On Aug 4, 11:19 am, teddyb...@johndoes.org wrote:

I've tried reading his entire pleading but can't get past some glaring
issues that crop up almost from the beginning.

Throughout the pleading Gordon refers to one of the defendants, Erik
von Markovik, as Mystery. Yet unlike Viacom Internation, Inc. or
Venusian Arts Corporation, which he properly indicates a shorthand
notation ("Viacom" or "VH-1" for the former and "VAC" for the latter),
he does not use the same type of inference for von Markovik. Yet he
consistently refers to him as Mystery. In all of the court pleadings
and briefings that I have read, individuals are referred to by either
their full name or by their last name after the first reference to
them is made in the document, not by nicknames, aliases or AKA's.
Gordon's continued reference to von Markovik as Mystery seems very out
of place and, unlike those of us who visit ASF, is probably going to
be a cause of confusion for someone unfamiliar with the history.

In Paragraphs 2, 3 and 4, Gordon names the defendants and states that
they "can be served at the address listed for it in the caption."
Isn't it the job of the Plaintiff, in this case Gordon Roy Parker of
4247 Locust Street, #119, Philadelphia, PA 19104, to serve the
defendants? Telling the court where they can be served isn't really
relevant since it's his job to do so.

Ignoring the rest of the first 16 paragraphs, since while amusing they
aren't worth going into detail about. I found paragraphs 17 through 28
to be typical Gordon Roy Parker; very verbose without any actual proof
to support them.

P 17. I'm sure Gordon has actual proof that "Several “gurus,”
including Defendant Mystery, had been approached for years by various
producers, yet had turned them down so as not to “betray” their
internet fan and revenue base." You know, actual signed affidavits
saying this was the case. Otherwise this is just hearsay. The same
applies to the second part of this section regarding von Markovik's
reason for agreeing to the show.

P 18. Seems to be supposition and assumption as to why Viacom would
invest money in the show. Here's a channel that has shows like "Rock
of Love" and "The Two Corey's" and Gordon's stating they are
desperate? They aren't desperate, they just don't have any real taste
and are catering to their market.

P 19. Proof in the form of signed, sworn affidavits from the "rank-and-
file “seduction community” members" to back up this claim?

BTW, if paragraphs 21 to 28 are intended to outline specifics to the
charges in Paragraph 20 then they really should be sub-paragraphs,
just to avoid confusion.

P 21. Since when is signing two releases relevant? Just because you,
Gordon Roy Parker, state that the club outlined the compensation for
the people appearing on the show, just because someone is compensated
for an appearance doesn't make them a paid actor. It be something as
simple as having their drinks covered. Or it could have said that they
weren't going to be compensated by the club at all.

But in any event, you of course have certified copies of those
releases to back up your statements? Remember, saying that it was
posted on the VH-1 forum is not conclusive proof.

And of course Gordon, you have a signed, sworn statement from the
model who went public? Otherwise it's all hearsay. Also, in order for
someone to be considered an actor they need to be members of the SAG.
Otherwise they or the show they are appearing on can be fined.
Technically anyone who's not a member of SAG is not, officially, an
actor.

P 22. And there is proof that "Evan" worked for a seduction advice
website? Would that include any actual proof that "Evan" was involved
in the seduction advice aspect and wasn't, for example, a
receptionist, IT support or some other position that wasn't directly
involved with the content? And that this person is the Ex-girlfriend
of an Ex-roommate and Ex-partner of von Markovik's is relevant how?
And there is actual proof, not just supposition and hearsay?

P 23. There are thousands of "professionally-trained actors" out in
the world, most of them in LA or NYC. That doesn't mean they aren't
aspiring, it just means that they have the training. Someone could
easily be an aspiring actor even with training because it means they
haven't been successful yet.

P 24. And in which "reality" is the person in question considered a
club DJ? Since a lot of DJ's have day jobs, they have to in order to
support themselves, are you saying it's not possible for him to be a
"cameraman" or "video game programmer"? If I worked for the local
cable access channel, which I do part time, I could be considered a
cameraman and if I liked to program video games, which I do, I could
also be a "video game programmer." The fact that neither of those are
my chosen profession doesn't mean I couldn't be labeled as such,
especially since they sound cooler than what I really do. Oh, and of
course you have actual proof of this and not just posts from a web
site or forum, even though those are a bastion of truth we know.

P 25. Like P 24, you are saying a model can't also be a photographer.
Yeah, sucks to live in a world where a person can only have one job.
So, which are you Gordon, a seduction guru, sports bettor/handicapper,
gymnastics coach, professional chess player? Based on your own logic,
pick the one that should be used to describe you since obviously you
can't be considered to have more than one profession.

P 26. The fact that someone has "major Hollywood studios" for clients
as a graphic designer doesn't mean that he has to have "far greater
interpersonal skills than that of the “socially awkward” persona
presented at the beginning of the show." You are assuming that and
just making as ass out of yourself again. Does he own the design
studio? Does he interact with the clients? Or does he just do the
graphic design work and leave the other stuff to other people?

Even if he interacts well in a business environment who's to say he
can do the same in a social environment? I know a number of people who
can interact easily with people at work but who are not comfortable at
all at a social gathering. One does not necessarily indicate the
other. But of course you have proof of this, such as signed statements
and the like?

P 27. Once again, proof please. You know the laws relating to all
strip clubs in the United States of America (that's how you should
refer to the country since technically we're not America, we're the
USA), do you? Unless specific conditions are met it's not
prostitution, and those vary from state to state and county to county.
Just leaving her place of employment is not proof of this. If she
wanted to leave early and her employer didn't have a problem with that
she could leave whenever she wanted to with whoever. Unless you can
prove that "[N]o strip club in America allows dancers to walk out with
customers during their shift..." with absolute proof this one is going
to be hard to get a court to accept.

P 28. Of course you have proof, otherwise this could be construed as
libel. You are claiming that von Markovik defrauds his customers via
deception, which impugns his name, reputation and business. If you
can't provide proof then you could easily face a counter suit. Unlike
you I'm sure von Markovik could actually prevail in suit which would
not be good for you.

This just covers the first 28 paragraphs on 7 pages. I haven't been
able to weed my way through the remaining 116 paragraphs on the next
27 pages. If I do get through them I might post my comments here,
since I'm curious what other people think of Gordon Roy Parker's
little suit.

I do feel sorry for the judge who has to review this since he's going
to have to respond to everything that's in here. I'd send him a fruit
basket just to give him the extra energy he's going to need to do
that, but I wouldn't want to be seen as attempting to influence the
judge. :)

Meklar
Not a lawyer, but then again neither if Gordon Roy Parker, the
Plaintiff in this suit.