Why Ray got his ass kicked in court again: FRCP 4(m)
Paul Robinson
(m) Time Limit for Service.
If service of the summons and complaint is not made upon a defendant
within 120 days after the filing of the complaint, the court, upon
motion or on its own initiative after notice to the plaintiff, shall
dismiss the action without prejudice as to that defendant or direct that
service be effected within a specified time; provided that if the
plaintiff shows good cause for the failure, the court shall extend the
time for service for an appropriate period.
This explains exactly why the latest judge didn't bother to explain why
he tossed Ray Gordon's case against the unserved John Does. If the
judge considers the plaintiff's failure "inexcusable" or lacking good
cause, he's on solid ground to dismiss the case against the unserved
parties. The rule explains the requirement so there's no reason for him
to need to do so, since someone filing a case is expected to know the
rules or use counsel who does.
This also explains why the last judge referred to Gordo's inadequate
prosecution as a "continued and inexcusable failure." He's stating that
Gordon has consistently failed to comply with the published rules and is
treating him accordingly.
Looking at some of these rules, I can take a good guess as to why Gordo
didn't get what he wanted. I suspect he failed to follow the rules,
which have strict requirements. I would not be surprised to discover
that an examination of ALL the paperwork Gordo filed in the case would
show errors, mistakes or failure to comply with the FRCP.
The court is under no obligation to inform the plaintiff as to what is
wrong with their paperwork or to let them know in what way they failed
to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it's the
defendant's job to either have counsel who knows how, or to learn the
rules and know them well enough to know how to comply.
As one of the judges said, this is complex business and Gordo was
neither well versed in the law nor has legal counsel.
Ray Gordon
>
> If service of the summons and complaint is not made upon a defendant
> within 120 days after the filing of the complaint, the court, upon
> motion or on its own initiative after notice to the plaintiff, shall
> dismiss the action without prejudice as to that defendant or direct that
> service be effected within a specified time; provided that if the
> plaintiff shows good cause for the failure, the court shall extend the
> time for service for an appropriate period.
>
>
> This explains exactly why the latest judge didn't bother to explain why
> he tossed Ray Gordon's case against the unserved John Does. If the
> judge considers the plaintiff's failure "inexcusable" or lacking good
> cause, he's on solid ground to dismiss the case against the unserved
> parties. The rule explains the requirement so there's no reason for him
> to need to do so, since someone filing a case is expected to know the
> rules or use counsel who does.
The court has to come out and say whether or not the reasons given for not
serving in time are "good cause."
If the district court won't, the appellate court will.
One cannot serve without a summons (I asked for them); one cannot get a
summons without amending the complaint to include the Doe identities (I
moved for leave to amend); one cannot enforce a contested subpoena without
moving the court to do so (I did).
That's "good cause." See what the Third Circuit says.
User3247
Will it ever get that far?
Do you have the balls to file the appeal?
?
??
I didn't think so.
Ray Gordon
> > a summons without amending the complaint to include the Doe identities
> > (I moved for leave to amend); one cannot enforce a contested subpoena
> > without moving the court to do so (I did).
> >
> > That's "good cause." See what the Third Circuit says.
>
> Will it ever get that far?
Of course it will.
That's where the real trial often begins.
User3247
No, the real trial begins when the plaintiff doesn't FAIL to do what is
necessary to get the case to be heard. If it wasn't for your "inexcusable
failure", the case wouldn't have to go to the Third Circuit, it would be
heard in District Court.
Ray Gordon
>
> No, the real trial begins when the plaintiff doesn't FAIL to do what is
> necessary to get the case to be heard. If it wasn't for your "inexcusable
> failure", the case wouldn't have to go to the Third Circuit, it would be
> heard in District Court.
Once again, District Courts make errors that often get reversed by appellate
courts.
Good cause was shown for the delay. This decision will not likely survive
an appeal.
Vince Runza
survive
> an appeal.
You really don't know what you're doing, GORK. BWAAAAAHAHAHAHAHA~!
Vince
--
8===Ğ
HC
>courts.
And ONCE AGAIN you're the stupidest most depraved mother fucker to ever walk
the planet and what you think about the law means absofuckinglutely NOTHING.
Do you know what to do now?
Are you SO fucking stupid that you're in the dark about your next move?
Here, let me help you, psycho . . . . SHUT UP, STUPID!
Sally
Someone well-versed in the law would know how to serve someone properly.
Sally
Someone well-versed in the law would know how to serve someone properly.
Paul Robinson
> Good cause was shown for the delay. This decision will not likely survive
> an appeal.
Keep wishing for the moon, Gordo. I guess it's better than having to
admit to yourself that you don't know what you're doing.
Ray Gordon
>
> pre-printed form, and attaches it to the Complaint; both are filed
> together.
Not in federal court. The summons must bear the seal of the Court.
Even then, the Complaint had to be amended to name the actual Defendants.
In other cases, the
> You do not have to "ask" the court for a Summons.
>
> one cannot get a
> >summons without amending the complaint to include the Doe identities (I
> >moved for leave to amend);
>
> see supra; if one must amend, one amends the Summons and Complaint,
> and files and serves the Amended Summons and Amended Complaint. It's
> not brain surgery.
One cannot amend a complaint without leave of the court after the first
amendment.
Ray Gordon
>
> You draft the Summons and Complaint, take the original and two copies
> to the Court Clerk, who then stamps them and gives you back the
> copies. What's the problem?
This is a John Doe case.
> >Even then, the Complaint had to be amended to name the actual Defendants.
>
> So?
The court left a motion for leave to amend hanging.
> >> You do not have to "ask" the court for a Summons.
> >>
> >> one cannot get a
> >> >summons without amending the complaint to include the Doe identities
(I
> >> >moved for leave to amend);
> >>
> >> see supra; if one must amend, one amends the Summons and Complaint,
> >> and files and serves the Amended Summons and Amended Complaint. It's
> >> not brain surgery.
> >
> >One cannot amend a complaint without leave of the court after the first
> >amendment.
> >
>
> So? You make an application to the Court, on notice to the named D's,
> with your reasons why the Does could not have been identified until
> now, naming the newly identified D's. Again, not brain surgery.
I did that. The Court simply did not rule on the motion to amend to include
the Does under their names, nor did it rule on the motions to enforce/quash
the subpoenas for the Does whose names I did not have.
> You really should have consulted an attorney who is versed in Federal
> Court practice. Federal procedure can be quite frustrating.
I'm a paralegal. I know how the procedure works. What do you do when the
Court refuses to execute the necessary paperwork? That's what happened in
my case.
I suppose a Writ of Mandamus would have worked, but that's drastic.
aardvark9084
"Sally" <sm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:L6Odnc9MP_T...@is.co.za...
ray doesn't know how to serve anyone else. everything he does is self
serving.
hahaha
aardvark
HC
>You really should have consulted an attorney who is versed in Federal
>Court practice. Federal procedure can be quite frustrating.
Not Porker.
He's too smart for that. Legal genius and all you know.
<snicker>
HC
>This is a John Doe case.
Dismissed.
>The court left a motion for leave to amend hanging.
Gee, that sucks for you, doesn;t it.
How sick does it make you when you think of all the time you've wasted?
Just imagine if you spent HALF the amount of time you spend in court, in
therapy.
Formhandle
> ...
>>> Even then, the Complaint had to be amended to name the actual Defendants.
>>
>> So?
>
> The court left a motion for leave to amend hanging.
Gee I wonder why.
How's your bar certification coming along?
--
Form <formh...@fastseduction.com>
Fast Seduction 101 - http://www.fastseduction.com/
Class is now in session...
Say goodbye to trolls, newsloons, and spam.
Gain (FREE) access to the moderated ASF newsgroups at:
http://www.fastseduction.com/discussion/
Formhandle
>> I suppose a Writ of Mandamus would have worked, but that's drastic.
>
> 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.
Ray Gordon
Defendants.
> >>
> >> So?
> >
> >The court left a motion for leave to amend hanging.
> >
> >
>
> more on a motion.
Longer than that, and there was no way to amend until they ruled.
> >> >One cannot amend a complaint without leave of the court after the
first
> >> >amendment.
> >> >
> >>
> >> So? You make an application to the Court, on notice to the named D's,
> >> with your reasons why the Does could not have been identified until
> >> now, naming the newly identified D's. Again, not brain surgery.
> >
> >I did that. The Court simply did not rule on the motion to amend to
include
> >the Does under their names, nor did it rule on the motions to
enforce/quash
> >the subpoenas for the Does whose names I did not have.
> >
> >
>
> Again, how long did you wait? Motions in Fed Ct. are not ruled on
> with lightning speed.....
It's been five months and counting.
> >> You really should have consulted an attorney who is versed in Federal
> >> Court practice. Federal procedure can be quite frustrating.
> >
> >I'm a paralegal.
>
> BFD. I'm an attorney. I can actually sign pleadings.
Your Bar #?
> I know how the procedure works. What do you do when the
> >Court refuses to execute the necessary paperwork? That's what happened
in
> >my case.
> >
> >I suppose a Writ of Mandamus would have worked, but that's drastic.
> >
> >
>
> The problem with a Mandamus is you run the risk of alienating the very
> judge whom you wish to rule in your favor.
No shit.
Ray Gordon
> > 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.
Ray Gordon
> >
> > The court left a motion for leave to amend hanging.
>
> Gee I wonder why.
What exactly are you trying to say again?
Krus T. Olfard
>> BFD. I'm an attorney. I can actually sign pleadings.
>
> Your Bar #?
>
>
>
Probably a higher number than yours (null).
Krus T. Olfard
Who exactly do you claim I'm shilling for?
Sally
You fucking idiot. He said "you RUN THE RISK of alienating"
And you wonder why you're SO BAD in court?
Ray Gordon
> >> more on a motion.
> >
> >Longer than that, and there was no way to amend until they ruled.
>
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).
>> >> You really should have consulted an attorney who is versed in Federal
> >> >> Court practice. Federal procedure can be quite frustrating.
> >> >
> >> >I'm a paralegal.
> >>
> >> BFD. I'm an attorney. I can actually sign pleadings.
> >
> >Your Bar #?
> >
> >
>
> Oh, come on now. Do you think I'm stupid? I like the anonymity of
> Usenet.
The Bar Association likes accountability.
> >> >I suppose a Writ of Mandamus would have worked, but that's drastic.
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >> The problem with a Mandamus is you run the risk of alienating the very
> >> judge whom you wish to rule in your favor.
> >
> >No shit.
> >
> >
>
> 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.
I reminded them several times of the need to rule in time and have asked for
an interlocutory appeal on this one.
Ray Gordon
> >ruling on the subpoena to the ISP (which I obviously needed to enforce
> >before I could find the Defendant for service).
> >
> >
>
> 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.
Krus T. Olfard
>> >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.
Pathetic - absolutely effing bloody pathetic!
Ray Gordon
to
> >wonder if you're really an attorney.
>
> 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.
aardvark9084
"Ray Gordon" <r...@cybersheet.com> wrote in message
news:YYZXc.492$hq5.93@trndny09...
> > >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?
aardvark
JJT
>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: cave...@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...@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,
>>115-116,126-127,133-134,154-155,164-165,178-179,187-188,196-199,201-202,206-207,212-213,
>>215-216,219-220,222-226,228-231,237-238,241-246,249-250,257-258,264-265,274-275,289-290,293-300
>>X-Juno-Att: 0
>>MIME-Version: 1.0
>>Content-Type: text/plain
>>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>>From: The Seduction Library <the______seductio...@juno.com>
>>Mail-To-News-Contact: postm...@nym.alias.net
>>Organization: mail...@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__...@juno.com (Outfoxing The Foxes)
>>Subject: Re: Need A Piece Of Advice
>>Date: 1998/11/02
>>Message-ID: <19981102.144604.2648...@juno.com>
>>Organization: mail...@nym.alias.net
>>Mail-To-News-Contact: postm...@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
E. Gamagushly
How 'bout a DEBATE?
<SNICKER>
Ray Gordon
> >> my jurisdiction. And I'm not giving out my Federal Bar Roll number.
> >> I'm not that stupid.
> >
> >Real attorneys have nothing to hide.
> >
> >
>
> 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.
Formhandle
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.
Formhandle
Why don't you study some more law and perhaps you'll get your answer in 12 years.
Formhandle
>>>> 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.
88Player
<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.
--
Visit the official Ray Gordon website at http://www.raygordonbooks.co.uk
Krus T. Olfard
>> >> 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.
Vince Runza
news:86f3j0lnhsm64gs02...@4ax.com...
> 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.
>
Tarkus is wise, Tarkus is gentle - listen to Tarkus. Hey, get the allusion,
GORK?
Vince
--
8===Ğ
Ray Gordon
> >lawsuits or don't claim to be an attorney.
> >
> >
>
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.
>
> Piss off.
Now I strongly suspect he's not an attorney.
A real attorney wouldn't be this stupid.
Nomen Nescio
>
> Tarkus wrote:
>
>> 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.
---
JJT
>I'm done with you. I have paying clients to attend to, and you're a
>waste of my time.
>Tarkus.
Well played, sir.
And it sums up what folks have been telling him for years..
JJT
"When you do things right, people won't be
sure you've done anything at all.."
Arthur L. Rubin
>
> > >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?
Nope. Unless he knows you in person, any internet nym is a POTENTIAL
Internet stalker.