From http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/062246np.pdf
3/2/2007

3/2/07 NOT PRECEDENTIAL PER CURIAM OPINION (McKee, Ambro, and
Stapleton, Circuit Judges), filed. *Total Pages: 5. (clc)
[06-2246 06-4166]

3/2/07 JUDGMENT affirmed. Costs taxed against the Appellant,
filed. (clc) [06-2246 06-4166]

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
NOS. 06-2246 & 06-4166 (Consolidated)
________________
GORDON ROY PARKER, doing business as SNODGRASS
PUBLISHING GROUP also known as RAY GORDON
v.
LEARN THE SKILLS CORP.; FORMHANDLE@FASTSEDUCTION.COM;
THOM E. GEIGER; PAUL ROSS also known as ROSS JEFFRIES
also known as EROSLA77@AOL.COM; TRUSTEES OF
UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA; MATTHEW S. WOLF, ESQ.
Gordon Roy Parker,
Appellant
____________________________________
On Appeal From the United States District Court
For the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civ. No. 05-cv-02752)
Chief District Judge: Honorable Harvey Bartle III
_______________________________________
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
February 26, 2007
BEFORE: McKEE, AMBRO and STAPLETON, CIRCUIT JUDGES
(Filed March 2, 2007)
_______________________
OPINION
_______________________
2
PER CURIAM
Gordon Roy Parker, acting pro se, appeals an order of the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
dismissing his complaint for failing
to state a claim upon which relief can be granted against two
defendants and for lack of personal jurisdiction over the remaining
defendants. In a separately filed appeal, he seeks review of the
District Court's denial of his motion for reconsideration and motion
to vacate judgment. These appeals have been consolidated for all
purposes.
Parker's complaint alleges that defendants belong to a criminal
enterprise designed to control the market for online advice about how
to seduce women. As described more fully in the District Court's
opinion and in painstaking detail in Parker's amended complaint,
defendants allegedly diverted traffic from a public online "USENET"
group to a private online discussion forum that they controlled,
harassed plaintiff and attempted to undermine his reputation, and
hindered his attempts to defend himself against these attacks. Parker
alleges that these actions violated, inter alia, the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"), federal antitrust
statutes, and state common law prohibitions on civil conspiracy, abuse
of process, and fraudulent misrepresentation.

We exercise jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We undertake
plenary review of the District Court's dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6),
accepting as true all factual allegations in the complaint and viewing
them in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. See AT&T
Corp. v. JMC Telecom, LLC, 470 F.3d 525, 529 (3d Cir. 3 2006). Our
review of the District Court's rulings on personal jurisdiction is
likewise plenary, except to the extent that they involved factual
findings, which are reviewed for clear error. See Pennzoil Prods. Co.
v. Colelli & Assocs., Inc. 149 F.3d 197, 200 (3d Cir. 1998). We review
the District Court's denial of reconsideration for abuse of
discretion.
See Alston v. Parker, 363 F.3d 229, 233 (3d Cir. 2004).

The amended complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted against defendant Matthew Wolf. The RICO, civil conspiracy,
and abuse of process claims against him all rely on allegations that
Wolf improperly moved to dismiss an earlier complaint filed in the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania against many of the defendants
involved in this case. Civ. No. 03-cv-06936. We agree with the
District Court's conclusion that the challenged behavior was properly
within the scope of Wolf's representation of his clients, and that it
fails to support either the federal statutory or state law tort claims
against him. See Gen. Refractories Co. v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co., 337
F.3d 297 (3d Cir. 2003).
The District Court also properly dismissed the claims that the
Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania violated RICO and engaged
in a civil conspiracy and fraudulent misrepresentation. These claims
arise from the University's alleged refusal to disclose the identity
of a student who Parker claims was involved in the plots against
plaintiff. We essentially agree with the reasoning of the District
Court. The conspiracy claim fails because the only alleged
participants are the University and one of its employees, and absent
narrow exceptions not present here, agents of an entity cannot
conspire with their employer. See Gen. Refractories Co., 337 F.3d at
313-14. Even if the fraudulent misrepresentation claim survived
scrutiny under Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b), the complaint fails to allege all
the elements of the claim, notably justifiable reliance. See, Porreco
v. Porreco, 811 A.2d 566, 570-71 (Pa. 2002). As the District Court
described, Parker's RICO claim against the University is also fatally
flawed.
The District Court lacked personal jurisdiction over the remaining
defendants. None of these defendants resides in Pennsylvania or has a
"continuous and substantial" connection to the state, and none has
sufficient minimum contacts with Pennsylvania to "reasonably
anticipate[] being haled into court there." Pennzoil, 149 F.3d at
200-201 (citations omitted). As explained by the District Court, the
generalized allegations of defendants' contact with Pennsylvania
contained in Parker's amended complaint and pleadings are insufficient
to meet his burden of proof on the jurisdictional issue. See Time
Share Vacation Club v. Atlantic Resorts, Ltd., 735 F.2d 61, 66-67 (3d
Cir. 1984). Nor are they sufficient to make out a prima facie case
that could justify jurisdictional discovery. See Mass. Sch. of Law at
Andover, Inc. v. Am. Bar Ass'n, 107 F.3d 1026, 1042 (3d Cir. 1997).
Finally, we find no abuse of discretion in the District Court's denial
of Parker's motions for reconsideration and to vacate, which
identified neither errors in the
District Court's order nor any other basis to justify revisiting that
order. Accordingly, we will affirm the order of the District Court.

Thom E. Geiger, Domain Name Owner
ChewOnThis.Org
(the Official GRP NewsLoon tracking website)
Ray-Gordon.com
Ray-Gordon.net
Newsloon.com

Don't buy anything from any business trying to use SLAPP lawsuits to
stop criticism of the company, owners, officers or products.

Guido Gump Parker blames a baseball bat death threat on his own mother, Penny "Skull Crusher" Parker: