The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.
|
 |
 
|
The OFFICIAL GTO LAWSUIT THREAD! PaulieWalnuts,others OUTTED
Poast new message in this thread
Date: March 5th, 2008 1:52 PM Author: ruby crawly internal respiration http://www.abovethelaw.com/2008/03/breaking_anthony_ciolli_goes_o.php#comments
http://abovethelaw.com/images/IravaniComplaint.pdf |
 |
Date: March 5th, 2008 2:42 PM Author: silver market LOL @ paragraph #49.
|
|
Date: March 5th, 2008 2:43 PM Author: ruby crawly internal respiration which regards? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=779018&forum_id=2#9433229) |
|
Date: March 5th, 2008 2:51 PM Author: silver market it's like some retarded game of telephone that girl scouts play.
also, HEARSAY!!!! |
|
Date: March 5th, 2008 4:16 PM Author: drunken property twinkling uncleanness Complaints aren't evidence, you fucking retard. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=779018&forum_id=2#9433765) |
|
Date: March 5th, 2008 9:06 PM Author: sinister den Christ, you're a fucking idiot. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=779018&forum_id=2#9435251) |
|
Date: March 5th, 2008 10:25 PM Author: Territorial aromatic becky you say that like it's not already common knowledge (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=779018&forum_id=2#9435715) |
|
Date: March 5th, 2008 10:23 PM Author: Swashbuckling sandwich pocket flask did you really pass the bar? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=779018&forum_id=2#9435694) |
|
Date: March 5th, 2008 2:45 PM Author: Concupiscible Aquamarine Immigrant I'm laughing at paragraph #69. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=779018&forum_id=2#9433246) |
|
Date: March 5th, 2008 2:53 PM Author: ruby crawly internal respiration paste? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=779018&forum_id=2#9433294) |
|
Date: March 5th, 2008 10:04 PM Author: fragrant low-t multi-billionaire flame (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=779018&forum_id=2#9435581) |
Date: March 5th, 2008 1:59 PM Author: ruby crawly internal respiration (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=779018&forum_id=2#9433044) |
|
Date: March 5th, 2008 2:48 PM Author: Concupiscible Aquamarine Immigrant Re: paragraph 109, is there a youtube link where Olbermann mentions GTO? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=779018&forum_id=2#9433266) |
|
Date: March 5th, 2008 2:51 PM Author: High-end step-uncle's house legend http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHg5SJYRHA0
at about 4:45 |
|
Date: March 5th, 2008 2:56 PM Author: silver market Before I clicked on this, I KNEW this was going to come up!
LOLS 174 |
|
Date: March 5th, 2008 2:57 PM Author: Concupiscible Aquamarine Immigrant tytyty (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=779018&forum_id=2#9433312) |
|
Date: March 5th, 2008 8:29 PM Author: Exhilarant sable dysfunction I came out of retirement to accord you props for this.
180. I died. |
|
Date: March 5th, 2008 3:08 PM Author: idiotic buck-toothed jewess space this is actually an excellent brief. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=779018&forum_id=2#9433405) |
|
Date: March 5th, 2008 3:12 PM Author: talking casino It's a complaint, not a brief. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=779018&forum_id=2#9433433) |
|
Date: March 5th, 2008 3:13 PM Author: deep location potayto potaato (there's really no way to put that in writing, is there?) (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=779018&forum_id=2#9433440) |
|
Date: March 5th, 2008 4:08 PM Author: Thriller Gold Corner potahto (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=779018&forum_id=2#9433729) |
|
Date: March 5th, 2008 4:10 PM Author: deep location see above post (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=779018&forum_id=2#9433739) |
|
Date: March 5th, 2008 8:47 PM Author: Twisted cerise house jap CLOSE but spelling isnt a big deal (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=779018&forum_id=2#9435148) |
|
Date: March 5th, 2008 3:13 PM Author: idiotic buck-toothed jewess space yeah, i tried to edit it as soon as i posted, but the fucking page wouldn't load.
this site is acting retarded today |
|
Date: March 5th, 2008 3:12 PM Author: talking casino Good to see GTO's side of the story, in full, in writing, in public.
Frankly, I believe his account more than the other accounts. I guess we'll see what happens. |
|
Date: March 5th, 2008 3:50 PM Author: Rose Mother Idiot its more believable because its so specific. He's making kvn look OVERRATED (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=779018&forum_id=2#9433648) |
|
Date: March 5th, 2008 3:12 PM Author: deep location It really is pretty awesome. Good for him. I hope he gets 'em (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=779018&forum_id=2#9433431) |
|
Date: March 5th, 2008 10:24 PM Author: Ocher Temple Preventive Strike Unfortunately there will be a confidential settlement :( (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=779018&forum_id=2#9435702) |
|
Date: March 5th, 2008 3:39 PM Author: talking casino This could get procedurally interesting if the PA court has to decide issues of copyright ownership to determine the outcome of a state claim. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=779018&forum_id=2#9433606) |
|
Date: March 5th, 2008 3:46 PM Author: navy business firm mood The court will never get to the copyright claim. The issue will be whether or not Ciolli owned operated t-14. If not, then they had no basis to sue, etc..... (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=779018&forum_id=2#9433630) |
|
Date: March 5th, 2008 3:50 PM Author: irradiated church hissy fit do you think it would be rule 11 for them then? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=779018&forum_id=2#9433652) |
|
Date: March 5th, 2008 4:06 PM Author: navy business firm mood Ummm, what do you mean? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=779018&forum_id=2#9433718) |
|
Date: March 5th, 2008 5:20 PM Author: Awkward parlor not even close
you'll see fewer rule 11 motions in a lifetime doing litigation than in one semester of civil procedure in law school.
and if sanctions are awarded, b.f.d. discovery sanctions are awarded all the time. Rule 11 was initially adopted just to create similar sanction mechanisms as exist for discovery. |
|
Date: March 5th, 2008 6:28 PM Author: talking casino I don't know about that. This seems like a pretty good Rule 11 case to me, though I'm not sure if it will come into play here (Ciolli is already dismissed from D. Conn. litigation). (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=779018&forum_id=2#9434572) |
|
Date: March 5th, 2008 4:10 PM Author: talking casino Probably right, but if they lose on that, the court will have to address the alternative basis. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=779018&forum_id=2#9433738) |
|
Date: March 5th, 2008 5:16 PM Author: confused ivory degenerate ?? State courts cannot decide copyright issues. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=779018&forum_id=2#9434121) |
|
Date: March 5th, 2008 6:21 PM Author: talking casino Exactly. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=779018&forum_id=2#9434535) |
|
Date: March 5th, 2008 5:16 PM Author: Boyish orchestra pit LOL lawyers (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=779018&forum_id=2#9434129) |
|
Date: March 5th, 2008 6:47 PM Author: multi-colored institution I've always thought GTO was a douchebag, but I have a lot of respect for him after this. Outing PW, the only defendant who really deserved to have his life ruined, is just beautiful. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=779018&forum_id=2#9434642) |
|
Date: March 5th, 2008 6:49 PM Author: Ultramarine Stain That's basically correct. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=779018&forum_id=2#9434653) |
|
Date: March 5th, 2008 10:00 PM Author: pearl dilemma puppy Agree.
I still think he's a douchebag, but he is right in this case and deserves compensation for his ruined career.
Also, all the people he is suing seem to be bigger douchebags, and hence the Douchebag Comparison Coefficient is negative and he deserves their money. |
|
Date: March 5th, 2008 8:18 PM Author: Diverse Indian Lodge amazing. would read again! (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=779018&forum_id=2#9435001) |
|
Date: March 5th, 2008 8:33 PM Author: Boyish orchestra pit Best quote: "the Ciolli-Walnuts connection". (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=779018&forum_id=2#9435072) |
|
Date: March 5th, 2008 8:34 PM Author: Exhilarant sable dysfunction I enjoyed it as well. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=779018&forum_id=2#9435076) |
|
Date: March 5th, 2008 9:04 PM Author: white macaca trailer park It's a pretty darn solid complaint.
The real problem here is that this is not a case you want to put in front of a jury. Even if a jury were to fully believe that GTO didn't post anything, it is still going to be hard to convince them to feel sorry for GTO and punish the Does in light of what was written about them and in light of all that goes on around here.
The Does will do everything they can to make sure the jury knows about the racist, sexist, and violent posts.
The only question is whether or not they want to settle now or spend the $$$ to defend the thing. They won't be able to rely on their current lawyers since those lawyers are all defendants. So, they won't be getting their free legal services anymore. |
|
Date: March 5th, 2008 9:06 PM Author: Swashbuckling sandwich pocket flask do the defendants get a jury trial? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=779018&forum_id=2#9435248) |
|
Date: March 5th, 2008 9:09 PM Author: white macaca trailer park I don't know shit about PA law, but I can't imagine why a simple civil suit wouldn't result in a jury trial. Especially if the defendants would benefit from it being a jury trial (and thus would seek that route). (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=779018&forum_id=2#9435273) |
|
Date: March 6th, 2008 11:33 AM Author: Doobsian trip native gaping i know in many states civil trials can have juries, but they're usually only 6 people and you don't need a unanimous verdict. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=779018&forum_id=2#9437760) |
|
Date: March 5th, 2008 9:09 PM Author: Chartreuse demanding lettuce it's a complete fiction but the does wouldn't have the ammunition to tear it up. The very idea that there was even a separation of powers between ciolli and cohen is ridiculous on its face but how would the does know? Ciolli's obviously been working on this story for a year and knows how much he can get away with. he's constructed a good recording of events filled with half truths and whole lies but which would be hard to prove.
not that I think what actually happened was actionable but the blatant lies by ciolli is really disgusting. |
|
Date: March 5th, 2008 9:14 PM Author: Spectacular piazza antidepressant drug Is English your second language? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=779018&forum_id=2#9435304) |
|
Date: March 5th, 2008 9:23 PM Author: talking casino Can you explain why you think Ciolli is lying? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=779018&forum_id=2#9435349) |
|
Date: March 5th, 2008 9:09 PM Author: sinister den "So, they won't be getting their free legal services anymore." Nah, there are a million other great firms which would pick it up pro bono. |
|
Date: March 5th, 2008 9:10 PM Author: white macaca trailer park Why?
For the publicity?
For the lulz?
Most law great firms like making money.
EDIT: And most great firms like to use their pro bono hours on poor people who need it, not rich girls at top law schools who could easily afford lawyers. |
|
Date: March 5th, 2008 9:20 PM Author: sinister den The "helping poor people" thing is really not how it works at many firms. The only hard rule at my firm is that the project not be a way to give someone you know (family or friend) free service on some pedestrian issue. Hot button, newsworthy type litigation is routinely signed off on. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=779018&forum_id=2#9435335) |
|
Date: March 5th, 2008 9:21 PM Author: talking casino "Even if a jury were to fully believe that GTO didn't post anything, it is still going to be hard to convince them to feel sorry for GTO and punish the Does in light of what was written about them and in light of all that goes on around here."
Exactly.
|
|
Date: March 5th, 2008 10:02 PM Author: pearl dilemma puppy "it is still going to be hard to convince them to feel sorry for GTO and punish the Does in light of what was written about them and in light of all that goes on around here."
It's been a while since Evidence, but if there is a PA state equivalent of FRE 403, this seems like a perfect time to use it to keep all the horribleness of the comments about the Does from the jury's eyes. |
|
Date: March 5th, 2008 10:07 PM Author: white macaca trailer park It seems like it would be a tough sell to convince a judge that the facts which led the Does to sue are more prejudicial than probative in discussing whether that suit was improperly filed. Sure, the judge could say "only talk about why Ciolli was sued" but it is unlikely that they'd handcuff the defendants.
Definitely worth a shot from GTO's perspective though. |
|
Date: March 5th, 2008 10:12 PM Author: pearl dilemma puppy A 'tough sell'? In what way is the content of the posts that allegedly defamed the Does at all relevant to whether GTO wrote them or the Does knew GTO wrote them? This seems like a textbook application of FRE 403 to me, and I think it's pretty naive of you to think that the judge would even consider admitting clearly unfairly prejudicial evidence just because the evidence was so distasteful that the judge wanted GTO to burn. It's the sort of decision that would get appealed, quickly reach a level of appellate judge that will enforce the law, and be reversed. The trial judge would know that. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=779018&forum_id=2#9435641) |
|
Date: March 5th, 2008 10:19 PM Author: talking casino "In what way is the content of the posts that allegedly defamed the Does at all relevant to whether GTO wrote them or the Does knew GTO wrote them?"
They may argue that some posts had a writing style similar to that of GTO's posts. I came up with that in 10 seconds. I'm sure they could come up with more reasons.
Heck, GTO's own case hinges on the assumption that he was fired because his firm associated him with nasty content.
|
|
Date: March 5th, 2008 10:25 PM Author: Swashbuckling sandwich pocket flask Counselor, are you saying you sued a law student because you thought he had a similar writing style as an anonymous idiot?? Please tell me that is not the case. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=779018&forum_id=2#9435717) |
|
Date: March 5th, 2008 10:46 PM Author: talking casino Your honor, that was one factor, but certainly not the only factor, contributing to my clients' reasonable belief that Mr. Ciolli took part in at least some of the numerous acts giving rise to their suit. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=779018&forum_id=2#9435827) |
|
Date: March 5th, 2008 10:49 PM Author: pearl dilemma puppy Well, Counselor, even under a generous interpretation of the facts, that degree of probativeness is slight and obviously outweighed by the unfair prejudice that would arise from the absolutely awful content of the speech. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=779018&forum_id=2#9435842) |
|
Date: March 5th, 2008 10:51 PM Author: talking casino probativeness of what? It doesn't have to prove that GTO did it, it has to prove that the D's had a reasonable belief that he did it.
That's the KEY ISSUE in their defense. I doubt it would get kicked when it's relevant to the key issue in their defense (in addition to the reason they sued in the first place). |
|
Date: March 5th, 2008 10:55 PM Author: Swashbuckling sandwich pocket flask it depends on what other evidence they have to establish a reasonable belief. there is no way similar writing styles on its own establishes a reasonable belief, and if thats all they have I can see it being excluded as overly prejudicial. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=779018&forum_id=2#9435876) |
|
Date: March 5th, 2008 10:27 PM Author: white macaca trailer park "In what way is the content of the posts that allegedly defamed the Does at all relevant to whether GTO wrote them or the Does knew GTO wrote them?"
D's will claim they sued GTO because they thought (at one point) that he wrote some of the posts. It's really the only argument they could possibly make, since they didn't sue him as an administrator. Are you really saying that the judge will order the defendants to refrain from saying what they thought GTO said when describing why they sued? That's unbelievably improbable. It adds context to the case.
"his seems like a textbook application of FRE 403 to me"
I would say that no application of 403 against a defendant is truly textbook. A judge is ALWAYS going to be leery of restraining a defendant.
"and I think it's pretty naive of you to think that the judge would even consider admitting clearly unfairly prejudicial evidence just because the evidence was so distasteful that the judge wanted GTO to burn."
I never even hinted that the judge's personal motives would play a role in this.
"It's the sort of decision that would get appealed, quickly reach a level of appellate judge that will enforce the law, and be reversed. The trial judge would know that."
An appellate judge would be extremely disinclined to overturn the discretion of the trial judge. The appeal standard would probably be "clearly erroneous" actions, which this would never be considered. |
|
Date: March 5th, 2008 10:48 PM Author: pearl dilemma puppy "D's will claim they sued GTO because they thought (at one point) that he wrote some of the posts."
Not really a colorable claim if they never even alleged that in their complaint. |
|
Date: March 5th, 2008 10:49 PM Author: talking casino Their complaint was horribly unspecific. They listed 20+ defendants, and then said "defendants did A, B, C, D...."
They didn't specify who was supposed to have done what, exactly. [That's not true for some specific statements, if I remember] |
|
Date: March 5th, 2008 10:50 PM Author: white macaca trailer park Obviously it's bullshit, but there is no way a judge is going to dissect their complaint and hold them to the letter of it if the Does say that they argued GTO's role by implication, or that they meant to allege it but didn't do so by accident.
You're expecting a judge to be extremely rigid here, and it's just not going to happen that way. Particularly because they are defendants. |
|
Date: March 5th, 2008 11:05 PM Author: pearl dilemma puppy The usual sympathy accorded to defendants likely wouldn't be in play here. They really can't play the victim card when they sued first.
OK, so their argument will be: (1) We reasonably believed GTO to be the author of some of the comments we cited in our complaint. (2) We accidently forgot to allege as much, despite amending the complaint multiple times. Our bad. (3) The basis for this reasonable belief is that we thought the writing styles seemed kinda similar to us, even though we did not hire any experts or perform any empirically useful analysis. (4) Therefore we want to introduce the following incredibly sexist, demeaning, and horrifying comments. (5) Seriously, any extent to which the content of these posts prejudices the jury against our client is completely coincidental, we swear.
Yeah fucking right. |
|
Date: March 5th, 2008 11:14 PM Author: white macaca trailer park Now you just sound like an idiot. Stop fucking strawmanning me. There are plenty of rationales they could offer, of which the writing styles was only one (and not even mentioned by me).
Think harder.
You have many defendants involved, each of whom will be afforded an opportunity to defend themselves individually. Only one of them needs to offer up a reason which is good enough to get some of the posts read into the record. GTO's evidence that the two Does didn't think he was an author is certainly damning, but it isn't conclusive, irrefutable proof. All one of the defendants has to say is "I thought Ciolli wrote some of the stuff because his name appeared on th T14 Girls website" and they will be allowed to explain the whole situation.
It's fucking simple. |
|
Date: March 5th, 2008 11:26 PM Author: bright forum But the Defendants (Heide, Brittan, Ross, etc) were specifically told and got sworn statements that GTO wasn't involved. They couldnt tell him why they sued him. ANd they didnt allege that he had said the stuff.
PWNED. |
|
Date: March 5th, 2008 11:29 PM Author: white macaca trailer park And all of that is why GTO is going to pwn them in the case, if the jury actually listens to the arguments.
But that isn't going to prevent the defendants from presenting their evidence. |
|
Date: March 5th, 2008 11:36 PM Author: pearl dilemma puppy The content of the post ISN'T their evidence, retard. Pay attention. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=779018&forum_id=2#9436079) |
|
Date: March 8th, 2008 9:06 AM Author: Peach Bbw (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=779018&forum_id=2#9447971) |
|
Date: March 5th, 2008 11:33 PM Author: pearl dilemma puppy "Now you just sound like an idiot. Stop fucking strawmanning me. There are plenty of rationales they could offer, of which the writing styles was only one (and not even mentioned by me)."
You're a touchy one. The writing styles one is the only one that makes sense so far. Remember this comment? "D's will claim they sued GTO because they thought (at one point) that he wrote some of the posts. It's really the only argument they could possibly make, since they didn't sue him as an administrator." That was you. So, apart from the writing style, how does the content of the posts bear on their belief that he wrote them, since not one of the posts suggests anything even approximating that thesis?
"Think harder."
When your comment makes no sense, it's not my job to "think harder" to justify it. |
|
Date: March 6th, 2008 2:09 AM Author: Maize quadroon cumskin 180 (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=779018&forum_id=2#9436767) |
|
Date: March 5th, 2008 10:27 PM Author: bright forum You have to remember who was suing GTO--Lemley (SLS prof), Rosen (YLS prof), Heide and Brittan (YLS students), and KVN (very experienced firm).
You think they'll buy all their bullshit about not knowing or understanding the Law in this area? Really? They were told a dozen times, literally, that GTO wasnt a poster and they know the DCMA provisions. A judge will not toss this stuff out lightly. |
|
Date: March 5th, 2008 10:48 PM Author: talking casino "they know the DCMA provisions"
It's the CDA. |
|
Date: March 5th, 2008 10:18 PM Author: talking casino That would be GTO's greatest hope, but it's intertwined with all parts of the litigation. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=779018&forum_id=2#9435664) |
|
Date: March 5th, 2008 10:20 PM Author: pearl dilemma puppy To which of his allegations is the content of the posts that allegedly defamed the Does even plausibly relevant? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=779018&forum_id=2#9435675) |
|
Date: March 5th, 2008 10:24 PM Author: talking casino Well, that his firm fired him because of their alleged content, for one. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=779018&forum_id=2#9435704) |
|
Date: March 5th, 2008 11:35 PM Author: pearl dilemma puppy What do you mean, "their alleged content"? Isn't the content undisputed?
Anyway, it would seem that that would be his claim to make, not theirs, and he could accomplish it without recourse to the content of the posts, going instead by the letters from the firm, the letter-writing campaign by the Yale group, and depos of the relevant figures in the firm.
The only possible reason the D's could try to admit the content of the posts is under a theory that they were so UNOFFENSIVE as to cast doubt on the causality, which seems far-fetched at best. |
|
Date: March 5th, 2008 9:05 PM Author: Chartreuse demanding lettuce ciolli is obviously full of shit, distorting and twisting facts to his advantage. Lucky for him, he probably can get away with a lot of it because the does simply don't have the same detailed information about the extent of Ciolli's powers as your regular old posters. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=779018&forum_id=2#9435245) |
|
Date: March 5th, 2008 9:11 PM Author: sinister den "he probably can get away with a lot of it because the does simply don't have the same detailed information about the extent of Ciolli's powers as your regular old posters." It's called discovery. |
|
Date: March 5th, 2008 9:25 PM Author: Chartreuse demanding lettuce LOL yeah cuz people won't lie during depositions. The only people who know what ciolli and cohen discussed are ciolli and cohen. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=779018&forum_id=2#9435366) |
|
Date: March 5th, 2008 9:30 PM Author: talking casino I guess that means we should stop reading your posts, since you have no idea what you're talking about. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=779018&forum_id=2#9435385) |
|
Date: March 5th, 2008 9:32 PM Author: Chartreuse demanding lettuce sorry you're a dumb faggot. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=779018&forum_id=2#9435394) |
|
Date: March 6th, 2008 2:07 AM Author: heady elite chapel alpha If you've ever seen what one who is skilled at taking depositions can do, you wouldn't plan on lying. The vast majority of people believe that they are capable of lying convincingly and the vast majority of them are wrong.
GTO has written thousands of posts. He can't remember everything he's disclosed about his authority. He'd be insane to try to lie about any particulars - he could get smacked at any time with a contradictory post. Then he'd have a mere few seconds to think up some explanation.
When you get deposed, you can't just ask for a time out if you want time to think up a good answer to a question. A couple of hours will turn your mind to mush. |
|
Date: March 6th, 2008 12:11 PM Author: galvanic massive sound barrier dopamine it seems like all the posters bumping old threads are doing a good job of preparing GTO for any future deposition (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=779018&forum_id=2#9437925) |
|
Date: March 5th, 2008 9:15 PM Author: white macaca trailer park How would these lies not be exposed in discovery?
Which lies are you even talking about? |
|
Date: March 5th, 2008 9:26 PM Author: Chartreuse demanding lettuce right because discovery allows you to travel back in time and videotape the private conversation ciolli and cohen had about how to save ciolli's ass. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=779018&forum_id=2#9435372) |
|
Date: March 5th, 2008 9:32 PM Author: white macaca trailer park Maybe they can ask you how you pulled it off, since apparently you know everything that went down? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=779018&forum_id=2#9435393) |
|
Date: March 5th, 2008 9:37 PM Author: Chartreuse demanding lettuce how many times must I explain this you stupid faggot? The does just don't have as much information as a random regular poster back then. Unless some kindhearted poster decides to go and tell them about all the lies and inconsistencies, they simply won't know and depositions won't help because they won't know what questions to ask. How the fuck are they going to know about threads that sugarywitch had deleted to even ask the question? and if confronted, they can just lie and fabricate some more bullshit about conversations ciolli and cohen supposedly had about the extent of ciolli's power that never occurred.
It's pretty obvious to any regular poster what really happened. dumb faggot |
|
Date: March 5th, 2008 9:42 PM Author: talking casino "how many times must I explain this you stupid faggot?"
If you do so clearly, only once.
Now's your chance to explain "all the lies and inconsistencies" |
|
Date: March 5th, 2008 9:47 PM Author: Chartreuse demanding lettuce Date: March 5th, 2008 9:32 PM Author: Jian-Wa Chang (R.I.P. Wago - Following The General to the gates of hell)
read paragraph 24 you dumb faggot.
Do you seriously believe ciolli and cohen sat down one day and discussed the separation of powers? That cohen gave ciolli ten commandments about what he was allowed and not allowed to do? That this authority was ever really laid out? Ciolli - Cohen never gave me the power to delete threads or remove posts. Even if I did so at times, it was not in my AUTHORITY to do so, I just did it anyway because I could. He's asserting that because Cohen did not lay out in so many words what he was authorized to do, he wasn't authorized to do it. That's just ridiculous.
Give me a fucking break. It's pretty clear that ciolli and cohen never discussed the extent of his powers but it was assumed ciolli could do whatever the hell he wanted and he did so. Now ciolli's trying to backtrack and pretend like he was never given the fucking scepter to make it happen. It's a fucking crock. |
|
Date: March 5th, 2008 10:21 PM Author: talking casino "Do you seriously believe ciolli and cohen sat down one day and discussed the separation of powers? That cohen gave ciolli ten commandments about what he was allowed and not allowed to do? That this authority was ever really laid out?"
Yes. It was called the "outing policy" I believe.
Do you have any reason not to believe him? |
|
Date: March 5th, 2008 10:48 PM Author: Chartreuse demanding lettuce yeah the outing policy was totally applied fairly and without prejudice. totally. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=779018&forum_id=2#9435836) |
|
Date: March 5th, 2008 9:18 PM Author: vivacious pearly ticket booth gunner He can also "get away with it" since they never went after him as an administrator. So his "powers" are completely irrelevant. Even if he could, KVN consistently asked Cohen to remove the posts, even though he was never a defendant, and said that they wanted "nothing" from Ciolli. It's pathetic how many idiots have completely failed to even read the complaint and responded with "ZOMG GTO COULD TOO DELETE POSTS!!11" (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=779018&forum_id=2#9435326) |
|
Date: March 5th, 2008 9:28 PM Author: mind-boggling french striped hyena circlehead Bingo. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=779018&forum_id=2#9435379) |
|
Date: March 5th, 2008 9:32 PM Author: Chartreuse demanding lettuce read paragraph 24 you dumb faggot.
Do you seriously believe ciolli and cohen sat down one day and discussed the separation of powers? That cohen gave ciolli ten commandments about what he was allowed and not allowed to do? That this authority was ever really laid out? Ciolli - Cohen never gave me the power to delete threads or remove posts. Even if I did so at times, it was not in my AUTHORITY to do so, I just did it anyway because I could. He's asserting that because Cohen did not lay out in so many words what he was authorized to do, he wasn't authorized to do it. That's just ridiculous.
Give me a fucking break. It's pretty clear that ciolli and cohen never discussed the extent of his powers but it was assumed ciolli could do whatever the hell he wanted and he did so. Now ciolli's trying to backtrack and pretend like he was never given the fucking scepter to make it happen. It's a fucking crock. |
|
Date: March 5th, 2008 9:34 PM Author: Swashbuckling sandwich pocket flask relevance? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=779018&forum_id=2#9435408) |
|
Date: March 5th, 2008 9:38 PM Author: Chartreuse demanding lettuce sorry you're stupid (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=779018&forum_id=2#9435427) |
|
Date: March 5th, 2008 9:46 PM Author: vivacious pearly ticket booth gunner Since we all clearly lack your legal acumen, please explain how any of this bullshit you keep talking about is even remotely relevant to GTO's suit or the original suit brought by the Does. And quote the claim they state against him for his role as an administrator, since I seem to have missed that the first time. And then explain why Mark Lemley decided to lie to the WSJ:
http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2007/06/13/why-was-ex-autoadmit-director-ciolli-sued/ |
|
Date: March 5th, 2008 9:57 PM Author: Chartreuse demanding lettuce Date: March 5th, 2008 9:32 PM Author: Jian-Wa Chang (R.I.P. Wago - Following The General to the gates of hell)
read paragraph 24 you dumb faggot.
Do you seriously believe ciolli and cohen sat down one day and discussed the separation of powers? That cohen gave ciolli ten commandments about what he was allowed and not allowed to do? That this authority was ever really laid out? Ciolli - Cohen never gave me the power to delete threads or remove posts. Even if I did so at times, it was not in my AUTHORITY to do so, I just did it anyway because I could. He's asserting that because Cohen did not lay out in so many words what he was authorized to do, he wasn't authorized to do it. That's just ridiculous.
Give me a fucking break. It's pretty clear that ciolli and cohen never discussed the extent of his powers but it was assumed ciolli could do whatever the hell he wanted and he did so. Now ciolli's trying to backtrack and pretend like he was never given the fucking scepter to make it happen. It's a fucking crock. |
|
Date: March 5th, 2008 10:05 PM Author: vivacious pearly ticket booth gunner Paragraph 24 of what? Why don't you just quote it so we can all laugh at you? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=779018&forum_id=2#9435587) |
|
Date: March 5th, 2008 10:09 PM Author: Chartreuse demanding lettuce LOL sorry you're a dumb faggot (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=779018&forum_id=2#9435613) |
|
Date: March 5th, 2008 10:17 PM Author: Swashbuckling sandwich pocket flask how is the authority of AC relevant to the claims? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=779018&forum_id=2#9435660) |
|
Date: March 5th, 2008 10:47 PM Author: Chartreuse demanding lettuce lol faggot (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=779018&forum_id=2#9435831) |
|
Date: March 5th, 2008 9:12 PM Author: Big Liquid Oxygen I'm starting to think that from its very beginnings xoxo has just been a scripted online show, and I'm the only one not in on it. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=779018&forum_id=2#9435295) |
|
Date: March 5th, 2008 9:45 PM Author: lascivious theater stage associate it's very very strange (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=779018&forum_id=2#9435465) |
|
Date: March 5th, 2008 10:04 PM Author: pearl dilemma puppy Best damn piece of performance art I've ever seen. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=779018&forum_id=2#9435584) |
|
Date: March 5th, 2008 10:24 PM Author: Big-titted Filthpig no, no, no. that's absurd, don't you know?
do you also believe in aliens?
*nervous laugh* |
|
Date: March 6th, 2008 2:57 AM Author: Boyish orchestra pit I've long suspected that this board is a brilliant social psychological experiment akin to the Stanford prison experiment. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=779018&forum_id=2#9436886) |
|
Date: March 5th, 2008 10:24 PM Author: Orange sanctuary Hey guys. Let's post http://www.reputationdefender.com/ website everyone on this thread. it makes their Google search results more relevant to this post. So the public can see GTO's story, instead of theirs. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=779018&forum_id=2#9435703) |
|
Date: March 5th, 2008 10:29 PM Author: bright forum LOL
Surprising this hasn't been happening yet. |
|
Date: March 5th, 2008 11:13 PM Author: Stimulating hot field yarmulke brilliant. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=779018&forum_id=2#9435968) |
|
Date: March 5th, 2008 11:24 PM Author: magenta alcoholic site cuckoldry To the dipshit that called me Pensive when I explained that the PaulieWalnuts moniker didn't start out as Church--suck it. Does anyone know offhand if the T14 Talent stuff is part of the Does complaint and if yes, how? It doesn't seem to fit IIED. And...and I know I'm late to this thread, but...paragraph 46 is not how I remember the T14 site getting shut down. Anyone else know what I'm talking about? [Edit: Actually, paragraph 60 states what I thought, that Ciolli got control of the T14 Talent site and shut it down. That's different than Paragraph 46.] |
|
Date: March 5th, 2008 11:28 PM Author: bright forum T14 was mentioned only for copyright infringement. And pw was not sued for the other stuff. It's very unclear if the copyright stuff will fly at all. So plaintiffs would need to rework stuff to include pw in their other claims. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=779018&forum_id=2#9436038) |
|
Date: March 5th, 2008 11:44 PM Author: magenta alcoholic site cuckoldry Well, I know how Paulie should be included in the complaint and that's because (I think) he is the guy who emailed all of the professors at Doe I's (I think) law school. That's the fucker who really needs to get reemed out of this deal. However, I'm not sure when Church got control of the Walnutz moniker and I'm not sure if the emailer was really Church or the original PW or some other dumbfuck. |
|
Date: March 6th, 2008 1:23 PM Author: bright forum That's why the new revelations may mean something or mean nothing at all. Pretty unlikely that it was the same guy and for KVN/Does to get anywhere they need it to be that guy.
In light of their new lawsuit, KVN will have to be very careful and specific about what they say from here on out. This case simply isn't going to bring a big financial award and the bad PR and settlement costs from fuck ups just don't seem worth it. |
|
Date: March 5th, 2008 11:39 PM Author: lake point generalized bond i don't recall how the T14 stuff went down specifically, but there are few things in the complaint that seemed a little less than accurate. one thing that struck me was how GTO calls the Does liars because he claims certain email exchanges never happened. which is almost certainly true, but i do recall some exchanges about his refusal to take things down occurring on the site, which he conveniently omits from his complaint. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=779018&forum_id=2#9436094) |
|
Date: March 5th, 2008 11:39 PM Author: Misunderstood walnut water buffalo While the complaint is well written, his lawyer looks to be a family law solo practicioner. Interesting choice.
[Posted another point but immediately saw why it was stupid] |
|
Date: March 6th, 2008 12:04 AM Author: autistic gas station rigor Maybe he's awesome in the courtroom and will pwn in front of a jury? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=779018&forum_id=2#9436232) |
|
Date: March 6th, 2008 1:49 AM Author: multi-colored institution http://www.paestateplanninglaw.com/
He'll certainly be able to handle all of the estate law aspects of this case. |
|
Date: March 6th, 2008 2:11 AM Author: Ocher Temple Preventive Strike as well as the anglican angles (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=779018&forum_id=2#9436776) |
|
Date: March 6th, 2008 11:56 AM Author: Doobsian trip native gaping you have the wrong Jakubik. he's actually a SWeet trial atty. http://www.jakubiklaw.com/overview.htm |
|
Date: March 6th, 2008 1:37 PM Author: bright forum Ya, that seems more accurate. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=779018&forum_id=2#9438350) |
|
Date: March 6th, 2008 7:26 PM Author: magenta alcoholic site cuckoldry Questions about the complaint to civ pro gurus... Should each Count refer to all previous paragraphs or should it indicate which paragraphs meet the elements of the Count? Is the correct response to ask for clarification of which paragraphs apply to each Count?
|
|
Date: March 6th, 2008 12:48 AM Author: federal hall mental disorder (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=779018&forum_id=2#9436446) |
|
Date: March 6th, 2008 3:27 AM Author: titillating house-broken headpube prole (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=779018&forum_id=2#9436948) |
|
Date: March 6th, 2008 5:48 AM Author: Unholy chocolate depressive (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=779018&forum_id=2#9437201) |
|
Date: March 6th, 2008 6:32 AM Author: Unholy chocolate depressive (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=779018&forum_id=2#9437244) |
|
Date: March 6th, 2008 6:37 PM Author: bearded nibblets shrine (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=779018&forum_id=2#9439686) |