The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.
|
 |
 
|
AK47 pwned in AutoAdmit suit
Poast new message in this thread
Date: February 27th, 2008 3:58 PM Author: ebony autistic library community account http://www.biglawboard.com/blb/viewThread.jsp?threadId=11559&x=3 (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9396835) |
 |
Date: February 27th, 2008 4:01 PM Author: Indecent arrogant gunner AK47 = racist megaposter, right?
|
|
Date: February 27th, 2008 4:07 PM Author: Wonderful mahogany liquid oxygen idea he suggested yes (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9396875) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2008 2:38 AM Author: aphrodisiac ticket booth woa
oldskookposterpwned |
Date: February 27th, 2008 4:00 PM Author: Soggy histrionic crotch 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: federal iridescent public bath feces false (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9396844) |
|
Date: February 27th, 2008 4:02 PM Author: Soggy histrionic crotch SORRY AK47. YOU ARE FUCKED. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9396856) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2008 7:28 PM Author: doobsian stead bbw Whitepride will be next. It's karma. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9402535) |
|
Date: March 12th, 2008 1:46 AM Author: spruce sinister cruise ship private investor I can't wait until Whitepride gets his. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9466328) |
|
Date: February 27th, 2008 4:01 PM Author: Dashing jap locale wtf.
what did he say that caused him to be sued? |
|
Date: February 27th, 2008 4:02 PM Author: opaque locus read the link dooder (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9396853) |
|
Date: February 27th, 2008 4:04 PM Author: Dashing jap locale ty (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9396860) |
|
Date: February 27th, 2008 4:02 PM Author: Indecent arrogant gunner 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 4:04 PM Author: provocative center lots of blacks there? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9396861) |
|
Date: February 27th, 2008 4:05 PM Author: seedy beady-eyed philosopher-king roommate most definitely (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9396864) |
|
Date: February 27th, 2008 4:05 PM Author: Indecent arrogant gunner 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. |
|
Date: February 27th, 2008 4:06 PM Author: Filthy trailer park boltzmann AK47 is a flip? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9396873) |
|
Date: February 27th, 2008 4:14 PM Author: Indecent arrogant gunner aznaznazn? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9396910) |
|
Date: February 27th, 2008 4:18 PM Author: appetizing home son of senegal Melky? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9396928) |
|
Date: February 27th, 2008 4:05 PM Author: Concupiscible institution lulz (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9396869) |
|
Date: February 27th, 2008 4:04 PM Author: opaque locus I was just about to post that.
|
|
Date: February 27th, 2008 4:05 PM Author: Concupiscible institution lmfao, fucking vallejo, that's awesome. guess he wasn't a fan of the hyphy movement? |
|
Date: February 27th, 2008 4:07 PM Author: Marvelous Mentally Impaired University Trust Fund link?
I kind of feel sorry for him. But his posts were ridiculously offensive. |
|
Date: February 27th, 2008 4:08 PM Author: Indecent arrogant gunner 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 |
|
Date: February 27th, 2008 4:11 PM Author: Marvelous Mentally Impaired University Trust Fund wow interesting. thank you. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9396893) |
|
Date: February 27th, 2008 4:36 PM Author: Marvelous Mentally Impaired University Trust Fund it gets better:
Google the IP and this pops up:
http://www.blackprof.com/archives/exports/072007.txt |
|
Date: February 27th, 2008 4:37 PM Author: Indecent arrogant gunner 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. |
|
Date: February 27th, 2008 4:38 PM Author: Marvelous Mentally Impaired University Trust Fund it gets better:
Google the IP and this pops up:
http://www.blackprof.com/archives/exports/072007.txt |
|
Date: February 27th, 2008 4:40 PM Author: Marvelous Mentally Impaired University Trust Fund it gets better:
Google the IP and this pops up:
http://www.blackprof.com/archives/exports/072007.txt |
|
Date: February 27th, 2008 4:10 PM Author: Wonderful mahogany liquid oxygen idea he suggested you feel sorry for him? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9396889) |
|
Date: February 27th, 2008 4:25 PM Author: Marvelous Mentally Impaired University Trust Fund I guess not. I mean. He's a jerk. But I think it's interesting that he's going to get outted for something totally unrelated to his racist antics here. So I guess I feel sorry for him in that sense. But I don't feel sorry for him as a person. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9396963) |
|
Date: February 27th, 2008 4:27 PM Author: Indecent arrogant gunner Fuck that. It's not like he made a relatively tame comment about the plaintiffs (think AHWIAB). He advocated raping them. This guy deserves all the embarrassment and punishment he is going to get. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9396977) |
|
Date: February 27th, 2008 4:28 PM Author: Mustard Laser Beams National Security Agency That comment was taken out of context--seriously, he was not one of the people harrassing the does (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9396984) |
|
Date: February 27th, 2008 4:30 PM Author: Indecent arrogant gunner link?
Considering the poster, I'm having a hard time imagining a context where that would be an innocent statement. |
|
Date: February 27th, 2008 4:40 PM Author: Mustard Laser Beams National Security Agency 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) |
|
Date: February 27th, 2008 4:43 PM Author: Indecent arrogant gunner 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. |
|
Date: February 27th, 2008 4:45 PM Author: Mustard Laser Beams National Security Agency You think it is clear? One of the women's names is not a D. I think it was just one of the many among the thousands of bizarre posts he made. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9397069) |
|
Date: February 27th, 2008 4:49 PM Author: Indecent arrogant gunner The other name is another girl who has been harassed for years on here for no good reason. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9397088) |
|
Date: February 27th, 2008 8:27 PM Author: Puce Affirmative Action Nibblets Oh come on. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9398120) |
|
Date: February 27th, 2008 4:40 PM Author: sable national do you think he was just trying to be funny though? not condoning it at all. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9397044) |
|
Date: February 27th, 2008 4:30 PM Author: Wonderful mahogany liquid oxygen idea he suggested hell no. he deserves to be outed and sued. most of the defendant's do (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9396989) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2008 7:32 PM Author: doobsian stead bbw Why do you feel sorry for him? He is such a coward for not being open and upfront about his beliefs in public and just posting anonymously. He's also a repugnant, hateful, obsessive, dimwit. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9402559) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2008 7:29 PM Author: doobsian stead bbw Vallejo, CA is the home of white trash. Pretty ghetto area - the type of place that would breed skinheads, KKK members, etc. -> people with extremely low levels of education. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9402542) |
|
Date: February 27th, 2008 4:06 PM Author: seedy beady-eyed philosopher-king roommate 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 4:07 PM Author: Indecent arrogant gunner Presumably. It looks as though the only statement at issue was an xoxo post. The only way to get that IP is through site logs. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9396878) |
|
Date: February 27th, 2008 4:06 PM Author: Outnumbered glittery base macaca 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: Wonderful mahogany liquid oxygen idea he suggested is that for real?
i don't think you have a constitutional right to speak anonymously. |
|
Date: February 27th, 2008 4:10 PM Author: Indecent arrogant gunner It's a murky area.
Here's a pretty good overview: http://www.citmedialaw.org/legal-guide/legal-protections-anonymous-speech |
|
Date: February 27th, 2008 4:18 PM Author: Wonderful mahogany liquid oxygen idea he suggested i'm not going to read all that now. it just seems like a tough sell (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9396927) |
|
Date: February 27th, 2008 4:52 PM Author: aromatic overrated boistinker lay It "seems like a tough sell" to a poster who can't be bothered to read a googled web site synopsis of the area of law. Thanks for your analysis here. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9397097) |
|
Date: February 27th, 2008 6:12 PM Author: Mind-boggling school cafeteria quadroon lulz, tyft (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9397521) |
|
Date: February 27th, 2008 6:35 PM Author: Racy pale senate 181 (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9397637) |
|
Date: February 27th, 2008 4:08 PM Author: Mauve bipolar roast beef native 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. |
|
Date: February 27th, 2008 4:08 PM Author: out-of-control yapping french chef elastic band 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: Nofapping greedy church building Site is blocked here. What does the biglaw board link say?
Can you paste it in. |
|
Date: February 27th, 2008 4:13 PM Author: Mauve bipolar roast beef native 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. |
|
Date: February 27th, 2008 4:15 PM Author: out-of-control yapping french chef elastic band 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."). |
|
Date: February 27th, 2008 4:16 PM Author: Wonderful mahogany liquid oxygen idea he suggested 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."). |
|
Date: February 27th, 2008 4:17 PM Author: Mauve bipolar roast beef native 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 |
|
Date: February 27th, 2008 4:32 PM Author: Marvelous Mentally Impaired University Trust Fund ROFL (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9397003) |
|
Date: February 27th, 2008 4:41 PM Author: Chocolate Contagious Hospital Generalized Bond fucking THANK YOU (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9397056) |
|
Date: February 27th, 2008 4:10 PM Author: Mauve bipolar roast beef native 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: sienna charismatic rehab juggernaut 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? |
|
Date: February 27th, 2008 8:13 PM Author: Metal bawdyhouse whokebe went to Stern undergrad, everybody knows that. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9398048) |
|
Date: February 27th, 2008 4:13 PM Author: Concupiscible institution whokebe would never live in vallejo. hth. |
|
Date: February 27th, 2008 4:15 PM Author: Chocolate Contagious Hospital Generalized Bond Is the lawsuit worth it, for this alone?
Possibly. |
|
Date: February 27th, 2008 4:17 PM Author: Marvelous Mentally Impaired University Trust Fund oh yes it is (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9396921) |
|
Date: February 27th, 2008 4:18 PM Author: Indecent arrogant gunner TITCR.
I wouldn't be surprised if 90% of the Does trace back to that one IP. |
|
Date: February 27th, 2008 4:19 PM Author: Nofapping greedy church building Was AK47 named in the original filing? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9396935) |
|
Date: February 27th, 2008 4:24 PM Author: Wonderful mahogany liquid oxygen idea he suggested i don't think so. i think he was added later. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9396960) |
|
Date: February 27th, 2008 4:26 PM Author: Chocolate Contagious Hospital Generalized Bond 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. |
|
Date: February 27th, 2008 4:32 PM Author: Marvelous Mentally Impaired University Trust Fund yeah. seriously what a faggot. he knows there's litigation pending but doesnt stfu and tosses out "so and so should be raped." (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9396999) |
|
Date: February 27th, 2008 4:27 PM Author: out-of-control yapping french chef elastic band Yeah. I felt pretty bad for AHWIAB but I think this puts me in the Doe section of the bleachers. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9396974) |
|
Date: February 27th, 2008 4:18 PM Author: useless striped hyena Will he be disbarred? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9396931) |
|
Date: February 27th, 2008 4:19 PM Author: Mauve bipolar roast beef native If he wrote that brief, I doubt he is an attorney; but if he is, he should be disbarred just because of how terrible it is. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9396939) |
|
Date: February 27th, 2008 4:25 PM Author: Marvelous Mentally Impaired University Trust Fund pretty sure he's transactional
i guess he doesnt write memos/briefs too often. lol. |
|
Date: February 27th, 2008 4:18 PM Author: passionate up-to-no-good piazza 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: Concupiscible institution 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: useless striped hyena Yes, and he said he was from the Bay Area. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9396936) |
|
Date: February 27th, 2008 4:23 PM Author: Mustard Laser Beams National Security Agency Why the hell would he live in Vallejo? It always sounded like he worked in SF--Vallejo to SF is a shitty commute and Vallejo sucks. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9396953) |
|
Date: February 27th, 2008 4:30 PM Author: seedy beady-eyed philosopher-king roommate i just looked up my ip address. it shows a nearby city, but not the one i live in. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9396993) |
|
Date: February 27th, 2008 4:32 PM Author: Indecent arrogant gunner Correct. This traces back to the ISP, not to the specific address of the internet user. Someone living in SF could very easy trace back to SBC in Vallejo. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9397007) |
|
Date: February 27th, 2008 4:33 PM Author: Mustard Laser Beams National Security Agency OIC (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9397012) |
|
Date: February 27th, 2008 4:19 PM Author: Sadistic erotic cuckold stage 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: Mauve bipolar roast beef native "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."
|
|
Date: February 27th, 2008 4:24 PM Author: Nofapping greedy church building I guess this proves he might be AZN. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9396958) |
|
Date: February 27th, 2008 4:24 PM Author: Marvelous Mentally Impaired University Trust Fund LOL (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9396959) |
|
Date: February 27th, 2008 4:24 PM Author: Indecent arrogant gunner Rape is silly!!! (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9396962) |
|
Date: February 27th, 2008 4:28 PM Author: out-of-control yapping french chef elastic band Silly statement jurisprudence is quite a legal thicket indeed. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9396979) |
|
Date: February 27th, 2008 4:29 PM Author: Chocolate Contagious Hospital Generalized Bond making speak is another undeniably murky area of law. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9396986) |
|
Date: February 27th, 2008 4:31 PM Author: Mauve bipolar roast beef native 1 billion.
This is the second time you've made me laugh out loud at work today. ty. |
|
Date: February 27th, 2008 4:37 PM Author: out-of-control yapping french chef elastic band yw, yw (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9397037) |
|
Date: February 27th, 2008 4:28 PM Author: Chocolate Contagious Hospital Generalized Bond Do a "control-f" on that page for silly. It's awesome. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9396983) |
|
Date: February 27th, 2008 4:29 PM Author: Sadistic erotic cuckold stage well it seems like it could be edited over a few times, but he has done some research and apparently all federal cases to address the issue apply a favorable balancing test. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9396987) |
|
Date: February 27th, 2008 4:30 PM Author: multi-colored gas station international law enforcement agency Obama is right. This really is SILLY SEASON. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9396990) |
|
Date: February 27th, 2008 5:33 PM Author: Marvelous Mentally Impaired University Trust Fund nice callback! (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9397291) |
|
Date: February 27th, 2008 4:32 PM Author: Marvelous Mentally Impaired University Trust Fund 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 4:33 PM Author: Marvelous Mentally Impaired University Trust Fund hi ak47! (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9397009) |
|
Date: February 27th, 2008 4:34 PM Author: Marvelous Mentally Impaired University Trust Fund stupid, it's obviously fake (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9397021) |
|
Date: February 27th, 2008 4:35 PM Author: multi-colored gas station international law enforcement agency BLB scopes AA on the lawsuit all the time:
http://www.biglawboard.com/blb/viewThread.jsp?threadId=10134&x=83
http://www.biglawboard.com/blb/viewThread.jsp?threadId=9406&x=86 |
|
Date: February 27th, 2008 4:37 PM Author: Marvelous Mentally Impaired University Trust Fund who reads that board? it gets like 10 hits per day.
Someone either confirms with a real link or its fake |
|
Date: February 27th, 2008 5:11 PM Author: Mauve bipolar roast beef native You're right, someone spent 3 days researching and preparing a fake brief in order to drive 100 more hits over to BLB. You cracked the case, gumshoe! (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9397173) |
|
Date: February 27th, 2008 10:18 PM Author: rebellious kitchen mental disorder Owned. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9398603) |
|
Date: February 27th, 2008 11:04 PM Author: Nofapping greedy church building Damn you. I just spit my coke all over my laptop. Gumshoe did me in. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9398831) |
|
Date: February 27th, 2008 4:32 PM Author: opaque locus So he apparently either goes to Hastings, San Fran, Golden Gate (lulz), or Cal Western
anyone care to venture a guess which one? |
|
Date: February 27th, 2008 4:33 PM Author: Indecent arrogant gunner Trustafarian strikes again? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9397010) |
|
Date: February 27th, 2008 4:34 PM Author: opaque locus I think that dood went to Davis (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9397016) |
|
Date: February 27th, 2008 4:35 PM Author: Marvelous Mentally Impaired University Trust Fund he went to boalt (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9397024) |
|
Date: February 27th, 2008 4:35 PM Author: Indecent arrogant gunner Boalt. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9397025) |
|
Date: February 27th, 2008 4:37 PM Author: Mustard Laser Beams National Security Agency I'm pretty sure he graduated. He was very active in Bar exam threads at one point. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9397035) |
|
Date: March 4th, 2008 9:24 AM Author: ebony autistic library community account Hastings.
http://www.xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=269266&mc=21&forum_id=2#3937634
http://www.xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=227720&mc=11&forum_id=2#3414206
http://www.xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=213861&mc=51&forum_id=2#3210158 |
|
Date: February 27th, 2008 4:35 PM Author: sable national 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. |
|
Date: February 27th, 2008 4:36 PM Author: Indecent arrogant gunner This seems exactly wrong. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9397029) |
|
Date: February 27th, 2008 4:38 PM Author: opaque locus 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 |
|
Date: February 27th, 2008 4:42 PM Author: sable national it has worked in RIAA suits dood.
this is what has caused grandmothers and 6 year olds to get named in RIAA suits. |
|
Date: February 27th, 2008 4:43 PM Author: opaque locus 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 |
|
Date: February 27th, 2008 4:46 PM Author: sable national plenty of it here http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/ (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9397078) |
|
Date: February 27th, 2008 4:48 PM Author: opaque locus 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 |
|
Date: February 27th, 2008 4:51 PM Author: sable national please explain to me then how grandmothers who have never heard of "mp3" get sued then (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9397093) |
|
Date: February 27th, 2008 4:52 PM Author: Indecent arrogant gunner I believe the case you're referring to was a situation in which a grandmother got sued for the file-sharing done on her account by a grandchild. It wasn't a case of mistaken IP address. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9397099) |
|
Date: February 27th, 2008 4:54 PM Author: sable national "the case" ?? It has happened a lot more than once (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9397107) |
|
Date: February 27th, 2008 5:00 PM Author: Indecent arrogant gunner Link? I've only heard one such claim made before and tend to think this is simply anti-RIAA mythology. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9397129) |
|
Date: February 27th, 2008 5:10 PM Author: opaque locus titcr (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9397166) |
|
Date: February 27th, 2008 5:34 PM Author: sable national 2005 http://www.afterdawn.com/news/archive/6038.cfm 2003 "She does not trade music, she says, does not have any younger music-loving relatives living with her, and does not use her computer for much more than sending e-mail and checking the tides." http://www.boingboing.net/2003/09/25/riaa-sues-grandmothe.html
another one http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/06/27/woman_sues_riaa/ |
|
Date: February 29th, 2008 2:20 PM Author: opaque locus 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 |
|
Date: February 27th, 2008 4:52 PM Author: opaque locus 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 |
|
Date: February 27th, 2008 4:48 PM Author: sable national Also, look at the recent motion to quash that was filed in oregon. I know it was for the university and not an ISP but the same arguments would probably work. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9397081) |
|
Date: February 27th, 2008 9:07 PM Author: adventurous address athletic conference Question @ Lamronba: What about wireless internet connections? I know in the past I've logged into wifi connections of my surrounding apt neighbors, albeit by accident. Whats to say an IP address was not used by someone other than the person who payed the bills? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9398326) |
|
Date: February 27th, 2008 9:14 PM Author: adventurous address athletic conference ?? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9398358) |
|
Date: February 27th, 2008 9:15 PM Author: impertinent temple candlestick maker Plausible explanation. To tell the difference I think they'd have to have a MAC address. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9398361) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2008 10:28 AM Author: opaque locus 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.
|
|
Date: February 27th, 2008 8:12 PM Author: Bull headed crusty deer antler area what a completely inane idea.
and have you ever heard of the concept "arguing in the alternative"? |
|
Date: February 27th, 2008 4:41 PM Author: Chocolate Contagious Hospital Generalized Bond Also, AK47, we know you're reading this thread.
PWNED |
|
Date: February 27th, 2008 4:41 PM Author: olive lascivious pit lol (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9397055) |
|
Date: February 27th, 2008 4:42 PM Author: Dashing jap locale wgwag (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9397059) |
|
Date: February 27th, 2008 4:42 PM Author: Chocolate Contagious Hospital Generalized Bond 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 |
|
Date: February 27th, 2008 4:44 PM Author: out-of-control yapping french chef elastic band This really should have been incorporated in his brief. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9397066) |
|
Date: February 27th, 2008 4:46 PM Author: Chocolate Contagious Hospital Generalized Bond 180 again. On fire today (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9397079) |
|
Date: February 27th, 2008 4:56 PM Author: Marvelous Mentally Impaired University Trust Fund lulz (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9397111) |
|
Date: February 27th, 2008 4:56 PM Author: Mauve bipolar roast beef native I think that's going to be in the order the judge enters. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9397112) |
|
Date: February 27th, 2008 4:45 PM Author: useless striped hyena Odds AK47 dropped the N-bomb in his brief? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9397068) |
|
Date: February 27th, 2008 4:46 PM Author: Rose sanctuary His outting will be the biggest in xo history it seems. Have other outted posters made such inflammatory posts? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9397076) |
|
Date: February 27th, 2008 4:48 PM Author: Chocolate Contagious Hospital Generalized Bond 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. |
|
Date: February 27th, 2008 9:47 PM Author: supple main people Nice try... You are sooooooo getting sued and outted. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9398488) |
|
Date: February 27th, 2008 4:53 PM Author: passionate up-to-no-good piazza 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: Sadistic erotic cuckold stage 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."
|
|
Date: February 27th, 2008 5:15 PM Author: Pea-brained Ruddy Heaven Doctorate nice Ali G reference (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9397191) |
|
Date: February 27th, 2008 5:05 PM Author: Fishy Site 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: blue bossy hall cuckoldry 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 |
|
Date: February 27th, 2008 5:09 PM Author: Mustard Laser Beams National Security Agency "legal jargon"?
You don't what the words "quash" and "subpoena" mean? |
|
Date: February 27th, 2008 5:24 PM Author: Submissive Godawful Depressive those words constitute legal jargon dooder. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9397232) |
|
Date: February 27th, 2008 5:13 PM Author: Sadistic erotic cuckold stage 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." |
|
Date: February 27th, 2008 5:21 PM Author: thriller nudist spot What would it take to get GTO to sell out JBD? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9397218) |
|
Date: February 27th, 2008 5:15 PM Author: Indecent arrogant gunner 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.
|
|
Date: February 27th, 2008 5:16 PM Author: olive lascivious pit lol oh snap (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9397198) |
|
Date: February 27th, 2008 5:18 PM Author: Mustard Laser Beams National Security Agency LOL. Damn, AK47 is a true psycho (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9397208) |
|
Date: February 27th, 2008 5:25 PM Author: Indecent arrogant gunner 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) |
|
Date: February 27th, 2008 5:35 PM Author: Turquoise razzmatazz garrison dopamine one of the rare black jews? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9397300) |
|
Date: February 27th, 2008 10:46 PM Author: sable national 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. |
|
Date: February 27th, 2008 5:20 PM Author: opaque locus wowzer! (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9397214) |
|
Date: February 27th, 2008 5:24 PM Author: Fishy Site i used to think the racism was schtick. now i doubt it. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9397237) |
|
Date: February 27th, 2008 5:27 PM Author: Indecent arrogant gunner Same here. It's truly frightening. I also used to be convinced that people like aznazn are schtick, but I no longer believe so. This place attracts some truly fucked up psychotics. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9397258) |
|
Date: February 27th, 2008 5:34 PM Author: out-of-control yapping french chef elastic band At some point, even if it's meant to be schtick, the relentless pursuit of the schtick is itself evidence of psychosis. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9397294) |
|
Date: February 27th, 2008 10:47 PM Author: sable national now maybe people will believe me when I say hizzla is real and not schtick. because I've met her and it's true, she's not schtick. gahhh (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9398746) |
|
Date: February 27th, 2008 5:26 PM Author: Indecent arrogant gunner 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) |
|
Date: February 27th, 2008 5:33 PM Author: Maniacal pozpig Welcome to last month.
http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=753317&forum_id=2#9221577 |
|
Date: February 27th, 2008 5:34 PM Author: Indecent arrogant gunner Yes, but we now know it is Ak47. This was not known last month. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9397296) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2008 1:06 AM Author: irate coffee pot One of those CA posts that got deleted called this one. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9399398) |
|
Date: February 27th, 2008 6:15 PM Author: sable national 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 6:19 PM Author: ebony autistic library community account Because no one on XO is an actual attorney or has access to PACER? It's all HS dropout flame? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9397557) |
|
Date: February 27th, 2008 7:10 PM Author: drab school Anyone can get access to PACER. I set up an account a few weeks ago to search for something for my brother. It only charges you when it gets to $10. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9397763) |
|
Date: February 27th, 2008 7:00 PM Author: Lavender unholy brethren sound barrier Because someone over there impulsively checks justia? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9397725) |
|
Date: February 27th, 2008 7:04 PM Author: spectacular grizzly hominid It's not on justia. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9397733) |
|
Date: February 27th, 2008 10:30 PM Author: rebellious kitchen mental disorder BLB posters are former XOXO regulars who got sick of all the garbage on here. As a result, BLB posts are of higher quality than XOXO posts. By far. That's why XOXO trolls emphasize the lack of quantity and ignore quality. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9398658) |
|
Date: February 27th, 2008 7:09 PM Author: Demanding sexy resort 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 7:14 PM Author: Hateful Gold Faggotry according to the AK47 brief, GTO told plaintiffs. that doesn't necessarily mean that Rach kept logs. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9397778) |
|
Date: February 27th, 2008 9:11 PM Author: impertinent temple candlestick maker GTO somehow had knowledge of his IP address and remembered it among others? wtf? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9398346) |
|
Date: February 27th, 2008 7:19 PM Author: federal iridescent public bath feces 180. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9397805) |
|
Date: February 27th, 2008 8:20 PM Author: Pea-brained Ruddy Heaven Doctorate AK47 was a well known spammer, Rach/GTO logged spammer IPs to ban them (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9398075) |
|
Date: February 27th, 2008 8:24 PM Author: cerebral double fault ratface This is actually a very good point. If it turns out that nobody else but AK is outed, I think it's most likely what happened. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9398098) |
|
Date: February 27th, 2008 9:37 PM Author: seedy beady-eyed philosopher-king roommate (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9398441) |
|
Date: February 27th, 2008 10:01 PM Author: Zippy poppy plaza "Plaintiffs filed the original Complaint on June 8, 2007... alleging that certain posters on Autoadmit.com, a discussion site known for its silly banter and a pretty fucking shitty source of information, see http://xoxo-a-pretty-shitty-source-of-information.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=184688&mc=381&forum_id=2..."
|
|
Date: February 27th, 2008 10:36 PM Author: Learning disabled partner corner 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 10:40 PM Author: Mustard Laser Beams National Security Agency dood, GTO lost his fucking legal career due to this shit. If I were him why would I care about protecting AK47? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9398703) |
|
Date: February 27th, 2008 10:44 PM Author: Learning disabled partner corner The only thing left the fucker has is his dignity. His whole purpose here was to protect people's identity in order to create an environment in which people could say whatever they wanted. He has betrayed his prinicples. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9398730) |
|
Date: February 27th, 2008 11:04 PM Author: Racy pale senate titcr. don't forget his holier-than-thou attitude when he was interacting with volokh back when. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9398828) |
|
Date: February 27th, 2008 10:59 PM Author: Marvelous Mentally Impaired University Trust Fund what would he gain at this point from helping any party? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9398810) |
|
Date: February 27th, 2008 10:49 PM Author: Bull headed crusty deer antler area do you also believe "it's all about respect" and "it's wrong to be a tattle tale"? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9398756) |
|
Date: February 27th, 2008 10:57 PM Author: Learning disabled partner corner no, wtf are you talking about? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9398801) |
|
Date: February 27th, 2008 11:52 PM Author: Vivacious Business Firm lol at you for thinking that it's more dignified for him to aid ak47 than seeking to placate the does (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9399032) |
|
Date: February 27th, 2008 11:42 PM Author: tripping reading party alpha 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: Vivacious Business Firm 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. |
|
Date: February 28th, 2008 12:01 AM Author: tripping reading party alpha 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. |
|
Date: February 28th, 2008 12:43 AM Author: Vivacious Business Firm 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. |
|
Date: February 28th, 2008 2:44 AM Author: fuchsia hairless theater stage sex offender 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. |
|
Date: February 27th, 2008 11:48 PM Author: Racy pale senate http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/connecticut/ctdce/3:2007cv00909/78132/25/ (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9399023) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2008 12:14 AM Author: Orchid Indirect Expression Potus TYTYTYTY (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9399120) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2008 12:54 AM Author: fragrant pisswyrm skinny woman 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. |
|
Date: February 28th, 2008 1:00 AM Author: spectacular grizzly hominid "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. |
|
Date: February 28th, 2008 1:05 AM Author: fragrant pisswyrm skinny woman 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. |
|
Date: February 28th, 2008 1:20 AM Author: spectacular grizzly hominid 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. |
|
Date: February 28th, 2008 1:34 AM Author: Vivacious Business Firm you seem not to realize how a normal IRL person reads a line like "X and Y should be raped". especially when Y is the first name of a famous board figure. its completely absurd to argue that he was referring to someone else, or speaking in generalizations (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9399519) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2008 1:42 AM Author: spectacular grizzly hominid You seem to not realize that there are literally millions of different topics posted about here- not just the Does- and that AK47's comment ("Women named [X] and [Y] should be raped") cannot be interpreted as referring to a specific individual. Especially since one of the names has nothing to do with the Does. If you take the situation and apply it IRL instead of on this board, it doesn't even pass the laugh test. Especially for an IIED claim. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9399544) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2008 1:45 AM Author: Vivacious Business Firm theres assloads of circumstantial evidence. and this is a subpeona in a civil suit. he's going to be outted dood. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9399553) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2008 1:52 AM Author: spectacular grizzly hominid We shall see. I look forward to reading the Opposition. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9399575) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2008 2:50 AM Author: fuchsia hairless theater stage sex offender 'raped' in that context means 'I hope bad things happen to' someone as much or more than it means 'sexually assaulted'. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9399752) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2008 1:12 AM Author: citrine dilemma mexican I appreciated smart-ass writing when I was clerking. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9399428) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2008 1:21 AM Author: fragrant pisswyrm skinny woman 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. |
|
Date: February 28th, 2008 1:23 AM Author: spectacular grizzly hominid Almost all pro per/pro se papers are whiny, angry, and rambling. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9399480) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2008 1:12 AM Author: sable national that would be funny if he put his real name in the return address section on the envelope (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9399427) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2008 1:13 AM Author: Indecent arrogant gunner 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. |
|
Date: February 28th, 2008 1:22 AM Author: spectacular grizzly hominid Yeah, I really would have left out that part. He's basically asking the Court to spare him the same treatment that the Ds gave to the Does. Not very sympathetic at all. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9399475) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2008 12:10 AM Author: Sadistic erotic cuckold stage 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: Vivacious Business Firm 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.
|
|
Date: February 28th, 2008 12:56 AM Author: fragrant pisswyrm skinny woman That has to be the best quote from the entire response. Second would be the 120,000,000 Jills rant. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9399354) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2008 1:05 AM Author: Pea-brained Ruddy Heaven Doctorate jesus christ that is horrible reasoning (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9399393) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2008 1:10 AM Author: thriller nudist spot There's probably an argument in there somewhere. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9399414) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2008 2:54 AM Author: fuchsia hairless theater stage sex offender I think it's decent, ignoring the police/counselor crap part. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9399757) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2008 1:42 AM Author: Hairraiser mint telephone yarmulke lol.. cops and crisis counselors may describe sexual violence but they don't openly call on others to commit it either. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9399546) |
|
Date: March 4th, 2008 9:51 AM Author: Lake Galvanic Den his argument focuses on the word "description" but he only quoted the words "sexual violence" from the Ps' complaint (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9425678) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2008 12:53 AM Author: chestnut soul-stirring stag film genital piercing 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. |
|
Date: February 28th, 2008 1:35 AM Author: Vivacious Business Firm titcr. this is like the barzini pwnage only with way more schadenfreude (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9399521) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2008 1:40 AM Author: Indecent arrogant gunner Damn, I almost forgot about the barzini pwnage. I wonder what the hell that kid is up to. I can't even imagine him functioning without xoxo. He was the original aznazn. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9399536) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2008 1:51 AM Author: chestnut soul-stirring stag film genital piercing i'm not one of the D's, obviously, but this kind of made me want to file another motion to quash that raised these legal issues without all the piffle. i'd just mail it anonymously claiming to be one of the posters, and while i don't like AK47 i think the does are being ridiculous about this and responding to a spitball with an a-bomb. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9399571) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2008 1:58 AM Author: sable national what was the barzini pwnage? I have been posting here for 3 years and still don't know. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9399597) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2008 2:01 AM Author: shimmering set 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 |
|
Date: February 28th, 2008 2:04 AM Author: Indecent arrogant gunner Highlight of the thread in retrospect:
Date: April 13th, 2006 5:25 AM Author: The Meanest Fish (ret.)
This is seriously among the most fucked up things that's happened here. Whoever did this is a little bitch.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=395748&forum_id=2#5573664)
Reply
Date: April 13th, 2006 5:27 AM Author: AK47
it looks like he deserved it.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=395748&forum_id=2#5573669)
|
|
Date: February 28th, 2008 2:08 AM Author: shimmering set lol good find (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9399626) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2008 1:49 AM Author: Hairraiser mint telephone yarmulke 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 1:53 AM Author: spectacular grizzly hominid I am generally sympathetic to the Does and I agree. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9399577) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2008 1:57 AM Author: Indecent arrogant gunner This is true, but the implication was plenty clear to the intended audience. That might be enough to get them past discovery, but not to succeed on the merits. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9399590) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2008 2:17 AM Author: Orchid Indirect Expression Potus I think after the Does were initially "outted", they were thrown to the wolves as de facto public figures. Does that mean AK47 needed actual malice to be liable for IIED? If so, I would argue that actual malice is impossible when your incendiary comment lacked adequate identifying information, even if one COULD reasonably infer he was referring to them based on context. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9399658) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2008 2:23 AM Author: Indecent arrogant gunner 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. |
|
Date: February 28th, 2008 2:25 AM Author: Orchid Indirect Expression Potus Once PaulieWalnuts plastered this public message board with the names and pics of the women they became public figures. Subsequent comments made about them by other posters were in reference to these newly minted public figures. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9399676) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2008 2:27 AM Author: Vivacious Business Firm psa: you can't invent legal definitions whenever you feel like it (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9399681) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2008 2:30 AM Author: Orchid Indirect Expression Potus For all you know, I am a Supreme Court Justice and have every right to do so. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9399686) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2008 2:45 AM Author: milky excitant mad cow disease go to bed clarence, you're up way too late (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9399731) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2008 2:50 AM Author: Orchid Indirect Expression Potus I can't get enough of this black on white porn on the net bro. Keeps me up all hours o' the night. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9399754) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2008 2:30 AM Author: Indecent arrogant gunner 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. |
|
Date: February 28th, 2008 2:33 AM Author: Racy pale senate dont see any defamation on AK's part. Maybe IIED, but not defamation. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9399692) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2008 2:37 AM Author: Indecent arrogant gunner Yeah, you're right. Which makes the entire public figure/actual malice discussion irrelevant as far as AK47 goes. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9399704) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2008 2:39 AM Author: Orchid Indirect Expression Potus So there's no higher intent threshold for public figures when it comes to IIED? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9399713) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2008 2:47 AM Author: Indecent arrogant gunner 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). |
|
Date: February 28th, 2008 2:51 AM Author: Orchid Indirect Expression Potus Thanks for clearing that up for me (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9399755) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2008 10:55 AM Author: Sadistic erotic cuckold stage 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.
|
|
Date: February 28th, 2008 2:41 AM Author: Racy pale senate I think ol' AK wins on the merits, but not so sure about quashing the subpoena.
But query if his firm fires him nonetheless. |
|
Date: February 28th, 2008 2:56 AM Author: Indecent arrogant gunner This is probably right. If he can't quash the subpoena, you can be damn sure that he'll get the axe from his firm and be blackballed. Just look at what happened to GTO, who was never even accused of making any inflammatory or derogatory statements. The merits of the suit are practically irrelevant as far as AK47's career is concerned. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9399758) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2008 2:24 AM Author: Vivacious Business Firm to become an involuntary public figure, you have to act/fail to act in a way in which a reasonable person would understand that publicity would ensue. HTH. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9399674) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2008 2:29 AM Author: Orchid Indirect Expression Potus Attending the number one ranked law school in the country and flaunting yourself on youtube documentaries discussing your past extracurricular accomplishments might constitute acting in a way which a reasonable person would understand that publicity would ensue. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9399682) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2008 2:31 AM Author: Vivacious Business Firm you don't know what you're talking about, you should just drop this theory (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9399689) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2008 2:35 AM Author: Orchid Indirect Expression Potus Pardon me if I don't think going to Yale Law School isn't exactly living a Walden-esque lifestyle. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9399697) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2008 2:38 AM Author: Indecent arrogant gunner Lol. The legal definition of a private figure doesn't require a Walden-esque lifestyle.
99% of the public are private figures. |
|
Date: February 28th, 2008 2:52 AM Author: Orchid Indirect Expression Potus and 99% of the public doesn't go to YLS. hth (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9399756) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2008 3:01 AM Author: Indecent arrogant gunner This logic is inscrutable. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9399761) |
|
Date: February 29th, 2008 4:58 AM Author: Orange Unhinged Prole this is far and away the dumbest thing ive read in my entire life. you are a moron. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9404767) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2008 2:34 AM Author: Indecent arrogant gunner 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.
|
|
Date: February 28th, 2008 2:37 AM Author: Orchid Indirect Expression Potus The higher up the social ladder you climb, more people can see you from below (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9399706) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2008 2:15 AM Author: Vivacious Business Firm "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. |
|
Date: February 28th, 2008 2:11 AM Author: Saffron Kink-friendly Hell Wow. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9399636) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2008 2:43 AM Author: aphrodisiac ticket booth i am so glad I am a grl with no interest in grls or grls called Heidi
fuck
xoxogenderdickpwned |
|
Date: February 28th, 2008 4:11 AM Author: seedy beady-eyed philosopher-king roommate what go around come around, kid
what are his other monikers? is he Whitepride? |
|
Date: February 28th, 2008 11:00 AM Author: Hairraiser mint telephone yarmulke obviously (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9400469) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2008 12:13 PM Author: Mustard Laser Beams National Security Agency No. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9400735) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2008 7:22 PM Author: aromatic overrated boistinker lay 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? |
|
Date: February 29th, 2008 3:16 AM Author: Motley zombie-like tanning salon persian "Also, odds that noted CA litigator 174/AK-47 is working both sides of this case?"
This would be hilarious. |
|
Date: March 12th, 2008 1:45 AM Author: fighting dull mother You mean the odds that AK47 actually works at KVM? HOLY FUCK wouldn't that be hilarious? He would DEFINITELY get fired on the spot for cause and disbarred for that. It would make a hell of a great story though. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9466325) |
|
Date: February 29th, 2008 2:59 AM Author: boyish step-uncle's house water buffalo (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9404515) |
|
Date: March 4th, 2008 9:29 AM Author: ebony autistic library community account Date: April 19th, 2007 12:36 AM Author: AK47
in fairness, the people who post about raping jill F are 100 lb gay men with AIDS.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=616591&forum_id=2#7960782) |
|
Date: March 12th, 2008 1:37 AM Author: irradiated nubile people who are hurt (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9466308) |