Date: June 11th, 2007 8:38 PM Author: vermilion fighting hospital persian Subject: Notice of lawsuit pending vs. certain AutoAdmit posters
To the defendants listed below, you are being sued in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut. The defendants are the persons using the following pseudonyms on the website autoadmit.com or xoxohth.com: Pauliewalnuts; neoprag; STANFORDtroll; :D; :D (Hillary v. Jeb’08); MoreDoughHi; Remember when I said I would kill you last? I lied; lkjhgf; yalelaw; Spanky; ylsdooder; Community Norm; HI; David Carr (Glass of water for Mr. Grainger); vincimus; Beach Body Brady; Cheese Eating Surrender Monkey; Todd Christopher; A horse walks into a bar (saving one CPGWBT at a time); The Ayatollah of Rock-n-Rollah; DRACULA; Sleazy Z; Whamo (Let me lay it on the line, he had two on the vine); Ari Gold; Ugly Women; playboytroll; Get_to_da_choppa; Dean_Harold_Koh. The allegations are as follows: copyright infringement under 17 U.S.C. § 501; appropriation of another’s name or likeness; unreasonable publicity given to another’s life; publicity that places another in a false light before the public; intentional infliction of emotional distress; negligent infliction of emotional distress; and defamation.
The plaintiffs are attempting to serve you with a complaint and summons in a civil action. The text of the summons appears below. So that we may deliver a copy of the summons and complaint to you, please provide your complete contact information to the following email address: drosenlaw@gmail.com.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
SUMMONS IN A CIVIL CASE
CASE NUMBER: 307CV00909 CFD
I. (a) PLAINTIFFS
DOE I, and DOE II
v.
DEFENDANTS
Anthony Ciolli; Individuals, whose true names are unknown, using the following pseudonyms: Pauliewalnuts; neoprag; STANFORDtroll; :D; :D (Hillary v. Jeb’08); MoreDoughHi; Remember when I said I would kill you last? I lied; lkjhgf; yalelaw; Spanky; ylsdooder; Community Norm; HI; David Carr (Glass of water for Mr. Grainger); vincimus; Beach Body Brady; Cheese Eating Surrender Monkey; Todd Christopher; A horse walks into a bar (saving one CPGWBT at a time); The Ayatollah of Rock-n-Rollah; DRACULA; Sleazy Z; Whamo (Let me lay it on the line, he had two on the vine); Ari Gold; Ugly Women; playboytroll; Get_to_da_choppa; Dean_Harold_Koh
YOU ARE HEREBY SUMMONED and required to serve upon PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY
David N. Rosen, Esq.
David Rosen & Associates, P.C.
400 Orange Street, New Haven, CT 06511
an answer to the complaint which is herewith served upon you, within twenty days after service of this summons upon you, exclusive of the day of service. If you fail to do so, judgment by default will be taken against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. You must also file your answer with the Clerk of this Court within a reasonable period of time after service.
The case no., however, is too accurate to be flame. The highest case no. in PACER is 3:07-cv-00902, for a case filed on 6/8. That makes a new case with 909 a possibility. No flame would be so meticulous as to get the case number right.
The supposed judge on this case (last three letters of case no.) is http://www.ctd.uscourts.gov/droney.htm . The defendants might want to call his clerk to see if this case exists. Edit: or better yet call the courthouse so as not to overwhelm his clerk. He seems to be in the Hartford Courthouse http://www.ctd.uscourts.gov/htfd.htm .
Date: June 11th, 2007 8:46 PM Author: Magical cream area
It's not in PACER, yet. Besides, I'm not sure you're allowed to post a complaint you got off of PACER. Their system might encode my ID in the complaint. Don't you have your own pacer account?
The case no., however, is too accurate to be flame. The highest case no. in PACER is 3:07-cv-00902, for a case filed on 6/8. That makes a new case with 909 a possibility. No flame would be so meticulous as to get the case number right.
The supposed judge on this case (last three letters of case no.) is http://www.ctd.uscourts.gov/droney.htm . The defendants might want to call his clerk to see if this case exists. Edit: or better yet call the courthouse so as not to overwhelm his clerk. He seems to be in the Hartford Courthouse http://www.ctd.uscourts.gov/htfd.htm ."
Date: June 12th, 2007 3:33 PM Author: Excitant Dun Stain
He actually denied it vociferously (unless he copped to it at some later date when I'd already left the board). Doesn't mean it wasn't him though...it was very much in keeping with his style.
Date: June 11th, 2007 8:53 PM Author: light boltzmann boiling water
Did he really just ask posters "Help me serve you so that I can sue you in court?" What a ttt attorney (to go along w/ his ttt personality & sense of humor).
Date: June 11th, 2007 8:57 PM Author: Grizzly Curious University Juggernaut
this counts as expedient service. if the posters choose to ignore it they'll be in default. if plaintiffs ever find who the posters are they can come after them, and the only thing the posters will be able to do is claim lack of personal jurisdiction. it may work. or not.
Date: June 11th, 2007 9:10 PM Author: supple opaque office
That says that is must be made to an e-address AND must be consented to. E-address means email address, not a bulletin board (I would think), and there is no way there was consent.
Date: June 11th, 2007 9:05 PM Author: supple opaque office
I think a Yale alum representing a wronged yale student is more likely than a problem with monikers. I would think the copyright junk has to do with using pics.
Date: June 12th, 2007 10:25 AM Author: Exhilarant Cyan Field
Did you all fail civ pro? D. Conn. really went out there and had a case that held that a website was sufficient for minimum contacts. Not directly on point, but it is in every civ pro book.
Inset Systems, Inc. v. Instruction Set, Inc., 937 F. Supp. 161 (D. Conn. 1996) Sustaining exercise of jurisdiction over defendant where defendant's only contacts with Connecticut were an Internet web site and an 800 telephone number, both of which advertised defendant's services. The web site and 800 number were accessible to anyone with Internet access or a telephone including Connecticut residents.
Not sure if it is still good law, but it is in D. Conn. right?
Date: June 12th, 2007 2:05 AM Author: Irradiated trailer park
That still requires a connection between the defendant and the forum state. The fact that it was read by someone in CT is not enough. This is basic 1L shit.
Date: June 11th, 2007 9:09 PM Author: Brass Location
Cherminsky said anonymous speech was protected today. Of course he also threw in some shit about state action in there, but fuck that, I'll cite whatever I want to cite.
Date: June 12th, 2007 1:12 AM Author: infuriating mother azn
Did you catch the part where he said that the first amendment applies only to the government, not to private parties? Or about how defamatory speech is not protected?
Two issues blown in a single sentence. Good luck on the NY bar.
Date: June 12th, 2007 8:52 AM Author: Brass Location
1. I said it requires state action so no shit that means it only applies to the gov
2. why are assuming there was defamatory speech?
3. and just in case you were actually serious or thought I was you are a MOTHERFUCKIN RETARD. I was being sarcastic you tard or did you miss the part about "I'll cite whatever I wan to cite."
Date: June 11th, 2007 9:18 PM Author: Brass Location
he has no grounds for defamation. All you have to do is point to the Hustler case to explain why. Nothing said here about people is meant to be taken seriously, its parody BS and everybody knows it. I dont know about the copyright BS or any of that, but I would imagine since all the pics were taken down almost as soon as there was a complaint there isnt much of a case.
Date: June 11th, 2007 9:27 PM Author: Brass Location
yeah fucknut I left out a ' whats your problem? I knew I was doing it. Guess what, it's the internet douchebag and I do NOT care. Is that 12 inch dildo up your ass making you cranky?
Date: June 11th, 2007 9:19 PM Author: Mint elastic band codepig
Nope. some of the HI stuff is meant to be taken quite seriously: re her sense of entitlement, her lsat, her father, her whining, her inability to perform at a high level....
Date: June 11th, 2007 9:25 PM Author: Magical cream area
Dude he listed a case no., which seems legit, and the federal judge supposedly hearing the case. Just call the judge's office and find out of it's real.
Date: June 11th, 2007 9:49 PM Author: Glassy Godawful Incel National
That's because he runs a personal firm without a Web page. He's a Yale prof running this kind of stuff on the side. That's why he has a Gmail account. If you Googled his firm, you'd see that David Rosen & Associates don't even have a Web page. Therefore, it's entirely reasonable for him to have a Gmail account distinct from his Yale account.
Date: June 11th, 2007 9:24 PM Author: pungent goyim
If my other moniker is listed in there, even if I haven't done anything anywhere close to wrong or illegal (even by IRL standards), should I just stop posting here? I honestly don't know how they could get a hold of me...I'm thinking I'll just go on the lam.
Date: June 11th, 2007 9:31 PM Author: supple opaque office
Right. He can just sue John Doe, AKA ...
That's what he has done. He can then use the law suit to discover other's identities. Until he serves each individual poster, though, I doubt this counts as proper service.
Date: June 11th, 2007 9:38 PM Author: amber jewess milk
Right. I would guess they'd subpoena rach for the IP addresses and then subpoena the internet service providers for the actual names. I'm not really sure how it works. But I guess you could say that their identities are "roughly two subpoenas away from discovery."
Date: June 11th, 2007 9:38 PM Author: pungent goyim
I knew it was bad in high school when I stumbled upon Princeton Review. Noooooooo, I couldn't just look at the fucking rankings...I had to go to the god damn message board...Look what you little bastards have gotten me into!
Date: June 11th, 2007 9:49 PM Author: naked tattoo
It isn't the least bit reasonable to expect posters to send their personal information to that email address. That could be some crazy serial killer rapist person. You don't know.
Date: June 11th, 2007 9:51 PM Author: Magical cream area
I'm guessing this is just a first step in a long process, and the judge will likely order proper service later, once it's possible? THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE.
Date: June 11th, 2007 9:52 PM Author: Glassy Godawful Incel National
That's because he runs a personal firm without a Web page. He's a Yale prof running this kind of stuff on the side. That's why he has a Gmail account. If you Googled his firm, you'd see that David Rosen & Associates don't even have a Web page. Therefore, it's entirely reasonable for him to have a Gmail account distinct from his Yale account.
Date: June 12th, 2007 9:07 AM Author: Very tactful provocative whorehouse
I don't think "personal" use = non-commercial use. I think "personal" use = use by yourself and not by some other party.
The reason for this provision is so that the provider can hold whoever agrees to the terms of service to those terms, without an "it wasn't me; it was my brother" excuse.
Date: June 11th, 2007 10:06 PM Author: Federal razzmatazz parlour alpha
Don't dwell on the negative. Think of the positive: with Paulie Walnuts finally outed, we no longer have to worry about him coming here and spreading his filth!
Date: June 11th, 2007 10:21 PM Author: Hairless magenta tanning salon trust fund
The fact that there is a debate over whether this is real or not indicates it is not proper service. You can't post and official document into a message board known for made up schticks, and expect it to be considered seriously. It would end parody.
Date: June 11th, 2007 10:34 PM Author: naked tattoo
To the defendant listed below, you are being sued in the United States District Court for the District of Uranus. The defendant is the person using the following pseudonym on the website autoadmit.com or xoxohth.com: . . . . . .
The allegations are as follows: annoying the FUCK outta me.
Date: June 11th, 2007 10:36 PM Author: Grizzly Curious University Juggernaut
Dude, if a judge authorizes it you're good as gold. I've seen cases where service is done by fax and publication for two weeks in a newspaper. This isn't that bad, especially considering that he may not be able to get their IP addresses b/c rach doesn't keep them that long.
Date: June 11th, 2007 10:39 PM Author: Grizzly Curious University Juggernaut
Yeah, all he has to do now is connect the dots. And if those posters keep posting under the same moniker he could find them by subpoenaing user logs and all the names associated with each moniker.
Date: June 11th, 2007 10:44 PM Author: Mint elastic band codepig
i'll bet they want to hang gto out to dry, and the rest is a fishing expedition? i would imagine the true purpose of this is to (a) shut down xoxo, and (b) scare the next xoxo into retreating back into the womb.
Date: June 11th, 2007 10:45 PM Author: Magical cream area
THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE. Why would you need to do a fishing expedition when all of the alleged evidence is publicly available? I'm guessing he printed out the alleged posts for each defendant.
Date: June 11th, 2007 10:44 PM Author: Grizzly Curious University Juggernaut
lol. for NY, look up CPLR 308(5):
"Personal service upon a natural person shall be made by any of the following methods: . . .
(5) in such manner as the court, upon motion *without* notice, directs, if service is impracticable [using standard methods] . . . ."
All you have to do then is satisfy due process. Defendants directed their tortious activity to CT b/c they knew HI was there. Then look at burden on plaintiff and defendant. The end. HTH.
Date: June 11th, 2007 11:09 PM Author: Histrionic Dull Really Tough Guy Hunting Ground
even if it were a proper method of service, the form is incorrect. there is no statement of the relief sought.
legal issues aside, the post clearly states "we are *trying to serve you*..." and also conviently asks defendants to please forward their addresses so they can be served a complaint. if this were actually valid service no litigator would ask for an address to serve the complaint to. he would wait until the defendant responded by serving a demand for a complaint or a notice of appearance. after all, he wants the defendant to default.
Date: June 11th, 2007 10:46 PM Author: pungent goyim
THIS IS FLAME!
I anonymously (and from a publicly used computer) e-mailed his Yale e-mail. Here is my response:
"I will be out of the office until June 19. I will have intermittent access to email. If you wish to reach our office by email, you may write sadkins@davidrosenlaw.com"
There are e-mail accounts set up at davidrosenlaw.com.
Date: June 11th, 2007 10:49 PM Author: pungent goyim
I'm sure he would not have set up a legitimate e-mail account (as in @davidrosenlaw.com instead of @gmail.com) before going on vacation. That would have been silly following a totally legitimate summons posted on a message board known for this kind of elaborate prank.
Date: June 11th, 2007 11:00 PM Author: pungent goyim
Ok, listen. I sent his Yale account (which I guess re-directs to his davidrosenlaw.com account right now) an email from a completely anonymous g-mail account. this account is xoxoposter@gmail. com
Go to gmail, type in xoxoposter in the username, and autoadmit in the password, and you will see his auto-response which completely proves that this is the most elaborate and amazing flame in the history of xoxohth
Date: June 11th, 2007 11:21 PM Author: pungent goyim
It was originally to just e-mail him and hopefully get a response (I wasn't originally going to share the e-mail). I got an autoresponse from an email address that ended with @davidrosenlaw.com
Why would he have us e-mail a free gmail account over something like this when his law firm has a domain of its own that is much more legit?
Date: June 11th, 2007 11:14 PM Author: pungent goyim
You're fucking right. I just got back to my home computer and can't access it for some reason. I swear this is right, and if anyone else e-mails his Yale e-mail, this is what they will get. I really have no reason to lie.
Edit: NM, I'm sure someone logged on and changed the password.
Date: June 11th, 2007 11:24 PM Author: boyish french chef yarmulke
i would think that a judge might approve it as a method to serve considering the situation. if a poster avoids service and is later located it might be very bad for them. just my thought.
Date: June 11th, 2007 11:18 PM Author: pungent goyim
There is a space in the name, and there isn't one in the OP. This user isn't the OP, but this definitely is flame (see my posts above about the e-mail addresses)
Date: June 11th, 2007 11:31 PM Author: Nofapping coldplay fan national security agency
i actually would be shocked at the mind-blowing quality if this were flame. it would take amazing attention to detail to feign ignorance of board format and include the email tag line in the moniker, and as someone else pointed out on atl it's a sequential case number.
right now, i think i feel like the good germans when the nuremberg trials started.
Date: June 11th, 2007 11:33 PM Author: pungent goyim
I don't think this would be all that hard (it would take time, but you could do it in an afternoon). Just go through the HI threads and copy and paste monikers of anyone who said anything slightly offensive.
if you're a troll/regular, would you even think to include the taglines? would you be smart enough to make it seem legitimate (i.e., make yourself seem ignorant of board convention) by including :D twice, once with tagline and once without, as if he were two different posters?
maybe. there has been some good flame in the past. but that, combined with the quality of the thing in general, makes me think it's real.
Date: June 11th, 2007 11:38 PM Author: Nofapping coldplay fan national security agency
but any xo poster creating the flame would know that :D is one poster; whoever compiled this list thought that the email tag :D had at one point was the moniker of a different additional poster.
first, why don't we avoid calling her a whore from now on?
these are the claims:
"copyright infringement under 17 U.S.C. § 501; appropriation of another’s name or likeness; unreasonable publicity given to another’s life; publicity that places another in a false light before the public; intentional infliction of emotional distress; negligent infliction of emotional distress; and defamation."
i don't know enough about the law or the facts to know whether any of them are valid. can anyone take a stab, for instance, at the "unreasonable publicity given to another's life"?
true. although that's also just a matter of attention to detail (assuming it's easy to look up recent docket numbers from any given day, or whatever you need to do)
Date: June 11th, 2007 11:54 PM Author: Carnelian Regret Locus
Sorry to double post. But if you guys are seriously worried about this, maybe you should contact Charlie Nesson. He seemed pretty supportive of GTO - maybe he would find the case cool.
Dershowitz is another possibility, but he's more of an appellate litigator IIRC.
Date: June 11th, 2007 11:59 PM Author: Galvanic doctorate hall
Dear Sir/Madam:
I will only accept service conducted in conformance with the Hague Convention. Please contact the US embassy in Warsaw for further details, and ask them to perfect service on me at the address below:
Date: June 12th, 2007 12:42 AM Author: pungent goyim
I'll be sitting easier tomorrow after 20 people call the courthouse confirming this is or isn't flame...until then I'm going to continue shitting bricks.
Date: June 12th, 2007 1:56 AM Author: infuriating mother azn
If it is specifically aimed at that J? Then yeah, I'm saying that. (Assuming that the states LAJ reaches to the furthest extent allowed under the constitution.)
Date: June 12th, 2007 2:08 AM Author: sick institution weed whacker
i don't think that's supported by caselaw. the calder "aiming" requirement might only be satisfied by situations with calder-like facts.
sorry for the long post, but here's language from Wilson v. Belin, 20 F.3d 644 (5th cir. 1994) suggesting just that:
"Wilson first argues that the district court had specific personal jurisdiction over Blakey and Belin because each of them spoke with a Texas newspaper reporter and thus reasonably could foresee that their defamatory comments would be published in Texas and injure Wilson's reputation in Texas. Wilson argues that Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783, 789, 104 S.Ct. 1482, 1487, 79 L.Ed.2d 804 (1984) clearly stands for the proposition that whenever the effects of libel by a nonresident are felt in the forum state, specific jurisdiction exists. We believe Wilson reads Calder too broadly.FN4
FN4. We also note that First Amendment considerations regarding the defendants' abilities to inject their respective opinions into the marketplace of ideas on a topic of obvious public concern are not relevant to our wholly jurisdictional inquiry. Calder, 465 U.S. at 790-91, 104 S.Ct. at 1487-88.
In Calder, 465 U.S. at 788-90, 104 S.Ct. at 1486-87, a reporter for a Florida publication researched a story in California, wrote a story about a California resident whose career was centered in California, and provided that story to his (the defendant reporter's) employer, which had a substantial portion of its national circulation in California. The Court stated that the defendants' (the reporter's and his editor's) “actions were expressly aimed at California” because they wrote and edited “an article that they knew would have a potentially devastating impact upon [the plaintiff in California].” Id. at 789, 104 S.Ct. at 1487. In the instant case, however, neither Blakey nor Belin did any preparation for a story to defame the plaintiff. They did not even write or devise a story. They did no research regarding Wilson's theory in Texas or elsewhere. Furthermore, there is no indication that these defendants were paid for their comments, that their comments were part of a planned business venture, or that such unsolicited comments served any role in advancing their business careers. Finally, the plaintiff, Wilson, is not a Texas resident and his career is not centered there. Thus, the dispositive facts in Calder simply are absent from this case.
Wilson also places great weight on the premise that a libelous tort is deemed to have occurred where the offending material is circulated. See Keeton v. Hustler Magazine, Inc., 465 U.S. 770, 777, 104 S.Ct. 1473, 1479, 79 L.Ed.2d 790 (1984) (citing Restatement (Second) of Torts § 577A, Comment a (1977)). This principle alone, however, will not win the day for Wilson. That the tort is deemed to have occurred in whole or in part in Texas is simply not dispositive of whether jurisdiction is appropriate. See World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 288-89, 100 S.Ct. 559, 562-63, 62 L.Ed.2d 490 (1980) (holding that although tort occurred in Oklahoma, New York defendant was not subject to personal jurisdiction in Oklahoma by nonresident plaintiff).
____________________
it's just one case but it goes HARD the other way.
Date: June 12th, 2007 2:20 AM Author: Irradiated trailer park
Jesus man, do you really believe what you are saying? Do you really not know that the defendant must still have connection with the forum outside of the tort in question? How can you be this dumb?
Date: June 12th, 2007 1:31 AM Author: sick institution weed whacker
Calder? in that case, at least, the court's finding of "purposeful direction" was much better supported than it would be here. e.g., 600,000 newspapers circulated in the forum. is there caselaw trying to apply Calder to internet sites?
Date: June 12th, 2007 1:46 AM Author: infuriating mother azn
Now please go away little man.
Calder v. Jones
The allegedly libelous story concerned the California activities of a California resident. It impugned the professionalism of an entertainer whose television career was centered in California.[Footnote 9] The article was drawn from California sources,
Page 465 U.S. 783, 789
and the brunt of the harm, in terms both of respondent's emotional distress and the injury to her professional reputation, was suffered in California. In sum, California is the focal point both of the story and of the harm suffered. Jurisdiction over petitioners is therefore proper in California based on the "effects" of their Florida conduct in California. World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 297-298 (1980); Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws 37 (1971).
Date: June 12th, 2007 1:56 AM Author: sick institution weed whacker
NLA
that seems right
"Court held in Keeton v. Hustler Magazine, Inc., 465 U.S. 770 (1984), that jurisdiction would also be found even where the party injured by the libelous assertion was not a resident of the state where the lawsuit was brought."
Date: June 12th, 2007 1:42 AM Author: sick institution weed whacker
if it were that simple, Calder wouldn't have been a major case. and it wouldn't have developed other factors in its analysis other than those you're suggesting.
Date: June 12th, 2007 1:26 AM Author: infuriating mother azn
When you PURPOSEFULLY direct your activity toward another state and the effects are felt there, guess what? Minimim contacts are satisfied. O rly? Rly.
Date: June 12th, 2007 1:39 AM Author: infuriating mother azn
Defamation can be accomplished by posting on a message board. The place of the tort is (usually going to be found to be the ) place where the most damage occured which is almost always going to be the victim's state of domicile (for defamation.)
Date: June 12th, 2007 1:42 AM Author: Iridescent Free-loading Theater Stage Sweet Tailpipe
How can she prove that defamation occurred? I would like to know this. Her picture is on the internet. It's not like Xoxo followed her to the store, snapping pictures secretly.
Date: June 12th, 2007 1:51 AM Author: sick institution weed whacker
NOT LEGAL ADVICE
that her pic is on the internet will relate to different legal claims (invasion of privacy, including "appropriation of another’s name or likeness; unreasonable publicity given to another’s life; publicity that places another in a false light before the public" as in the OP)
we're just talking about straight up defamation. all that requires is: (1) defamatory language (not including opinion, unless it is based on specific facts), (2) of or conerning the plaintiff, (3) publication of language by defendant to 3rd person, and (4) damage to plaintiff's reputation. note that under (4), general damages are presumed in a libel action, so she doesn't have to make out specific damages.
if i had to guess, all of these will probably bet met by at least some posts on here.
there are defenses: (1) consent and (2) truth would be the only ones possibly relevant here.
NOT LEGAL ADVICE
this is NOT the same issue as whether connecticut has personal jurisdiction over the defendants.
there are also the issues surrounding intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Date: June 12th, 2007 1:48 AM Author: infuriating mother azn
Calder v Jones
The allegedly libelous story concerned the California activities of a California resident. It impugned the professionalism of an entertainer whose television career was centered in California.[Footnote 9] The article was drawn from California sources,
Page 465 U.S. 783, 789
and the brunt of the harm, in terms both of respondent's emotional distress and the injury to her professional reputation, was suffered in California. In sum, California is the focal point both of the story and of the harm suffered. Jurisdiction over petitioners is therefore proper in California based on the "effects" of their Florida conduct in California. World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 297-298 (1980); Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws 37 (1971).
Date: June 12th, 2007 1:55 AM Author: Galvanic doctorate hall
"[P} brought suit in California Superior Court, claiming that she had been libeled in an article written and edited by petitioners in Florida and published in the National Enquirer, a national magazine having its largest circulation in California."
The issue is minimum contacts, dude. Sorry. The [D] Enquirer had them in CA in Calder by selling 1 million copies/week there; xoxo posters don't have them in CT.
Date: June 12th, 2007 2:01 AM Author: infuriating mother azn
Oooo so I guess you win since you said that you win.
Where does the opinion state the minimum number of copies needed to meet the threshhold? It doesn't. You are taking a detail from the facts and readining into the rule. BAD law student. NAUGHTY NAUGHTY!
Date: June 12th, 2007 1:52 AM Author: infuriating mother azn
This COULD be valid service because if P can find no other feasible way to serve D, the court can approve some other method at its discretion. If publishing in a newspaper is ok, I don't see a due process violation in posting the notice where the D's are KNOWN to visit.
Of course, in practice the P would subpoena for their IP addresses and (if they could get them) would then subpoena their ISP's for their names and addresses, but it is conceivable that this could be valid service if the IP addresses could not be obtained.
Date: June 12th, 2007 2:08 AM Author: infuriating mother azn
No. The Supreme Court determines whether it is sufficient.
The judge can make up a way for the party to serve on the other if no practical means can be found, provided that the method of service ordered by the court isn't in violation of due process.
Date: June 12th, 2007 2:40 AM Author: Trip Black Roast Beef Affirmative Action
That was in response to this guy asking if anyone had heard of International Shoe. If you're going to be an arrogant prick like, at least be right about what you're saying. This guy isn't. There are countless problems with this "lawsuit," but a failure to meet the minimum contact requirements as stated in International Shoe will not be the thing that defeats personal jurisdiction in any such lawsuit alleging defamation.
Date: June 12th, 2007 1:23 AM Author: hairraiser lay
First the issue is improper service. We recently covered this in barbri, how is no one here to mention it? This is NOT proper service, this is not a form of service a judge can even rule acceptable and there is no jurisdiction without proper service.
What did our barbri prof say? If they send you improper service and ask you to accept, DO NOT DO IT, DO NOT HELP THE OPPOSING PARTIES' LAWYERS
oh, and this is flame. I am just testing my barbri skillz.
Date: June 12th, 2007 1:25 AM Author: High-end set indirect expression
sadly, an LSD poster accomplished what nearly 400 posts here couldn't:
its either a flame or the guy has a bad lawyer
1. the service process is invalid under frcp 4.
2. this is a state tort action filed in a federal court. since defendants addresses are unknown, if even one ends up being from connecticut, diversity is destroyed. in addition, the amount demanded must be on the complaint, and must be over $75000
3. out-of-state defendants get 30 days to file an answer, not 20, so the complaint is invalid on its face.
4. the proper way to pursue this suit would be to sue xoxo (or, if not incorporated, the owner) directly. serve discovery papers to obtain all of those user's ip addresses and physical addresses for service. use frcp joinder rule (17 i think) to add only those defendants who dont destroy diversity.
(and the "this is not legal advice" joke was played out some time ago.)
Date: June 12th, 2007 1:34 AM Author: Carnelian Regret Locus
I don't know about the rest of it, but can't he just join the state law claims to his federal claim and assert pendant jurisdiction? my civ pro is shakey, but I think you can bring some state claims in fed court as long as you have one federal question claim.
Date: June 12th, 2007 8:42 AM Author: Glassy Godawful Incel National
On 1 and 3, I'm not so sure the details of this service, but isn't this just a demand for an address in order to summons them properly? Then, after he can't get information from some of them, he goes to the court, shows hardship, and gets permission to have public notice of the complaint and demand for an answer?
On 2, you're flatly wrong. He's got a federal question in there, so the state claims are within federal jurisdiction even absent diversity through pendant claims.
On 4, those cases have consistently failed under federal laws protecting domain hosts or Web hosts from liability for the actions of individuals committed on the site.
Date: June 12th, 2007 1:25 AM Author: impertinent wine space
He's trying to get people to expedite service. But service isn't executed until a copy of the complaint is served to the defendants. That hasn't happened here.
Date: June 12th, 2007 1:29 AM Author: Cracking vengeful church dragon
MY NEW STANCE: This is complete flame. Until I hear otherwise I will not respond to anything. I will not let it bother me. There is no fucking way this can happen over a message board.
Date: June 12th, 2007 1:35 AM Author: hairraiser lay
you shouldn't respond either way. It is improper service. odds are they will never get proper service, as they cannot get the identity of the posters and serve you properly, ie in person or by certified mail to your address or place of work.
And by responding to improper service, you can waive your right to claim improper service later, so for christ's sake, don't do anything.
Date: June 12th, 2007 1:37 AM Author: Iridescent Free-loading Theater Stage Sweet Tailpipe
The only way ISP's are giving out select IP's is when they are being slapped with multi-million dollar lawsuits from the mighty, deep-pocketed RIAA. Even this process takes years and years.
David Rosen cannot compel these ISPs into forking over this client info. Can you imagine the precedent that would set? The internet would crumble before our eyes.
Date: June 12th, 2007 1:42 AM Author: hairraiser lay
It's not legal advice, it's anonymous internet discussion. You are a dumbass and the same poster as the op. In fact, your existence is a strong factor in favor of the flame interpretation. Doubtful that a real attorney who did not post on xo would think of making up a second moniker to back up his post.
Date: June 12th, 2007 1:36 AM Author: sick institution weed whacker
i'm beginning to think this is flame too. or at least a first attempt at service with very shaky legal foundation.
if it's confirmed as real tomorrow, though, what will you do? if i were in your shoes i'd contact the alcu asap. maybe a prof at your school who works in the field (or nesson at hls?). definitely wouldn't email the guy with my name and address.
that's personal advice not legal advice - obviously
Date: June 12th, 2007 8:32 AM Author: Cracking vengeful church dragon
I can see it now. ACLU attorney valiantley defending xoxoers rights to act like children. Sits down, hears "Hey, you're a fucking faggot. Go lick tubgirl you hippy son of a bitch" from his client...
Date: June 12th, 2007 2:39 AM Author: sick institution weed whacker
what if, in about 7 hours, this terms out to be real - then what?
i will look back on tonight with nostalgia. see, usually i'm one to believe the worst from the very beginning. i never cling to false hope. here the worst outcome would be that this event, after all the disasters xoxo has survived, will actually be the one to kill the board and ruins the reputations and careers of many posters. objectively speaking, i think there's a good chance of that.
but right now i'm still clinging to the hope that it's brilliant, masterful flame. these are strange feelings for me, a calmness and optimism i've had only brushes with in the past, and i will hold on to them for as long as i can.
Date: June 12th, 2007 3:44 AM Author: High-end set indirect expression
Dispensing with the dumb, unfunny, and unnecessary "this is not legal advice" trope: Obvioulsy no one should ever respond to this kind of solicitation. That's legal advice.
Date: June 12th, 2007 7:37 AM Author: aromatic plum range love of her life
Though I am not giving legal advice, part of me thinks this is flame because they've selected negligent infliction of emotional distress as a cause of action, and because a horse walks into a bar is being listed as a defendant. At least as I understand NIED, the posters' actions couldn't fit this cause of action. Also, AHWIAB says he didn't say anything. If that's actually true, it makes it sound like said flamer just slipped up in picking him. Just my two cents.
Date: June 12th, 2007 7:41 AM Author: Insecure yellow mood
lawyers throw easily dismissed claims in all the time.
i googled and i think i found what ahwiab said. the lawyer probably knows that claim is going to fail, but this is what you do as a lawyer. however, if that's really what the claim against ahwiab is based on (a comment about a sundae), then it's borderline Rule 11 sanctionable.
edit: actually, if many of these claims are based on the thread I'm looking at, then I'd say Rule 11 sanctions are likely.
Date: June 12th, 2007 5:28 PM Author: Concupiscible idiotic hairy legs meetinghouse
How has noone yet posted that the Wall Street Journal is confirming this thing?
From their law blog:
"The complaint asks for judgment against the defendants for unspecified damages as well as punitive damages in the amount of $245,400. Besides Ciolli, named defendants include individuals with pseudonyms such as “Pauliewalnuts” and “The Ayatollah of Rock-n-Rollah.”
“It’s bringing the right to protect yourself against offensive words and images into the 21st century,” said David N. Rosen, a New Haven, Conn.-based attorney for the students and a senior research scholar in law at Yale Law to the Law Blog in an interview. “This is the scummiest kind of sexually offensive tripe,” he said of the postings about the women on AutoAdmit. Rosen is joined by Mark A. Lemley, of counsel at San Francisco litigation boutique Keker & Van Nest and a professor at Stanford Law School who teaches computer and internet law. They are taking the case pro bono. Here [link to this thread], they have posted a notification on the lawsuit on AutoAdmit."
Date: June 12th, 2007 6:19 PM Author: bateful house pistol
rofl
way too late. they got hard copies of every thread they wanted to preserve way before this suit became public.
if they were smart they probably wrote letters to ciolli and any other relevant person expressly instructing them not to destroy evidence. i would expect some sort of a motion to that effect if they cant reach a private agreement.
Date: June 12th, 2007 7:07 PM Author: arousing dark station
they picked ahwiab because he said he'd like to have sex with doe #2, and they picked moredoughhi because he claimed that doe #1 didn't get a job due to her purported 159 lsat. bullshit if you ask me.
Date: June 12th, 2007 8:04 PM Author: comical stag film gunner
What are you talking about? Don't you realize that these suits are on the very fringe of the law to begin with? The plaintiffs are suing defendants for intentional infliction of emotional distress for posting on a message board that they'd like to have sex with the plaintiffs. If this were a MBE question, I would immediately look for an answer that said non-actionable or First-Amendment-protected. I am willing to bet that in the entire history of intentional infliction of emotional distress, there has never been a case where plaintiffs have won alleging anything close to this.
"The plaintiffs are attempting to serve you with a complaint and summons in a civil action. The text of the summons appears below. So that we may deliver a copy of the summons and complaint to you, please provide your complete contact information to the following email address: drosenlaw@gmail.com. "