"Ray Gordon, creator of the "pivot""
cybersheet.com> wrote in message
news:p4qdnWsGDu9PbqHYnZ2dnUVZ_tKdnZ2d@pghconnect.com...>>> Never said I was a "hobbyist." The reduced income is tied to what I'm
>>> suing over, as I'm alleging exclusion by a cartel and anticompetitive
>>> practices in my industry. Even if it were a "hobby," since business and
>>> money is still involved, I'd have standing nonetheless.
>>>
>> Although you have been in your "industry" for almost longer than anyone
>> else, you still are unable to gain traction. You blame others for this
>> failure, however it's become apparent that you have never tried to
>> advertise, never generated any book that a legitimate publisher has
>> published,
>
> I'm a legitimate publisher, as are many on the net. Love the "voluntary
> media brainwashing" he endorses where he attaches legitimacy to books in a
> manner that literally judges them by their cover. Wonder if he considers
> the other self-published seduction books to be "legitimate."
>
So you say. But the best that can be said is that you are not a very
successful one.
> The money they generate is legitimate, that's for sure.
>
But less than eight grand a year, that's for sure.
>>and as far as I can see, failed to produce any writings that show that you
>>have knowlege of the field of social dynamics.
>
> The amount of my material that has wound up covered almost identically in
> rival products speaks for itself.
>
Yes, but it was usually in someone else's writings first. Name some
material that you produced that is not available at an earlier date from
others.
>>You whine that everyone else has websites and forums that you are locked
>>out of.
>
> Actually, I alleged a horizontal blacklisting.
>
You also alleged, extortion, SOX, Racketeering, and a host of other things.
Shotgun pleading, if you were a lawyer and filed this crap you would be
skinned by the judge.
>>And yet your posts to this website demonstrate as nothing else can what
>>would happen if they did allow you access to their forums.
>
> Statements like that of course call into question any policy as it might
> be applied (or not applied) to others similarly situated.
>
But the big question is, did you ever contact them about advertising on
their site prior to filing suit? How are you going to show standing if you
didn't?
>>After all of the name calling here, would or allow you onto
>>their forums? I think they have every right to moderate their discussion
>>boards to that you can't hijack threads, make threats against others, and
>>troll daytime TV.
>
> Wow, more defamation.....of course, any forum that *censors* people isn't
> a free-speech forum, and when it censors *competitors*, well perhaps they
> fear competition.
>
Evasion of the question noted. Did you ever ask them to advertise on their
website? They have every right to exclude you from their forums. It's not
a public utility, it's a private website. The first amendment does not
guarantee you a forum for your hate speech. People who have a history of
bad conduct are regularly excluded from many activities. If you are
disruptive in a club, they will remove you and they have the right to refuse
you entry in the future. YOU HAVE a long history of making an ass out of
yourself on USENET, so they won't allow you access so you can disrupt their
discussion board. Other groups have done the same thing. MANY other groups
all across USENET and the internet in general. What makes you think that
someone like Mystery, who you attack all the time, owes you anything?
Certainly doesn't owe you a forum for your hate speech.
>
>>That's what you do here, why would they want to introduce such a windbag
>>to their boards.
>
> What everyone else has posted here would have to be analyzed to see if any
> stated rules or policies were being applied equally.
>
Equality has nothing to do with moderating disruptive people from a message
board or USENET group.
> Consumers generally like to hear all points of view, as a rule.
>
So what? That does not guarantee you a forum. Who made that rule, you?
>> They are not hobbyists, that's how they make their living.
>
> I'm not a "hobbyist" either, as I am profitable as well. That my profits
> were harmed by the conduct I allege in my lawsuits does not change that.
>
Eight grand a year is not making a living, that's a hobby. You are not only
not guaranteed a forum, you are not guaranteed a profit either. People have
the impression, due to your conduct here, that you are an asshole. Every
day you post more drivel, daytime TV crap, off topic posts, attacks against
others that are not here. Why does it surprise you that nobody wants to buy
your stuff. I don't see you being discussed on Dr. Phil, although Springer
was interested at one time apparently. Are you afraid to go on TV and
publicize your books? Maybe you might even sell a few, instead of giving
them away.
>
>>> RICO cases have been brought by single individuals, and civil conspiracy
>>> claims are held to an even more liberal standard. Then of course there
>>> are the defamation and lanham act claims, including one based on my
>>> "returning fox" posting being republished on another site (something I
>>> had never authorized).
>>
>> For cases which involve only a single victim, many courts have refused to
>> find that a pattern of racketeering activity has been properly pleaded,
>> even where an extensive period of time, involving several years, was
>> involved. See, e.g., United States Textiles, Inc. v. Anheuser-Busch Co.,
>> Inc., 911 F.2d 1261, 1267-1269 (7th Cir. 1990); Schnell v. Conseco, Inc.,
>> 43 F.Supp.2d 438, 446 (S.D.N.Y. 1999). -- From "FIVE COMMON ERRORS IN
>> PLEADING CIVIL RICO CLAIMS - AND HOW TO AVOID THEM by Edward F. Mannino
>
> Lay legal analysis noted.
>
Uninformed Pro Se pleadings laughed at.
>
>>> The PA case was dismissed (against the Delaware defendants) **solely**
>>> for lack of jurisdiction. That is all the PA court ruled upon, nothing
>>> more. The defendants decided that jurisdiction was a big issue, so they
>>> filed motions to have the case dismissed in PA. Since one defendant is
>>> a Delaware corporation, while the others profit from the sale of goods
>>> and services in Delaware, jurisdiction won't be the issue there.
>>>
>> Fastest way to get rid of you.
>
> Inside information or wishful thinking?
>
Deductive reasoning, you should try it.
>
>>They are not there as your legal advisor, nor do they have the desire to
>>be. I think the Court has spoken rather loudly on your lack of legal
>>ability.
>
> The court already had one of its rulings against me refuted by the US
> Supreme Court (on employment retaliation).
>
You keep braying about that, but the fact is that you have not bothered to
tell us what, in what case, and what you are talking about. An unsupported
statement by one who lies prolifically
> It's also worth noting that a lot of the conduct I've been suing over
> ceased after I filed suit (not all of it, sadly). Newcomers also don't
> seem as eager to join in when they see there might be legal consequences.
> We're down to the same 6-12 names making noise day and night here.
>
No, sadly there is one chief noisemaker. Have you counted up your off topic
postings lately?
>
>>> The case in Delaware is literally at square one. At some point, the
>>> court is going to have to address the legal issues in the case rather
>>> than anything procedural. No court has ruled on the antitrust issus or
>>> any other issues in the lawsuit.
>>>
>> No, the Court did rule on some of this crap in the Google case, and gave
>> you some hints about your RICObabble. They called in "Incomprehensible"
>> and yet you pled it exactly the same way in Deleware. That's a Rule 11
>> violation.
>
> No court has called it a Rule 11 violation. There are several other
> lawsuits against Google working their way up the courts. Some are almost
> identical to mine.
>
Not yes, the wheels of justice grind slowly. But don't worry, there is at
least one Rule 11 motion in the works from Mr. Geiger, and I'm sure there
will be others.
>> Also watch Rule 56(g), that can bite you too.
>
> Lay legal analysis noted.
>
Ignorant and uninformed Pro Se pleading noted, from a "serial pro se
litigant".
>
>>> Some folks are so desperate to see the other side win this that they
>>> cling to anything they can, I suppose. They're way premature.
>>>
>> "A claim is frivolous if it is both baseless and made without a
>> reasonable and competent inquiry. A frivolous claim is one that is
>> legally unreasonable, or without legal foundation." In re Grantham Bros.,
>> 922 F.2d 1438, 1442 (9th Cir. 1991) (citations and internal quotation
>> marks omitted). See also Townsend v. Holman Consulting Corp., 929 F.2d
>> 1358) (9th Cir. 1990) (leading case).
>
> Lay legal analysis noted.
>
> My case is hardly frivolous.
>
Opinions are like assholes, everyone has one, and some act like they have
two. The statement speaks for itself. Baseless and is made without a
reasonable and competent inquiry. Legally unreasonable, or without legal
foundation. Your RICO pleadings fall into that category. You may not know
what a RICO pleading looks like, but that does not mean that others do not.
The internet, which you are on all day, is full of them. A simple reading
of a few RICO cases would be enough to show you that your pleading is
deficient on it's face. Leaving it in your complaint after you have been
told that is a violation of Rule 11. It's really that simple. Not to
mention that you have been directed to the DOJ RICO manual several times,
which is in six libraries in Philly and can be accessed online. You have
also alleged RICO before and were told your pleading was INCOMPREHENSIBLE.
So what makes you think it's clear now? Vexatious is that it is, filed for
no reason other than to harrass. As you admitted here, all those claims are
covered elsewhere in your complaint.
