The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.
|
 |
 
|
WSJ BLOG HAS THE COMPLAINT!!!!!
Poast new message in this thread
Date: June 12th, 2007 12:38 PM Author: Fragrant parlor http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/aaComplaint.pdf
Make sure you listen to this as you read the complaint. http://youtube.com/watch?v=b714Wi4CDsQ
|
 |
Date: June 12th, 2007 12:40 PM Author: Fragrant parlor page 6: "just don't *&&& her, she has HERPES" (posted by :D) (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=644117&forum_id=2#8246535) |
|
Date: June 12th, 2007 12:44 PM Author: Deep Queen Of The Night Business Firm ROFL (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=644117&forum_id=2#8246550) |
|
Date: June 12th, 2007 12:46 PM Author: Fragrant parlor I'm speechless from the complaint. Wow (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=644117&forum_id=2#8246556) |
|
Date: June 12th, 2007 1:01 PM Author: scarlet theater I'm infuriated by the complaint. Why should any woman be expected to put up with that shit and not say anything? Especially the part about asking to have threads removed and basically being told to fuck off. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=644117&forum_id=2#8246589) |
|
Date: June 12th, 2007 1:03 PM Author: Fragrant parlor what paragraph has the "asked to have threads removed, told to fuck off" part? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=644117&forum_id=2#8246596) |
|
Date: June 12th, 2007 1:05 PM Author: scarlet theater Paragraph 42. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=644117&forum_id=2#8246604) |
|
Date: June 12th, 2007 3:41 PM Author: Crusty public bath weed whacker Because that's life? We don't live in a world where if something mean is said about you the answer is to litigate. That just doesn't make sense. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=644117&forum_id=2#8247350) |
|
Date: June 12th, 2007 5:25 PM Author: scarlet theater Sounds like it went a little further than that.
Edit: She repeatedly attempted to stop it and was refused. She was stalked in the gym. that's a bit more than "saying something mean." |
|
Date: June 12th, 2007 7:10 PM Author: Spectacular Sickened House New Version You kidding?
There's a fine line between being mean and slandering somebody. |
|
Date: June 12th, 2007 12:58 PM Author: Wonderful Office Subject: THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE; YOU ARE NOT MY CLIENT! A few comments:
a). Copyright infringement is the only asserted basis for federal court jurisdiction. The Complaint states no background facts indicating that the only named defendant (Ciolli) infringed any copyrights (rather, it explicitly states that some subset of defendants committed such actions). However, the copyright cause of action section goes on to allege that "defendants" have copied the copyrighted photos. I think any reasonable investigation would show that not all defendants did so, and the complaint itself suggests this.
Indeed, all the stated causes of action name "defendants" without distinction between various individual defendants.
b). I'm not convinced that all the other causes of action arise under the the same nucleus of operative facts as the copyright claim. Is subject matter jurisdiction valid?
c). I'd be interested in learning how the plaintiffs acquired ownership of the copyrights at issue.
d). What a bunch of assholes (the posters, that is). |
|
Date: June 12th, 2007 1:02 PM Author: sepia aromatic point philosopher-king And again, why is rachmiel not named as a defendant, given that he is mentioned by name repeatedly throughout the complaint as playing more or less the same role as GTO? Perhaps he is being rewarded for cooperation...*
speculation, just kidding, please don't sue me |
|
Date: June 12th, 2007 1:05 PM Author: Wonderful Office Yeah, that confused me, but it's no grounds to attack the complaint.
I don't really know if any of the things I mentioned are valid grounds either, but interesting things I would research if I had enumerable hours of free time and free Westlaw. |
|
Date: June 12th, 2007 11:56 PM Author: Cocky theater stage You sue a website based on speech and you're likely to raise the ire of some pretty resourceful opponents. If you just sue some individuals that say stupid things, that's much less likely. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=644117&forum_id=2#8249118) |
|
Date: June 12th, 2007 1:05 PM Author: Adventurous Boiling Water Whorehouse c) weren't these from their facebook accounts or something? if they took them, or had them taken, don't they own the coypright? i could be wrong and no one should rely on what i'm saying because i did poorly in IP. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=644117&forum_id=2#8246605) |
|
Date: June 12th, 2007 1:08 PM Author: Wonderful Office The "author(s)" of the photo owns the copyright the moment it is taken.
Simply "having them taken" doesn't give the subject ownership of the copyright.
I could make an argument for copyright ownership even if someone else took them, but I won't go into that. I'm interested in what their theory is. |
|
Date: June 12th, 2007 1:11 PM Author: Adventurous Boiling Water Whorehouse oh ok. well, Doe II doesn't list copyright in her complaint. what's that about? I didn't realize there were even pictures of Doe I. |
|
Date: June 12th, 2007 1:12 PM Author: Wonderful Office "Doe II doesn't list copyright in her complaint."
Is that right? I wonder what the basis for jurisdiction is, then. |
|
Date: June 12th, 2007 1:13 PM Author: Adventurous Boiling Water Whorehouse p. 14, causes of action only discusses Doe I. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=644117&forum_id=2#8246619) |
|
Date: June 12th, 2007 1:20 PM Author: Wonderful Office I would not be surprised if a lot of the claims could get dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
I kind of hope they get someone to defend them (at least Ciolli) pro bono, just so we can see the legal issues play out.
On the other hand, I kind of want some of the defendants to get PWNED! |
|
Date: June 12th, 2007 1:27 PM Author: Adventurous Boiling Water Whorehouse sigh. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=644117&forum_id=2#8246681) |
|
Date: June 12th, 2007 1:27 PM Author: Wonderful Office ? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=644117&forum_id=2#8246685) |
|
Date: June 12th, 2007 1:40 PM Author: Adventurous Boiling Water Whorehouse i have mixed feelings. some of the behavior on xoxo is disgusting and (perhaps) tortious. not all, though. i figure this is the effective end of the board. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=644117&forum_id=2#8246763) |
|
Date: May 11th, 2008 11:18 PM Author: Heady Therapy IronMonkey, FTW!
http://www.xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=812353&mc=5&forum_id=2#9769257 |
|
Date: June 12th, 2007 1:21 PM Author: odious purple bawdyhouse sweet tailpipe (b) seems pretty easy. Someone started slamming Doe, and then from the frenzy of postings someone began the postings of her likeness and continued harassing comments. Not that hard to show, I wouldn't think. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=644117&forum_id=2#8246650) |
|
Date: June 12th, 2007 1:24 PM Author: Wonderful Office I'm not sure if that meets the standard required for jurisdiction. I haven't looked at it in a while.
I know there is case law dealing with whether related contractual claims can be heard in federal court based on copyright issues in the contracts, but I'm not sure if that's relevant.
Edit: at any rate, it seems like Ciolli should be able to say that they haven't asserted a copyright claim against him (and if they have, it's wading into murky Rule 11 territory). |
Date: June 12th, 2007 12:42 PM Author: aqua fighting tank OH SHIT PWN3D!!!!!!!!1 (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=644117&forum_id=2#8246544) |
|
Date: June 12th, 2007 12:45 PM Author: Fragrant parlor wow re: post attributed to yalelaw on p. 7 of the complaint (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=644117&forum_id=2#8246554) |
|
Date: June 12th, 2007 12:47 PM Author: arousing crawly private investor poor community norm on para. 38 (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=644117&forum_id=2#8246560) |
|
Date: June 12th, 2007 12:49 PM Author: Charcoal Locale srsly (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=644117&forum_id=2#8246561) |
|
Date: June 12th, 2007 12:49 PM Author: Fragrant parlor how did aznazn avoid being in the complaint? not that I want to see him sued, just wondering how he got out of it. WGWAG mystical powers? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=644117&forum_id=2#8246565) |
|
Date: June 12th, 2007 12:50 PM Author: Charcoal Locale (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=644117&forum_id=2#8246568) |
|
Date: June 12th, 2007 12:51 PM Author: avocado confused wagecucks (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=644117&forum_id=2#8246570) |
|
Date: June 12th, 2007 12:52 PM Author: Fragrant parlor (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=644117&forum_id=2#8246572) |
|
Date: June 12th, 2007 12:51 PM Author: Fishy azn what's it say?
i cant get the pdf to work :(
edit: n/m, got it. |
|
Date: June 12th, 2007 1:01 PM Author: cream swashbuckling ratface that one doesn't make sense. He wasn't actually saying something himself, he was rephrasing the comments that were threatening, and that were being discussed in the thread in question.
http://www.xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=592614&mc=59&forum_id=2#7729696 |
|
Date: June 12th, 2007 1:08 PM Author: irradiated mother yeah, WTF? can community norm countersue for malicious prosecution or something like that? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=644117&forum_id=2#8246610) |
|
Date: June 12th, 2007 1:08 PM Author: cream swashbuckling ratface I imagine they just found the comment and didn't understand the context of it.
EDIT: this was supposed to be a reply to Fulano. |
|
Date: June 12th, 2007 1:04 PM Author: arousing crawly private investor holy fucking shit^omg. that makes this 10x worse. the complaint isnt even being honest. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=644117&forum_id=2#8246601) |
|
Date: June 12th, 2007 1:06 PM Author: Adventurous Boiling Water Whorehouse whoa. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=644117&forum_id=2#8246607) |
|
Date: June 12th, 2007 12:49 PM Author: scarlet theater I hate to say I told you so, but I told you so. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=644117&forum_id=2#8246564) |
|
Date: June 12th, 2007 12:52 PM Author: Violet Party Of The First Part Patrolman Wow at page 12. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=644117&forum_id=2#8246573) |
|
Date: June 12th, 2007 12:52 PM Author: irradiated mother how is community norm's statement actionable? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=644117&forum_id=2#8246574) |
|
Date: June 12th, 2007 12:53 PM Author: Fragrant parlor woah (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=644117&forum_id=2#8246576) |
|
Date: June 12th, 2007 12:54 PM Author: arousing crawly private investor employers will never hire anyone who others want to have consensual sex with after marriage. it just doesnt happen. |
|
Date: June 12th, 2007 12:53 PM Author: Aphrodisiac Son Of Senegal Knife I wonder if these guys read my "they should sue Paliewalnuts for copyright infringement using the safe harbor to register their photos" thread. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=644117&forum_id=2#8246575) |
|
Date: June 12th, 2007 12:55 PM Author: Deep Queen Of The Night Business Firm i cant open the complaint. anyone else having trouble? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=644117&forum_id=2#8246579) |
|
Date: June 12th, 2007 9:12 PM Author: internet-worthy nursing home yeah it won't open for me either (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=644117&forum_id=2#8248496) |
|
Date: June 12th, 2007 12:57 PM Author: avocado confused wagecucks Paragraph 39: WTF? She couldn't just reschedule her "meetings with law enforcement"?
Also, LOL at the explanation of "CGWBT" in Paragraph 46. |
|
Date: June 12th, 2007 1:00 PM Author: arousing crawly private investor great find. ty (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=644117&forum_id=2#8246587) |
|
Date: June 12th, 2007 1:05 PM Author: supple roast beef abode How can they get away with using "Doe" in the complaint instead of the plaintiffs names? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=644117&forum_id=2#8246602) |
|
Date: June 12th, 2007 1:09 PM Author: cream swashbuckling ratface why not? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=644117&forum_id=2#8246614) |
|
Date: June 12th, 2007 1:13 PM Author: supple roast beef abode I don't know, just seems like the people being sued should know who is suing them (officially). (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=644117&forum_id=2#8246618) |
|
Date: June 12th, 2007 1:15 PM Author: cream swashbuckling ratface roe v wade? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=644117&forum_id=2#8246626) |
|
Date: June 12th, 2007 1:16 PM Author: supple roast beef abode I see, so if the matter is embarrassing to the P they dont have to use their names in the suit? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=644117&forum_id=2#8246630) |
|
Date: June 12th, 2007 1:20 PM Author: cream swashbuckling ratface I have no idea what the 'rules' are, but there are certainly a shitload of lawsuits where the plaintiff is Doe or Roe. Are you in lawschool? I feel like I've read dozens of Doe/Roe cases for classes. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=644117&forum_id=2#8246643) |
|
Date: June 12th, 2007 1:23 PM Author: supple roast beef abode Yes, I guess Im just not very observant. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=644117&forum_id=2#8246655) |
|
Date: June 12th, 2007 1:16 PM Author: Shivering famous landscape painting set sexual harrasment? don't know, but that's when it's used. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=644117&forum_id=2#8246633) |
|
Date: June 12th, 2007 1:07 PM Author: Grizzly ungodly goyim (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=644117&forum_id=2#8246608) |
|
Date: June 12th, 2007 1:09 PM Author: Carnelian razzmatazz shrine $245,000 punitive + actual? PWN3D (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=644117&forum_id=2#8246613) |
|
Date: June 12th, 2007 1:18 PM Author: Provocative Rehab Holy shit.
I know this sucks for our peers, but that is hilarious. |
|
Date: June 12th, 2007 1:18 PM Author: sinister national security agency Re: paragraph 40, first sentence --
Did they even read this thing before they filed it? |
|
Date: June 12th, 2007 1:21 PM Author: cream swashbuckling ratface good catch. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=644117&forum_id=2#8246649) |
|
Date: June 12th, 2007 1:23 PM Author: Pungent Menage Defendant moves to dismiss plaintiff's complaint on grounds of the silly redundancy contained in sentence 1 of paragraph 40?
|
|
Date: June 12th, 2007 4:42 PM Author: Emerald Nofapping Site Correct -- or at least jab them about it in the hall. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=644117&forum_id=2#8247541) |
|
Date: June 12th, 2007 1:37 PM Author: house-broken crystalline antidepressant drug Ridiculous. This is legal harrassment. What the fuck did vincimus do, for example? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=644117&forum_id=2#8246738) |
|
Date: June 12th, 2007 1:39 PM Author: Wonderful Office Did you read the complaint? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=644117&forum_id=2#8246754) |
|
Date: June 12th, 2007 1:42 PM Author: Fragrant parlor Quoting complaint: 43. Despite her attempts to end additional defamatory, harassing, and threatening posts about her, the outrageous behavior on AutoAdmit continued. The posters' fixation with Doe I1 went so far as to include suggestions to follow her to the gym and attempt to take her picture while in public:
Date: February 12th, 2007 11:29 AM Author: vincimus I can assure you she doesn't dress conservatively. Anyone who goes to the gym in the afternoon has seen her trapsing around in spandex booty shorts and a strappy tank top. She wants people to look, and they do. |
|
Date: June 12th, 2007 1:44 PM Author: Adventurous Boiling Water Whorehouse i think the relevant post is the one just after that, where a poster says people should take pics. but is vincimus named as a defendant? if so that seems ridiculous to me. |
|
Date: June 12th, 2007 1:48 PM Author: house-broken crystalline antidepressant drug Yes, which shocked me. He seems like an upstanding guy who's going to get raped because of Heide Iravani and Brittan Heller's fixation on tearing down as many people as possible, no matter how peripheral. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=644117&forum_id=2#8246808) |
|
Date: June 12th, 2007 1:59 PM Author: Violet Party Of The First Part Patrolman If you were the plaintiff, how would you feel about going to the gym after reading that? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=644117&forum_id=2#8246864) |
|
Date: June 12th, 2007 2:18 PM Author: house-broken crystalline antidepressant drug HORRIFIED AND SHOCKED AND READY TO SUE (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=644117&forum_id=2#8246967) |
|
Date: June 12th, 2007 2:27 PM Author: arousing crawly private investor id be thankful that someone told me their thoughts on my outfits. if i genuinely didnt like the attention i would dress more conservatively at the gym (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=644117&forum_id=2#8247006) |
|
Date: June 12th, 2007 1:46 PM Author: cream swashbuckling ratface So what's wrong with this exactly - the fact that it brings unwanted publicity? It isn't terribly offensive (comparatively), so it must just be that she's being discussed? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=644117&forum_id=2#8246793) |
|
Date: June 12th, 2007 1:47 PM Author: Fragrant parlor It's just a complaint, not a judgment. THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=644117&forum_id=2#8246803) |
|
Date: June 12th, 2007 1:48 PM Author: cream swashbuckling ratface hon, I get that, I'm wondering what he's *claiming* is wrong with the post. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=644117&forum_id=2#8246805) |
|
Date: June 12th, 2007 1:48 PM Author: odious purple bawdyhouse sweet tailpipe Publication of facts placing a plaintiff in a false light and intentional infliction of emotional distress seem very viable. Minor, but viable. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=644117&forum_id=2#8246804) |
|
Date: June 12th, 2007 1:58 PM Author: Adventurous Boiling Water Whorehouse in my non-legal-advice-giving opinion, no fucking way this is "outrageous" enough to satisfy IIED. as for false light, that's seems slightly more possible, if "she wants people to look" and the description of her outfit at the gym are considered attributing Doe II views she doesn't hold or action she didn't take. but it still has to be considered offensive to a reasonable person. there's also the "unreasonably publicity given to another's life" claim. someone else can look that up on wikipedia. but don't all of these "intrusion of privacy" claims have to involve some sort of actual INTRUSION? |
|
Date: June 12th, 2007 2:03 PM Author: Violet Party Of The First Part Patrolman The poster suggests that he regularly sees the plaintiff at the gym, and that he and his associates frequently leer at her. Pretty creepy stuff, wouldn't you say? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=644117&forum_id=2#8246889) |
|
Date: June 12th, 2007 2:29 PM Author: arousing crawly private investor "people" leer. not himself. and it sounds like a description of what currently occurs, not an invitation to make it occur. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=644117&forum_id=2#8247013) |
|
Date: June 12th, 2007 6:51 PM Author: Soggy Buff State These claims are WAY over the line. I honestly believe sanctions are appropriate. They are suing one guy (apparently) for jokingly suggesting that another guy take a plaintiff's picture at the gym. It wasn't even a very lewdly crafted statement. I can't believe KVN and Yale Law School are involved in this nonsense. I'm wondering if some of the defendants can sue for harassment through frivolous lawsuits. If I were some of them, I'd out myself and countersue right now. There's no way in hell many of these defendants are going to be held liable for what they did. Many of the actions were barely even unethical. I'm vehemently against what a lot of the posters did to those girls, but that doesn't excuse this sweeping lawsuit against anyone who said anything even remotely insensitive. I'm sorry, but it's simply not "intentional infliction of emotional distress" to post on an internet message board about how you'd like to have sex with somebody. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=644117&forum_id=2#8248012) |
|
Date: June 12th, 2007 1:41 PM Author: odious purple bawdyhouse sweet tailpipe p. 9, P 43 (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=644117&forum_id=2#8246769) |
|
Date: June 12th, 2007 2:14 PM Author: Zippy cowardly trump supporter center Subject: the word "google-bomb" is thrown around a lot these days but were does I & II really google-bombed? is this now the commonly accepted definition? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=644117&forum_id=2#8246946) |
|
Date: June 12th, 2007 6:36 PM Author: hilarious old irish cottage I love how one of the first comments in response to the WSJ is Loyola2l fighting the good fight. No one can derail a conversation like him. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=644117&forum_id=2#8247968) |
|
Date: June 12th, 2007 7:27 PM Author: Ocher bossy national I can't imagine they'll keep all of these people in the suit. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=644117&forum_id=2#8248128) |
|
Date: June 12th, 2007 11:06 PM Author: Angry potus Am I missing something, or are they including "Remember when I said I would kill you last? I lied." as a defendant for saying its laughable that she would be rejected based on xo. That is horrible. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=644117&forum_id=2#8248935) |
|
Date: June 14th, 2007 9:13 PM Author: naked university unless he made some other comment that the complaint ommitted (or that i'm missing), that seems really fucked up and OBVIOUSLY frivolous. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=644117&forum_id=2#8256140) |
|
Date: June 12th, 2007 11:35 PM Author: frozen 180 faggot firefighter What a TTT complaint. I can't believe such ostensibly intelligent people are such awful lawyers.
|
|
Date: June 13th, 2007 2:35 AM Author: Bat Shit Crazy Crackhouse How dare you?! (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=644117&forum_id=2#8249648) |
|
Date: November 4th, 2007 12:38 PM Author: Deep Queen Of The Night Business Firm this is helpful to use in studying for civpro. tyty. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=644117&forum_id=2#8851360) |
|
Date: November 4th, 2007 12:58 PM Author: Red passionate turdskin if this ends up in front of a jury y'all are fucked. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=644117&forum_id=2#8851440) |
|
Date: December 4th, 2007 5:05 PM Author: Brindle Orchestra Pit Ceo (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=644117&forum_id=2#8977447) |
|
Date: June 12th, 2008 4:35 PM Author: charismatic alcoholic hairy legs (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=644117&forum_id=2#9884220) |