> 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
> forth
> by Congress for the operation of the Court System. They are not
> interfering
> with your right to petition for a redress of grievances by requiring that
> you have someone that knows the rules better than you do, to sign off on
> your work before it's actually filed with the Court. When you were a
> paralegal, if you actually were one, then you did the same thing. They
> didn't let you go to the Courts with a lawsuit that nobody else had looked
> at an approved.
>
> Look at it this way, for over five years the Courts have allowed you to
> publicly accuse people of all sorts of Felonies and at the end of the day,
> you were unable to prove your point. Accusing a business owner of
> Extortion, Racketeering, Price Fixing, Employment Discrimination, those
> things are very damaging to the reputation of those people and are
> actually
> libel. Since you have no assets that can be attached by counter suit or
> Rule 11, you have been free to damage people without giving them a chance
> to
> clean their reputations from your unproved injurious falsehoods. Can't
> you
> see the absurdity of such a system where there are no checks on your
> ability
> to injure others at no cost to yourself?
>
> 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. If you can't convince a lawyer that
> your claims are grounded in the law, and your pleading is written in a way
> that can be comprehended by someone that has not spent nearly every waking
> hour on USENET, then your pleading won't be filed. If however you do have
> a
> comprehensible case, grounded in the law and in compliance with the
> Court's
> procedures, then they will allow it to be filed and you can proceed. This
> also prevents serial refilling of the same unsupported allegations. The
> general rule of thumb is that if the case is not strong enough for an
> attorney to take the case on a contingent fee basis, it's probably not a
> good case and should not be filed.
>

>> 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.

>
> You lost the Google case because the law requires you to have registered
> copyrights prior to filing suit and you didn't. Further you tried all
> your
> RICO babbling, and filed a very thinly disguised shotgun pleading, for
> which
> you are now famous. If someone defames you for instance, don't try and
> make
> every claim that you can find in the law books, no matter how tenuous.
> Smart pleadings are those which make clear allegations, strongly rooted in
> the law, and show a strong causal nexus between the damages claimed, and
> the
> improper actions of the defendant. What makes your pleadings frivolous is
> that they are poorly written shotgun pleadings, which do not address the
> elements shown previously. They stink up the Courthouse until the time is
> ripe to throw them out, and as long as you continue to do that, you will
> have the same half ass results that we are all so used to seeing. Now the
> Court is deciding if they will even let you play anymore without
> oversight.
> I personally feel they should have done this long ago. EDPA has punted
> you
> off to Delaware, but it seems that the Lady Judge you have is not seeing
> the
> humor. The end of the litigation follies is not far off.