On Aug 7, 10:41Â am, Paul Robinson
wrote:> On Aug 6, 2:04 pm, Vance
gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I am getting a little tired of waiting for Gordon to sue me, or
>> someone else, which doesn't involve a lot of corporate BS. Â The issue
>> is one of libel per quod,
>
> Hmm, that's a new one on me. Â I was - without realizing it - fully
> aware of "libel per se" which is when you say something which is out-
> and-out false. Â Libel per quod is when someone says something where
> circumstances beyond the statement are necessary to make the statement
> libelous.
>
> I think, when I post my regular statement pointing out how Gordon Roy
> Parker is a sociopath, that Gordo is trying to claim that my statement
> is libel per quod rather than libel per se, because he claims it
> damages his reputation (or would claim it, if he could prove it was
> false.)
>
>> Damn, Gordon! Â I can't sue you because nobody in their right mind
>> would pay attention to what you say. Â You go Girl!
>
> And it also applies to my comments. Â Notwithstanding the fact that
> when I call Gordo a sociopath, I am in fact speaking the truth, in
> order for him to sue me he'd have to be able to prove that I have
> damaged his reputation, which is impossible in his case, not because
> people wouldn't believe me - In fact, I think I have a very high
> standing on this newsgroup because people have seen how *I* act and
> what I say over many years - but because his own actions to defame
> himself have lowered his reputation to zero anyway. If you have no
> reputation to begin with, you can't be defamed.
Gordon has several problems with the concept of libel. That's wrong,
he has a problem with the concept of libel, period.
As an example, he rarely uses an actual name when he thinks that he
may have a libel problem with his posts, Unfortunately for Gordon,
that won't work when there is little to no ambiguity to a reasonable
person who the referant is. He actually believes that not
specifically naming someone will prevent the occurrence of libel in
fact. Wrong, as usual.
The key to shutting Gordon up isn't prefiling restrictions, or
bankrupting him. There are two key components to effective dealing
with him.
1. Go after Gordon directly as a person and show a court how his
behavior is a costly waste to the courts, the people as taxpayers and
that he acts through the courts to harass and cause harm and that he
also acts offline in a similar malicious manner. That also needs to
be established not only as a current pattern, or one of recent
history, but that it is a stable and chronic behavior that he is
incapable curtailing on his own. Plenty of evidence for that.
2. That it's the internet and his access to it that enables him, both
pyschologically and as a modality, to behave in a manner that is not
only harmful to others, but that is intentionally malicious in
nature. Again, no lack of evidence for that.
Once that is established, there are plenty of relevant case decisions
where the courts have acted to prevent a persons probable future
behavior. If Gordon violated a court injunction which was put in
place because of his behavior, some of which is already criminal in
nature, then he would probably face incarceration at some point,
though I would expect (and support) a court to try an alternative like
madated treatment first. Gordon is terrified of going to jail. He,
like most people, threatens what he is afraid of.
Having Gordon sue is the most attractive scenario since the simple act
of his suing provides the basis for a counter suit of this type
because it would be an exemplar of his behavior. Strategically, that
would leave Gordon without any redress to the courts to support him in
any way (he started the fight, as a court would point out to him) and
he would be left having to defend himself pro se, unless he could find
a lawyer to take on his defense. I don't see that happening and his
behavior in defending himself under that kind of pressure would most
likely degenerate into the worst of what he typically does. Now,
that's what I call evidence!
Anyway, that would work for me. As you pointed out, he hasn't yet
faced anyone who has gone directly after him. People have simply
dealt with him to get him out of their lives. Someone who wants to
get him out of as many lives as possible, now and in the future, is a
totally different animal than he has faced yet. He relies on everyone
more or less behaving within social and, in the case of law, norms of
practice as it applies to where a case will go. Well, he's not normal
and there is no reason, in fact there are a lot of reasons, not to
deal with him according to the norm.
Vance
