On Aug 1, 10:43 pm, "Ray Gordon, creator of the \"pivot\""
cybersheet.com> wrote:> The ones who have made statements about me which I consider either libelous,
> harssing, orr attempts to interfere with my life or business that are
> actionable.
Another worthless, bullshit filing of zero value.
> About 6-10 of names will be sought.
You mean 6-10 people will have to go through time and expense to
defend against a lawsuit that will ultimately be dismissed.
> Just like in the autoadmt case, actionable speech is not protected speech
> and is not subject to the protections afforded by the First Amendment.
Correct. However, you will never have the capacity to prove any of
this. To paraphrase a judge, you are neither trained in the
particular law you're suing over, nor do you know what you are doing.
This is notwithstanding the fact that nothing I've seen anyone say
about you has represented actionable speech.
> The flamers will make their usual noise (same few names too), but that won't
> change a thing. Anyone who wants to use USENET to target an individual
> should be prepared to tand bhined what they say and prove it in an open
> court.
I think these people can "tand bhined" what they have said lohng enuf
tew hav dere kazs kikd bcaus yu hav new kase.
> They're going to get their chance. I'm going to get my chance to see how
> much they communicate among themselves, and with which third parties, as
> well as who might be paying them.
Correction, you will have *no* chance as you will screw up, again, and
ruin an already losing case, just long enough to get it either kicked
for lack of jurisdiction or tossed for lack of a claim.
> "Federal trials are not conducted in the dark."
You will see just how that is. Then when you get told not to let the
courthouse door hit you on the way out, you'll be complaining about
how the judge was bribed or misdecided your case, and you're going to
appeal. Then you'll whine for a while until you find some new poor
bastard^W^W sucker to sue.
