|
|
 Up |
|
|
  |
Author: Ray Gordon, creator of the pivotRay Gordon, creator of the pivot Date: Apr 19, 2007 23:57
>> Access to the courts is a constitutional liberty.
>>
>> --
>> Ray Gordon, Author
>
> Yes, access to the courts is a Constitutionally guranteed right.
> However, the courts also have the affirmative right to bar someone
> from filing frivolous and repetetive actions, not to mention using the
> courts for vindictive purposes, as any paralegal would know.
Subjectivity and censorship don't mix. Each new case still has to be
evaluated by a court, lest anyone overplay their hand and give someone too
strong a case.
Losing a case doesn't make the case frivolous. In my Google case, for
example, Google has chosen to sidestep the basic fair-use question and
instead argued against standing. There's no way in the world a court would
not let me bring a future lawsuit where it found I did have standing.
|
| Show full article (1.02Kb) |
|
| | 5 Comments |
|
|
Author: BornnaturalBornnatural Date: Apr 20, 2007 07:41
> On 20-Apr-2007, "Ray Gordon, AKA WhizardRay, creator of the \"pivot\""
> cybersheet.com> wrote:
>>>> Yes, access to the courts is a Constitutionally guaranteed right.
>>> However, the courts also have the affirmative right to bar someone
>>> from filing frivolous and repetitive actions, not to mention using the
>>> courts for vindictive purposes, as any paralegal would know.
>>
>> Subjectivity and censorship don't mix. Each new case still has to be
>> evaluated by a court, lest anyone overplay their hand and give someone
>> too
>> strong a case.
>
> Ray I know you can't stand the idea, but the Courts do have the right to
> make rules and procedures to save the Court valuable time, and to preserve
> the rights of all. In a period of 5 years or more, you have shown the
> Court
> that you cannot write a coherent pleading and conform to the rule set ...
|
| Show full article (4.64Kb) |
|
| | no comments |
|
|
Date: Apr 20, 2007 08:17
>What the Court is doing, is deciding if you should be allowed to continue
>your attacks on innocent people (innocent until proven guilty, remember?)
>without leveling the playing field.
When Parker tried to sue 200 'John Does' in his "..inexcusable failure..",
he made the mistake of, on Usenet, in PUBLIC, as stating that *I* (JJTj)
was "..John Doe #17..". I loved it, I called the court, and was connected
to the Judge's office. I gave them all my contact info, then mailed them a
copy of grp-ie's post, stating me as JD#17. I then offered to send them
more data, and the reply was "..if you wish..". I did, not the GIG's of data
I have, but just those aimed at *ME*. I called once again to confirm things.
Parker LOST that suit because he was told, he is an "..inexcusable failure.."
at serving papers to those HE KNEW HOW TO CONTACT. The data I sent
PROVED he KNOWS how to contact *ME*. He didn't bother to even try.
Do the math, boyz n girlz. *I* beat him in court. I know I was not
alone, because grp-ie failed (..inexcusably..) to serve the other 199
JD's. He never even TRIED to contact them with service. NO ONE..
Parker is such a idiot, he cannot see his own failures, maybe he NEEDS
to FAIL, because if he MAKES AN EFFORT, he has to back up his mouth.
..and we ALL know he can't do that...
|
| Show full article (3.65Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
|
Author: mstrhypnomstrhypno Date: Apr 22, 2007 18:23
On Apr 20, 12:57 am, "Ray Gordon, creator of the \"pivot\""
cybersheet.com> wrote:>>> Access to the courts is a constitutional liberty.
>
>>> --
>>> Ray Gordon, Author
>
>> Yes, access to the courts is a Constitutionally guranteed right.
>> However, the courts also have the affirmative right to bar someone
>> from filing frivolous and repetetive actions, not to mention using the
>> courts for vindictive purposes, as any paralegal would know.
>
> Subjectivity and censorship don't mix. Each new case still has to be
> evaluated by a court, lest anyone overplay their hand and give someone too
> strong a case.
>
> Losing a case doesn't make the case frivolous. In my Google case, for
> example, Google has chosen to sidestep the basic fair-use question and
> instead argued against standing. There's no way in the world a court would
> not let me bring a future lawsuit where it found I did have standing. ...
|
| Show full article (1.99Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
