On Jul 29, 2:35 pm, "Ray Gordon, creator of the \"pivot\""
cybersheet.com> wrote:

And what, specifically, is the nature of the threat? Remember, it has
to meet the 'reasonable person' standard.

How would you know?

Sorry, Sparky, but you won't get the fishing expedition you're looking
for if you can ever get to the discovery phase. You may move for
discovery, if you can get things that far, but it won't be granted
because you can't comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure re
discovery.

The major media won't even use it as a filler. However, it could be a
hit on the net.

If you get that far, you'll wish they were.

When you file the suit, if you don't name me and I have a basis to
move the court to join, what will happen is something like this. You
will move to prevent me from joining, which will be disallowed and I
will be able to join unless a named defendant can put up a reasonable
objection. I don't see that happening, the more the merrier.

I will, of course, file a counter suit. You case will be dismissed,
which will not have any effect on the counter suit, which will
proceed. I have already checked that my plans for discovery comply
with the rules for discovery as to being targeted, specific, germane
and that the potential negatives from your perspective do not outweigh
their probative value.

I have also checked against the possibility that you may attempt to
either not produce evidence, or testify, on the basis that you are
acting as your own attorney and therefore can't be compelled to
produce evidence, or testify because of some strange attorney/client
privilege that you dream up. You can be compelled just like any other
person and have no special privileges because your acting as you own
legal council.

You, and your behavior, online and off, will be on trial with the
objective of having you barred from internet access and here's the
kicker - the very act of your original filing will be prima facia
evidence of the type of behavior that can only be prevented by cutting
you off from the net. I have never been in the prefileing
restrictions camp because I don't think it would be effective and it
doesn't address the central issue, which is that it is access to the
internet that enables your behavior across the board.

I've already mentioned that I don't see any First Amendment issues
being successfully raised by you and what the court would be moved to
do is entirely reasonable given the evidence of your behavior that is
readily available. There are people who are willing to provide
evidence of your behavior towards them offline under penalty of
perjury, there is your own boasting, etc.

What will go directly towards showing that you knowingly inflicted
emotional pain and had a clear idea of the nature of what you were
doing and still try to do will be shown by comparing the posts you
thought you nuked against that posts themselves. I'm sure that when
you nuked them that you thought they were gone, but they aren't. You
just have to know where they are and how to get them, which I do. You
also have to know how to use the data so that it comprises evidence,
which you have made very easy by nuking the posts. Posts that don't
show up in the regularly accessible archives but do in the deep
archives are obviously nuked and that will automatically highlight
them for further attention. You make things so easy.

Personally, I will find it very interesting to see how you rationalize
their content and your nuking them. The judge, or a jury, will find
them equally interesting as well as your thought processes and
justifications. You behavior in handling the case, along with the
psych testing that will surely be ordered, should fit nicely
together. Sweet, huh?

So, you should be filing Friday, did you say?

Vance