>What did Parker know before he filed his first complaint?
>What have I posted in this newsgroup that "Speeding" read and knew
>before he started on this rant?
>
>Both are in this message, from the "Speeding" nym, dated Thu, 11 Jan
>2007 15:09:06 GMT, From: speeding biz.org>
>

>>>Xref: sn-us alt.seduction.fast:297136
>>>Path: sn-us!sn-feed-sjc-02!sn-xt-sjc-11!sn-xt-sjc-08!sn-xt-sjc-14!supernews.com!newsfeed.news2me.com!cycny01.gnilink.net!hwmnpeer01.lga!news.highwinds-media.com!hw-filter.lga!newsfe18.lga.POSTED!53ab2750!not-for-mail
>>>Newsgroups: alt.seduction.fast
>>>Subject: Re: Has anyone considered "helping" this Ray guy?
>>>From: speeding biz.org>
>>>References: <1168118727.963299.201770@q40g2000cwq.googlegroups.com> <45a0216b$0$332$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl> <1168126391.829971.155130@42g2000cwt.googlegroups.com> nyc.NOSPAM.rr.com> <1168211442.270616.120780@s34g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> nyc.NOSPAM.rr.com> 4ax.com> 4ax.com>
>>>Message-ID:
>>>User-Agent: Xnews/5.04.25
>>>Lines: 142
>>>Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 15:09:06 GMT
>>>NNTP-Posting-Host: 68.97.186.174
>>>X-Complaints-To: admin@cox.net
>>>X-Trace: newsfe18.lga 1168528146 68.97.186.174 (Thu, 11 Jan 2007 08:09:06 MST)
>>>NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 08:09:06 MST
>>>Organization: Cox
>>>
>>>Thom E. Geiger Gmail.com> wrote in
>>>news:sf2bq2134l4edk2efhaulh4tqacjjs61p7@4ax.com:
>>>

>>>> On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 00:25:48 GMT, speeding biz.org> wrote:
>>>>

>>>>>I don't accept or deny it. I have no evidence for it. All I have are
>>>>>his words, in a legal filing, to give evidence of its truth. Dio I
>>>>>accept his word in a legal document as truth? Not really, but it is
>>>>>stronger than any evidence presented against it.

>>>>
>>>> There is no credibility to anything he puts on paper, especially in a
>>>> court document, as he has been proven to have lied on numerous
>>>> occasions under penalty of perjury to both the district and appeals
>>>> courts.

>>>
>>>This true. Then again, I can't say it's not true for quite a few posters
>>>here. But, here's the problem with someone that's so prolific a liar...
>>>and so quick to liar about a lie... it's hard to know when they are
>>>telling the truth... because they reach a point where even the truth
>>>sounds suspcious. That's why I don't accept or refute it... not until I
>>>have evidence.
>>>

>>>> He first claimed I was the author of the RayFAQ, and that he could
>>>> prove it by a subpoena of Comcast Cable. When I gave the court proof
>>>> Comcast has never had a service presence in my city (a letter from the
>>>> mayor to the court), where I have been a customer of the only cable
>>>> company here for sixteen years, he changed his argument to I was
>>>> hiding the identity of the real author. He claims I can control a web
>>>> site because my domain name DNS settings let other people use the
>>>> name; i.e., he's lying about that.

>>>
>>>Would you expect something that made more sense? As for the deal about
>>>the DNS settings... I don't know, because I'm not sure how he'd be able
>>>to present evidence that you held an open domain. And even if you did,
>>>then he'd have to prove you were intentionally doing so to harm him...
>>>sort of like proving that having a file sharing server makes the owner
>>>liable for data shared on it.
>>>
>>>Except Ray doesn't have... I doubt anyways... as big a legal team and
>>>political clout as the RIAA music police.
>>>

>>>> When I informed the court he admitted having the ISP and IP number of
>>>> the real author back in 2002, with a message where he swore he was
>>>> going to subpoena the poster's identity from the ISP- who happened to
>>>> be...guess who?....Comcast Cable, he whined it wasn't fair to let me
>>>> use postings that far back in time in my defense and/or to prove he's
>>>> lying.

>>>
>>>He can whine all he wants. It's the judge that makes the call. And I'd be
>>>willing to guess it was... Motion denied.
>>>

>>>>

>>>>>]Lines: 25
>>>>>]X-Admin: n...@aol.com
>>>>>]From: amoderncave...@aol.com (A Modern Caveman)
>>>>>]Newsgroups: alt.seduction.fast
>>>>>]Date: 06 Jun 2002 06:40:25 GMT
>>>>>]References: twister.columbus.rr.com>
>>>>>]Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
>>>>>]Subject: Re: Ray admits to BARRATRY
>>>>>]Message-ID: <20020606024025.16313.00000...@mb-ma.aol.com>
>>>>>]
>>>>>]>> Since COMCAST is the posting host here, subpeonaing the identity
>>>>>]>> of the poster is child's play. Just a hop, skip, and a jump from
>>>>>]>> where I live, with no jurisdictional problems whatsoever.
>>>>>]>
>>>>>]> Too bad you need a search warrant for that. For the warrant, you
>>>>>]> need the cops and the DA to get one from court. While you have
>>>>>]> been waiting several years for that, they most likely have been
>>>>>]> eating doughnuts and laughing at you.
>>>>>]
>>>>>] Wrong again. You can subpoena someone's identity in a civil case.
>>>>>]
>>>>>] I have a pile of blank subpoenas already signed by the clerk of
>>>>>] the Federal court. I could do it as part of this action (since
>>>>>] people are claiming to be in touch with opposing counsel) or as
>>>>>] part of a seperate libel action.
>>>>>]
>>>>>] The nature of the post is such that it's doubtful that any court
>>>>>] would protect the identity of the poster.
>>>>>]
>>>>>] I also don't have to travel very far to subpoena Comcast at all.
>>>>>]
>>>>>] It'll be interesting to see who this is, and it won't be too long
>>>>>] before I do.

>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Once the court saw this proof, that he had evidence exonerating me of
>>>> his false claims and allegations, he now claims he couldn't have
>>>> subpoenaed the identity because of evidentiary spoilage.

>>>
>>>Again, what matters is what the judge decided.
>>>

>>>> So, not only did he have evidence proving I wasn't the author,
>>>> evidence with the leads he could have used to get the identity of the
>>>> real author (this is called "due diligence", an absolute requirement
>>>> under federal law), he lied about having it, then complained that it
>>>> was too old for him to use.

>>>
>>>Actually, based on this alone, I don't see where he has any evidence at
>>>all. Now if there's more to this, then perhaps he does. But this alone
>>>isn't evidence. As I keep trying to tell Gordon, as well as his
>>>followers... evidence gets presented in court. If you've got it, use if.
>>>But blathering on about "I'm gonna do it. Really. I am. Honest. I will."
>>>is bullshit. Getting the evidence into a trial... that's gold. Til then,
>>>it's all just a load of crap.
>>>

>>>> Between his lies about domain names and his lies about having this
>>>> evidence, to two federal courts through three kooksoots and one appeal
>>>> and all under so-called penalty of perjury, no- not a single thing he
>>>> puts into a court document can be believed. So how can anything he
>>>> puts into a usenet message be believed? He's a liar, plain and simple.
>>>> That's the proof he's lied at LEAST twice in federal court papers.
>>>> He's lied on paper at least two more different times in the course of
>>>> these kooksoots, so where is the proof he's ever told the truth about
>>>> a claim in the same soots?

>>>
>>>Can you prove they are lies? You have court papers filed and evidence
>>>from the rulings saying that Ray lied in a Federally sworn statement? You
>>>are SAYING they are lies. But, I ask, just as I ask him... what did the
>>>judge say? Show me the judge ruled that Ray lied... and he did. Until
>>>then it's just an accusation. He said - she said.
>>>
>>>Or, to answer your question with a question... where is the proof he lied
>>>about a claim in the same soots?
>>>

>>>> Like I said, a LYING narcissistic, sociopathic psychopath, a
>>>> female-hating homosexual with paedophilic tendencies. It's all there
>>>> in the archives for anyone willing to do their own homework.

>>>
>>>I understadn that's your opinion. You're welcome to it. I'm not taing
>>>issue with it, so please don't get me wrong. I'm simply saying that he
>>>says . You say . But when it comes down to the brass
>>>tacks... neither of you has won anything or proven anything in court.
>>>It's a lot of talk and no action. Well... technically, Ray's taken
>>>action, but he can't get in the door with his claims.
>>>
>>>
>>>--
>>>You could be a Cylon and not even know it...

>
>What is in the message quoted above?
>It proves Parker had information he was bound by Rules of Civil
>Procedure to use before he filed suit to try and get the same
>information.
>
>FRCP Rule 11-
>
>Rule 11. Signing of Pleadings, Motions, and Other Papers;
>Representations to Court; Sanctions
>
>(b) Representations to Court.
>By presenting to the court (whether by signing, filing, submitting, or
>later advocating) a pleading, written motion, or other paper, an
>attorney or unrepresented party is certifying that to the best of the
>person's knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry
>reasonable under the circumstances,--
>
>(1) it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to
>harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost
>of litigation;
>
>(3) the allegations and other factual contentions have evidentiary
>support or, if specifically so identified, are likely to have
>evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further
>investigation or discovery;
>
>Parker skips over the part in (b) that says "unrepresented party is
>certifying that to the best of the person's knowledge, information,
>and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the
>circumstances,--"
>
>Motions to dismiss and sanctions are granted, every day, because
>people try to get humorous with the reasonable investigation part.
>
>That is the due diligence that MTDs are based on. It is required by
>Rule 11 BEFORE filing a complaint. By filing a complaint, as Rule 11
>states, a pro se is "certifying that to the best of the person's
>knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry
>reasonable...the allegations and other factual contentions have
>evidentiary support".
>
>Parker not only publicly admitted having information that exonerated
>me BEFORE he filed his first complaint, but he also publicly stated he
>intended to investigate that information BEFORE he filed the first
>complaint and lied and didn't do it, then he lied to the courts about
>having any evidence that exonerated me.
>
>Parker has stated repeatedly he moves directly to the Rule 11 (3) part
>that mentions " likely to have evidentiary support after a reasonable
>opportunity for further investigation or discovery".
>
>It's amazing how "Speeding" and Parker share a common belief that all
>of mankind, other than themselves, are ignorant and stupid. Federal
>judges, defendants, readers in usenet newsgroups.
>
>I can understand how Parker can get somewhat of such an idea, seeing
>the number of people who have fallen for his legal threats, his
>monumental bullshit claims about his knowledge and experience about
>sports betting, gymnastics, chess, seduction, and so on.
>Add to that the number of people who have fallen for his [illegal]
>pretexting and impersonations of other people, attorneys, legal
>representatives, law enforcement, and so on, and Paker must think he
>can fool or talk anybody into anything.
>
>So now, Parker's one hope is in using his psychic and hypnotic powers
>to convince a federal judge he should have been allowed discovery, to
>get information he already had before he filed suit, information he
>knew would exonerate me then.
>To convince that judge to ignore the fact he had the information,
>didn't use it as the law requires because he KNEW it would exonerate
>me, ignore the fact he lied to the court under penalty of perjury, and
>to not sanction him for that illegal behavior.
>
>Even after acknowledging "he" knew Parker had the information in 2002
>[Parker filed suit in 2003], "Speeding" continued on for two months
>about the whole issue of what I knew, Parker knew, what was admitted
>to the courts and what "Speeding" himself knew.
>
>Now, what is "Speeding's" motivation for lying for the last two months
>about what I posted about information Parker had?
>
>Why would "Speeding" lie about reading and replying to the messsage
>quoted here?
>
>More of the all too similar coincidences and shared behavior between
>the "Speeding" nym and Gordon Roy Parker.
>
>Both lie in every message
>Neither can quote accurately
>Both reword message content
>Both practice the same lame and ineffective disingenuousness
>Both deflect when proven wrong
>Both misdirect when losing an argument
>Neither one can fake any positive human emotions
>Both have the same lack of basic understanding of seduction in general
>Both have the same warped and skewed opinion of women
>Both ignore and refuse to address the horrible things Parker has
>admitted to, even when it is relevant to the discussion at hand
>
>Have I missed anything?
>I think the shared dishonesty, the lies and the rewording is the big
>giveaway.
>
>Why would any nym or nick want to share psychological and behavioral
>traits with someone like Gordon Roy Parker?
>Parker's public reputation will never get past his child death
>obsession, his history with people facing tragedy and crisis, his
>infamous 9/11 rants and spews, or his litany of INFINITY posts to
>usenet.
>Why would anybody, under any name, want to share in that public
>identity? The lies, the threats, the child obsession, the 9/11 and
>INFINITY? Can someone answer that one?
>
>Z and Odious are right, "Speeding" has been proven to be nothing but a
>liar and Parker clone, even if only through "his" nick. "He" is a
>waste of time and a diversion, a straw puppet used by Parker to spew
>FUD and bullshit into the air like a smoke grenade.
>
>"Speeding's" intrinsic worth, the nick itself, is toast. The
>credibility, if there ever was any, is gone, all shot to hell.
>I don't know or care what use the "Speeding" nick is put to in the
>future, but if it requires credibilty or trust, it ain't gonna happen.

>The "baseball bat" remark was made by my mom in response to a gymnastics
>groupie who harassed half of the national team, with help from several chat
>hosts and gymnastics coaches and hackers.