AK47 pwned in AutoAdmit suit
| Odious voyeur shitlib | 02/27/08 | | Aromatic violent plaza | 02/27/08 | | Galvanic faggot firefighter | 02/27/08 | | ruby bossy french chef stage | 02/28/08 | | Tripping puppy water buffalo | 02/27/08 | | Charismatic Hideous Meetinghouse | 02/27/08 | | Tripping puppy water buffalo | 02/27/08 | | Stirring generalized bond lodge | 02/28/08 | | iridescent black woman | 03/12/08 | | nofapping snowy box office | 02/27/08 | | pearly bisexual church building cumskin | 02/27/08 | | nofapping snowy box office | 02/27/08 | | Aromatic violent plaza | 02/27/08 | | Histrionic Partner Ticket Booth | 02/27/08 | | Lascivious Mental Disorder | 02/27/08 | | Aromatic violent plaza | 02/27/08 | | Wonderful cerise gaping party of the first part | 02/27/08 | | Aromatic violent plaza | 02/27/08 | | Swashbuckling know-it-all theater stage | 02/27/08 | | Provocative School Cafeteria | 02/27/08 | | pearly bisexual church building cumskin | 02/27/08 | | Provocative School Cafeteria | 02/27/08 | | rusted trailer park | 02/27/08 | | Aromatic violent plaza | 02/27/08 | | rusted trailer park | 02/27/08 | | rusted trailer park | 02/27/08 | | Aromatic violent plaza | 02/27/08 | | rusted trailer park | 02/27/08 | | rusted trailer park | 02/27/08 | | Galvanic faggot firefighter | 02/27/08 | | rusted trailer park | 02/27/08 | | Aromatic violent plaza | 02/27/08 | | thriller very tactful state | 02/27/08 | | Aromatic violent plaza | 02/27/08 | | thriller very tactful state | 02/27/08 | | Aromatic violent plaza | 02/27/08 | | thriller very tactful state | 02/27/08 | | Aromatic violent plaza | 02/27/08 | | bull headed degenerate | 02/27/08 | | coral razzle idea he suggested hospital | 02/27/08 | | Galvanic faggot firefighter | 02/27/08 | | Stirring generalized bond lodge | 02/28/08 | | Stirring generalized bond lodge | 02/28/08 | | Lascivious Mental Disorder | 02/27/08 | | Aromatic violent plaza | 02/27/08 | | Fishy cocky place of business | 02/27/08 | | Galvanic faggot firefighter | 02/27/08 | | Aromatic violent plaza | 02/27/08 | | Galvanic faggot firefighter | 02/27/08 | | vengeful gay wizard | 02/27/08 | | Arousing associate | 02/27/08 | | Cracking Azn Dilemma | 02/27/08 | | sienna coiffed dog poop hominid | 02/27/08 | | razzle-dazzle theater | 02/27/08 | | Silver Multi-colored Boistinker | 02/27/08 | | sienna coiffed dog poop hominid | 02/27/08 | | razzle-dazzle theater | 02/27/08 | | Galvanic faggot firefighter | 02/27/08 | | sienna coiffed dog poop hominid | 02/27/08 | | rusted trailer park | 02/27/08 | | awkward zombie-like mediation turdskin | 02/27/08 | | sienna coiffed dog poop hominid | 02/27/08 | | motley space useless brakes | 02/27/08 | | Pea-brained marvelous messiness | 02/27/08 | | Provocative School Cafeteria | 02/27/08 | | awkward zombie-like mediation turdskin | 02/27/08 | | rusted trailer park | 02/27/08 | | Aromatic violent plaza | 02/27/08 | | Silver Multi-colored Boistinker | 02/27/08 | | Galvanic faggot firefighter | 02/27/08 | | awkward zombie-like mediation turdskin | 02/27/08 | | rusted trailer park | 02/27/08 | | razzle-dazzle theater | 02/27/08 | | mahogany disgusting rehab | 02/27/08 | | sienna coiffed dog poop hominid | 02/27/08 | | rusted trailer park | 02/27/08 | | Electric private investor locus | 02/27/08 | | Provocative School Cafeteria | 02/27/08 | | mahogany disgusting rehab | 02/27/08 | | thriller very tactful state | 02/27/08 | | Lascivious Mental Disorder | 02/27/08 | | Aromatic violent plaza | 02/27/08 | | thriller very tactful state | 02/27/08 | | concupiscible death wish | 02/27/08 | | sienna coiffed dog poop hominid | 02/27/08 | | Silver Multi-colored Boistinker | 02/27/08 | | rusted trailer park | 02/27/08 | | Aromatic violent plaza | 02/27/08 | | razzle-dazzle theater | 02/27/08 | | awkward zombie-like mediation turdskin | 02/27/08 | | sienna coiffed dog poop hominid | 02/27/08 | | razzle-dazzle theater | 02/27/08 | | awkward zombie-like mediation turdskin | 02/27/08 | | concupiscible death wish | 02/27/08 | | French gold area alpha | 02/27/08 | | rusted trailer park | 02/27/08 | | rusted trailer park | 02/27/08 | | rusted trailer park | 02/27/08 | | rusted trailer park | 02/27/08 | | French gold area alpha | 02/27/08 | | rusted trailer park | 02/27/08 | | sienna coiffed dog poop hominid | 02/27/08 | | Bateful bearded station | 02/27/08 | | Silver Multi-colored Boistinker | 02/27/08 | | pearly bisexual church building cumskin | 02/27/08 | | Aromatic violent plaza | 02/27/08 | | pearly bisexual church building cumskin | 02/27/08 | | rusted trailer park | 02/27/08 | | Aromatic violent plaza | 02/27/08 | | thriller very tactful state | 02/27/08 | | Odious voyeur shitlib | 03/04/08 | | coral razzle idea he suggested hospital | 02/27/08 | | Aromatic violent plaza | 02/27/08 | | pearly bisexual church building cumskin | 02/27/08 | | coral razzle idea he suggested hospital | 02/27/08 | | pearly bisexual church building cumskin | 02/27/08 | | coral razzle idea he suggested hospital | 02/27/08 | | pearly bisexual church building cumskin | 02/27/08 | | coral razzle idea he suggested hospital | 02/27/08 | | Aromatic violent plaza | 02/27/08 | | coral razzle idea he suggested hospital | 02/27/08 | | Aromatic violent plaza | 02/27/08 | | pearly bisexual church building cumskin | 02/27/08 | | coral razzle idea he suggested hospital | 02/27/08 | | pearly bisexual church building cumskin | 02/29/08 | | pearly bisexual church building cumskin | 02/27/08 | | coral razzle idea he suggested hospital | 02/27/08 | | Boyish Overrated Chad | 02/27/08 | | Boyish Overrated Chad | 02/27/08 | | Orchid pungent telephone | 02/27/08 | | pearly bisexual church building cumskin | 02/28/08 | | Internet-worthy misanthropic legal warrant | 02/27/08 | | awkward zombie-like mediation turdskin | 02/27/08 | | Bonkers sound barrier therapy | 02/27/08 | | nofapping snowy box office | 02/27/08 | | awkward zombie-like mediation turdskin | 02/27/08 | | razzle-dazzle theater | 02/27/08 | | awkward zombie-like mediation turdskin | 02/27/08 | | rusted trailer park | 02/27/08 | | sienna coiffed dog poop hominid | 02/27/08 | | mahogany disgusting rehab | 02/27/08 | | Wild newt | 02/27/08 | | awkward zombie-like mediation turdskin | 02/27/08 | | aphrodisiac people who are hurt | 02/27/08 | | Electric private investor locus | 02/27/08 | | concupiscible death wish | 02/27/08 | | pontificating blue principal's office toilet seat | 02/27/08 | | Mauve garrison | 02/27/08 | | Soul-stirring coldplay fan casino | 02/27/08 | | thriller very tactful state | 02/27/08 | | Deranged Weed Whacker | 02/27/08 | | concupiscible death wish | 02/27/08 | | Laughsome Persian | 02/27/08 | | Aromatic violent plaza | 02/27/08 | | Bonkers sound barrier therapy | 02/27/08 | | thriller very tactful state | 02/27/08 | | Aromatic violent plaza | 02/27/08 | | violent fragrant volcanic crater spot | 02/27/08 | | coral razzle idea he suggested hospital | 02/27/08 | | pearly bisexual church building cumskin | 02/27/08 | | Mauve garrison | 02/27/08 | | Aromatic violent plaza | 02/27/08 | | razzle-dazzle theater | 02/27/08 | | coral razzle idea he suggested hospital | 02/27/08 | | Aromatic violent plaza | 02/27/08 | | submissive quadroon | 02/27/08 | | Aromatic violent plaza | 02/27/08 | | cowardly passionate range feces | 02/28/08 | | coral razzle idea he suggested hospital | 02/27/08 | | Odious voyeur shitlib | 02/27/08 | | big locale | 02/27/08 | | bat shit crazy cuckold | 02/27/08 | | glassy vigorous pisswyrm chapel | 02/27/08 | | Bateful bearded station | 02/27/08 | | 180 incel | 02/27/08 | | violet trip temple | 02/27/08 | | Orchid pungent telephone | 02/27/08 | | Charismatic Hideous Meetinghouse | 02/27/08 | | pontificating blue principal's office toilet seat | 02/27/08 | | anal business firm cuck | 02/27/08 | | Lascivious Mental Disorder | 02/27/08 | | pink hairraiser cruise ship | 02/27/08 | | garnet medicated den affirmative action | 02/27/08 | | thriller very tactful state | 02/27/08 | | garnet medicated den affirmative action | 02/27/08 | | Cracking Azn Dilemma | 02/27/08 | | rusted trailer park | 02/27/08 | | Internet-worthy misanthropic legal warrant | 02/27/08 | | garnet medicated den affirmative action | 02/27/08 | | Kink-friendly cerebral piazza | 02/27/08 | | henna exciting codepig parlour | 02/27/08 | | Kink-friendly cerebral piazza | 02/27/08 | | henna exciting codepig parlour | 02/28/08 | | Kink-friendly cerebral piazza | 02/28/08 | | Low-t bistre corn cake national | 02/28/08 | | Cracking Azn Dilemma | 02/27/08 | | Ivory Wagecucks | 02/28/08 | | saffron marketing idea | 02/28/08 | | glassy vigorous pisswyrm chapel | 02/28/08 | | saffron marketing idea | 02/28/08 | | glassy vigorous pisswyrm chapel | 02/28/08 | | Kink-friendly cerebral piazza | 02/28/08 | | glassy vigorous pisswyrm chapel | 02/28/08 | | Kink-friendly cerebral piazza | 02/28/08 | | glassy vigorous pisswyrm chapel | 02/28/08 | | Low-t bistre corn cake national | 02/28/08 | | Impertinent Drunken Mother | 02/28/08 | | saffron marketing idea | 02/28/08 | | glassy vigorous pisswyrm chapel | 02/28/08 | | coral razzle idea he suggested hospital | 02/28/08 | | Aromatic violent plaza | 02/28/08 | | glassy vigorous pisswyrm chapel | 02/28/08 | | concupiscible death wish | 02/28/08 | | Kink-friendly cerebral piazza | 02/28/08 | | saffron marketing idea | 02/28/08 | | pontificating blue principal's office toilet seat | 02/28/08 | | Laughsome Persian | 02/28/08 | | Low-t bistre corn cake national | 02/28/08 | | obsidian windowlicker kitchen | 02/28/08 | | fighting rose heaven | 03/04/08 | | contagious blood rage senate | 02/28/08 | | Kink-friendly cerebral piazza | 02/28/08 | | Aromatic violent plaza | 02/28/08 | | contagious blood rage senate | 02/28/08 | | coral razzle idea he suggested hospital | 02/28/08 | | vermilion well-lubricated location | 02/28/08 | | Aromatic violent plaza | 02/28/08 | | vermilion well-lubricated location | 02/28/08 | | obsidian windowlicker kitchen | 02/28/08 | | glassy vigorous pisswyrm chapel | 02/28/08 | | Aromatic violent plaza | 02/28/08 | | Ivory Wagecucks | 02/28/08 | | Aromatic violent plaza | 02/28/08 | | Ivory Wagecucks | 02/28/08 | | Kink-friendly cerebral piazza | 02/28/08 | | Ivory Wagecucks | 02/28/08 | | Slippery menage | 02/28/08 | | Ivory Wagecucks | 02/28/08 | | Aromatic violent plaza | 02/28/08 | | Cracking Azn Dilemma | 02/28/08 | | Aromatic violent plaza | 02/28/08 | | Ivory Wagecucks | 02/28/08 | | Aromatic violent plaza | 02/28/08 | | Ivory Wagecucks | 02/28/08 | | concupiscible death wish | 02/28/08 | | Cracking Azn Dilemma | 02/28/08 | | Aromatic violent plaza | 02/28/08 | | Kink-friendly cerebral piazza | 02/28/08 | | Ivory Wagecucks | 02/28/08 | | Kink-friendly cerebral piazza | 02/28/08 | | Ivory Wagecucks | 02/28/08 | | Aromatic violent plaza | 02/28/08 | | Ivory Wagecucks | 02/28/08 | | Aromatic violent plaza | 02/28/08 | | vivacious abode | 02/29/08 | | Aromatic violent plaza | 02/28/08 | | Ivory Wagecucks | 02/28/08 | | Kink-friendly cerebral piazza | 02/28/08 | | Titillating Aggressive Public Bath | 02/28/08 | | ruby bossy french chef stage | 02/28/08 | | Lascivious Mental Disorder | 02/28/08 | | obsidian windowlicker kitchen | 02/28/08 | | thriller very tactful state | 02/28/08 | | vengeful gay wizard | 02/28/08 | | Jade Appetizing Rigpig Karate | 02/29/08 | | glittery property brethren | 03/12/08 | | Sable magical theatre | 02/29/08 | | Odious voyeur shitlib | 03/04/08 | | Useless diverse step-uncle's house new version | 03/12/08 |
Poast new message in this thread
 |
Date: February 27th, 2008 4:01 PM Author: Aromatic violent plaza
AK47 = racist megaposter, right?
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9396847)
|
 |
Date: February 28th, 2008 2:38 AM Author: ruby bossy french chef stage
woa
oldskookposterpwned
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9399710) |
Date: February 27th, 2008 4:00 PM Author: Tripping puppy water buffalo
HE IS FUCKED FOR LIFE.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9396841) |
Date: February 27th, 2008 4:01 PM Author: nofapping snowy box office
wtf.
what did he say that caused him to be sued?
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9396843) |
Date: February 27th, 2008 4:02 PM Author: Aromatic violent plaza
For what it's worth, that IP address traces back to Vallejo, Calif.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9396854) |
 |
Date: February 27th, 2008 4:05 PM Author: Aromatic violent plaza
The racial makeup of the city was 30.97% White, 30.69% African American, 0.66% Native American, 19.16% Asian, 1.09% Pacific Islander, 7.88% from other races, and 6.56% from two or more races. Hispanic or Latino of any race were 19.92% of the population.
Vallejo has the third highest percentage of Filipino Americans in the United States mainland, behind the nearby cities of Daly City and Hercules.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9396868) |
 |
Date: February 27th, 2008 4:04 PM Author: pearly bisexual church building cumskin
I was just about to post that.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9396863)
|
 |
Date: February 27th, 2008 4:05 PM Author: Provocative School Cafeteria
lmfao, fucking vallejo, that's awesome.
guess he wasn't a fan of the hyphy movement?
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9396867) |
 |
Date: February 27th, 2008 4:07 PM Author: rusted trailer park
link?
I kind of feel sorry for him. But his posts were ridiculously offensive.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9396877) |
 |
Date: February 27th, 2008 4:08 PM Author: Aromatic violent plaza
Host name: adsl-75-18-198-98.dsl.pltn13.sbcglobal.net.
IP address: 75.18.198.98
Location: Vallejo, CA, UNITED STATES
You can lookup any IP at this site: http://www.hostip.info
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9396884) |
 |
Date: February 27th, 2008 4:37 PM Author: Aromatic violent plaza
AUTHOR: Chauncey
EMAIL:
IP: 75.18.198.98
URL:
DATE: 07/20/2007 12:09:51 AM
falcons suck
Could be a dynamic IP though.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9397038) |
 |
Date: February 27th, 2008 4:30 PM Author: Aromatic violent plaza
link?
Considering the poster, I'm having a hard time imagining a context where that would be an innocent statement.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9396991) |
 |
Date: February 27th, 2008 4:40 PM Author: thriller very tactful state
This is thread he was named a D for:
http://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=646214&mc=2&forum_id=2
It's not even clear he was indicating either of the D's (only one of them is named in the subject line and her name is misspelled)
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9397045) |
 |
Date: February 27th, 2008 4:43 PM Author: Aromatic violent plaza
Lolz. Gimmie a break. The intention is clear.
I'm not arguing that what he said is legally actionable. It is morally reprehensible though, and I have no sympathy for him.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9397064) |
Date: February 27th, 2008 4:06 PM Author: Lascivious Mental Disorder
how did the Does get his IP address? rach sold out?
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9396871) |
Date: February 27th, 2008 4:06 PM Author: Fishy cocky place of business
What does it say? My computer blocks the link.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9396872) |
Date: February 27th, 2008 4:07 PM Author: Galvanic faggot firefighter
is that for real?
i don't think you have a constitutional right to speak anonymously.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9396880) |
Date: February 27th, 2008 4:08 PM Author: sienna coiffed dog poop hominid
He is going to get a seat on the Supreme Court with that legal acumen!
I would assume that most people who submit briefs to the court at least spell "plaintiffs" right.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9396881) |
Date: February 27th, 2008 4:08 PM Author: razzle-dazzle theater
This is by far the biggest lulz to come out of the lawsuit thus far.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9396883) |
 |
Date: February 27th, 2008 4:11 PM Author: Silver Multi-colored Boistinker
Site is blocked here. What does the biglaw board link say?
Can you paste it in.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9396897) |
 |
Date: February 27th, 2008 4:13 PM Author: sienna coiffed dog poop hominid
Author: Daily Docket [102] ()
Posted: 02/27/08 03:43 PM
Flag: Best-Of Helpful NSFW Spam TOS Violation
Main Document
"Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(c) and applicable local rules, John Doe 21 moves to quash Plaintiffs' third party subpoena to AT&T, Inc. for information pertaining to his identity. John Doe 21, referred to in the Amended Complaint as Internet pseudonym "AK47," asks this Court to quash Plaintiff's subpoena because the Subpoena violates his First Amendment right to speak anonymously."
Of note, he seeks to limit access to IP address 75.18.198.98.
Portions of it reads like, well, a first year brief? "urges this court to help Plainfitts trample upon John Doe's constitutionally protected right to speak anonymously."
"neither properly noticed of the suit nor have the resources or legal know-how to wade through the legal and procedural thicket presented by Plaintiffs, two Yale law students who have enlisted an elite law firm"
Arguments:
A. The First Amendment protects John Doe 21's right to speak anonymously.
B. To protect qualified privilege, the court should require notice to defendants, review of the complaint, and presentation of argument and evidence before issuing a subpoena to an anonymous defendant.
C. Plaintiffs cannot overcome John Doe 21's right to speak anonymously because plaintiffs cannot demonstrate they have viable claims against John Doe 21.
D. The court must review John Doe 21's statement to determine whether it actionable.
E. Plaintiffs are not able to succeed on their intentional or negligent infliction of emotional distress claims.
F. Plaintiff has not met the heightened standard required by the First Amendment.
G. The court must balance the harm of disclosure against its value.
H. Plaintiffs are using this subpoena, not for legitimate discovery purposes, but rather to intimidate John Doe 21 in the same manner that they intimidated other defendants in this case.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9396907) |
 |
Date: February 27th, 2008 4:15 PM Author: razzle-dazzle theater Subject: Posted thus far
JOHN DOE 21's MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO QUASH
PLAINTIFF'S SUBPOENA
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(c) and applicable local rules, John Doe 21 moves to quash Plaintiffs' third party subpoena to AT&T, Inc. for information pertaining to his identity. John Doe 21, referred to in the Amended Complaint as Internet pseudonym "AK47," asks this Court to quash Plaintiffs' subpoena because the Subpoena violates his First Amendment right to speak anonymously.
INTRODUCTION
Plaintiffs Doe I's and Doe II's February 15,2008 Subpoena ordering AT&T Inc. ("AT&T") to produce information relating to the identity of John Doe 21, a.k.a AK47, urges this court to help Plaintiffs trample upon John Doe's constitutionally protected right to speak anonymously. This subpoena, Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint and Ex Parte Motion for Expedited Discovery have heretofore gone unopposed by Defendants, like John Doe, who were neither properly noticed of the suit nor have the resources or legal know-how to wade through the legal and procedural thicket
presented by Plaintiffs, two Yale law students who have enlisted an elite law firm to uncover the identities of certain persons who posted unsavory but legally innocuous comments concerning Plaintiffs on an Internet website. Although the Amended Complaint and Motion For Expedited
Discovery, as they relate to John Doe 21, would not withstand even the most cursory challenge, it is extremely important that this Court protect the First Amendment and Due Process rights of John Doe 21 and the other anonymous Defendants drawn into this litigation. Though silly, the statement at issue here, i.e., "Women named Jill and [Doe II's equally common first name] should be raped,"
constitutes constitutionally protected speech. The Subpoena should be quashed.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint, which includes allegations ranging from intentional infliction of emotional distress and false light, Amended Complaint ("Complaint") at ~~ 62-83, appears to center on claims of defamation and copyright infringement. Most of the named Defendants, including John Doe 21, are anonymous, appear to have no relationship to each other, do not appear to know Plaintiffs, and are identified only by their screen names. John Doe 21 has never met Plaintiffs, nor does he reside in Connecticut.
Plaintiffs filed the original Complaint on June 8, 2007, in front of the Honorable Judge Christopher Droney of the Connecticut District Court for the District of Connecticut, alleging that certain posters on Autoadmit.com, a discussion site known for its silly banter and near absolute unreliability as a source of useful information, had posted comments that caused Plaintiffs a smorgasbord of harms, including causing one plaintiff to fail to receive job offers from top-tier law firms. Complaint at 1. After numerous extension requests, see Motions for Extension of Time (totaling 4), Plaintiffs on November 8, 2007, filed an Amended Complaint, dropping several Defendants and naming others, including John Doe 21. Amended Complaint at 1. Plaintiffs continued to file various motions which went unopposed by apparently unaware Defendants (see First MOTION for Extension of Time until July 7, 2008 to Modify the Scheduling Order; Plaintiffs' Motion for Expedited Discovery, Memorandum in Support Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Expedited Discovery), and sought and were granted leave to issue subpoenas to Internet service providers in order to locate and identify the anonymous Defendants, presumably for the purposes of drawing the actual identities of Defendants into this litigation and attributing to Defendants comments posted anonymously on Autoadmit. One such subpoena reached John Doe 21. The Subpoena was addressed to AT&T, Inc., an Internet service provider, and demanded the identity of the person who posted comments presumably traceable to the IP address 75.18.198.98. See Exhibit 1.
The Subpoena, received by John Doe 21 on or around the 18 of February 2008, originally sought and granted in Connecticut District Court, was apparently filed and issued from the United States District Court for the Central District of California. Exhibit 1. The Subpoena states that John Doe 21 has 10 days in which to prepare a motion to quash, a protective order or other motion to prevent AT&T from divulging information pertaining to his identity to Plaintiffs. This 10 day period was negotiated by Plaintiffs attorneys and AT&T. See Exhibit 1, Subpoena to AT&T at 1. Apparently, 10 days is enough time for John Doe 21 to prepare a motion concerning an area of law with which he has never dealt and concerning a multitude of federal procedural issues that only experienced litigators such as Plaintiffs' attorneys are able to navigate. On the other hand, Plaintiffs, by seeking time extension after extension, have carefully planned their strategy over a period of nearly 10 months. It has therefore taken Plaintiffs, with the aid of a cadre of competent attorneys, 10 months to craft their case, yet Plaintiffs think it appropriate to give John Doe 21 ten days to craft his.
Furthermore, the Subpoena fails to mention John Doe 21's pseudonymous identity, "AK47," fails to identify the specific court division within the Central District of California (the Central District of California contains four separate court divisions) that issued the Subpoena, and fails to otherwise identify the purpose for its issuance. Nor, to John Doe 21's knowledge, do any of Plaintiffs' moving documents in the Connecticut litigation contain any evidence linking the IP address sought to any comment posted on Autoadmit. The only piece of information related to this case mentioned in the Subpoena is John Doe 21's IP address, an address presumably linked to a comment that Plaintiffs found objectionable. Yet, this bare bones document has the potential to eviscerate John Doe 21's constitutionally guaranteed right to speak anonymously.
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
This Motion presents the Court with the issue of what standard should be applied to determine whether, in this particular case, the right to obtain redress from a silly statement on Autoadmit.com outweighs John Doe 21's First Amendment right to make speak anonymously. Few courts have considered this question, but it is becoming a crucial one, particularly in light of the increasing number of cases where those who have been criticized on the Internet seek to use the machinery of the courts to unmask, intimidate and silence their online critics. Indeed, as a California District Court recently remarked, "[p]eople who have committed no wrong should be able to participate online without fear that someone who wishes to harass or embarrass them can file a frivolous lawsuit and thereby gain the power of the court's order to discover their identities." Columbia Ins. Co. v. seescandy.com, 185 F.R.D. 573,578 (N.D. Cal. 1999) (considering the discovery standards applicable to the unveiling of a defendant's identity in a domain name/trademark matter).
In light of the significant privacy and free speech issues involved in unveiling the identities of anonymous speakers, a balancing test has been developed to decide whether to require the identification of anonymous speakers in litigation. Under that test, the Court will balance the harm to John Doe 21 against the Plaintiffs' need for discovery to pursue their claim. On the facts of this case, there can be no doubt that John Doe 21's right to speak anonymously should prevail.
A. THE FIRST AMENDMENT PROTECTS JOHN DOE 21'S RIGHT TO SPEAK ANONYMOUSLY
It hardly bears mention that the First Amendment protects the right to speak anonymously. The Bill of Rights and the Constitution were designed by citizens who publicly debated these documents' virtues anonymously (or pseudonymously) in letters published later as the Federalist Papers. The First and Fourth Amendments are based "at least in part on the colonists' experience with the sedition laws of England which forbade anonymous writing and which allowed warrantless invasion of any home to root out the true identity of anonymous authors." Nelson B. Lasson, The History and Development of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, 37-50 (1937). The Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed this right. Buckley v. American Constitutional Law Found. Inc., 525 U.S. 182, 197-200 (1999); McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm'n., 514 U.S. 334 (1995); Talley v. California, 362 U.S. 60 (1960). These cases signify the important role of anonymous speech in the United States' history.
The Supreme Court unequivocally held in Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. at 870, that speech on the Internet is entitled to the full spectrum of First Amendment protections. Observing that the World Wide Web is a medium for public argument and discussion that reaches more people than any other known medium, the Court stated that "content on the Internet is as diverse as human thought." Reno, 521 U.S. at 870
In the online realm, numerous cases have upheld the constitutional right to speak anonymously on the Internet. ACLU v. Johnson, 4 F. Supp. 2d 1029, 1033 (D.N.M. 1998) aff'd, 194 F.3d 1149 (10th Cir. 1999); ACLU of Georgia, 977 F. Supp. at 1232-33; see also ApolloMEDIA Corp. v. Reno, 526 U.S. 1061 (1999), aff'g 19 F. Supp. 2d 1081 (N.D. Cal. 1998) (protecting anonymous speakers on web site at www.annoy.com, a site "created and designed to annoy" legislators through anonymous communications). The mechanics of the Internet, however, provides numerous ways to track the statements of anonymous speakers, prompting many commentators to argue that the law ought to provide special protections for Internet anonymity. See, e.g., David G. Post, Pooling Intellectual Capital: Thoughts of Anonymity, Pseudonymity, and Limited Liability in Cyberspace, 1996 U. Chi. Legal F. 139; Lee Tien, Innovation and the Information Environment: Who's Afraid of Anonymous Speech? McIntyre and the Internet, 75 Or. L. Rev. 117 (1996).
Because the First Amendment protects the right to speak anonymously, a subpoena for anonymous speakers' names and addresses is subject to a qualified privilege. And, as in other cases in which litigants seek privileged information, courts must consider the privilege before authorizing discovery. See Sony Music Entmn't v. Does, 326 F.Supp.2d 556,565 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) ("Against the backdrop of First Amendment protection for anonymous speech, courts have held that civil subpoenas seeking information regarding anonymous individuals raise First Amendment concerns.").
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9396914) |
 |
Date: February 27th, 2008 4:16 PM Author: Galvanic faggot firefighter
JOHN DOE 21's MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO QUASH
PLAINTIFF'S SUBPOENA
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(c) and applicable local rules, John Doe 21 moves to quash Plaintiffs' third party subpoena to AT&T, Inc. for information pertaining to his identity. John Doe 21, referred to in the Amended Complaint as Internet pseudonym "AK47," asks this Court to quash Plaintiffs' subpoena because the Subpoena violates his First Amendment right to speak anonymously.
INTRODUCTION
Plaintiffs Doe I's and Doe II's February 15,2008 Subpoena ordering AT&T Inc. ("AT&T") to produce information relating to the identity of John Doe 21, a.k.a AK47, urges this court to help Plaintiffs trample upon John Doe's constitutionally protected right to speak anonymously. This subpoena, Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint and Ex Parte Motion for Expedited Discovery have heretofore gone unopposed by Defendants, like John Doe, who were neither properly noticed of the suit nor have the resources or legal know-how to wade through the legal and procedural thicket
presented by Plaintiffs, two Yale law students who have enlisted an elite law firm to uncover the identities of certain persons who posted unsavory but legally innocuous comments concerning Plaintiffs on an Internet website. Although the Amended Complaint and Motion For Expedited
Discovery, as they relate to John Doe 21, would not withstand even the most cursory challenge, it is extremely important that this Court protect the First Amendment and Due Process rights of John Doe 21 and the other anonymous Defendants drawn into this litigation. Though silly, the statement at issue here, i.e., "Women named Jill and [Doe II's equally common first name] should be raped,"
constitutes constitutionally protected speech. The Subpoena should be quashed.
Link: http://www.biglawboard.com/blb/viewThread.jsp?threadId=11559#11568
Author: Daily Docket [107] ()
Posted: 02/27/08 04:04 PM
Flag: Best-Of Helpful NSFW Spam TOS Violation
BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint, which includes allegations ranging from intentional infliction of emotional distress and false light, Amended Complaint ("Complaint") at ~~ 62-83, appears to center on claims of defamation and copyright infringement. Most of the named Defendants, including John Doe 21, are anonymous, appear to have no relationship to each other, do not appear to know Plaintiffs, and are identified only by their screen names. John Doe 21 has never met Plaintiffs, nor does he reside in Connecticut.
Plaintiffs filed the original Complaint on June 8, 2007, in front of the Honorable Judge Christopher Droney of the Connecticut District Court for the District of Connecticut, alleging that certain posters on Autoadmit.com, a discussion site known for its silly banter and near absolute unreliability as a source of useful information, had posted comments that caused Plaintiffs a smorgasbord of harms, including causing one plaintiff to fail to receive job offers from top-tier law firms. Complaint at 1. After numerous extension requests, see Motions for Extension of Time (totaling 4), Plaintiffs on November 8, 2007, filed an Amended Complaint, dropping several Defendants and naming others, including John Doe 21. Amended Complaint at 1. Plaintiffs continued to file various motions which went unopposed by apparently unaware Defendants (see First MOTION for Extension of Time until July 7, 2008 to Modify the Scheduling Order; Plaintiffs' Motion for Expedited Discovery, Memorandum in Support Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Expedited Discovery), and sought and were granted leave to issue subpoenas to Internet service providers in order to locate and identify the anonymous Defendants, presumably for the purposes of drawing the actual identities of Defendants into this litigation and attributing to Defendants comments posted anonymously on Autoadmit. One such subpoena reached John Doe 21. The Subpoena was addressed to AT&T, Inc., an Internet service provider, and demanded the identity of the person who posted comments presumably traceable to the IP address 75.18.198.98. See Exhibit 1.
The Subpoena, received by John Doe 21 on or around the 18 of February 2008, originally sought and granted in Connecticut District Court, was apparently filed and issued from the United States District Court for the Central District of California. Exhibit 1. The Subpoena states that John Doe 21 has 10 days in which to prepare a motion to quash, a protective order or other motion to prevent AT&T from divulging information pertaining to his identity to Plaintiffs. This 10 day period was negotiated by Plaintiffs attorneys and AT&T. See Exhibit 1, Subpoena to AT&T at 1. Apparently, 10 days is enough time for John Doe 21 to prepare a motion concerning an area of law with which he has never dealt and concerning a multitude of federal procedural issues that only experienced litigators such as Plaintiffs' attorneys are able to navigate. On the other hand, Plaintiffs, by seeking time extension after extension, have carefully planned their strategy over a period of nearly 10 months. It has therefore taken Plaintiffs, with the aid of a cadre of competent attorneys, 10 months to craft their case, yet Plaintiffs think it appropriate to give John Doe 21 ten days to craft his.
Furthermore, the Subpoena fails to mention John Doe 21's pseudonymous identity, "AK47," fails to identify the specific court division within the Central District of California (the Central District of California contains four separate court divisions) that issued the Subpoena, and fails to otherwise identify the purpose for its issuance. Nor, to John Doe 21's knowledge, do any of Plaintiffs' moving documents in the Connecticut litigation contain any evidence linking the IP address sought to any comment posted on Autoadmit. The only piece of information related to this case mentioned in the Subpoena is John Doe 21's IP address, an address presumably linked to a comment that Plaintiffs found objectionable. Yet, this bare bones document has the potential to eviscerate John Doe 21's constitutionally guaranteed right to speak anonymously.
Link: http://www.biglawboard.com/blb/viewThread.jsp?threadId=11559#11569
Author: Daily Docket [107] ()
Posted: 02/27/08 04:07 PM
Flag: Best-Of Helpful NSFW Spam TOS Violation
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
This Motion presents the Court with the issue of what standard should be applied to determine whether, in this particular case, the right to obtain redress from a silly statement on Autoadmit.com outweighs John Doe 21's First Amendment right to make speak anonymously. Few courts have considered this question, but it is becoming a crucial one, particularly in light of the increasing number of cases where those who have been criticized on the Internet seek to use the machinery of the courts to unmask, intimidate and silence their online critics. Indeed, as a California District Court recently remarked, "[p]eople who have committed no wrong should be able to participate online without fear that someone who wishes to harass or embarrass them can file a frivolous lawsuit and thereby gain the power of the court's order to discover their identities." Columbia Ins. Co. v. seescandy.com, 185 F.R.D. 573,578 (N.D. Cal. 1999) (considering the discovery standards applicable to the unveiling of a defendant's identity in a domain name/trademark matter).
In light of the significant privacy and free speech issues involved in unveiling the identities of anonymous speakers, a balancing test has been developed to decide whether to require the identification of anonymous speakers in litigation. Under that test, the Court will balance the harm to John Doe 21 against the Plaintiffs' need for discovery to pursue their claim. On the facts of this case, there can be no doubt that John Doe 21's right to speak anonymously should prevail.
Link: http://www.biglawboard.com/blb/viewThread.jsp?threadId=11559#11570
Author: Daily Docket [107] ()
Posted: 02/27/08 04:10 PM
Flag: Best-Of Helpful NSFW Spam TOS Violation
A. THE FIRST AMENDMENT PROTECTS JOHN DOE 21'S RIGHT TO SPEAK ANONYMOUSLY
It hardly bears mention that the First Amendment protects the right to speak anonymously. The Bill of Rights and the Constitution were designed by citizens who publicly debated these documents' virtues anonymously (or pseudonymously) in letters published later as the Federalist Papers. The First and Fourth Amendments are based "at least in part on the colonists' experience with the sedition laws of England which forbade anonymous writing and which allowed warrantless invasion of any home to root out the true identity of anonymous authors." Nelson B. Lasson, The History and Development of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, 37-50 (1937). The Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed this right. Buckley v. American Constitutional Law Found. Inc., 525 U.S. 182, 197-200 (1999); McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm'n., 514 U.S. 334 (1995); Talley v. California, 362 U.S. 60 (1960). These cases signify the important role of anonymous speech in the United States' history.
The Supreme Court unequivocally held in Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. at 870, that speech on the Internet is entitled to the full spectrum of First Amendment protections. Observing that the World Wide Web is a medium for public argument and discussion that reaches more people than any other known medium, the Court stated that "content on the Internet is as diverse as human thought." Reno, 521 U.S. at 870
In the online realm, numerous cases have upheld the constitutional right to speak anonymously on the Internet. ACLU v. Johnson, 4 F. Supp. 2d 1029, 1033 (D.N.M. 1998) aff'd, 194 F.3d 1149 (10th Cir. 1999); ACLU of Georgia, 977 F. Supp. at 1232-33; see also ApolloMEDIA Corp. v. Reno, 526 U.S. 1061 (1999), aff'g 19 F. Supp. 2d 1081 (N.D. Cal. 1998) (protecting anonymous speakers on web site at www.annoy.com, a site "created and designed to annoy" legislators through anonymous communications). The mechanics of the Internet, however, provides numerous ways to track the statements of anonymous speakers, prompting many commentators to argue that the law ought to provide special protections for Internet anonymity. See, e.g., David G. Post, Pooling Intellectual Capital: Thoughts of Anonymity, Pseudonymity, and Limited Liability in Cyberspace, 1996 U. Chi. Legal F. 139; Lee Tien, Innovation and the Information Environment: Who's Afraid of Anonymous Speech? McIntyre and the Internet, 75 Or. L. Rev. 117 (1996).
Because the First Amendment protects the right to speak anonymously, a subpoena for anonymous speakers' names and addresses is subject to a qualified privilege. And, as in other cases in which litigants seek privileged information, courts must consider the privilege before authorizing discovery. See Sony Music Entmn't v. Does, 326 F.Supp.2d 556,565 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) ("Against the backdrop of First Amendment protection for anonymous speech, courts have held that civil subpoenas seeking information regarding anonymous individuals raise First Amendment concerns.").
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9396920) |
 |
Date: February 27th, 2008 4:17 PM Author: sienna coiffed dog poop hominid
I dont think you understand the hilarity:
Date: November 10th, 2007 12:59 AM
Author: AK47
it's actually an interesting case. if you actually understood the issues or were familiar with any of the legal issues presented in it, i'd discuss it with you. thank goodness people like you never become prestigious lawyers or judges.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=714757&forum_id=2#8876598
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9396924) |
Date: February 27th, 2008 4:10 PM Author: sienna coiffed dog poop hominid
Lulz, NYU grads. Stick to basketball, whokebe!
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9396892) |
 |
Date: February 27th, 2008 4:13 PM Author: motley space useless brakes
AK47 = whokebe? i mean, i wouldn't be surprised but he still posts here under like 45 different monikers, right?
also, whokebe/AK47 went to NYU?
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9396905) |
 |
Date: February 27th, 2008 4:13 PM Author: Provocative School Cafeteria
whokebe would never live in vallejo.
hth.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9396906) |
Date: February 27th, 2008 4:15 PM Author: awkward zombie-like mediation turdskin
Is the lawsuit worth it, for this alone?
Possibly.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9396917) |
 |
Date: February 27th, 2008 4:18 PM Author: Aromatic violent plaza
TITCR.
I wouldn't be surprised if 90% of the Does trace back to that one IP.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9396926) |
 |
Date: February 27th, 2008 4:26 PM Author: awkward zombie-like mediation turdskin
I think he was added in the amended complaint, after he made comments about the Does when the lawsuit was originally filed (someone correct me here if I'm wrong)
That makes it doubley lulz-worthy, if I remember the timeline correctly. Even sweeter is that after he was added he came to the board laughing off the lawsuit, saying he'd never be outted.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9396969) |
Date: February 27th, 2008 4:18 PM Author: mahogany disgusting rehab
Will he be disbarred?
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9396931) |
 |
Date: February 27th, 2008 4:25 PM Author: rusted trailer park
pretty sure he's transactional
i guess he doesnt write memos/briefs too often. lol.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9396964) |
Date: February 27th, 2008 4:18 PM Author: Electric private investor locus
Has anyone confirmed this? Haven't they made up lawsuit related stuff before?
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9396932) |
Date: February 27th, 2008 4:18 PM Author: Provocative School Cafeteria
So can we assume AK47 works in SF and takes the ferry to work?
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9396933) |
Date: February 27th, 2008 4:19 PM Author: concupiscible death wish
i think he has a good argument (so far as i have read on blb).
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9396938) |
 |
Date: February 27th, 2008 4:22 PM Author: sienna coiffed dog poop hominid
"This Motion presents the Court with the issue of what standard should be applied to determine whether, in this particular case, the right to obtain redress from a silly statement on Autoadmit.com outweighs John Doe 21's First Amendment right to make speak anonymously."
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9396950)
|
 |
Date: February 27th, 2008 4:31 PM Author: sienna coiffed dog poop hominid
1 billion.
This is the second time you've made me laugh out loud at work today. ty.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9396995) |
Date: February 27th, 2008 4:32 PM Author: rusted trailer park
fake, lame attempt to drive traffic to that board. No one reads that, so why would anything show up there first? FAKE
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9397001) |
 |
Date: February 27th, 2008 4:37 PM Author: rusted trailer park
who reads that board? it gets like 10 hits per day.
Someone either confirms with a real link or its fake
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9397036) |
Date: February 27th, 2008 4:32 PM Author: pearly bisexual church building cumskin
So he apparently either goes to Hastings, San Fran, Golden Gate (lulz), or Cal Western
anyone care to venture a guess which one?
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9397005) |
Date: February 27th, 2008 4:35 PM Author: coral razzle idea he suggested hospital
He was pretty stupid to respond in the way he did. He should have denied that the IP was his and disputed the accuracy of the records at the ISP.
The way he responded shows that it actually was him.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9397023) |
 |
Date: February 27th, 2008 4:38 PM Author: pearly bisexual church building cumskin
dooder I used to work for an ISP and I can tell you that would not have been a successful approach at all. it would be like trying to claim a phone number isn't yours, even though you paid the bills and made calls from the phone that it was assigned to
his only chance is to try to convince the judge that he should be able to remain anonymous
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9397040) |
 |
Date: February 27th, 2008 4:42 PM Author: coral razzle idea he suggested hospital
it has worked in RIAA suits dood.
this is what has caused grandmothers and 6 year olds to get named in RIAA suits.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9397058) |
 |
Date: February 27th, 2008 4:43 PM Author: pearly bisexual church building cumskin
link?
ppl always tried to claim our records were wrong and I would have to either go testify or sign a sworn affidavit saying why they were wrong
it never went any further than that
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9397063) |
 |
Date: February 27th, 2008 4:48 PM Author: pearly bisexual church building cumskin
nah, you're just confusing lame legal arguments with legal precedent
ppl always try to argue that the records are wrong but its very simple to show that they're accurate
I've never heard of anyone winning on that argument, and neither have you
the kiddie porn people always tried to make that argument too, and it never worked
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9397084) |
 |
Date: February 29th, 2008 2:20 PM Author: pearly bisexual church building cumskin
these are cases where the ISP obviously made an error, and in these cases, it can be shown exactly what their error was...
this is a situation where the ISP simply goes back and looks at its records and says, "oops, yeah, we fucked up. that IP address really belonged to John Doe and not this old woman."
In which case, the RIAA just goes after the correct offender
In the vast majorty of cases though, the person who the ISP identifies as the offender is going to be the correct offender, and if that person challenges the accuracy of the ISPs records, the ISP will simply have someone go to court to testify to their authenticity or sign a sworn affidavit to that effect (which is what usually happens since people who know they are guilty don't spend too much time challenging this since they know they can and will be shown to be the offender anyway).
this is done all the time dooder
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9406528) |
 |
Date: February 27th, 2008 4:52 PM Author: pearly bisexual church building cumskin
because they own the account from which the alleged infringement was taking place.
as the named account holder, they are deemed to be responsible, unless they can present evidence that it was another member of the household
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9397100) |
 |
Date: February 28th, 2008 10:28 AM Author: pearly bisexual church building cumskin
this is a bit of a gray area. as a matter of our company policy, we held the account holder responsible, but there's not a lot of legal precedent here
however, it's also a violation of state law in a lot of places for internet subscribers to redistribute or otherwise make available (i.e., not securing their wireless network) the internet connection that they pay their ISPs for, and we nailed people on that alone more than once.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9400377)
|
 |
Date: February 27th, 2008 8:12 PM Author: Internet-worthy misanthropic legal warrant
what a completely inane idea.
and have you ever heard of the concept "arguing in the alternative"?
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9398040) |
Date: February 27th, 2008 4:41 PM Author: awkward zombie-like mediation turdskin
Also, AK47, we know you're reading this thread.
PWNED
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9397052) |
Date: February 27th, 2008 4:42 PM Author: nofapping snowy box office
wgwag
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9397059) |
Date: February 27th, 2008 4:42 PM Author: awkward zombie-like mediation turdskin
Date: November 10th, 2007 1:25 AM
Author: AK47
IIED is a nigger of a tort. you're right that it'd be fucked up if i were outed. you're definitely right about that. but again, IIED, defamation, or whatever the hell they're alleging AK47 did, is a hell of a nigger of a tort. NIGGER.
http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=714757&forum_id=2#8876693
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9397060) |
 |
Date: February 27th, 2008 4:48 PM Author: awkward zombie-like mediation turdskin
The only other one that would be as legendary is pauliewalnuts, but he never said anything that inflammatory, and there's a good chance that he was pensive anyway.
So yeah, AK47 would be absolutely raped... er, fucked over.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9397082) |
Date: February 27th, 2008 4:53 PM Author: Electric private investor locus
I don't see anything about this on PACER. Where did they get it?
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9397101) |
Date: February 27th, 2008 4:58 PM Author: concupiscible death wish
ha the ali g ice cream gloves defense (internet search for ice cream: 73,239 hits. Internet search for gloves: 24,243 hits):
"Indeed, a Google.com search for "Jill" produces more than 74,000,000 results, and a search for Doe II's first name produces more than 46,000,000. If John Doe 21's words are indeed actionable, then John Doe 21 - along with any other person that mentions "Jill" or Doe II's innumerably common first name on the Internet in the context of an unsavory, if silly, suggestion or opinion - may have opened himself to nearly 120,000,000 lawsuits."
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9397120)
|
Date: February 27th, 2008 5:05 PM Author: Mauve garrison
Can someone explain in laymen's terms what happened here? I'm not comfortable with the legal jargon and don't feel like deciphering all of that stuff at work.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9397146) |
 |
Date: February 27th, 2008 5:07 PM Author: Soul-stirring coldplay fan casino
does subpoena AT&T for IP address related to AK47
AK47 moves 3rd party to quash the subpoena, i.e. to keep AT&T from responding
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9397150) |
 |
Date: February 27th, 2008 5:09 PM Author: thriller very tactful state
"legal jargon"?
You don't what the words "quash" and "subpoena" mean?
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9397162) |
Date: February 27th, 2008 5:13 PM Author: concupiscible death wish
GTO sold him out:
"Plaintiffs are attempting to intimidate John Doe 21 in much the same way that Plaintiffs intimidated and the original principal defendant in this case, Anthony Ciolli, into providing Does with the internet protocol ("IP") addresses of John Doe 21 and the other Defendants. Defendant Ciolli provided Plaintiffs with John Doe 21's IP address despite the lack of any legal duty or mandate to do so. Defendant Ciolli is immune from liability under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which states that "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider," and effectively immunizes ISPs, Internet discussion board operators such as Mr. Ciolli, and other service providers from torts committed by users over their systems. However, Defendant Ciolli acquiesced to the demands of Plaintiffs, no doubt because of the prospect of litigating an expensive suit in federal court."
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9397183) |
Date: February 27th, 2008 5:15 PM Author: Aromatic violent plaza
Some googling and investigating has led me to this conclusion:
AK47 = old xoxo poster Chauncey
--
AK47's subpoenaed IP address is 75.18.198.98
--
A google search of 75.18.198.98 turns up a comment made by a user named "Chauncey" on the website blackprof.com http://www.blackprof.com/archives/exports/072007.txt
--
"Chauncey" is a frequent commentator on that site. See, e.g.,
COMMENT:
AUTHOR: Chauncey
EMAIL:
IP: 75.18.187.200
URL:
DATE: 06/29/2007 04:41:57 PM
blacks in america will stay poor and violent as long as they consider it an insult when anyone tells them they need to take more responsibility for their predicament. personality, i don't really care: i've already made it. if you people want to maintain the status-quo, then go right ahead.
http://www.blackprof.com/archives/exports/062007.txt
--
And finally, here's a post from xoxo's Chauncey where he admits to living in SF:
Date: August 19th, 2005 12:19 PM
Author: Chauncey
and to think. I used to be repulsed by the flambouyancy (sp?) of gay men. i live in san francisco.
please, please hurry up and die of AIDS, all of you.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=242779&forum_id=2#3629575)
--
Okay xoxo investigators: get to work looking through blackprof and autoadmit archives to try and track down more information about this guy.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9397189)
|
 |
Date: February 27th, 2008 5:25 PM Author: Aromatic violent plaza
He appears to hold himself out on the blackprof site as a successful black man who is critical of today's black community, but here he is on xoxo admitting that he's Jewish:
Date: September 20th, 2005 1:47 AM
Author: Chauncey
As a flaming jooooooo, I can definitively confirm that it is pronounced "Sun- STEEN."
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=262546&forum_id=2#3863053)
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9397240) |
 |
Date: February 27th, 2008 10:46 PM Author: coral razzle idea he suggested hospital
there was a gay black jew guy on the Real World once. He slapped some chick on the show and almost got kicked off. Was on the west coast too! (Seattle? I believe).
Anyways, this could be him, same demeanor. Wow we may have a real celebrity in our midst.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9398740) |
 |
Date: February 27th, 2008 5:26 PM Author: Aromatic violent plaza
NOW THIS IS PRICELESS!
OP: getting sued by RIAA/MPAA for copyright infringement
Date: August 26th, 2005 11:33 PM
Author: Chauncey
You're an idiot for getting caught, if that's any help.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=247489&forum_id=2#3685837)
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9397252) |
Date: February 27th, 2008 6:15 PM Author: coral razzle idea he suggested hospital
The real question is, why did the faggots at BLB notice the filing and start the thread before the XOXOers?
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9397537) |
Date: February 27th, 2008 7:09 PM Author: 180 incel
WAIT, HOW'D THEY GET HIS IP? I thought there were no IP logs?
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9397757) |
Date: February 27th, 2008 9:37 PM Author: Lascivious Mental Disorder
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9398441) |
Date: February 27th, 2008 10:36 PM Author: garnet medicated den affirmative action
Whether he deserves it or not, if GTO sold him out, GTO is a piece of shit.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9398688) |
Date: February 27th, 2008 11:42 PM Author: henna exciting codepig parlour
I am not a lawyer. Explain to me why I can't express my desire that specific individuals be raped.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9399005) |
 |
Date: February 27th, 2008 11:49 PM Author: Kink-friendly cerebral piazza
cuz when you do it on a message board that the individuals' community reads, its intentional infliction of emotional distress. especially when it's part of a larger mob assault on the individuals' reputation and peace of mind.
redress for injury and deterring antisocial behavior are core principles of tort law, you simpleton faggot.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9399026) |
 |
Date: February 28th, 2008 12:01 AM Author: henna exciting codepig parlour
thanks mang. you're right, I should be aware of the core principles of tort law, not being a lawyer and all. my bad.
something just seems off about the whole thing. honestly, I have no idea how intentional infliction of emotional distress is proved. does it make a difference if it was intended as a joke? I mean, you could look at all that guys' posts and I'm guessing he's wished rape on a lot of people.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9399051) |
 |
Date: February 28th, 2008 12:43 AM Author: Kink-friendly cerebral piazza
i don't see what's off. given the context (a board campaign to harass the does), i think his motives are clear enough--certainly clear enough to support the subpeona. i have no idea about the specific standard for IIED in that jurisdiction, but it seems obvious to me that the traditional elements are met.
i think it sounds strange to you cuz if he's punished, it seems like we're all vulnerable. but then again, having a hair trigger on your gun doesn't justify shooting someone.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9399272) |
 |
Date: February 28th, 2008 2:44 AM Author: Low-t bistre corn cake national
There were some posts and actions that I believe constitute IIED.
I don't think 'Doe and doe should be raped' is even close, though.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9399724) |
 |
Date: February 28th, 2008 12:54 AM Author: saffron marketing idea
Wow. Unbelievable. There are some solid legal points in there, but they're pretty much lost amid the hyperbole and snide remarks.
Hint: if you want a court to rule in your favor, don't whine about how the suit has wasted your (and the court's) time. Just make your arguments and be done with it. If it really is a waste of time, the judge will be able to figure it out on his (or her) own. The attempts to rationalize the comments are the worst. They read like the rants of a petulant five year old. It's sad, because there are some seeds of legal analysis - quite possibly enough to win the motion - amidst the almost 30 pages of bile. But the tone and lack of propriety is almost certain to lead a judge to rule against him.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9399336) |
 |
Date: February 28th, 2008 1:00 AM Author: glassy vigorous pisswyrm chapel
"But the tone and lack of propriety is almost certain to lead a judge to rule against him."
Um, no. I take it you have never clerked.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9399366) |
 |
Date: February 28th, 2008 1:05 AM Author: saffron marketing idea
i should have said "almost certain to lead a judge to look for any possible reason to rule against him."
obviously, tone alone won't make you lose if the law is on your side. but if you piss off the judge with a rambling, insulting 30 page response, the benefit of the doubt will go the other way when the law is murky.
but who knows. maybe the response will amuse the judge and the subpoena will be quashed.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9399395) |
 |
Date: February 28th, 2008 1:20 AM Author: glassy vigorous pisswyrm chapel
The comment is so crude that it may almost certainly "lead a judge to look for any possible reason to rule against him," like you said.But there's almost no doubt in my mind that the subpoena will be quashed. Even without getting into all the nitty gritty details of pseudonymous internet speech, the fact that there's virtually no way that the comment can be tied specifically to Doe II even if there was more discovery is pretty damning.
Certainly the crassness of the comment & his tone (and the excessive length) of his motion would draw a snide comment or two from the judge if there was a hearing or written ruling.
It's too bad for the Ps that this is one of the few (only?) Defendants whose IP address they uncovered.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9399465) |
 |
Date: February 28th, 2008 1:21 AM Author: saffron marketing idea
did you read it? i'd argue there's a difference between smart-ass and immature/petulant, and this is waaaay more the latter. it wasn't clever, it was just pathetic and whiny.
and it doesn't help when it's coming from a defendant that is already a rather unsympathetic figure.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9399469) |
 |
Date: February 28th, 2008 1:13 AM Author: Aromatic violent plaza
Wow, this may be the highlight of the brief:
"The fact that Plaintiffs gratuitously mentioned one "R--n M-----r" in their moving documents (see, e.g., Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Expedited Discovery at 11) suggests that Plaintiffs' true goal in filing the complaint and this subpoena is simply to expose the identity of the Defendants in this case, humiliate them by attributing to them the comments made on the site, coerce them into silence, and then abandon the case due to its frivolity. Indeed, R--n M-----r has already been parodied, insulted and attacked on the Autoadmit site due to his name appearing in Plaintiffs' moving papers. A Google.com search for "R--n M-----r" produces, as thefirstfour results, four Autoadmit threads in which R--n M-----r is alleged to be a "dirty snitching nigger" due to his connection with this case."
AK47 begging the court to protect his identity so that nobody on xoxo can call him a "nigger" deserves a true 180.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9399433) |
Date: February 28th, 2008 12:10 AM Author: concupiscible death wish
after the original suit was filed, did GTO have the duty not to destroy records relevant to the litigation? maybe ak47's stupid idea to post after the suit was his undoing.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9399088) |
Date: February 28th, 2008 12:50 AM Author: Kink-friendly cerebral piazza
wow, i can't believe KVN/YLS are enlisted to engage this sort of nonsense:
Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint alleges that John Doe 21's comment constitutes a description of "sexual violence" against the plaintiff whose first name was mentioned in the comment. Amended Complaint at §§ 43-i; 49. As explained above, however, John Doe's comment was not a "description" of anything. He was not "describing" an event he had perceived, nor was he "describing" an event that had transpired or was to transpire. In any event, if "descriptions of sexual violence" were sufficient, in whole or in part, to bring an action for intentional infliction of emotional distress, then hundreds of thousands of police officers and crisis counselors across the country would be open to lawsuits alleging intentional infliction of emotional distress since they routinely articulate "descriptions of sexual violence" against persons. Courts should not countenance such a blatant abuse of the legal system to unveil and intimidate anonymous speakers, and it is rather offensive that Plaintiffs are attempting to appeal to this Courts' sympathies by misquoting John Doe 21's comment and lumping it with other more offensive comments, thereby attributing those other comments to John Doe 21.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9399311)
|
Date: February 28th, 2008 12:53 AM Author: contagious blood rage senate
holy shit. the greatest moment in the history of this long board. in so many ways, i completely fucking loathe the racist megaposter, but we might as well shut it down because there will never be anything as awesome as this here ever again.
that said, fuck you racist megaposter.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9399330) |
 |
Date: February 28th, 2008 2:01 AM Author: vermilion well-lubricated location
IIRC: posted here about a girl he had a date with or something, showed pics. someone who knew her IRL recognized her from pics, emailed her links of barzini threads. game over.
thread: http://www.xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=395748&mc=225&forum_id=2#5535204
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9399606) |
Date: February 28th, 2008 1:49 AM Author: obsidian windowlicker kitchen
I personally hate AK47 and think 99% of this response is hyperbolic bullshit. However, one of his points resonates with me. His post, while incendiary as hell, did not constitute a specific reference to the Does. He should not have been named in the complaint.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9399566) |
 |
Date: February 28th, 2008 2:23 AM Author: Aromatic violent plaza
This doesn't make any sense. If there's no specific (or implicit?) identification, you never even get to the actual malice issue.
Even if it made sense, there's no reasonable argument to be made that the plaintiffs were public figures.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9399671) |
 |
Date: February 28th, 2008 2:30 AM Author: Aromatic violent plaza
That's not nearly enough to make them public figures. They certainly are not general public figures, and it's not even clear that case law recognizes an involuntary limited public figure.
The key issue is whether there was a defamatory statement. That's where the identification issue comes in. The public figure/actual malice issues are pretty cut and dry. They're private figures.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9399684) |
 |
Date: February 28th, 2008 2:47 AM Author: Aromatic violent plaza
If I recall correctly, the actual malice standard only applies in IIED cases where you're dealing with 1.) a public figure; and 2.) matters of public concern.
Discussion of whether people name X and Y should be raped doesn't qualify as "matters of public concern." So it doesn't matter if the plaintiffs are public figures (which they obviously are not).
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9399741) |
 |
Date: February 28th, 2008 10:55 AM Author: concupiscible death wish
i don't know if there is such a 2-part test...that jerry falwell case was about some playboy article that just parodied some liquor ad and talked about his "first time."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hustler_Magazine_v._Falwell
that said, Doe is not a public figure and can't become one just b/c of her initiating litigation.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9400446)
|
 |
Date: February 28th, 2008 2:41 AM Author: Cracking Azn Dilemma
I think ol' AK wins on the merits, but not so sure about quashing the subpoena.
But query if his firm fires him nonetheless.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9399717) |
 |
Date: February 28th, 2008 2:38 AM Author: Aromatic violent plaza
Lol. The legal definition of a private figure doesn't require a Walden-esque lifestyle.
99% of the public are private figures.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9399711) |
 |
Date: February 28th, 2008 2:34 AM Author: Aromatic violent plaza
You're out of your element. While defining a public figure is extremely difficult to do, this isn't even a close call.
Attending a top law school and being in a video on youtube does not make one a public figure.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9399696)
|
 |
Date: February 28th, 2008 2:15 AM Author: Kink-friendly cerebral piazza
"did not constitute a specific reference to the Does"
this is an open factual matter that turns on circumstantial evidence (other AK47 posts, posts from other monikers at that domain) and AK47's credibility, which isn't helped by the fact that everyone in his right mind knows who he was talking about.
the most defendant friendly rule for subpoenas in anonymous posting cases is that P must have enough evidence to defeat SJ.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9399653) |
Date: February 28th, 2008 2:11 AM Author: Titillating Aggressive Public Bath
Wow.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9399636) |
Date: February 28th, 2008 2:43 AM Author: ruby bossy french chef stage
i am so glad I am a grl with no interest in grls or grls called Heidi
fuck
xoxogenderdickpwned
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9399720) |
Date: February 28th, 2008 4:11 AM Author: Lascivious Mental Disorder
what go around come around, kid
what are his other monikers? is he Whitepride?
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9399822) |
Date: February 28th, 2008 7:22 PM Author: vengeful gay wizard
First, what is the expected timeline here? Does anyone know when an outing would occur, assuming the subpoena is not squashed?
Also, odds that noted CA litigator 174/AK-47 is working both sides of this case?
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9402508) |
 |
Date: February 29th, 2008 3:16 AM Author: Jade Appetizing Rigpig Karate
"Also, odds that noted CA litigator 174/AK-47 is working both sides of this case?"
This would be hilarious.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9404556) |
Date: February 29th, 2008 2:59 AM Author: Sable magical theatre
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9404515) |
Date: March 12th, 2008 1:37 AM Author: Useless diverse step-uncle's house new version
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9466308) |
|
|