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2007 2:12 PM Author: Magenta startling university Right, and I tend to agree with that one.
My post was in response to this later exchange:
Date: June 15th, 2007 1:46 PM Author: sniper
Leverage for what? If the threads are gone, what are they going to complain about? The whole problem arose from the tolerance for such posts.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=645361&forum_id=2#8258754)
Reply
Date: June 15th, 2007 1:47 PM Author: ICE
You really dont see leverage here?
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=645361&forum_id=2#8258763)
Reply
Date: June 15th, 2007 1:49 PM Author: sniper
He wouldn't need this leverage if he deleted the threads.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=645361&forum_id=2#8258768) |
|
Date: January 18th, 2008 3:05 PM Author: Ebony cerebral set idea he suggested http://www.topix.com/forum/county/broward-fl/TNNSCB04GPM8N2NP6 http://www.topix.com/forum/family/TG10P90MDT641VO35 http://www.topix.com/forum/news/journalism/TIJKI768RMRCQEIL3 http://www.topix.com/forum/county/broward-fl/TL5VN52224S6LEDBE http://www.topix.com/forum/family/parenting/TB1EADBQQULU83S37 http://www.topix.com/forum/county/broward-fl/T4R8C1N46IPGJ64SI http://www.topix.com/forum/county/broward-fl/TNIKRR9696CAF9PDG http://www.topix.com/forum/tech/T5865OAR3VCU6VQ5Q http://www.topix.com/forum/atlanta/TSN54KJCI9DKPI9MK http://reddit.com/search?q=%22Sue+Scheff%22 http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=747653&mc=1&forum_id=2 http://www.xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=688060&mc=2&forum_id=2 http://www.xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=743748&mc=3&forum_id=1 http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?t=24663&sid=3124e8f9d7b66076d1794312bb6c84eb http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?p=304890&sid=d27fd8342fff005cc04523852d1f352b http://wwf.fornits.com/viewtopic.php?p=276536&sid=23e174ccdc9103e8204045dfb73aacf4 http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=743748&mc=3&forum_id=1 http://wwf.fornits.com/viewtopic.php?t=19905&start=80&sid=470c270a3ef9ef207a1f9ea21dfb2a40 http://www.topix.com/forum/state/oh http://www.topix.com/forum/state/oh/TTJD0HO9L3UTRGDNK http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/sfgate/detail?blogid=16&entry_id=16282 http://www.nowpublic.com/sue-scheff-pure-sued http://www.isaccorp.org/whitmore/jharris.pdf http://www.reason.com/news/show/122156.html http://majikthise.typepad.com/majikthise_/2007/08/sue-scheff-chil.html http://www.care2.com/news/member/847797324/451087 http://www.nowpublic.com/what-sue-scheff-wants-reputation-defender-help-censor http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/Sue_Scheff http://www.corank.com/tech/tag/Sue%20Scheff http://www.sueschefftruth.com/?p=11 http://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/0/267/RipOff0267011.htm http://www.topix.com/forum/city/scottsdale-az/TII4L182S443J7HFR http://www.free-press-release.com/news/200711/1196208835.html http://teenadvocatesusa.homestead.com/SUE_SCHEFF_LAWSUIT.html
|
|
Date: June 15th, 2007 1:48 PM Author: salmon karate The past damages they suffered from not being hired? The alleged defamation that still took place? The fact that things still are cached on Google after they are removed? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=645361&forum_id=2#8258765) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2007 1:50 PM Author: Ruby motley stage messiness I think that if he had deleted all of this stuff as it happened and dealt with it the way a site's administrator ought to, there would be no lawsuit. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=645361&forum_id=2#8258779) |
|
Date: June 17th, 2007 11:13 AM Author: Purple swashbuckling kitchen hominid He doesn't have leverage here, he's just making things worse for himself and the Ds. If he'd just taken things down in the first place, GTO would have a job and no one would be getting sued. Seriously, a bunch of publicly discredited slandering hate statements are not leverage. To a reasonable person, it just makes him look like a dickwad. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=645361&forum_id=2#8265994) |
|
Date: June 20th, 2007 6:40 PM Author: Vivacious lodge You are wrong. I believe this would still have been pursued even if I had received and responded to Heide's two e-mails to me during the relatively short period of time this was going on.
First of all, the threads would have kept reappearing even if I had been around to actively delete them at the time, and it's not like I could have removed the content on Googlepages that was still associated with the site. Second, I am doubtful that Reputation Defender still wouldn't have seized the opportunity to use AutoAdmit for publicity. After all, their campaign wasn't to delete the Heide Iravani and Brittan Heller threads. The goal of the campaign was "cleaning up AutoAdmit."
And, given that I have made it clear to the "victims" plenty of times that I'll take the stuff down if they back off, and that in spite of this, they haven't responded or expressed a willingness to work with me, I believe that they would still have wanted to pursue the individuals who made the posts. Even if I had removed threads, they might still have wanted to get revenge, and Reputation Defender was there to receive their vindictive aspirations with open arms. |
|
Date: June 20th, 2007 9:33 PM Author: cocky yellow philosopher-king TITCR
|
|
Date: June 15th, 2007 2:06 PM Author: smoky cuck blood rage yes and if he was moderating the board to get rid of all the racist flame and motherfuck jokes, we could all have a nice law school learning forum free of distractions. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=645361&forum_id=2#8258881) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2007 2:05 PM Author: painfully honest institution "I will take down the threads in question and implement some level of community moderation, as I was already going to before this mess occurred."
wait, what? You wouldn't delete the thread. Isn't that what this whole thing was about? |
|
Date: June 15th, 2007 2:41 PM Author: cocky yellow philosopher-king It isn't now. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=645361&forum_id=2#8259109) |
|
Date: June 17th, 2007 12:06 PM Author: Slippery market party of the first part do you even know how to read? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=645361&forum_id=2#8266055) |
|
Date: January 24th, 2008 12:25 AM Author: Comical rehab http://www.xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=750882&mc=10&forum_id=1#9198165 (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=645361&forum_id=2#9212314) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2007 2:49 PM Author: Glassy whorehouse incel Well, I am seriously bothered by the poor quality of the complaint.
I don't think a professor at the TTT I attend would deign to put his or her name on something so badly written.
T'is a smear on the name of all Yale professors. Even the yobo who is upset that the illegal alien raids are targeting Hispanics. |
|
Date: June 15th, 2007 3:31 PM Author: self-centered soul-stirring field That has been my problem with this lawsuit from the beginning. In fact, had Rosen posted the Complaint along with the Summons that first day, I would have thought it was surely flame.
That has to be one of the most poorly drafted complaints I have ever read, especially from someone who teaches at what I used to consider the most prestigious LS around.
I really bet most of the YLS profs wish he wouldn't have attached his name to that POS. |
|
Date: June 15th, 2007 3:38 PM Author: cocky yellow philosopher-king I'd wondered, too. I mean, odd things can happen if a team is rushing (during "US v. Nixon," I remember, an attorney signed "Respectively Submitted" rather than "Respectfully Submitted" on the cover-letter, inter alia...). But, really, there were some basic mechanical slipups in this complaint.
Rach's theory is the most interesting theory I've heard for this. |
|
Date: June 15th, 2007 9:52 PM Author: Curious menage gunner that the plaintiffs helped draft the complaint? no fucking way |
|
Date: June 18th, 2007 10:15 PM Author: exhilarant hunting ground mother Well...
I hope someone other than Rosen drafted it. Hopefully, it was someone sans law degree.
Tis really a POS complaint. Rosen should be ashamed at being associated with it... |
|
Date: June 15th, 2007 2:58 PM Author: Vibrant duck-like ticket booth I'm glad you're sticking to your guns. Why'd it take so long for you to respond to the lawsuit? Were you taking measured consideration in your response? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=645361&forum_id=2#8259183) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2007 3:06 PM Author: 180 antidepressant drug space so that was your IP policy all along? so much rank speculation and that was it. funny. how long has that been in place, btw? did you come up with that before or after leitergate? edit: i agree that it might practically be a sign of good faith to take down some of the threads. but i have no idea what your strategy is currently, legal or otherwise. |
|
Date: June 15th, 2007 3:32 PM Author: Razzle-dazzle brunch Were any of the 28 known spammers? If you didn't collect IP adresses then does that mean that it is impossible to connect a post to a user? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=645361&forum_id=2#8259375) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2007 3:39 PM Author: cocky yellow philosopher-king I've never seen "spam" on the site...you mean "marketing spam"? Or something broader? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=645361&forum_id=2#8259420) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2007 3:56 PM Author: Infuriating mind-boggling electric furnace sometimes people start a million thread on the same topic on right after another. aznazn... barely avoids being spam. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=645361&forum_id=2#8259501) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2007 5:07 PM Author: cocky yellow philosopher-king Aha--thanks. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=645361&forum_id=2#8259924) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2007 4:23 PM Author: sapphire business firm roast beef If fertik really did have a hand in drafting the complaint, wouldn't that be a serious case of unlawful practice without a license? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=645361&forum_id=2#8259668) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2007 4:59 PM Author: grizzly casino love of her life You've never worked, have you? You draft something, an attorney signs off on it, its legit. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=645361&forum_id=2#8259902) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2007 5:03 PM Author: sapphire business firm roast beef Yes, but Fertik isn't working as Rosen's law clerk, he's an independant service provider (forgive the pun). Having an attorney sign off on it doesn't mean you aren't practicing law. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=645361&forum_id=2#8259914) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2007 5:40 PM Author: Vibrant duck-like ticket booth As long as a lawyer signs it, he's fine.
However, it seems like Fertik skirts this line a lot. I'm pretty sure his whole business consists of sending cease and desist letters, which is at least in the realm of legal practice. |
|
Date: June 16th, 2007 2:56 PM Author: sapphire business firm roast beef "As long as a lawyer signs it, he's fine."
I think this is wrong. I don't think you can avoid the bar just by hiring a lawyer to sign off on all your legal filings. If that were true, law firms wouldn't require associates to take the bar. If he's giving legal advice (i.e. drafting the complaint) I think he could be practicing law.
I'm not saying he's going to get charged, I'm just saying from a law-school-exam point of view, he would be in violation of the law. |
|
Date: June 16th, 2007 2:59 PM Author: Dark Theater I think you'd have to look at whether his draftings were supervised and whether they were heavily edited. The character of an admitted lawyer's involvement would matter. Signing off =/= sufficient oversight. But if the lawyer edits it, Fertik might be OK. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=645361&forum_id=2#8262999) |
|
Date: June 16th, 2007 3:04 PM Author: sapphire business firm roast beef Maybe, but I still think that since he isn't actually a client, his even drafting the complaint would qualify as legal advice. Advice doesn't have to be complete or even very good to qualify as legal advice.
Again, it might be impossible to prove, but if this were an exam I'd nail him for it (assuming he's even involved). |
|
Date: June 15th, 2007 5:25 PM Author: kink-friendly mental disorder parlor It puzzles me why he didn't just take the bar. He's a smart enough guy, and it's not like he's living in one of the tougher bar jurisdictions. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=645361&forum_id=2#8260000) |
|
Date: June 16th, 2007 3:01 PM Author: sapphire business firm roast beef It has nothing to to with not being smart enough to pass the bar. He's decided that he wants a "national" practice. If he were to take the bar that would (1) open him up to malpractice liability and (2) kindof admit that what he is doing is legal practice. If his company is in fact engaging in legal services, he would have to either pass the bar in all 50 states (or at least in any state he has clients) or hire lawyers in all 50 states - and he'd also have to compete against actual lawyers who do this stuff for a living. This would drive up costs and make his already flakey business model impossible.
This is a very long way of saying his decision to not become a lawyer was a business decision. Now no one can claim he's practicing as lawyer, because he isn't even a member of the bar. Of course, I think he is practicing as a lawyer, but apparently "as long as a lawyer signs off on it" its OK. |
|
Date: June 15th, 2007 5:36 PM Author: coral multi-colored forum round eye Was that you on Jeopardy? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=645361&forum_id=2#8260042) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2007 6:37 PM Author: Dashing Arrogant Crackhouse Stock Car I'd like to know this too. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=645361&forum_id=2#8260337) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2007 6:49 PM Author: Sexy walnut sweet tailpipe ladyboy Subject: Bravo & Touche! good job chap- 180 to you. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=645361&forum_id=2#8260402) |
|
Date: June 16th, 2007 11:17 AM Author: Chocolate shitlib therapy yeah nobody gives a fuck about the lawsuit. were you on jeopardy????? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=645361&forum_id=2#8262351) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2007 7:08 PM Author: Adventurous offensive station newt Important FYI: Using publicly available info and a little bit of supplemental research, I was able to confirm that IP addresses are not logged at the server level either. So it seems that the defendants (aside from the ones that particpated in any 3rd party sites and even then who really knows) should be off the hook given this info and the info in the OP, as it is impossible to ID them. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=645361&forum_id=2#8260468) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2007 7:25 PM Author: Infuriating mind-boggling electric furnace why are you being cryptic? how did you figure this out? link? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=645361&forum_id=2#8260527) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2007 8:49 PM Author: Adventurous offensive station newt With a little bit of tech savvy and common sense, it's not very difficult to figure out how I was able to get this information. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=645361&forum_id=2#8260811) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2007 8:56 PM Author: Infuriating mind-boggling electric furnace i'm pretty tech savvy but don't know what you mean. point me in the right direction? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=645361&forum_id=2#8260826) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2007 9:08 PM Author: mewling frisky volcanic crater church It's called flame dude. If he really did this he would just explain how. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=645361&forum_id=2#8260852) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2007 10:00 PM Author: Curious menage gunner no posts need to be removed. you just need to get some geek to write some code that can replace words with other words. heid becomes hyde brit becomes britttin whatever... then for the sake of historical verification, you keep a key that shows the changes you've made so people can actually search for terms. that keeps google searches out of it when necessary and it keeps the freedom of speech firmly protected. |
|
Date: June 15th, 2007 10:29 PM Author: Aphrodisiac chrome bawdyhouse nowag or just take them out of google cache (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=645361&forum_id=2#8261206) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2007 10:54 PM Author: Curious menage gunner I don't know how that works. I can imagine copying a full thread and posting it to a new one to get around that, though. Admittedly, unlikely. |
|
Date: June 16th, 2007 12:46 AM Author: Free-loading Mint Range please have renada edit or compose your future public service announcements. ty. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=645361&forum_id=2#8261785) |
|
Date: June 16th, 2007 12:52 AM Author: dead lilac yarmulke dysfunction ytmnd (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=645361&forum_id=2#8261801) |
|
Date: June 16th, 2007 2:07 AM Author: bronze marvelous sanctuary mad cow disease The only leverage that I can see is if they have access to the files or can help ID the posters. If they can do any of those things that may be able to use it as leverage to clear themselves. Taking the post down now probably won't stop the suit from continuing. The leverage is in helping to Identify the posters.
All this is just my opinion of course. not advice. |
|
Date: June 16th, 2007 11:45 AM Author: Vivacious lodge http://www.esnips.com/doc/9ed308e7-b94c-45c1-8568-4455eea1ec61/Apr_5_2007_Harvard_panel_on_AutoAdmit
If anyone wants to do some amateur forensics, it might be worthwhile analyzing Fertik's speech patterns, buzzwords, etc., and comparing them to the complaint for any similarities. I would love to know if Fertik is behind this complaint. I wouldn't be surprised in the slightest if he's still actively involved in this little war.
About 2 months ago, I received a really weak C&D letter against me and GTO from a 2nd year associate in San Francisco. I assumed it was a friend of Fertik's and I ignored it.
I also understand that Fertik may have distinctly personal connections with someone in the Stanford community, who seemingly has been rallying the attention of local feminists. How personal, I don't know, but before naming names I wonder if anyone has heard the same.
Like somebody mentioned, Fertik seems to really skirt the line across which he could be considered practicing without a license. I wonder if there might be any recourse against him. |
|
Date: June 16th, 2007 11:49 AM Author: cocky yellow philosopher-king Interesting.
Is there a transcript? |
|
Date: June 16th, 2007 11:50 AM Author: Vivacious lodge No. I was going to transcribe this a long time ago but I never got around to it.
I would also like to compile as much information on Fertik as possible. This could also be useful.
I have believed for a while that Fertik and perhaps his associates, among them, I am told, Melanie Wachtell, are behind all of this. Using Heide Iravani and Brittan Heller, they are pursuing an ego contest which has escalated ever since I refused to let them score a point.
Fertik seems to have very strong press connections. I am sure these are not all his own. He also works behind the scenes, through others. |
|
Date: June 16th, 2007 11:58 AM Author: cocky yellow philosopher-king Interesting theory. It wouldn't surprise me. Fertik (or someone he knows) were pretty successful in March, a la WaPo + GMA.
A few bad items have trickled out about RepDef in the last month, owing to this episode's leading to scrutiny of the consumerist's remarks of RepDef.
That had to have stung, especially since they're not the only game in town for "search and destroy." |
|
Date: June 16th, 2007 12:20 PM Author: narrow-minded location sneaky criminal fertik's contact at Stanford Law is named Ross Chanin, who is an *extremely liberal* (i.e. believes in free speech only when its politically correct. like, if it offends religious people its ok, but if it impugns a woman its awful) guy. chanin is active with some of the stanford feminist groups. chanin may have been the one to take this to mark lemley (and misrepresent it, most likely) to get him involved.
rach, not a legal opinion, but i think you're doing the right thing. i can't understand at all why these girls wouldn't just ask you "hey dude, can you please take this stuff down" months ago, if it was actually the reason that life was hard for them. brittan heller seems particularly inept--she has no job, despite graduating yls. she says its bc of xo. yet, she wont talk to you.
weird. |
|
Date: June 16th, 2007 2:53 PM Author: Dark Theater Liberals and Conservatives who demand full Free Speech rights for themselves, but would restrict the rights of others, are the worst types of political hacks. These types only care about their narrow interests. Some other posters have said it before and I'll say it again--I think the Does have been put up to this by people who are not really looking out for their interests. They could probably move on with their lives now and get jobs, etc, but instead they are listening to people telling them what victims they are. They'll likely get very little (or nothing) from any of the D's, yet they will get a lot of publicity for Reputation Defender, etc. And maybe they'll be satisfied if some D's are "outed". None of that--none of it--will change their inability to get jobs or whatever else they're claiming. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=645361&forum_id=2#8262986) |
|
Date: June 17th, 2007 12:15 PM Author: Slippery market party of the first part i think Melanie's involvement is superficial and based on a simplistic understanding of the situation. here's her email, which was sent to all law students who are signed up for a pretty widespread informal discussion list serv.
ross chanin is in this all the way though. i'm pretty sure he's your sls agitator.
From: [Melanie Wachtell; email address redacted] Subject: Date: March 7, 2007 1:24:56 PM EST To: law-talk@lists.stanford.edu
Hey everyone -
As you may already know, female law students have recently been victimized on a site called AutoAdmit, by anonymous posters saying terrible things. This morning, there was an article in the Washington Post about the AutoAdmit blog which has hosted these very offensive, demeaning, personal attacks against women at our peer law schools (in addition to linking to the T14 contest for the hottest women at the "top 14" law schools). I can't repeat much of what was said about the women here, because it is too graphic, racist, and offensive. (For more information, go tohttp:// www.reputationdefender.com/campaign_home.php). You can also check out the WashPost article at: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ content/article/2007/03/06/AR2007030602705.html.
A new company - ReputationDefender - started by our very own classmates (both a 1L and a 3L) and a student from Harvard Law, are representing several of the women in their efforts to clean up the comments posted about them online. I'm very proud that SLS never had any part in the T14 contest, and that members of our community are now part of the solution.
ReputationDefender has set up two petitions to encourage the host of autoadmit and the Dean of Penn Law (the host of autoadmit is at Penn) to take action. I'd like to ask you all to help out by visiting www.reputationdefender.com and clicking on "Campaign to Clean Up Auto- Admit" - there you can find links to the petitions and more information about what else can be done.
Basically, I'm horrified by the things that have been said about these women online and am very grateful that someone is fighting back.
If you have any questions, please let me know.
Thanks!
Melanie --++**==--++**==--++**==--++**==--++**==--++**==--++**== law-talk mailing list law-talk@lists.stanford.edu https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-talk |
|
Date: June 18th, 2007 2:55 PM Author: cordovan self-absorbed pistol son of senegal its been ross chanin from start to finish. he probably wrote the email and had melanie send it (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=645361&forum_id=2#8270379) |
|
Date: June 18th, 2007 7:10 PM Author: Slippery market party of the first part i seriously doubt it. melanie is nice and well-known but neither enough of a brand name to make such a tactic worthwhile nor enough of an airhead to be someone's puppet like that.
i do agree that ross chanin is likely the animating force of this scandal's stanford epicenter |
|
Date: June 16th, 2007 12:48 PM Author: thriller scarlet stag film fertik is a dork, and he may have stirred up shit, but don't think he's "behind" the complaint. and even if he is, it's irrelevant - as is the possibility or allegation of unlicensed practice of law. the complaint is real and not going away without a legal fight.
|
|
Date: June 16th, 2007 1:05 PM Author: narrow-minded location sneaky criminal the p's have almost zero chance of winning, it seems. it seems they're just out to do the same thing to the posters (and ciolli) that they bemoan. the difference, of course, is that brittan heller isn't unemployed today because of those xo threads, but because law firms saw things they didnt like. and heide actually did get an SA as a 1L. she lost some sleep and stuff, but she'll be ok. on the other hand, the plaintiffs are seeking to destroy the reputations of 20+ people, including quite a few who did very little and others who did what amounts to writing something on a bathroom stall. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=645361&forum_id=2#8262763) |
|
Date: June 16th, 2007 2:07 PM Author: Curious menage gunner they aren't 'doing the same thing'. It's not even close. They got hammered, unprovoked. Even the people most of us think are getting screwed aren't getting screwed randomly like the girls did. You can be against murder and for the death penalty. |
|
Date: June 16th, 2007 2:35 PM Author: narrow-minded location sneaky criminal the girls got "hammered" with some offensive stuff--much of it was just xo memes and schtick. "CGWBT" and comments about persianness, etc. and cracks about LSAT scores and herpes.
bottom line--this is NOT what caused brittan to fail to secure a job. also, heide's breakdown much more likely stemmed from the email to her profs about the truth of her father's federal crimes (stealing from an organization that helps 3rd world poor people), some of the proceeds of which (it seems) went to purchasing her a pony. the remedy to all this isn't a lawsuit, but sure, if they sue they will run everyone's name through the mud. so why not? just bc its vindictive, hypocritical, and likely to selfpwn the P's doesnt mean they wont try |
|
Date: June 16th, 2007 2:45 PM Author: Curious menage gunner you spend too much time trying to find an angle when head-on is the most appropriate. These girls got fucked over by people on xoxo. Whether they are eggshells or not is worth considering, but their lawsuit is an understandable reaction to all of the bullshit they've been through. Why don't you out yourself, let the xoxo jackals all gang up on you, and tell us how fun it is? |
|
Date: June 16th, 2007 2:57 PM Author: Dark Theater They're overreaching. They won't win anything and they're making themselves look worse. The one girl is also showing the type of personality that is going to add weight to why she did so poorly at interviewing (where the Google search results would've been IRRELEVANT).
Maybe you've never done OCI, but basically you get a callback if the interviewer likes you and thinks you'd fit in at the firm. They don't go and run searches and then make that decision. |
|
Date: June 16th, 2007 3:08 PM Author: sapphire business firm roast beef This might all be true. I do feel bad for them. But i think the copyright claim is complete bullshit, and the suit shouldn't be in federal court. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=645361&forum_id=2#8263026) |
|
Date: June 16th, 2007 6:00 PM Author: narrow-minded location sneaky criminal the more i think about it, the more ridiculous the (c) claim seems. there are thousands of sites on the internet that are blatant posting of actual commercially-viable pictures and videos, etc. e.g. pages devoted to certain actresses, news anchors, etc. nothing transformative either. scans from magazine covers, photos stolen from newspaper or magazine websites, etc. just look at perezhilton or dlisted or any site like that. they've been sued not only for (c) infringement but for a laundry list of other reasons--and the solution has always been a) you need to notify the site and then b) they take them down.
also both doe I and II were being harassed months & years before that site was up and the site was only live for 2 weeks. not sure about fair use arguments in the strict academic sense, but in the IRL sense, a site that categorizes pictures (by school, by "top law students", by "hotness"), allows ranking/voting, and removes pictures when asked (or before asked) wouldn't be a likely candidate for (c) infringement.
if there is infringement here, there is infringement on thousands of sites. just google "[insert name of female celeb]" and see how many pages you get. |
|
Date: June 17th, 2007 8:55 PM Author: Beady-eyed Cruel-hearted People Who Are Hurt (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=645361&forum_id=2#8267741) |
|
Date: June 18th, 2007 3:57 PM Author: pea-brained locale mad-dog skullcap "Pauliewalnuts was asked to take down the pictures and refused. Instead he started talking a lot of trash and saying that he wouldn't take down the pics unless Reputation Defender publicly apologized to xoxo and admitted that it had hurt its clients."
HI asked him and he refused? Is this for real? Or are you just guessing? The cases I've read say that a person on the internet is using something in a way that is arguably fair use, they must be contacted and refuse to do a take-down. If the person refuses, then you can litigate. Here, the issue is moot anyway. But I'm wondering what you've read on the issue. I had copyright law the spring before last so maybe I'm forgetting something, it's been a while
Or maybe the law changed. Either way, I'd be interested to get your thoughts. |
|
Date: June 16th, 2007 4:14 PM Author: cocky yellow philosopher-king Subject: Well... Well, now that you mention it, there's this prescient exchange between Fertik and Wendy Kaminer:
WK: First of all, I think it is a great mistake to look to the law to solve these problems, and by 'law' I don't just mean measures passed by legislatures; I mean policy passed by college and university administrators. . .
MF: What if [internet speech] is affecting employment opportunities? So it's not just hurt feelings--
WK: You know, I've seen these claims that there was this claim by a woman that was pretty broadly published--
MF: -which is hard to prove--
WK: ...that they didn't get job offers because of all of the vicious things which were said about her on the web. That's... I don't assume that's true.
MF: Well it's not just...I mean, I can see how you might still come to that conclusion, but--just to get their record straight--so, there were things that were said about her and then, in her opinion, which is very hard to prove (and she knows that), the thing that was most damaging to her employment opportunity is that if you went on the thread about her, someone came on the thread, used her name as a user-name, and then purported to reply, as her, to the comments about her.
And her responses were--the responses attributed to her were not over the top, they were not really crazy, they were plausibly someone in her situation. So much so that, I do this for a living, I was fooled. So were my colleagues. And so were a couple of journalists who looked at it, who looked at the thread.
Um, a couple of journalists have believed, mistakenly, that my company has posted to the AutoAdmit threads even though we haven't, because our user-name--there was a user-name, "Reputation Defender," that was used. So, it's not just the comments that were made about her, it's not just hurt feelings. It's hard to prove employment problems, but what about that as a thought?
WK: Well, you know, I'm not suggesting that speech that isn't protected off the internet ought to be protected on the internet.
MF: Okay.
WK: So that, y'know, certainly if you're dealing with actual threats, I don't think actual threats are protected by the First Amendment,
MF: Okay.
WK: Then I think if you're dealing with actual threats, you should go to the police.
MF: Okay.
[Question: When did Doe 1 miss that "flight out of the country" to make a "meeting with law enforcement" (Complaint, para 39)?]
WK: If you're dealing with defamation narrowly defined, so that it doesn't include public officials or public issues, if you want to try to pursue some defamation action, then that's certainly your privilege.
MF: 'kay.
[Check! (paras 85-89)]
WK: If impersonating you leads to some tort action, whether it's on the internet or off the internet, y'know, go ahead: see what you can do with that.
Moderator: All right. Fair enough.
MF: Okay.
[Check!]
|
|
Date: June 18th, 2007 1:33 PM Author: Exciting harsh gas station so, this isn't about doing the right thing or free speech or whatever, it's a pissing contest with fertik? great. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=645361&forum_id=2#8270075) |
|
Date: June 16th, 2007 1:24 PM Author: Talented Black Woman Kitty My allegiance initially was with the Doe I & II plaintiffs 100%. The posters responsible for spamming the board with their personal information and harassing them should be, at the very least, outted and ePublicly shamed.
But if rachmiel's story is true, these girls are litigious brats. Anyone who runs to the courts to resolve a problem like this, without first attempting to resolve it in a non-litigious manner as rachmiel offered to do, deserves a lot less sympathy. Though I still sympathize with their desire for vengeance.
And if I were an employer, I wouldn't want to hire someone who posted the violent and immature trash that the defendants posted. |
|
Date: June 16th, 2007 1:56 PM Author: narrow-minded location sneaky criminal would you hire a litigious brat? i don't think most firms would. instead of "clearing their name", the girls are going to cause more problems for themselves. in fact, the further the litigation gets, the more damage to them. they'll have to start answering interrogs and depos. they'll have to explain to the judge why this can't be resolved by just taking down the threads. they'll have to explain why they didnt get jobs (and the firms that interviewed them will answer that question).
basically, if i'm understanding the P's correctly, they're at the point where they don't even care how litigious, bratty, unseamly, and illogical they've gotten--its all about lashing out and putting this case into fed court (where, by the way, it doesnt below bc of jurisdictional issues)
i just dont see the P's logic in not picking up the phone (or having their lawyer pick up the phone) and speaking to rachmiel. it's also pretty TTT that their lawyer didn't call rachmiel before filing--to see if rach could give them what they claim to want (removal of threads) before litigating.
lastly, they're suing a ridiculous number of people, whose individual contributions are small. in other words, no one defendent single-handedly caused them emotional harm or anything like that--it is only the combined effect that upset them. one (or even 50) posts are not whats on trial--its entire threads. so if the D's just get this case split up into individual parts, the P's are revealed to be a) presenting a very lame case and b) overzealous.
HTFH |
|
Date: June 16th, 2007 2:30 PM Author: Curious menage gunner good flame (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=645361&forum_id=2#8262933) |
|
Date: June 16th, 2007 2:39 PM Author: narrow-minded location sneaky criminal not flame, guy. brittan is without a lawfirm job. and its not bc of xo. but the further this goes, the less likely that brittan gets the law job she (wrongly) claims xo cost her. firms really dont care about the kind of crap that was on XO--every other outed XO person has gotten jobs without a YLS degree. firms do care about this type of behavior. it makes them look childish and shows she hasn't addressed her real weaknesses (whatever really caused the lawfirms to not even give her a callback!)
edit-- as an aside, it makes leiter look childish to be commenting on this stuff too. |
|
Date: June 16th, 2007 2:40 PM Author: Curious menage gunner well, all of this stuff the girls are supposed to be doing to address their 'weaknesses' is exactly what the defendants will be able to do to mitigate when they are outed. Right? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=645361&forum_id=2#8262959) |
|
Date: June 16th, 2007 2:48 PM Author: Dark Theater I read the issues in a similar way. If the Doe I (one without a job) is a poor interviewer, has a bad personality, has nervous ticks, whatever, the fact she's taken these steps doesn't endear her to the legal profession. She's taken to litigation that has little chance of getting anywhere and the purpose of said litigation seems more about getting retribution (real or imagined) against people spread out all over the country. Both Does have taken a gamble, particularly the one who thinks a web message board cost her a job or was even a major contributor to her failing to find a lawfirm job.
You don't fail to get callback interviews because of Google searches. Your callback is based on having speaking and thinking skills that work in person. |
|
Date: June 16th, 2007 5:10 PM Author: thriller scarlet stag film "Your callback is based on having speaking and thinking skills that work in person."
this is my understanding of how callbacks work, and that's why it seems like doe 1's complaint is a little silly. but something to keep in mind: no special damages are required in libel cases, so she can sue anyway (right?)
|
|
Date: June 16th, 2007 6:06 PM Author: narrow-minded location sneaky criminal i'm not sure. but as a practical matter, law firms aren't stupid--they will know who "Doe I" and "Doe II" are. firms that might thought "oh that autoadmit stuff was silly" before will not have to contend with the idea that these girls are involved in ugly, ongoing litigation. maybe Doe I has decided she's not going to get a lawfirm job, but Doe II has 2L OCI in the fall; i think Doe II is taking a particularly serious risk here. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=645361&forum_id=2#8263790) |
|
Date: June 16th, 2007 6:13 PM Author: Curious menage gunner or, more likely, they'll be glad that the girls are fighting back (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=645361&forum_id=2#8263820) |
|
Date: June 16th, 2007 7:39 PM Author: Dark Theater lol.
1-fucking-80. what yr of law school are you in? you obvi dont work in biglaw. you've obviously never been through OCI and you've def never been on the other side of the interview. lol @ you providing some "definitive" info |
|
Date: June 17th, 2007 3:06 AM Author: Curious menage gunner would you rather be one of the girls explaining your actions or one of the defendants if any get outed by the lawsuit?
|
|
Date: June 18th, 2007 11:25 AM Author: narrow-minded location sneaky criminal honestly, i wouldnt want to be either. the P's aren't going to get the jobs they want, nor are any D's that are outed. and i really think the P's will get pretty much zero (financially) out of the suit. the shit about Heide's dad will probably resurface as well--and firms will know its true. let's say brittan's LSAT was like a 165--firms will know that also. and they'll know that Heide had some racy pictures on the internet (facebook). and of course, people will see the poorly written complaint and the fact the P's wouldnt work with Jarrett to have the stuff taken down _months ago_ -- instead, Brittan took actions that made her _jobless_ today. biglaw doesn't want people who can't handle stuff like this right the first time. if you think they do, you've obvi never worked in biglaw (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=645361&forum_id=2#8269666) |
|
Date: June 19th, 2007 12:35 AM Author: Curious menage gunner You write like one of the 28 or someone without balls. Oh no, the stuff about HI's dad will resurface. Any fucking idiot who would hold that against her deserves cancer. Oh no, BH's true LSAT will get out. We'll see. I don't think it necessarily will, though. If it's not 159, that's all that matters. Oh no, HI had racy pics on the internet! Personally, I don't think they are racy, but again, anyone who would hold that against her deserves cancer, as well. Oh no, the poorly written complaint. Perhaps the most inane argument on the topic. You blame plaintiffs for how their complaints are drafted or do you blame the attorney who takes credit for drafting it? Oh no, the plaintiffs wouldn't work with rach. What a fucking joke this argument is. Well, the rape victim didn't ask me nicely to stop, so you should look less favorably on her. I like how you believe you can speak for all of biglaw and the established expectation of how women are supposed to react when they get shit on. Even if you aren't one of the 28, it's this attitude that got many of them where they are now.
|
|
Date: June 16th, 2007 9:11 PM Author: stirring white gaming laptop Poor judgment when faced with adversity, a rush to frivolous litigation and and thin skin are the top qualities biglaw seeks in new paper pushing monkeys.
|
|
Date: June 16th, 2007 9:30 PM Author: narrow-minded location sneaky criminal if this thing goes anywhere, firms will see the complaint, legal theories, etc. they'll also likely realize all the stuff about Heide (Doe II)'s dad, because from seeing this, they'll decide to run searches. this, unlike inane website banter and pictures that were removed months ago, would be a death sentence for her, at least with biglaw. so ya, basically i think you're right. what would make biglaw respect the girls would be if they genuinely moved on and didnt let this dominate their lives (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=645361&forum_id=2#8264546) |
|
Date: June 17th, 2007 9:04 PM Author: Beady-eyed Cruel-hearted People Who Are Hurt If I were an interviewer, I would rather see them fight back. By suing they're making it crystal clear that most of the stuff said about them isn't true--and that's important, considering that their names still come up early in a google search. And I seriously doubt anyone's going to give a damn about an applicant's father in a job interview.
The real problem with the Does is that their lawsuit targets some people unfairly. But if they drop the innocent defendants--GTO, AHWIAB, Community Norm, possibly a few more--I'd have no problem seeing some of the real bastard defendants outted. They deserve it. |
|
Date: June 18th, 2007 4:38 PM Author: pea-brained locale mad-dog skullcap are you a 0L or a 1L w/o SA? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=645361&forum_id=2#8270797) |
|
Date: June 18th, 2007 4:42 PM Author: Nofapping Property Deer Antler I think I would have serious reservations (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=645361&forum_id=2#8270810) |
|
Date: June 16th, 2007 3:08 PM Author: ocher twinkling uncleanness david rosen is a peice of shit lawyer/prof. you think he's doing this because he cares about the girls? Hes doing this becasue hes out to make a name for himself. He might be a yale prof. but how many of you really know who he is without doing a google search.
hes a tttt lawyer wasting away at yale. what a disgrace to other yale prof. |
|
Date: June 16th, 2007 3:33 PM Author: Slate Razzle Box Office I resent that, you asshole! (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=645361&forum_id=2#8263127) |
|
Date: June 16th, 2007 5:47 PM Author: ocher twinkling uncleanness go choke on big black cock (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=645361&forum_id=2#8263700) |
|
Date: June 16th, 2007 3:09 PM Author: ocher twinkling uncleanness david rosen is a peice of shit lawyer/prof. you think he's doing this because he cares about the girls? Hes doing this becasue hes out to make a name for himself. He might be a yale prof. but how many of you really know who he is without doing a google search.
hes a tttt lawyer wasting away at yale. what a disgrace to other yale prof. |
|
Date: June 16th, 2007 3:09 PM Author: sapphire business firm roast beef Can someone with experience please explain the copyright claim? It still doesn't make sense to me how it isn't frivilous... (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=645361&forum_id=2#8263034) |
|
Date: June 16th, 2007 3:30 PM Author: embarrassed to the bone spectacular clown I'm only a rising 2l so I could be wrong and this isn't legal advice:
Copyright claims is just a tool to bring the libel and derivative claims into federal court.
They technically have a case (but only against PaulieWalnuts) because he did reproduce a copyrighted work. Since it wasn't for commercial gain and it presumably wasn't registered with US copyright office BEFORE the offense, they'll be limited to actual damages which would be very little in this case. |
|
Date: June 16th, 2007 3:38 PM Author: Dashing Arrogant Crackhouse Stock Car As I understand it, they're claiming a copyright in their photographs, that they uploaded to MySpace and that were copied (and since deleted) from the T 14 website (which was never affiliated with xo).
They have no copyright claim against xo or any posters who weren't involved in the T 14 website (leaving just PaulieWalnuts?). Since the photos were removed, any copyright claim is probably moot now - they can try for back damages, I suppose.
Regarding the defamation claims, Rachmiel isn't named in the suit, so I don't know what sort of relief they'd expect from xo (putting aside the whole statutory immunity problem). That leaves them trying to serve process on and then prove defamation against each individual anonymous poster. Good f-ing luck.
*not legal advice* |
|
Date: June 16th, 2007 5:10 PM Author: cocky yellow philosopher-king Plus, in the audio which rach posts above, Fertik offers a suggestive contrast between the CDA and the DMCA. From the Q and A portion of the Harvard AutoAdmit panel:
Q: "Selective moderation." It was my understanding that, once you moderate once, that doesnâ--my understanding of the law is that that doesnâ't do say that now you must moderate everything.
MF: That's correct--my understanding of the law is the same.
My pages(?) have two seconds of CD--background on the CDA, in a neutral way, and I'll try to state it as neutrally as possible just so we're all on the same page. And I'll be glad to be corrected by other people's understanding of the law.
So the Communications Decency Act was passed in 1996, when companies like America Online and Prodigy were the main access-points to the internet. Um, lawsuits were made, or filed, on the basis of anonymous speech that was posted in the chat-rooms of the, for example, America Online. The victims said American Online should be on the hook for liability associated with the defamation that might be--that was reportedly made in the speech on those forums.
America Online said, look, all you gotta do is subpoena us. We have the real identifying information, names, credit-card information, addresses, of the speakers. You can actually still sue the speakers. All you gotta do is subpoena us and we'll fork it over. Congress passed a law, intended it as a temporary solution, saying, look, that works, it's a working solution for now.
Eleven years later, the internet's a different place. There are thousands of places where you could post genuinely anonymously. You can use a Hotmail account. You can register through that blind Hotmail account to get a user-name that's not yours, not really your name, and then post things anonymously. The websites are not required to record IP addresses for now, so in some cases it may just be very impossible to find out who is actually attacking you online, under the current regime.
In contrast, I don't know how you feel about copyright-- copyright laws exist; I know that there may be some desire to loosen up copyright in this crowd, and that's very understandable. But just in contrast, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act allows you, if you're the owner of a copyright to a photograph, to more or less send one note to the website that's hosting that photograph, and get that photograph taken down. So, Viacom can send one letter to YouTube and get fifty thousand videos removed. But if you're caught making out with someone with a cell-phone camera, and they post it to YouTube, then you've got much less legal recourse. Again, there may be a difference in opinion as to what's the appropriate balance, but right now, privacy is much less protected than copyright, just for example.
|
|
Date: June 16th, 2007 6:11 PM Author: narrow-minded location sneaky criminal it seems moot. and more to the point, it seems like it applies to almost none of what is alleged. doe I lost out on lawfirm jobs for reasons totally unrelated. doe II has a SA gig and her sexual harassment claims are totally separate of the fact of any 'infringement'. the site that supposedly infringed the (c) has fair use arguments (never linked to any revenue source, was "organized" or "indexed" by school, by "brackets", etc. and of course, she was being 'harassed' way before that site existed and the site was only up a small fraction of the time. the worst stuff said about her came months before. so the damages or financial losses were basically zero. i repeat, she has a SA gig.
just my 2 cents |
|
Date: June 16th, 2007 7:00 PM Author: contagious jew useless brakes it seems like the only claim that has any meat are the harassment claims
copyright claim seems like a waste of time
(not legal advice) |
|
Date: June 16th, 2007 7:44 PM Author: Dark Theater TITCR.
i think the copyright claims are an obvious ploy for fed jurisdiction. otherwise, the whole internet is in big big big trouble for posting stuff.
i think there are lots of posters here who have good ideas, but i can't see why no one understands that you're not violating copyright merely by taking a picture--if you catalogue or index it or use it for some other purpose (like, a contest bracket) its not "mere replication". you dont have to modify the actual picture, it's how you use it that matters.
but ya, if temporarily using a picture is actionable months later and used to get IPs from 2 dozen people, the interwebs will crumble |
|
Date: June 17th, 2007 12:12 AM Author: contagious jew useless brakes Also, it doesn't seem like there are any damages associated w/ copyright infringement w/o commercial interest.
(not legal advice) |
|
Date: June 19th, 2007 9:09 PM Author: Poppy Twisted Gaping Home This is absolutely right. The copyright issue is going nowhere and the P's know it. The annoying thing is that the court probably knows it too. The fed should refuse to hear the case, but they can't without proof that the copyright angle is a ploy. I hope never to see anyone here using such a trick. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=645361&forum_id=2#8275525) |
|
Date: August 30th, 2007 11:21 AM Author: Hilarious Splenetic Office Windowlicker (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=645361&forum_id=2#8577560) |
|
Date: June 20th, 2007 9:38 PM Author: narrow-minded location sneaky criminal this has been said quite a few times. the real question is, will the copyright claim get kicked prior to any D's are outed? or will the judge let it slide until people answer and get the copyright claim kicked? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=645361&forum_id=2#8279755) |
|
Date: June 16th, 2007 5:34 PM Author: jade associate genital piercing http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=629365&forum_id=2#8263614 (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=645361&forum_id=2#8263624) |
|
Date: June 16th, 2007 8:15 PM Author: Vivacious lodge Some additional thoughts:
Paulie Walnuts was mentioned specifically by Fertik at the conference. The fact that Paulie Walnuts is also the first named (pseudonymous) defendant is an additional hint that Fertik is the ghost-writer here. (Thanks black eyeliner)
Fertik didn't want me at the Harvard conference because he knew that I ran circles around him the first time I had the pleasure of speaking with him. (In all fairness, it is not very hard to stand up to him in an argument.) GTO's inclusion in the suit despite the widely known fact that he was acting in an administrator's capacity at the time, which shields him from liability, along with my exclusion from the suit, is another hint to me that Fertik at least consulted with whoever drafted this complaint. Fertik doesn't like dealing with me.
Fertik's initials are the same as Mother Fucker.
I have an old e-mail I sent Heide on 3/15 in which I was nothing but contrite and expressing a will to accommodate her. Unfortunately I haven't yet been able to find the follow-up response she sent me that rather surprised me: she gave me the impression she had much more important things going on in her life than resolving the issue. I think I have it, though. |
|
Date: June 16th, 2007 8:31 PM Author: Dashing Arrogant Crackhouse Stock Car Post it! Post it!
By the way, I really respect your actions in this debacle. Reputation Defender is fucked up. |
|
Date: June 16th, 2007 8:44 PM Author: Vivacious lodge Subject: Sent 3/14 at 10:32 pm Heide,
This is Jarret Cohen from AutoAdmit. I'm sorry, sorry, sorry for what's happened with everything on AutoAdmit. I would like to talk to you, along with Anthony, if you would be comfortable doing that. We'll clear this up as best as we can, even though I know things have been done that are hard to undo. We've had a lot of trouble working with Reputation Defender and I'm just tired of that getting in the way of a resolution.
Do you want to talk on the phone?
Jarret Cohen |
|
Date: June 16th, 2007 9:04 PM Author: thriller scarlet stag film your apologizing doesn't preclude them suing any of the posters, of course. but perhaps they didn't name you because you did apologize (while gto took a harder line, it seems) |
|
Date: June 16th, 2007 9:07 PM Author: Vivacious lodge I would love if I could come up with the e-mail where she more or less blows me off. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=645361&forum_id=2#8264464) |
|
Date: June 16th, 2007 9:14 PM Author: thriller scarlet stag film it would be personally vindicating, of course. but i guess i wonder what good it would do you or any of the defendants? i'm not a lawyer, but i don't think a plaintiff is under any obligation to settle rather than filing suit. practically speaking, of course, not settling up with you was a stupid move on their part. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=645361&forum_id=2#8264493) |
|
Date: June 16th, 2007 9:34 PM Author: narrow-minded location sneaky criminal when you fail to mitigate your own damages, you can't sue for damages that come after that (or in excess of that).
that's basic Remedies Law right there. its especially stupid to act like this because it seems very unlikely they'll get anywhere with the defendents (meaning $$ or outings) |
|
Date: June 16th, 2007 9:42 PM Author: thriller scarlet stag film oh. well, i obviously don't know remedies law. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=645361&forum_id=2#8264593) |
|
Date: June 16th, 2007 9:58 PM Author: narrow-minded location sneaky criminal basically, they're suing for 245k. they would be lucky to get 1% of that. most likely they'll get 0% of that. cant prove the lost job, cant prove copyright infringement damages, etc. some minimal amt, maybe, in an _ideal_ situation for them.
edit - this has never been about money though. seems clear they just want to out some people without having their names come out. i think they have a small chance of success at that. |
|
Date: June 21st, 2007 11:09 AM Author: excitant godawful step-uncle's house This email makes you seem like a kind person on some levels. You're definitely more sympathetic than Ciolli. But if you were a truly good, moral, kind person you would just delete the threads. Just swallow your pride and do it.
I understand that you've found the Does irritating, and I can sympathize. But think about it from their perspective. The stuff's been up there long enough to be damaging. They are *really* hurt, especially since people at their own school were possibly involved with the whole debacle. They are freaked out and have been for months. I don't think their strategy is the best, but yours is awful. YOU and YOUR website policies created this situation, and you have to take responsibility for that. Regardless of what they're doing, a responsible and ethical businessperson does EVERYTHING he or she can to diffuse bad situations.
You're not the victim here, and it's time to show some real class. Friendly emails aren't enough. No one cares about Michael Fertik or Reputation Defender. |
|
Date: June 21st, 2007 1:15 PM Author: narrow-minded location sneaky criminal "No one cares about Michael Fertik or Reputation Defender.
except you, who works for them. why would jarrett delete the stuff if the does won't agree to quash their inane feud with XO? |
|
Date: June 16th, 2007 9:32 PM Author: narrow-minded location sneaky criminal TITCR. and yes, fertik is milking this for whatever it's worth. shameless (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=645361&forum_id=2#8264555) |
|
Date: June 17th, 2007 1:03 PM Author: cocky yellow philosopher-king And this exchange from the Harvard Panel (verbatim) is practically a road-map to the Complaint:
Well, now that you mention it, there's this prescient exchange between Fertik and Wendy Kaminer:
WK: First of all, I think it is a great mistake to look to the law to solve these problems, and by 'law' I don't just mean measures passed by legislatures; I mean policy passed by college and university administrators. . .
MF: What if [internet speech] is affecting employment opportunities? So it's not just hurt feelings--
WK: You know, I've seen these claims that there was this claim by a woman that was pretty broadly published--
MF: -which is hard to prove--
WK: ...that they didn't get job offers because of all of the vicious things which were said about her on the web. That's... I don't assume that's true.
MF: Well it's not just...I mean, I can see how you might still come to that conclusion, but--just to get their record straight--so, there were things that were said about her and then, in her opinion, which is very hard to prove (and she knows that), the thing that was most damaging to her employment opportunity is that if you went on the thread about her, someone came on the thread, used her name as a user-name, and then purported to reply, as her, to the comments about her.
And her responses were--the responses attributed to her were not over the top, they were not really crazy, they were plausibly someone in her situation. So much so that, I do this for a living, I was fooled. So were my colleagues. And so were a couple of journalists who looked at it, who looked at the thread.
Um, a couple of journalists have believed, mistakenly, that my company has posted to the AutoAdmit threads even though we haven't, because our user-name--there was a user-name, "Reputation Defender," that was used. So, it's not just the comments that were made about her, it's not just hurt feelings. It's hard to prove employment problems, but what about that as a thought?
WK: Well, you know, I'm not suggesting that speech that isn't protected off the internet ought to be protected on the internet.
MF: Okay.
WK: So that, y'know, certainly if you're dealing with actual threats, I don't think actual threats are protected by the First Amendment,
MF: Okay.
WK: Then I think if you're dealing with actual threats, you should go to the police.
MF: Okay.
[Question: When did Doe 1 miss that "flight out of the country" to make a "meeting with law enforcement" (Complaint, para 39)?]
WK: If you're dealing with defamation narrowly defined, so that it doesn't include public officials or public issues, if you want to try to pursue some defamation action, then that's certainly your privilege.
MF: 'kay.
[Check! (paras 85-89)]
WK: If impersonating you leads to some tort action, whether it's on the internet or off the internet, y'know, go ahead: see what you can do with that.
Moderator: All right. Fair enough.
MF: Okay.
[Check!]
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=645361&forum_id=2#8263336) |
|
Date: June 18th, 2007 11:24 AM Author: Curious menage gunner Who wouldn't name Paulie first? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=645361&forum_id=2#8269661) |
|
Date: June 19th, 2007 8:54 PM Author: Trip ruddy foreskin address "Fertik's initials are the same as Mother Fucker."
180 |
|
Date: June 20th, 2007 11:18 AM Author: Slate Razzle Box Office Rach,
I guess you know that you are bound to get a subpoena in the near future. You've probably already realized it, but because they haven't sued you and they can't sue you, there is absolutely zero way that this lawsuit can provide the relief they seek -- the threads taken down.
You could bail out all these users and GTO by, on the day you get the subpoena, call up their lawyer and say, "If I have to go out and hire a lawyer to respond to this BS, mark my words that I will NEVER take those threads down, and there's no way a judge can order that in this case. But, if you drop the suit within two weeks I'll take them all down"
hth |
|
Date: June 20th, 2007 11:24 AM Author: Curious menage gunner Hey, whose side are you on, Rosen? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=645361&forum_id=2#8277575) |
|
Date: June 20th, 2007 6:26 PM Author: Vivacious lodge The beauty is that I don't even have to hire a lawyer.
I have all the free legal counsel I could ever want. |
|
Date: June 20th, 2007 9:32 PM Author: cocky yellow philosopher-king :) (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=645361&forum_id=2#8279721) |
|
Date: June 20th, 2007 10:11 PM Author: Slate Razzle Box Office That's right, brother. But sort it carefully, b/c a lot of stuff I see on this site is complete shit.
Edit: You should know that all of this legal shit isn't that complicated. Google "motion to quash subpoena" and you'll find a bunch of examples. You can start by filing one of these, which will be heard by some judge in PA who doesn't really give a shit. You might as well run the substance of your motion by the board for critique. Also, it's a good idea to start with this motion to quash even before submitting a response that says, "xoxo doesn't keep any personally identifying information, including IP logs." You should make these dudes labor for every inch. |
|
Date: June 21st, 2007 10:28 AM Author: cocky yellow philosopher-king And isn't PA the jurisdiction where DiMeo v. Max was decided? I love footnote 14 of that decision:
"...After viewing the tuckermax.com message boards, which are read by people using screen names like "Jerkoff," "Drunken DJ," and "footinmouth," the intended audience could not mistake the site for the New York Times. In short, it palpably is not serious."
|
|
Date: June 21st, 2007 7:43 PM Author: Histrionic Lake Abode The Court’s views on the statements that DiMeo complained about are even more interesting:
(1) Maybe you should find your validation elsewhere. . . preferably at the end of a magnum," Compl. 5.a;
Court: "opinion that cannot be proven true or false"
(2) "I just wanted to let you know that I think that you are the biggest piece of shit I have ever heard of and I hope that you die soon," id. 5.b;
Court: "opinion that cannot be proven true or false"
(3) "Now I know why Arlen Specter got invited to all those Renamity Http://www.renamity.com/galary/birthdaybash/e scf0009 parties! Could it be. . . bribery of your local politician?" id. 5.c;
Court: in context of a message board, “it palpably is not serious”
(4) "He's got a neat, nice little page there from which we can harass him," id. 5.d;
Court: "opinion that cannot be proven true or false"
(5) "I can't believe no one has killed him yet," id. 5.e;
Court: “opinion that cannot be proven true or false"
(6) "You threw an absolutely disastrous party on New Year's Eve precipitated by false advertising and possible fraud," id.
Court: in context of a message board, “it palpably is not serious”
Even the Connecticut Federal District Court examines "context" and protects "exaggerated or hyperbolic language of opinion."
In a case brought by another Yale student (a litigious bunch) the Connecicut court cited cases holding: “that defendant's restaurant review was opinion, based on CONTEXT of statements and reasoning that statements about 'temperature,' 'thickness,' and 'quality' were matters of personal taste;” that a “statement that plaintiff employee was 'in over her head' and not 'a manager of the 90s' is opinion;” and that “THE LAW PROTECTS EVEN EXAGGERATED OR HYPERBOLIC LANGUAGE OF OPINION (readers of restaurant review would not take literally statements such as 'the green peppers ... remained still frozen on the plate.)” (emphasis added).
See Johnson v. Schmitz, 119 F.Supp.2d 90 (Conn., 2000).
Given the CONTEXT of this particular message board and the proliferation of EXAGGERATED AND HYPERBOLIC SPEECH around here, no reasonable person would take anything posted here "literally."
" the intended audience could not mistake the site for the New York Times" |
|
Date: June 22nd, 2007 2:07 PM Author: cocky yellow philosopher-king This is a *gem* of a post!
A GOLD STAR for goldstar!
|
|
Date: June 21st, 2007 11:02 AM Author: Henna Idiot You're an idiot if you think it's a good idea to rely on the half-cooked advice of a horde of anonymous law students.
You need to have an actual practitioner with experience in this field spend actual time dealing with this.
For example, if you try and submit a googled "Motion to Quash" you had better make sure that the motion you get from google challenged personal jurisdiction or you probably consent to personal jurisdiction simply by filing the motion.
Am I positive that is the case? No. Which is why you should establish an actual attorney-client relationship with an attorney that has dealt with this issue many times.
|
|
Date: June 21st, 2007 11:25 AM Author: Slate Razzle Box Office That he consents to PJ in ED Pa (from whence the subpoena will issue)? He can hardly contest this. Moreover, he's not a party with occasion to consent to or deny PJ in CT.
But yeah, I agree that he should be careful from whom he takes advice. You, obviously, should be disregarded. |
|
Date: June 21st, 2007 1:08 PM Author: Henna Idiot You're an idiot - it might help to actually spend a few minutes researching your gut feelings before you assert them as facts.
First, I think the District of Connecticut would be issuing the subpoena - what involvement does the ED of PA have in this?
The Court is compeling him to do something (produce documents, appear at a deposition, etc) - they can't compel anyone to do anything they don't have personal jurisdiction over.
"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 grants a district court the power to issue subpoenas as to witnesses [not a party] and documents, but the subpoena power of a court cannot be more extensive than its jurisdiction . . . "[t]he judicial subpoena power not only is subject to specific constitutional limitations, . . . but also is subject to those limitations inherent in the body that issues them because of the provisions of the Judiciary Article of the Constitution."" CATHOLIC CONF. v. ABORTION RIGHTS MOBILIZATION, 487 U.S. 72 (1988) (quoting United States v. Morton Salt Co., 338 U.S. 632, 642 (1950)).
If you really feel like reading up, check out:
"NONPARTY DOCUMENT DISCOVERY FROM CORPORATIONS AND GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES UNDER THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE" http://digitalcommons.pace.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1031&context=lawfaculty
In it, the author notes exactly what I was originally suggesting:
"Although the district court issuing a subpoena for nonparty document discovery has the inherent power to vacate or modify the sub- poena under rules 45(b) and 36(c), such power is dependent on the court's power to order the production of documents in the first intance. Where the court is without jurisdiction to serve the person to whom the subpoena is directed or where service is defective, the non-party may move to quash the ubpoena. He may also ignore the subpoena duces tecum and assert the defense of lack of jurisdiction at a subsequent contempt proeeding.
* * *
In deciding Ariel v. Jones, the Eleventh Circuit, positing personal jurisdiction, declined to enforce the subpoena duces tecum, because the agent's principal had custody of the documents in Colorado and did not have "sufficient contacts" with the Southern District of Florida."
I'm not a civil lawyer - my only point is that you should retain an attorney who deals with these issues on a routine basis - definitely not the guy posting above me. |
|
Date: June 22nd, 2007 12:49 AM Author: Slate Razzle Box Office No friend. I'm sorry you're wrong. I don't need to do "research" b/c I've done in this in practice dozens of times, and therefore speak as a person who gets paid 210K/year to send subpoenas to out of state parties.
See Rule 45(a)(2): "A subpoena must issue as follows: . . . (C)for production, inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, if separate from a subpoena commanding a person's attendance, from the court for the district where the production or inspection is to be made."
B/c the CT court can't command a non-party citizen of PA to come to New Haven with a shitload of documents, this will issue from ED Pa (or whatever district Rach lives in).
It's a simple matter of fact, my ignorant friend. Would you care to wager on it?
|
|
Date: June 22nd, 2007 11:09 AM Author: Henna Idiot So - the case was filed in District of Connecticut.
The ED Pa is an entirely seperate jurisdiction - what is the mechanism by which the plaintiffs, in a CT case, can compel a Court on the ED of Pa to issue a subpoena, when THEY don't have any jurisdiction to do so (the claim wasn't filed in ED of Pa).
That quote from the Rules doesn't help - it simply imposes a requirment on the Court issuing the subpoena, not somehow magically allowing a Court in which the case was not filed to start churning out subpoenas. Is there a specific motion for this?
So are you saying they are going to transfer the case to the ED of Pa? Are you a biglaw monkey who has spent two years doing document review and is unafamiliar with these issues? Are you working in a large corporate setting where PJ of the witnesses is a moot issue and not worth the time and expense of fighting?
Maybe this is the right answer - you can be compeled to respond to a federal grand jury subpoena anywhere in the US, on the basis that the GJ is investigating a crime against the entire United States. Does the "federal question" copyright claim have a similar effect? |
|
Date: June 22nd, 2007 6:28 PM Author: Slate Razzle Box Office I don't know why I'm bothering to explain this to you, but here goes:
The fact that CT doesn't have PJ over Rach is the precise reason why Ps will use a subpoena from ED Pa. Here is the form, the "mechanism," as you call it: http://www.uscourts.gov/forms/AO088.pdf The subpoenaing party just fills in the blanks and serves this on the responding party. The local court itself is not even involved until there's a motion to quash or compel, at which time an out-of-jurisdiction requesting party will need to obtain local counsel to appear before the ED Pa court.
Don't you think it's stupid of you to posit that I'm a biglaw monkey "unfamiliar with these issues"? It's plain that you don't know the first thing about them, so I don't see why you would even engage in an argument with me on this...
But nevertheless, I eagerly await your ignorant retort. |
|
Date: June 23rd, 2007 1:46 AM Author: Ultramarine deranged liquid oxygen holy shit, you pwned that ignorant fuck
i love when people who've never litigated pretend to litigate (on that note, i freely admit i've never actually litigated)
lol |
|
Date: June 24th, 2007 1:33 AM Author: carmine indirect expression old irish cottage I'm pretty sure he's referring to his father and not the board. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=645361&forum_id=2#8293185) |
|
Date: June 21st, 2007 4:20 PM Author: lascivious bossy orchestra pit half-breed i got all choked up when i read this post.
*sniffs* |
|
Date: June 22nd, 2007 1:35 AM Author: Slate Razzle Box Office Also Rach, keep in mind that if you move to quash, it'll put them to the expense/pain in the ass of having to hire local counsel in PA to fight your motion. As will, I suppose, if you just object to their subpoena on grounds X,Y, Z and they decide they have to move to compel. But you always quash first. hthfh. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=645361&forum_id=2#8285270) |
|
Date: June 16th, 2007 9:45 PM Author: thriller scarlet stag film rach, since you seem pretty willing to discuss things... wtf is going on in the other sticky thread? what are those #s? |
|
Date: June 16th, 2007 10:35 PM Author: Vivacious lodge I found Heide's e-mail response.
I also discovered that the day later, some San Francisco 2nd year associate e-mailed out a cease and desist letter. |
|
Date: June 16th, 2007 10:50 PM Author: thriller scarlet stag film dude, see above post (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=645361&forum_id=2#8264883) |
|
Date: June 16th, 2007 11:18 PM Author: Irradiated Cobalt Spot Puppy please post tyia |
|
Date: June 17th, 2007 12:02 AM Author: Slate Razzle Box Office They probably just wanted to try to preserve a damages claim.
One time my landlord refused to refund like $350 of my deposit. When I threatened to sue she offered to split the difference. I declined b/c I wanted to teach that broad a lesson. But I never got around to taking her to small claims, so I'm $175 in the hole now.
In about 18 months they'll feel stupid for not taking the deal, just like I feel stupid for not taking $175. |
|
Date: June 17th, 2007 12:13 AM Author: Chestnut Floppy Quadroon xoxo IP log files are on their Ad servers!!!!!!!!!!
The advertising on the site has paid off in a massive way!!!!!
The advertisers saved the time stamped log files of IP addresses
Every time a page opens the IP is logged even if the ad isn't clicked on.
YEAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! |
|
Date: June 17th, 2007 12:15 AM Author: Irradiated Cobalt Spot Puppy How drunk are you? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=645361&forum_id=2#8265112) |
|
Date: June 17th, 2007 12:16 AM Author: Gay Hospital Coffee Pot I think he's more retarded than drunk. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=645361&forum_id=2#8265119) |
|
Date: July 19th, 2007 10:53 PM Author: Pearl fragrant cruise ship keepsake machete Brandon E. Caire of 2960 Broadway in NYC, 212.8541754 or email bec2109@columbia.edu. just posting it to the sticky in case anyone loses the name of the xoxo ip hacker. |
|
Date: July 20th, 2007 9:54 AM Author: Provocative chapel jewess Date: July 19th, 2007 10:53 PM Author: zurk (walking where dæmons fear to tread)
Brandon E. Caire of 2960 Broadway in NYC, 212.8541754 or email bec2109@columbia.edu.
just posting it to the sticky in case anyone loses the name of the xoxo ip hacker.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=645361&forum_id=2#8409223)
|
|
Date: June 18th, 2007 3:41 PM Author: Sienna Razzmatazz Death Wish Juggernaut Three cheers for Rach! (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=645361&forum_id=2#8270573) |
|
Date: June 18th, 2007 3:48 PM Author: pea-brained locale mad-dog skullcap seconded (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=645361&forum_id=2#8270594) |
|
Date: June 18th, 2007 7:07 PM Author: Slippery market party of the first part definitely. he is a very classy guy. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=645361&forum_id=2#8271262) |
|
Date: June 19th, 2007 12:46 AM Author: Obsidian Thirsty Nursing Home aye aye (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=645361&forum_id=2#8272653) |
|
Date: June 20th, 2007 2:32 PM Author: Bateful topaz area You mean you identified Leitner through the IP logs you don't keep?
http://www.autoadmit.com/leiter
" Yet we have identified a curious individual from a single law.utexas IP whose identity makes us wonder.
The guy on this IP spends a lot of time here. Or at least an alter ego who uses the same computer does. Just in the past two weeks (we didn't check earlier than that), he's been here almost every single day. And he's become one of the site's most proficient users of the search box."
Right?
|
|
Date: June 20th, 2007 6:24 PM Author: Vivacious lodge Subject: Ancient history, my friend. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=645361&forum_id=2#8278982) |
|
Date: November 8th, 2007 11:28 AM Author: lime electric water buffalo weed whacker (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=645361&forum_id=2#8869000) |
|
Date: June 22nd, 2007 1:11 PM Author: Vivacious lodge test (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=645361&forum_id=2#8286344) |
|
Date: June 22nd, 2007 9:35 PM Author: Misunderstood cracking affirmative action meetinghouse Any advice you can give on this? http://www.xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=648240&mc=16&forum_id=2 |
|
Date: June 25th, 2007 9:46 AM Author: turquoise corner Thanks for all of your work, A-town homie. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=645361&forum_id=2#8298238) |
|
Date: June 25th, 2007 10:06 AM Author: Bespoke garrison You should ban the poster who is impostering other posters such that you can only tell in internet explorer. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=645361&forum_id=2#8298252) |
|
Date: July 30th, 2007 4:51 AM Author: Stimulating police squad state bump (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=645361&forum_id=2#8450160) |
|
Date: July 30th, 2007 12:55 PM Author: Hairraiser resort lulz (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=645361&forum_id=2#8450940) |
|
Date: July 30th, 2007 1:00 PM Author: internet-worthy rose bbw native lol at bumping sticky (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=645361&forum_id=2#8450951) |
|
Date: August 3rd, 2007 1:22 PM Author: crimson codepig milk everyone in this post is whokebe (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=645361&forum_id=2#8467495) |
|
Date: August 25th, 2007 10:58 PM Author: Beta piazza bump (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=645361&forum_id=2#8559860) |
|
Date: August 25th, 2007 11:22 PM Author: charcoal appetizing giraffe candlestick maker bumping a sticky is stupid. Asking Rach why he hasn't addressed the password issue is very important. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=645361&forum_id=2#8559953) |
|
Date: September 9th, 2007 4:09 PM Author: Hilarious Splenetic Office Windowlicker (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=645361&forum_id=2#8619210) |
|
Date: November 13th, 2007 2:17 PM Author: sepia odious principal's office I'm very concerned with people using the community accounts for no good or with people who have a similar screen name to mine saying something defamatory.
Please tell me you can trace INDIVIDUAL IP ADDRESSES so only those people that make bad comments get in trouble and innocent people who happen to have a SIMILAR screen name to the perpetrators, do not get singled, out. |
|
Date: November 14th, 2007 4:52 PM Author: Hilarious Splenetic Office Windowlicker (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=645361&forum_id=2#8894864) |
|
Date: December 24th, 2007 12:20 PM Author: Big bonkers plaza No one has posted on this thread in a month. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=645361&forum_id=2#9068741) |
|
Date: January 19th, 2008 1:39 PM Author: lime electric water buffalo weed whacker merry christmas (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=645361&forum_id=2#9186233) |
|
Date: January 24th, 2008 12:26 AM Author: Comical rehab http://www.xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=750882&mc=10&forum_id=1#9198165 (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=645361&forum_id=2#9212322) |
|
Date: February 1st, 2008 10:07 PM Author: Aromatic Locus Corn Cake PENIS (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=645361&forum_id=2#9256063) |