> >That's just it: they dismissed the complaint for lack of service before > >ruling on the subpoena to the ISP (which I obviously needed to enforce > >before I could find the Defendant for service).
> If the complaint was dismissed for lack of service, then the court was > without jurisdiction to rule on the application for subpoena.
> You know, there is such a thing as "pre-suit discovery. I suggest you > acquiant yourself with the concept....
Rule 27. Not normally used, but I've definitely considered it for the future. The court did, however, have jurisdiction over the subpoenas.
> >> Didja ever think of just calling the Court after the third month to > >> request a status on the motion? Sometimes they just gotta be > >> awakened....
> >They were awake enough to dismiss the complaint when they shouldn't have. > >]
> No, if there was lack of service, then they properly dismissed the > complaint. You should still be able to re-file with proper parties...
I couldn't serve them because they left the subpoena motions hanging.
> >I reminded them several times of the need to rule in time and have asked for > >an interlocutory appeal on this one.
> "Interlocutory appeal"? The case is done. There is no > "interlocurtory" about it.
Some parties have been dismissed, but not all. Two remain and the case is live. Rule 54 says otherwise.
> You really should know what you're talking about before you attempt to > navigate the shoals of Federal Court.
No Bar Association number and a claim that they lack authority leads me to wonder if you're really an attorney. That and the fact that most of your posts show up in baseball and wrestling groups.
>> >That's just it: they dismissed the complaint for lack of service >> >before ruling on the subpoena to the ISP (which I obviously needed >> >to enforce before I could find the Defendant for service).
>> If the complaint was dismissed for lack of service, then the court >> was without jurisdiction to rule on the application for subpoena.
>> You know, there is such a thing as "pre-suit discovery. I suggest >> you acquiant yourself with the concept....
> Rule 27. Not normally used, but I've definitely considered it for the > future. The court did, however, have jurisdiction over the subpoenas.
Yeah yeah yeah! It's always the court's fault, never yours. Right!
>> >> Didja ever think of just calling the Court after the third month >> >> to request a status on the motion? Sometimes they just gotta be >> >> awakened....
>> >They were awake enough to dismiss the complaint when they shouldn't >> >have. >> >]
>> No, if there was lack of service, then they properly dismissed the >> complaint. You should still be able to re-file with proper >> parties...
> I couldn't serve them because they left the subpoena motions hanging.
Yeah yeah yeah! It's always the court's fault, never yours. Right!
>> >I reminded them several times of the need to rule in time and have >> >asked > for >> >an interlocutory appeal on this one.
>> "Interlocutory appeal"? The case is done. There is no >> "interlocurtory" about it.
> Some parties have been dismissed, but not all. Two remain and the > case is live. Rule 54 says otherwise.
98 out of 100 is an incredibly poor showing. Really! Honest! Only 2%.
>> You really should know what you're talking about before you attempt >> to navigate the shoals of Federal Court.
> No Bar Association number and a claim that they lack authority leads > me to wonder if you're really an attorney. That and the fact that > most of your posts show up in baseball and wrestling groups.
Ah, then you Googled him. And you're suing Google because people can Google you. Isn't that a little (actually a great deal) hypocritical? Yes, it is.
> >No Bar Association number and a claim that they lack authority leads me to > >wonder if you're really an attorney.
> First of all, there's no such thing as a "Bar Association number" in > my jurisdiction. And I'm not giving out my Federal Bar Roll number. > I'm not that stupid.
Real attorneys have nothing to hide.
> That and the fact that most of your > >posts show up in baseball and wrestling groups.
> Utter bullshit. I don't post in baseball and wrestling groups. > If you've noticed, I use the X-noarchive bit, so my posts won't show > up in Google....you must have me mistaken with someone else.
Another "Tarkus."
Either way, there is no accountability when you post, so even as an attorney, for these purposes, you're just commenting like any other layperson.
> > >No Bar Association number and a claim that they lack authority leads me > to > > >wonder if you're really an attorney.
> > First of all, there's no such thing as a "Bar Association number" in > > my jurisdiction. And I'm not giving out my Federal Bar Roll number. > > I'm not that stupid.
> Real attorneys have nothing to hide.
nothing at all to hide except their personal info from creepy scumbags that would abuse such information once they have the private information in their grimy claws.
this same scumbag would use the info to torture and harass the friends and family of his perceived "enemies" and has done so numerous times.
your motives for requesting the info are highly transparent. go take a flying leap, stupid.
you still haven't told me how you like them apples. aren't they yummy enough?
>> >No Bar Association number and a claim that they lack authority leads me >to wonder if you're really an attorney. >> First of all, there's no such thing as a "Bar Association number" in >> my jurisdiction. And I'm not giving out my Federal Bar Roll number. >> I'm not that stupid. >Real attorneys have nothing to hide.
REAL lawyers don't give away info to people with a HISTORY of harassing lawsuits, who wish death on children, think they are 'jesus', root for cancer to take a life, spew hate speech (9/11 gloats) Like Gordon Roy Parker
>> Utter bullshit. I don't post in baseball and wrestling groups. >> If you've noticed, I use the X-noarchive bit, so my posts won't show >> up in Google....you must have me mistaken with someone else.
notice how grp-ie doesn't address his mistake..
>Another "Tarkus."
I think that is what he just said...ask your dollies to translate...
>Either way, there is no accountability when you post, so even as an >attorney, for these purposes, you're just commenting like any other >layperson.
well, 'duh..??..' But no matter what he says, I believe it far more then if you told me that today was Saturday. And it is.
JJT
- Proof of Gordon Roy Parker (aka Ray Gordon) wishing death on a child :
>>Path: news.alt.net!anon.lcs.mit.edu!nym.alias.net!mail2news >>Cc: cavema...@nni.com >>Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 07:58:08 -0400 >>Subject: Ray Takes FULL RESPONSIBLITY For The Michelle Mistake >>Message-ID: <20000628.075839.-285523.10.The______Seduction_________Libr...@juno.com> >>X-Mailer: Juno 2.0.11 >>X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 2-3,6-9,17-18,20-21,29-30,40-41,48-49,61-62,71-72,84-85,94-95,105-106, >>115-116,126-127,133-134,154-155,164-165,178-179,187-188,196-199,201-202,2 06-207,212-213, >>215-216,219-220,222-226,228-231,237-238,241-246,249-250,257-258,264-265,2 74-275,289-290,293-300 >>X-Juno-Att: 0 >>MIME-Version: 1.0 >>Content-Type: text/plain >>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >>From: The Seduction Library <the______seduction_________libr...@juno.com> >>Mail-To-News-Contact: postmas...@nym.alias.net >>Organization: mail2n...@nym.alias.net >>Newsgroups: alt.romance >>Lines: 307 >>Xref: news alt.romance:246369 >>WARNING: If Oedipus, Krusty or Tusky respond to this message in any way, >>I will return to ASF immediately. If they want me off that newsgroup >>they can stay the hell out of my threads. >>Read up. I post this not for myself, because I don't care what people >>think of me. I post this for my METHOD, because it's being destroyed by >>attacks on its creator. >>I am going to clear the record on a few things here: >>1. I DID wish death on Michelle's daughter Cierra. I did so in an >>attempt to snap her back to reality after she had used others' defamation >>of me as leverage to get me to want her. Why did I "hurt" her? I DID >>NOT TALK TO HER. That's correct: my crime with Michelle was not falling >>back in love with her after she had fallen in love with me for four >>months, IMing me constantly, E-mailing me constantly, BEGGING me to love >>her the way I "loved" "Dominique" (these two are in quotes because I >>neither loved her nor necessarily knew her). >>2. Wishing death on someone is not a crime. The words were spoken in >>anger, after MONTHS of provocation
- Proof of Gordon Roy Parker stating women deserve to be raped & murdered :
>>From: r____a___y_gor...@juno.com (Outfoxing The Foxes) >>Subject: Re: Need A Piece Of Advice >>Date: 1998/11/02 >>Message-ID: <19981102.144604.26486.3.r____a___y_gor...@juno.com> >>Organization: mail2n...@nym.alias.net >>Mail-To-News-Contact: postmas...@nym.alias.net >>X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0-1,3-5,10-14,23-29,32-45,47-50,55-58,60-61,74-77, >>79-87,95-97,99-102,105-112,121-122,130-131,138-139,146-147, >>156-157,160-161,163-164,181-182,196-197,199 >>Newsgroups: alt.romance >>Look at the way women treat "losers" and you will see >>why they wind up beaten, murdered, raped, robbed, disrespected, and >>oppressed. It is because women DESERVE it. The ones who harmed me >>should thank their lucky stars that I didn't react like a primate and >>just dump them six feet underground. Unfortunately, premeditated murder >>would ruin this ethical thing I have going for me, although on a primal >>level it is quite appealing.
- Gordon Roy Parker (aka Ray Gordon) on 9/11 :
"There was no significant loss of life in those towers. Not a one." - Gordon Roy Parker (aka Ray Gordon), September 11, 2001
"This attack happened in my HOMETOWN, a hometown I do not live in or work in because of illegal behavior. I hope those who swiped my ability to live there enjoy the message they got from GOD today.........." - Gordon Roy Parker (aka Ray Gordon), September 11, 2001
"In that building existed little more than a bunch of companies which hire "office whores" and the like. I have no sympathy for employment discriminators, and if someone had to die in this attack, I couldn't think of a better group of people for the terrorists to pick." - Gordon Roy Parker (aka Ray Gordon), September 11, 2001
Ray Gordon wrote: >>>No Bar Association number and a claim that they lack authority leads me
> to
>>>wonder if you're really an attorney.
>>First of all, there's no such thing as a "Bar Association number" in >>my jurisdiction. And I'm not giving out my Federal Bar Roll number. >>I'm not that stupid.
> Real attorneys have nothing to hide.
>> That and the fact that most of your
>>>posts show up in baseball and wrestling groups.
>>Utter bullshit. I don't post in baseball and wrestling groups. >>If you've noticed, I use the X-noarchive bit, so my posts won't show >>up in Google....you must have me mistaken with someone else.
> Another "Tarkus."
> Either way, there is no accountability when you post, so even as an > attorney, for these purposes, you're just commenting like any other > layperson.
> >> First of all, there's no such thing as a "Bar Association number" in > >> my jurisdiction. And I'm not giving out my Federal Bar Roll number. > >> I'm not that stupid.
> >Real attorneys have nothing to hide.
> Real plaintiffs get lawyers. I post anonymously because I can, and to > avoid spam.
> Let me assure you, I AM a real attorney.
Then identify yourself when giving legal opinions to people involved in lawsuits or don't claim to be an attorney.
> >> Utter bullshit. I don't post in baseball and wrestling groups. > >> If you've noticed, I use the X-noarchive bit, so my posts won't show > >> up in Google....you must have me mistaken with someone else.
> >Another "Tarkus."
> >Either way, there is no accountability when you post, so even as an > >attorney, for these purposes, you're just commenting like any other > >layperson.
> "Accountability"? There's no fucking accountability for ANYONE'S > posting.
> As for "just commenting." Yes, I am just commenting, but from the > greater position of more legal knowledge.
And in that case if I believe you are harming my case by advising my opponents without entering an appearance, I have standing to complain to the Bar Association about you.
>That's all that ANYONE can > do here - just comment. I can't give legal advice, nor would I want > to.
So in other words, what you say here shouldn't be taken seriously by anyone any more than a layperson's commentary should be.
>>> The problem with a Mandamus is you run the risk of alienating the very >>> judge whom you wish to rule in your favor.
>> He already did that by filing a motion to recuse based on a flimsy >> argument.
> You're saying in public that you believe I've alienated the judge?
> Interesting.
It's interesting that you can so readily misinterpret "run the risk of alienating" to "alienated" when you think it serves your purpose. Now, go run along and play with your socks until you actually find me saying explicitly "He alieneted the judge." versus "He already ran the risk of alienating the judge."
The grasp of the full range of the English language is truly beyond you, yet you seem to so easily interpret it in a way that you BELIEVE serves you better.
Now, if you actually are trying to infer I said one thing versus another, when it's clear even within your own quote what was said, I'll be ready to deal with that appropriately.
Ray Gordon wrote: >>>> For how long? It's not unusual for the court to take up to 60 days or >>>> more on a motion.
>>> Longer than that, and there was no way to amend until they ruled.
>> So you wait until the court rules, or file a mandamus.
> That's just it: they dismissed the complaint for lack of service before > ruling on the subpoena to the ISP (which I obviously needed to enforce > before I could find the Defendant for service).
I believe it pretty much goes hand-in-hand that when something is dismissed, all motions left hanging have been answered as: denied.
In article <QA4Yc.5544$Rk.2857@trndny03>, "Ray Gordon"
<r...@cybersheet.com> wrote: > So in other words, what you say here shouldn't be taken seriously by anyone > any more than a layperson's commentary should be.
This would also apply to what you say, correct? In other words, what you say shouldn't be taken seriously by anyone either.
Come to think of it, what you write probably shouldn't be taken seriously by anyone either.
>> >> First of all, there's no such thing as a "Bar Association number" >> >> in my jurisdiction. And I'm not giving out my Federal Bar Roll >> >> number. I'm not that stupid.
>> >Real attorneys have nothing to hide.
>> Real plaintiffs get lawyers. I post anonymously because I can, and >> to avoid spam.
>> Let me assure you, I AM a real attorney.
> Then identify yourself when giving legal opinions to people involved > in lawsuits or don't claim to be an attorney.
Why? Just because you want him to? Get effing real!
>> >> Utter bullshit. I don't post in baseball and wrestling groups. >> >> If you've noticed, I use the X-noarchive bit, so my posts won't >> >> show up in Google....you must have me mistaken with someone else.
>> >Another "Tarkus."
>> >Either way, there is no accountability when you post, so even as an >> >attorney, for these purposes, you're just commenting like any other >> >layperson.
>> "Accountability"? There's no fucking accountability for ANYONE'S >> posting.
>> As for "just commenting." Yes, I am just commenting, but from the >> greater position of more legal knowledge.
> And in that case if I believe you are harming my case by advising my > opponents without entering an appearance, I have standing to complain > to the Bar Association about you.
So sad, Ray, sad and pathetic.
>>That's all that ANYONE can >> do here - just comment. I can't give legal advice, nor would I want >> to.
> So in other words, what you say here shouldn't be taken seriously by > anyone any more than a layperson's commentary should be.
It certainly shouldn't be considered any more than the personal opinion of a individual who has knowledge of the law - meaning while it certainly is NOT legal advice it certainly HAS more validity than any opinion about anything legal that someone like you who has not attended law school may spout.
> On Sat, 28 Aug 2004 18:57:52 GMT, "Ray Gordon" <r...@cybersheet.com> > wrote: > >Then identify yourself when giving legal opinions to people involved in > >lawsuits or don't claim to be an attorney.
> Piss off. I'm not identifying myself to a potential Internet stalker.
Tarkus is wise, Tarkus is gentle - listen to Tarkus. Hey, get the allusion, GORK? Vince -- 8===Ð
> >Then identify yourself when giving legal opinions to people involved in > >lawsuits or don't claim to be an attorney.
> Piss off. I'm not identifying myself to a potential Internet stalker.
Defaming me now? Trying to intimidate someone because they might want to file a complaint with the bar association against you?
That won't make you look so good, tsk.
> >> As for "just commenting." Yes, I am just commenting, but from the > >> greater position of more legal knowledge.
> >And in that case if I believe you are harming my case by advising my > >opponents without entering an appearance, I have standing to complain to the > >Bar Association about you.
> I'm advising no one, jackass.
Ooh what a tough mouth!
> Christ, your a real piece of work, aren't you? Do you see monsters > under your bed as well?
> I've done nothing illegal, unethical, or in violation of any Code of > Conduct or Responsibility in my jurisdiction.
The lawsuit in question is in MY jurisdiction.
> If you want to think that the omnipowerful "Bar Association" has any > authority over attorneys in my jurisdiction, you keep on deluding > yourself....
I know the PA bar does....
> >>That's all that ANYONE can > >> do here - just comment. I can't give legal advice, nor would I want > >> to.
> >So in other words, what you say here shouldn't be taken seriously by anyone > >any more than a layperson's commentary should be.
> I post what is my take on what is posted before me, based on my > experience and education. I leave it up to the reader to take me > seriously or not.
Claiming to be a lawyer is an invitation to be taken seriously.
>> I'm beginning to think you're jealous, as the others here seem to be > taking me seriously instead of you.
> But that's the big issue, isn't it? Ray's not getting the attention > he wants in the manner he wants, so he resorts to personal attacks.
>> I'm beginning to think you're jealous, as the others here seem >> to be taking me seriously instead of you.
>> But that's the big issue, isn't it? Ray's not getting the >> attention he wants in the manner he wants, so he resorts to personal >> attacks.
>> Piss off.
> Now I strongly suspect he's not an attorney.
> A real attorney wouldn't be this stupid.
Why? You act that way all the time, and you're not a REAL attorney... Just because YOU have a corner on that market doesn't mean that any other people do.
