Re: The "Fake Randy Bauer" Messes Up BIG-TIME
Randy Bauer
<BettorOffSin...@aol.com> wrote:
> it seems our latest imposter (the one who impersonated Randy Bauer),
> did NOT use an anonymous remailer, even though he or she thought they
> had.
>
> The IP address of 75.XXX.XXX.XXX appears very clearly in the post, and
> traces to Verizon Wireless. Further investigation is pointing towards
> an indivdiual from the suburbs of Chicago.
>
> Since Verizon's offices are in Philadelphia, or nearby, it will be
> VERY easy to subpoean this person's identity. Moreover, the EDPA
> court will now clearly see that this problem will NOT go away without
> its intervention. Randy Bauer is also a rather sympathetic victim,
> given that he had nothing to do with this conflict. I had initially
> presumed it was him because of the IP address being present, and I
> couldn't imagine anyone being so STUPID as to impersonate him in that
> manner, but it appears someone has (the truth will out either way).
>
> Absent proof that the IP belongs to Mr. Bauer, I take his claim of
> being impersonated at face value. While he said he understood my
> initial reaction, and did not blame me, I still feel the need to clear
> the record.
>
> We WILL get to the bottom of this, and god help whoever posted that
> awful message, as both Bauer and I have grounds to sue over this.
> Wonder which other dominoes will fall once we identify the imposter.
>
> Ray Gordon
I have communicated with Mr. Gordon that I did not make the posts, and
I appreciate that he kept an open mind and has reached a similar
conclusion that the offending post was a case of identify theft.
I was in the past and continue in the present to believe these fake/
forged posts are scurrilous works of people without the guts to put
their real names and IP addresses behind their posts. The FSS made
both Sam Sloan and the people attacked in the posts victims, and I
would say the same about recent forgeries, whose victims have included
Mr. Gordon, Mr. Lafferty and me.
If Ray is able to get to the bottom of who is carrying on this
subterfuge, more power to him.
Randy Bauer
BLafferty
> it seems our latest imposter (the one who impersonated Randy Bauer),
> did NOT use an anonymous remailer, even though he or she thought they
> had.
>
> The IP address of 75.XXX.XXX.XXX appears very clearly in the post, and
> traces to Verizon Wireless. Further investigation is pointing towards
> an indivdiual from the suburbs of Chicago.
>
> Since Verizon's offices are in Philadelphia, or nearby, it will be
> VERY easy to subpoean this person's identity. Moreover, the EDPA
> court will now clearly see that this problem will NOT go away without
> its intervention. Randy Bauer is also a rather sympathetic victim,
> given that he had nothing to do with this conflict. I had initially
> presumed it was him because of the IP address being present, and I
> couldn't imagine anyone being so STUPID as to impersonate him in that
> manner, but it appears someone has (the truth will out either way).
>
> Absent proof that the IP belongs to Mr. Bauer, I take his claim of
> being impersonated at face value. While he said he understood my
> initial reaction, and did not blame me, I still feel the need to clear
> the record.
>
> We WILL get to the bottom of this, and god help whoever posted that
> awful message, as both Bauer and I have grounds to sue over this.
> Wonder which other dominoes will fall once we identify the imposter.
>
> Ray Gordon
have counsel look into it. Thanks.
Brian Lafferty
BLafferty
>> Can you send me the header information and the IP address. I'd like to
>> have counsel look into it. Thanks.
>
> message in Google Groups.
>
> If you use an NNTP reader, it should have this information in the
> message.
>
Thanks. I got it from Randy. Counsel is working on it as I type.
None
<BettorOffSin...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > Just click "show original" under "more options" when viewing the
> > > message in Google Groups.
>
> > > If you use an NNTP reader, it should have this information in the
> > > message.
>
> > Thanks. I got it from Randy. Counsel is working on it as I type.
>
> affected party.
He used to post as MrVidmar and that was recently spoofed.
BLafferty
BLafferty
> On Mar 22, 7:11 pm, BLafferty<b...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> On 3/22/2011 4:15 PM, BettorOffSin...@aol.com wrote:>> Can you send me the header information and the IP address. I'd like to
> anonymously harassing both me and Bauer.
>
> I think where it will really get interesting is when the name is
> revealed. I suspect this person was not acting alone.
I would agree. I filed a similar complaint against Truong with the US
Attorney after the Mottershead Report outed him as the FSS. The problem
is one of priorities in the US Attorney's offices around the country. I
was never told the complaint wasn't valid. In fact, the US in Boston
had their forensic unit look into it and they did not say no case. They
recommended I send it to the US Attorney in Knoxville. I did, but they
declined to prosecute and suggested I try the USA in Chicago. I guess
they're too busy fighting the Meth Lab wars in TN.
BLafferty
>> I would agree. I filed a similar complaint against Truong with the US
>> Attorney after the Mottershead Report outed him as the FSS. The problem
>> is one of priorities in the US Attorney's offices around the country. I
>> was never told the complaint wasn't valid. In fact, the US in Boston
>> had their forensic unit look into it and they did not say no case. They
>> recommended I send it to the US Attorney in Knoxville. I did, but they
>> declined to prosecute and suggested I try the USA in Chicago. I guess
>
> I have identified the imposter who attacked me.
>
> If it's the same one who impersonated you, let's just say the OUTGOING
> messages from the same IP may very well reveal who impersonated you.
>
> Did you read my other post with the two links? It's a "smoking gun."
>
> The imposter was kind enough to admit to having been in his office
> when the messages were posted, and works for a company which has its
> national headquarters in Philadelphia, which means I can file here.
>
> I am opening to settling this, but I suspect I won't be given that
> option, so I'm rpeparing for a "vigorous defense," and the obligatory
> statements about how the lawsuit is "baseless."
>
> I do know employers tend to frown on hiring cyberbulllies these days.
I'm curious how you identified the specific person and who it is. I
have the IP off the message headers and IP lookup shows it being a
Verizon Wireless user in Indiana near Chicago. Any info you can provide
as to the specific person and how you Mottersheadized him will be
appreciated.
BLafferty
>>> The imposter was kind enough to admit to having been in his office
>>> when the messages were posted, and works for a company which has its
>>> national headquarters in Philadelphia, which means I can file here.
>>
>>> I am opening to settling this, but I suspect I won't be given that
>>> option, so I'm rpeparing for a "vigorous defense," and the obligatory
>>> statements about how the lawsuit is "baseless."
>>
>>> I do know employers tend to frown on hiring cyberbulllies these days.
>>
>> I'm curious how you identified the specific person and who it is. I
>> have the IP off the message headers and IP lookup shows it being a
>> Verizon Wireless user in Indiana near Chicago. Any info you can provide
>> as to the specific person and how you Mottersheadized him will be
>> appreciated
>
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.chess.politics/browse_thread/thread/752cbb4cd897986e
>
> The "imposter" posted amessage on March 3, from the same 75.XXX IP
> (the verizon one). That message sure doesn't seem like a forgery, and
> it also establishes who owns the IP address.
>
> In mjy communications with Mr. Bauer, he made it clear he was very
> busy, and just didn't have time to sue the imposter just yet, but that
> he might take action later onk, if evidence warranted.
>
> I think that's a shame, becuase having Mr. Bauer as aplaintiff in this
> case would definitely have made it more intriguing.
>
> I will be filing a $25 million lawsuit against the imposter, and
> discovering its OUTGOING e-mail towards the remailer. It's obvious
> the imposter had intended to use the remailer, and just messed up.
> That may open a the mother of all cans of worms, and cast a very new
> light on the events of the past several years.
>
> Ray Gordon
>
OK. But, how do you know who the specific person is posting from that
IP? You can probably get all the records you need under a subpoena to
Verizon, but that will take a little while if you were to commence a
John Doe action to do it.
Thom Geiger
>> OK. But, how do you know who the specific person is posting from that
>> IP? You can probably get all the records you need under a subpoena to
>> Verizon, but that will take a little while if you were to commence a
>> John Doe action to do it.- Hide quoted text -
>
>Look up Parker v. Comcast from 2005.
Blah, blah, blah
>Plaintiff previously filed a suit similar to the instant action against
> defendants LTSC, Geiger, and Formhandle in Parker v. Learn
>the Skills Corp., Civ. A. No. 03-6936 hereinafter, "Parker I"). In
> that action, the late Judge JamesMcGirr Kelly granted pro se
> defendant Geiger's motion to dismiss plaintiff's first amended
> complaint without prejudice due to its failure to comply with the
> "short and plain statement requirements of Rule 8(a)(2) of the
> Federal Rules of CivilProcedure. See Parker I, Civ. A. No. 03-6936,
> 2004 WL 2384993(E.D. Pa. Oct. 25, 2004). The court later dismissed
> plaintiff'ssecond amended complaint, again without prejudice, for
> failing tocorrect this same pleading deficiency. See Order of
> Dismissal,No. 03-6936 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 3, 2004).
> 3/2/07 JUDGMENT affirmed. Costs taxed against the Appellant,
>filed. (clc) [06-2246 06-4166]
> 3/2/07 JUDGMENT affirmed. Costs taxed against the Appellant,
>filed. (clc) [06-2246 06-4166]
> 3/2/07 JUDGMENT affirmed. Costs taxed against the Appellant,
>filed. (clc) [06-2246 06-4166]
> 3/2/07 JUDGMENT affirmed. Costs taxed against the Appellant,
>filed. (clc) [06-2246 06-4166]
You're in contempt of a federal court order to pay me and the other
people who beat your sorry ass in PAED and CA3. You've been in
contempt since the court ordered you to pay us. File something
somewhere so I can contact the court about that contempt of a Circuit
Court order and your refusal to pay. You'll bet they won't care. I'll
bet they will. We'll see who wins.
>3/2/07 JUDGMENT affirmed. Costs taxed against the Appellant, (clc) [06-2246 06-4166]
>From http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/062246np.pdf
>3/2/2007
>
> 3/2/07 NOT PRECEDENTIAL PER CURIAM OPINION (McKee, Ambro, and
>Stapleton, Circuit Judges), filed. *Total Pages: 5. (clc)
>[06-2246 06-4166]
>
> 3/2/07 JUDGMENT affirmed. Costs taxed against the Appellant,
>filed. (clc) [06-2246 06-4166]
>
>
>UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
>FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
>NOS. 06-2246 & 06-4166 (Consolidated)
>________________
>GORDON ROY PARKER, doing business as SNODGRASS
>PUBLISHING GROUP also known as RAY GORDON
>v.
>LEARN THE SKILLS CORP.; FORMH...@FASTSEDUCTION.COM;
>THOM E. GEIGER; PAUL ROSS also known as ROSS JEFFRIES
>also known as EROS...@AOL.COM; TRUSTEES OF
>UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA; MATTHEW S. WOLF, ESQ.
>Gordon Roy Parker,
>Appellant
>____________________________________
>On Appeal From the United States District Court
>For the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
>(D.C. Civ. No. 05-cv-02752)
>Chief District Judge: Honorable Harvey Bartle III
>_______________________________________
>Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
>February 26, 2007
>BEFORE: McKEE, AMBRO and STAPLETON, CIRCUIT JUDGES
>(Filed March 2, 2007)
>_______________________
>OPINION
>_______________________
>2
>PER CURIAM
>Gordon Roy Parker, acting pro se, appeals an order of the United
>States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
>dismissing his complaint for failing
>to state a claim upon which relief can be granted against two
>defendants and for lack of personal jurisdiction over the remaining
>defendants. In a separately filed appeal, he seeks review of the
>District Court's denial of his motion for reconsideration and motion
>to vacate judgment. These appeals have been consolidated for all
>purposes.
>Parker's complaint alleges that defendants belong to a criminal
>enterprise designed to control the market for online advice about how
>to seduce women. As described more fully in the District Court's
>opinion and in painstaking detail in Parker's amended complaint,
>defendants allegedly diverted traffic from a public online "USENET"
>group to a private online discussion forum that they controlled,
>harassed plaintiff and attempted to undermine his reputation, and
>hindered his attempts to defend himself against these attacks. Parker
>alleges that these actions violated, inter alia, the Racketeer
>Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"), federal antitrust
>statutes, and state common law prohibitions on civil conspiracy, abuse
>of process, and fraudulent misrepresentation.
>
>We exercise jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We undertake
>plenary review of the District Court's dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6),
>accepting as true all factual allegations in the complaint and viewing
>them in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. See AT&T
>Corp. v. JMC Telecom, LLC, 470 F.3d 525, 529 (3d Cir. 3 2006). Our
>review of the District Court's rulings on personal jurisdiction is
>likewise plenary, except to the extent that they involved factual
>findings, which are reviewed for clear error. See Pennzoil Prods. Co.
>v. Colelli & Assocs., Inc. 149 F.3d 197, 200 (3d Cir. 1998). We review
>the District Court's denial of reconsideration for abuse of
>discretion.
>See Alston v. Parker, 363 F.3d 229, 233 (3d Cir. 2004).
>
>The amended complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be
>granted against defendant Matthew Wolf. The RICO, civil conspiracy,
>and abuse of process claims against him all rely on allegations that
>Wolf improperly moved to dismiss an earlier complaint filed in the
>Eastern District of Pennsylvania against many of the defendants
>involved in this case. Civ. No. 03-cv-06936. We agree with the
>District Court's conclusion that the challenged behavior was properly
>within the scope of Wolf's representation of his clients, and that it
>fails to support either the federal statutory or state law tort claims
>against him. See Gen. Refractories Co. v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co., 337
>F.3d 297 (3d Cir. 2003).
>The District Court also properly dismissed the claims that the
>Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania violated RICO and engaged
>in a civil conspiracy and fraudulent misrepresentation. These claims
>arise from the University's alleged refusal to disclose the identity
>of a student who Parker claims was involved in the plots against
>plaintiff. We essentially agree with the reasoning of the District
>Court. The conspiracy claim fails because the only alleged
>participants are the University and one of its employees, and absent
>narrow exceptions not present here, agents of an entity cannot
>conspire with their employer. See Gen. Refractories Co., 337 F.3d at
>313-14. Even if the fraudulent misrepresentation claim survived
>scrutiny under Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b), the complaint fails to allege all
>the elements of the claim, notably justifiable reliance. See, Porreco
>v. Porreco, 811 A.2d 566, 570-71 (Pa. 2002). As the District Court
>described, Parker's RICO claim against the University is also fatally
>flawed.
>The District Court lacked personal jurisdiction over the remaining
>defendants. None of these defendants resides in Pennsylvania or has a
>"continuous and substantial" connection to the state, and none has
>sufficient minimum contacts with Pennsylvania to "reasonably
>anticipate[] being haled into court there." Pennzoil, 149 F.3d at
>200-201 (citations omitted). As explained by the District Court, the
>generalized allegations of defendants' contact with Pennsylvania
>contained in Parker's amended complaint and pleadings are insufficient
>to meet his burden of proof on the jurisdictional issue. See Time
>Share Vacation Club v. Atlantic Resorts, Ltd., 735 F.2d 61, 66-67 (3d
>Cir. 1984). Nor are they sufficient to make out a prima facie case
>that could justify jurisdictional discovery. See Mass. Sch. of Law at
>Andover, Inc. v. Am. Bar Ass'n, 107 F.3d 1026, 1042 (3d Cir. 1997).
>Finally, we find no abuse of discretion in the District Court's denial
>of Parker's motions for reconsideration and to vacate, which
>identified neither errors in the
>District Court's order nor any other basis to justify revisiting that
>order. Accordingly, we will affirm the order of the District Court.
Thom E. Geiger, Domain Name Owner
Ray-Gordon.com
Ray-Gordon.net
Newsloon.com
Now, some Gordon Roy Parker oldies;
>Subject: Dominique Moceanu Is A CRIMINAL #121 Of infinity
>Subject: Dominqiue Moceanu Is A CRIMINAL #124 Of Infinity
>Subject: Dominique Moceanu Is A CRIMINAL #125 Of Infinity
>Subject: Dominique Moceanu Is A CRIMINAL #130 Of Infinity
>Subject: Dominique Moceanu Is A CRIMINAL #133 Of Infinity
>Subject: Amanda Borden Is A Homsexual #1 Of Infinity
>Subject: Amanda Borden Is NOT A Homsexual #1 Of Infinity
>Subject: Amanda Borden Is A Bisexual #6 Of Infinity
>Subject: Amanda Borden Is A Bisexual #11 Of Infinity
>Subject: Amanda Borden Is A Bisexual #12 Of Infinity
>Subject: Amanda Borden Is A Bisexual #13 Of Infinity
>Subject: Amanda Borden Is A Bisexual #14 Of Infinity
>Subject: Amanda Borden Is A Bisexual #15 Of Infinity
>Subject: Amanda Borden Is A Bisexual #16 Of Infinity
>Subject: Amanda Borden Is A Bisexual #18 Of Infinity
>Subject: Amanda Borden Is A DYKE #15 Of Infinity
>Subject: Amanda Borden Is A DYKE #16 Of Infinity
>Subject: Amanda Borden Is A DYKE #17 Of Infinity
>Subject: Brian RAPED Dominique?
>Subject: Amanda Borden Is A DYKE #18 Of Infinity
>Subject: Amanda Borden Is A DYKE #20 of Infinity
>This post will not be removed, EVER.
>It is Amanda's reward for her fans' ongoing harassment of me. She's
>lesbian; it's the truth. She threatened to KILL a reporter over it.
>This is not a very nice little dyke, now is it? Nope.
>To those gloating over my website, don't sweat it, it will be up shortly.
> The rewards for the harassment against our web provider will be dished
>out soon enough.
>Subject: Kristy Powell: Gymnastics BUM
>Subject: Amanda Borden Is A DYKE #21 Of Infinity
>The credit for this one (and the ones which will follow this one every
>day) goes to Odi...@home.com.
>In case Patty asks. Here is the post that triggered it:
>Subject: Kim Zmeskal Is A DRUG ADDICT #2 Of Infinity
>You want me off your backs? Clean up the mess you created, and I'll be
>out of your way........these lies are YOURS.
>Subject: Amanda Borden Is A DYKE #23 Of Infinity
>Subject: Kim Zmeskal Is A DRUG ADDICT #4 Of Infinity
>Subject: Amanda Borden Is A DYKE #24 Of infinity
>Her mom's an office whore, btw, and even admitted that she would not have
>her job if she were male.
>I hate cowardly WHORES who work for child abusers like Dimitry and Bela
>and try to harm people like Dominique.
>You should be ashamed of yourself, Kris.......God hates people like you.
>This post series will NOT stop. Period. And Kris, your mom is garbage.
>Subject: Amanda Borden Is A DYKE #25 Of Infinity
>these posts had stopped but good old Rinky-Dinky had to start up
>again....sad.
>Subject: More Harassment From Amanda The DYKE
>This is typical of that piece of shit Amanda WHOREDEN.
>Subject: Gymcats Is An Abusive Gym
>Subject: Kaitie Dyson: Lying Little Piece Of Shit
>Subject: Gymcats = INCOMPETENT CHILD ABUSERS
>Subject: Kim Zmeskal Is A DRUG ADDICT #5 Of Infinity
>Subject: Michelle Campi Is A Child Abuser #1 Of Infinity
>This posting series will not stop either until what I'm getting from USAG
>and others associated with it stops.
>Subject: Amanda Borden Is A DYKE #26 Of Infinity
>Subject: Amanda Borden Is A DYKE #131 Of Infinity
>This post goes down when Steelking's identity is revealed to me.....
>Subject: Amanda Borden Is A DYKE #132 Of Infinity
>Subject: Amanda Borden Is A DYKE #133 Of Infinity
>This post is put here in protest of the "Elite Gymnastics Mafia" website.
> It will be reposted EVERY DAY until that website, put up as a tool for
>slandering me, is removed.
>It's pretty simple: want the posts to stop? Take the site down. Want
>them to continue? Leave the site up.
>Subject: Kim Zmeskal Is A DRUG ADDICT #9 Of Infinity
>This post is put here in protest of the "Elite Gymnastics Mafia" website.
> It will be reposted EVERY DAY until that website, put up as a tool for
>slandering me, is removed.
>It's pretty simple: want the posts to stop? Take the site down. Want
>them to continue? Leave the site up.
>Subject: Amanda Borden Is A DYKE #134 Of Infinity
>When the "Official Gymnastics Mafia" website is taken down, these posts
>will stop.
>Subject: Kim Zmeskal Is A DRUG ADDICT #10 Of Infinity
>She is another one who uses the "Official Gymnastics Mafia" to harass her
>critics and to to do things that would harm her image if known.
>Subject: WHEN Atler Falls On Bars At Worlds (She WILL!)
>I'm gonna LAUGH...
>Subject: Gymcats Abuses Kids And NO ONE CARES (Was: Re: question
> for the group)
>Subject: Gymcats Is An Abusive Gym #2 Of Infinity
>Subject: Amanda Borden Is A DYKE #138 Of Infinity
>The post below challenged me. This is what I think of Rinky's little
>challenge.
>Subject: Kim Zmeskal Is A DRUG Addict #12 Of Infinity
>Subject: Amanda Borden Is A DYKE #142 Of Infinity
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sports.gymnastics/msg/eb665e29ef7ea9bc?dmode=source&hl=en
>From: sotwa...@mindspring.com (Ray Gordon)
>Subject: Re: NOTICE - Please read
>Date: 1997/12/16
>Message-ID: <3496fa14...@news.mindspring.com>
>X-Deja-AN: 298822928
>References: <349a9897...@news.demon.co.uk>
>X-Server-Date: 16 Dec 1997 22:06:33 GMT
>Organization: ICN
>Reply-To: sotwa...@mindspring.com
>Newsgroups: alt.sports.gymnastics,soc.singles,alt.hypnosis,alt.hypnosis.hypnotherapy
>
>
>Please forgive Dr. Thornley. A year ago, his newborn daughter chose
>to return to God rather than be raised by his pathetic self.
>
>Dr. Thornley, when he isn't busy trashing me on the internet with lies
>that can easily be disproven, takes advantage of being outside the US
>to repeatedly threaten my life.
>
>You know, if this group wants to see me stop posting, one way to do it
>would be to moderate a discussion regarding Tabitha's allegations
>against me, which I can easily prove false. Might make for a more
>interesting topic, don't you think? I mean if people actually
>demanded real proof of what she said about me, her case against me
>would crumble and there would be no way for her to deny it.
>
>It's not that I expect anyone to do this, but it is a way to make
>peace if anyone is interested.
>
>
>john.thorn...@hypno.demon.co.uk (John Thornley) wrote:
>This post concerns the person, sotwa...@mindspring.com (Ray Gordon)
>alias Gordon Roy Parker aka Ray. I list his personal details at the
>bottom of this post but the thrust of this post concerns his
>activities on the internet and in particular AOL as well as his
>psychological profile. As a reference, I am a registered professional
>hypno-psychotherapist practicing in the UK.
>
>Gordon Roy Parker posts and chats as a vile, viscious person, seeking
>to inflict pain and suffering on those who he contacts. He lurks in
>chat rooms inventing fallicies and accusations of anyone he latches on
>to. This is his pathetic, sad life and if it affected no one else, it
>could be ignored, but this isn't the case. He has affected, is
>affecting and will go on affecting the lives of people who do not
>deserve his attentions, unless something is done.
>
>I urge you to consider three things in this matter.
>
>1) If you don't want to be involved in this matter, and I don't blame
>you, do nothing, that is, do not even bother to read his posts, and
>certainly, this is even easier, do not reply to them under any
>circumstances, no matter how tempting it is to right a wrong, just let
>it go.
>
>2) If you DO read his posts but don't want to do anything, then do
>nothing either, See 1).
>
>3) If you do read his posts but want to make a difference, examine his
>posts carefully. If you find something offensive or unacceptable then
>contact your ISP and HIS ISP (AOL) and complain. Alternatively or
>additionally, you could email him and tell him what you think
>yourself.
>
>His posting history shows a serious psychotic disorder. He claimed in
>the past that his problem was diagnosed as Bipolar, (aka
>manic depression), but over the many many months, my professional
>opinion and that of others on this group differs, possibly BPD.
>Obviously the details are not that important. If the effects of his
>behaviour were not no horrid, the man could be pitied.
>
>As far as item 3 (above) goes, Ray keeps losing accounts and then
>gets a new one after aol have removed the first one. Obviously AOL
>need to have their attention drawn to this.
>
>Almost finally, to illustrate, I have included a transcript of a
>conversation with him on an aol chat room. I looked at these
>carefully to see if I could publish them verbatim and at the same time
>hide the identities of the innocent parties, but I have had to
>completely remove some segments as they are almost unreadable after
>censorship. Therefore I shall include a few soundbites. These are
>genuine;
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>DMIsAHussy: I'm about to destroy someone because of all of you
>DMIsAHussy: A girl who's sex life is about to be made public
>DMIsAHussy: When her father finds out he's gonna kill her
>DMIsAHussy: Because you guys say I'm lousy
>DMIsAHussy: But don't blame me
>DMIsAHussy: I've been provoked one too many times
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>DMIsAHussy: On the count of 3, you will all hate your dad
>DMIsAHussy: 1
>DMIsAHussy: 2
>DMIsAHussy: 3!
>DMIsAHussy: On the count of five, you'll XXXXXXXXXXXXX(CENSORED)
>DMIsAHussy: 1
>DMIsAHussy: 2
>DMIsAHussy: 3
>DMIsAHussy: 4
>DMIsAHussy: 5!
>DMIsAHussy: I hate cowards
>DMIsAHussy: Like XXXX
>DMIsAHussy: Such a big mouth but no backup
>DMIsAHussy: And that other guy who threatened me today?
>DMIsAHussy: Such a shame
>DMIsAHussy: XXXX will be busy XXXX
>DMIsAHussy: And XXXX
>OnlineHost: NNNNNNNN has left the room.
>DMIsAHussy: And XXXX....
>OnlineHost: NNNNNNNN has entered the room.
>SNIP
>OnlineHost: NNNNNNNN has left the room.
>DMIsAHussy: Some people have lives outside of work and don't need
>to make friends in the office
>DMIsAHussy: More like a pompous postering attitude where no real
>decent work
>gets dowwn
>DMIsAHussy: done
>SNIP
>DMIsAHussy: They are little playthings according to XXXXX
>DMIsAHussy: XXXX was bragging about doing them
>SNIP
>DMIsAHussy: And when your bosses find out about what you do to
>your girls your job goes bye-bye
>DMIsAHussy: Oh wait XXXX's also a COWARD
>DMIsAHussy: XXXX can only go behind my back
>DMIsAHussy: No guts
>DMIsAHussy: Just sick WIMPS after me to threaten me
>DMIsAHussy: Go ahead talk about me behind my back
>SNIP
>DMIsAHussy: I hate child abusers
>DMIsAHussy: With a PASSION
>DMIsAHussy: Excuse me while I post on USENET
>DMIsAHussy: I'll say XXXX had no comment
>DMIsAHussy: Of course not because XXXX's GUILTY AS SIN
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Finally, this post appeared on alt.hypnosis, targetted towards me.
>
>>Without realizing it, you have mistakenly attacked some people who are in no
>> way connected to me. You might be surprised to find out who they are. I know
>> I wouldn't want to be in your shoes once they get wind of it. Ever see a case
>> of mistaken identity, where you attack someone thinking they are the deserving
>> target of your abuse but they were completely innocent? Your rage against me
>> so blinded you to the truth that you have committed this mistake, and it's a
>> grave one.
>>
>>I think the death of your daughter has totally corrupted your soul. I also
>> should point out to you that chat logs are very easy to doctor, and totally
>> inadmissible in any kind of formal proceeding.
>>
>>I would like "caring observers" of this newsgroup to arm me with as much
>> information about Dr. Thornley as he has obtained by me. Just look at his
>> post and you'll know where to send it. By the way, there are some people on
>> that list you have named who will not appreciate your words, and those people
>> have little or nothing to do with me. Or is it just an unfortunate
>> consequence that a few innocent people get caught up in the crossfire?
>>
>>It's always a tragedy when a young child dies, dear Sir, but in your case I'd
>> say that if the alternative is being raised by you, the Act of God may have
>> spared her a miserable life. You are the most pathetic human being I have
>> ever had the displeasure of coming across over my computer.
>>
>>Would you like to keep attacking me unjustly? Or could you at least admit your
>> role in provoking me? No way, because you spin everything to suit your needs.
>> That may play well online, but would you care to move to the United States
>> and try this? I think not.
>>
>
>OK. Enough to make the point. the person concerned is;
>
>True name: Gordon Roy Parker
>4247 Locust Street Fairfax Apartments #806
>Philadelphia PA 19104
>(215) 386-7366
>
>A "business" address at Mailboxes Etc.: 3741 Walnut St. Suite 411
>Philadelphia PA 19104
>
>> Public document--- Pass it on---
>> >United States District Court
>> >Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia)
>> >CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:07-cv-02757-MAM
>> >PARKER v. YAHOO!, INC. et al
>> >Assigned to: HONORABLE MARY A. MCLAUGHLIN
>> >Cause: 17:101 Copyright Infringement
>> >Date Filed: 07/03/2007
>> >Jury Demand: None
>> >Nature of Suit: 820 Copyright
>> >Jurisdiction: Federal Question
>> >Plaintiff
>> >GORDON ROY PARKER represented by GORDON ROY PARKER
>> >4247 LOCUST STREET, #806
>> >PHILADELPHIA, PA 19104
>> >PRO SE
>> >V.
>> >Defendant
>> >YAHOO!, INC.
>> >Defendant
>> >MICROSOFT CORPORATION
>> >Date Filed # Docket Text
>> >07/03/2007 1 PLFF'S PETITION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS FILED BY
>> > GORDON ROY PARKER, VERIFICATION, CERT. OF SERV.(jmp, ) (Entered: 07/03/2007)
>> > PLAINTIFF'S PETITION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS
>> >Gordon Roy Parker, Plaintiff in the above-styled action moves this court
>> > for informa pauperis standing, and wavier of fees:
>> >1. Plaintiff has already been granted IFP status by the Third Circuit court of appeals,
>> >and has submitted previous financial affidavits, most recently in appeal #06-3074.
>> > A copy of the financial affidavit from that petition is attached hereto as Exhibit A
>> > and incorporated by reference as if fully set forth verbatim herein.
>> >2. Plaintiff has attached his 2006 federal tax return as Exhibit B. His adjusted gross
>> >income for 2006 was $7,402.59. This represents no significant change from his
>> > 2005 income of $7,487.05. Plaintiffs net income for 2007 to date from his business
>> > (based on 2006 expenses) is approximately $3,500.00. This is significantly
>> > below the federal poverty level.
>> >3. Plaintiff restates the particulars of expense portion the financial affidavit
>> > (Exhibit A) here as if fully stated verbatim, with the following changes:
>> >a. He is currently owed a total of approximately $66.00 in sales commissions
>> >from EliteFitness.com
>> >b. Due to tax arrears, he is currently paying $250.00 a month to the City of
>> >Philadelphia, and will be paying $100.00-125.00 a month to the IRS.
>> >c. His other assets and expenses remain unchanged.
>> >RELIEF SOUGHT
>> >Plaintiff seeks an order granting him in forma pauperis status in this case.
>> >This the 3rd day of July, 2007
>> >//signed//
>> >Gordon Roy Parker
>> >4247 Locust Street, #806
>> >Philadelphia, PA 19104
>> >(215) 386-7366
>> >E-mail: SnodgrassPubl...@aol.com
>> >Plaintiff, Pro Se
>> >VERIFICATION OF RESTATEMENT OF FINANCIAL AFFIDAVIT
>> >I, Gordon Roy Parker, an adult male resident of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania,
>> > hereby Swear or affirm, under penalty of perjury, that because of my current
>> > poverty, I cannot prepay the filing fee for the complaint in this action. I believe I
>> > am entitled to redress under copyright law and for the state-law claims stated
>> > herein. I swear or affirm under penalty of perjury under United States laws that
>> > my restated answers on this affidavit (Exhibit A to this Petition), and all factual
>> > averments, are true and correct, pursuant 0 28 USC 51746, relating to making false
>> >statements under oath, and pursuant to any other state, federal, or local law
>> > related to perjury, false swearing, or making false unsworn statements.
>> >This the 3rd day of July, 2007
>> >//signed//
>> >Gordon Roy Parker
>> >4247 Locust Street, #806
>> >Philadelphia, PA 19104
>> >(215) 386-7366
>> >E-mail: SnodgrassPubl...@aol.com
>> >Plaintiff, Pro Se
BettorO...@aol.com
Yep, GIRLYMAN, that's all that ever comes out of your mouth.
You're a weak, cowardly, pimply-faced GEEK who fools people only
because no one can see him posting. You're all mouth, no man.
A fucking JOKE. That wife of yours standing by you is what makes you
HUMAN SHIT.
Stupid GIRLYMAN. GAYGER is a name that would better reflect your
level of real courage.
Now excuse me, I have a lawsuit to file.
BettorO...@aol.com
by lawsuit. Objections not raised in a timely manner are waived.
There are other issues I could raise, but which are not necessary, due
to the above.
Any third parties who attempt to "collect" on this debt may be facing
action under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, in case they
think it would be fun to tweak me. The FDCPA has a provision for
statutory damages.
BettorO...@aol.com
GAYGER wants me to "file something" in another case, so it can do
whatever, it'll have its chance to put up or shut up as soon as I file
to subpoena Google.
Ray Gordon
BLafferty
>> OK. But, how do you know who the specific person is posting from that
>> IP? You can probably get all the records you need under a subpoena to
>> Verizon, but that will take a little while if you were to commence a
>
> discovery (filing fee $39.00 instead of $350.00), I can reveal a bit
> more.
>
> Personally, I don't think authentication is necessary in this case,
> given the "preponderance of the evidence" standard, but I completely
> understand your point. I live within 100 miles of both Google and
> Verizon's main offices, so the E.D.Pa. still has jurisdiction
> regardless. I also know how to file the misc. case in NY if push
> comes to shove.
>
> I would rather NOT have to do this, since it reduces the lawsuit to a
> game of catch-me-if-you-can, and this discovery would involved the
> alleged Doe's alleged employer, since said Doe posted from that IP
> address (thus I am not the one who involved the employer). I can show
> the court my evidence, and say I believe I have already proven the
> Doe's identity, absent an affidavit from the alleged "Doe" claiming
> that he didn't make the postings. In that vein, I can add a motion
> for prefiling discovery of the person who appears to be the "Doe," on
> the grounds that if they aedmit to posting, subpoenas to the ISPs and
> to Google become necessary.
>
> Along similar lines, how do we know that the person claiming to be the
> victim was not ALSO an imposter? That's why I have to subpoena the
> alleged employer, the one located in Philadelphia. Personally, I
> would think the "Doe" would rather just admit to making the posts,
> than have the allegations land on his employer's desk (an imposter
> would have had to spoof that IP address as well by posting, which only
> the employer can confirm), but if he insists on denying what I believe
> to be rather obvious, I'll be left with no choice but to RELUCTANTLY
> do this your way.
>
> YOUR WAY: $39.00 filing fee, subpoena to his employer, who then reads
> all the allegations.
>
> MY WAY: $350.00 filing fee, no subpoenas to employers, case goes
> directly to being heard on merit.
>
> You tell me which way you think the person I suspect of being the
> "Doe" would rather have this play out. As you are an attorney, your
> warning is taken very seriously. I could face SANCTIONS if I do not
> do this your way, but look at what that forces me to do?
>
> If the "Doe" wants to prevent this, which I doubt, since he'd have to
> admit or deny making the postings, he has until around Monday, which
> is when I intend to file the miscellaneous case. As an oddsmaker, I
> know what betting odds I would set on the identity of the Doe, and
> preponderance of the evidence (50.01 percent) is all I need. Still,
> to be completely certain, you are correct, I would have to subpoena
> Google, Verizon, and the employer I will not name, since I don't want
> them dragged into this if that could be avoided. In other words, I
> can play this ANY way the other side wishes to, and I am showing good
> faith by attempting to circumvent what would be a very embarrassing
> step for the "Doe." If my hand is forced, however, I will literally
> have no choice.
>
> Any more comments, Mr. Lafferty?
>
> Ray Gordon
Nope. Thanks for the info.
Thom Geiger
Go for it dimwit. Tug on my cape. Give me a reason. What ya gonna do,
run off to whine and cry to some cop somewhere that I threatened you,
like you usually do you asswipe coward? Boohoo, mr. policeman, the big
bad man scared me, boohoo. Come out from behind your monitor for one
seond you child stalking, child threatening idiot. Give me a clear
shot...
...in court that is. Give me an opening. You made that mistake before
and you lost. Cowards like you always lose. You don't have the balls
it takes to see something through to the end. You wimp out every time.
So go for it. I'm itching to have a chance to do my thing. The big
legal eagle millionaire dirtbag head of a multi-national attorney pool
against the lone wolf bar bouncer. I could crush your sorry child
stalking ass with two fingers and you know it. That's why you hide and
why you bitch to law enforcement every time I call you out. You're a
child obsessed wimp any girl could beat the shit out of. So run,
gorgon, run. See gorgon squirm. Squirm gorgon squirm.
Hell gorgon, you mooched off your own mother until she died. How long
would she have lived and what better quality of life would she have
had if it weren't for all the bullshit you got her into? All the pain
you caused her? All the debt you got her mired into? How many years
did you cut off her life?
Oh, and by the way, you never answered the question of why you claimed
to be your mother's legal representative, or why you opened her US
mail, or if you cashed her checks, or why you intercepted her
telephone calls. Not even a real bona fide attorney would try that
kind of crap, but to do that shit to your own mother? You're a sorry
ass shitbag gorgon. I'll guess you even used her pain meds and
probably left her with little or none. What a son you turned out to
be. A child stalker, a sexual deviant, a child threatener, an
unemployed mooch, a coward and an all around loser.
Thom E. Geiger, Domain Name Owner
Ray-Gordon.com
Ray-Gordon.net
Newsloon.com
Legal exhibit submitted by Gordon Roy Parker into the public record in PAED case #03-cv-6396
http://www.HeavyData.net/exhibit-c-parker-v-LTSC-03-cv-6396-EDPA--rayFAQ.zip
Don't buy anything from any business trying to use SLAPP lawsuits to
stop criticism of the company, owners, officers or products.
Guido Gump Parker blames a baseball bat death threat on his own mother, Penny "Skull Crusher" Parker:
>The "baseball bat" remark was made by my mom in response to a gymnastics
>groupie who harassed half of the national team, with help from several chat
>hosts and gymnastics coaches and hackers.
Paul Robinson
<BettorOffSin...@aol.com> wrote:
> I do know employers tend to frown on hiring cyberbulllies these days.
Uh, Ray, in case you're unaware of this, the term "cyberbully" refers
exclusively to someone targeting a child. And unless the matter
comes forward as the result of some legal action, the employer isn't
necessarily going to know what someone is doing on Usenet, and might
not even care as long as it was what the employee did on their own
time and not using employer's equipment.
Further, if someone came to me and complained that an employee of mine
was doing something on his own time using his own computer, my first
comment would be, what does that have to do with me? If you have a
problem, you deal with it privately. You show me he's doing it on
company time, at company expense or has some connection to my
company's operations then it's something I have to deal with.
If the employer fires someone for what they did off the job, that's
not-for-cause and would then allow the person to not only collect
unemployment (which would lower the employer's experience rating), but
might also allow the former employee to sue for wrongful termination.
And if the guy's a star performer he's not going to fire him for his
off-duty activities as long as they don't impact his employment.
A guy goes around on off-hours and smokes pot, you can discharge him
and get away with it, even if it has no affect on his job
performance. A guy goes around in a neo-nazi uniform on weekends,
never wearing it at or near the office, discharge him and you've got a
big problem. Same thing if you fire him because he flies a
confederate flag on his pickup truck that he never brings to the
office. Even if employment is at will, at a minimum you're going to
owe unemployment because you can't argue that it was for cause.
Paul Robinson
<BettorOffSin...@aol.com> wrote:
> I will be filing a $25 million lawsuit against the imposter, and
> discovering its OUTGOING e-mail towards the remailer. It's obvious
> the imposter had intended to use the remailer, and just messed up.
> That may open a the mother of all cans of worms, and cast a very new
> light on the events of the past several years.
We shall see, and I suspect you will screw up somehow. You always do,
Ray, you always do. Further, if the guy has any brains, he's bound to
ask someone around here, and what will happen is, he'll be able to
bring in your postings, plus possibly depositions from posters on this
newsgroup, to state specifically that you are undefamable because the
rancidness of your postings means that you have no reputation at all.
It's like Moamar Ghadaffi, Saddam Hussein, Hitler, Stalin, Mao or
several other very infamous people, you can say anything about them,
they're so unliked that even a malicious false statement won't be
considered defamatory because they cannot be defamed; you cannot drop
any lower when your reputation (especially when it's by your own hand)
is already zero.
You've made comments that the people who died in the World Trade
Center deserved what they got. You've also commented that the
firefighters who died there got what they should expect (you may have
been nastier and said they deserved it but I haven't checked); they're
professionals and it's part of the risk they take when they decided on
that sort of work. The last item is true, but when you post it ON
SEPTEMBER 11, 2001 WHILE THEY'RE DYING is so rancid that you can't
possibly spin it in such a way that a jury is going to do anything but
render a judgment for the defendant.
You're a public figure, not a private person like myself. That means
you have to show both untruth and either malice or reckless disregard
for the truth. {Curtis Publishing v. Butts}, 388 U.S. 130, 87 S. Ct.
1975, 18 L. Ed. 2d 1094 (1967). You also have to show your reputation
was damaged as a result of the falsehood (with some exceptions). Even
then, the jury has got to have sympathy for you or they'll find for
the defendant; at best maybe you get a judgment but zero damages.
Maybe it's even worse and they award the defendant damages on a cross-
complaint.
You must actually be damaged and the amount you can collect is limited
to actual damages. You have no grounds to sue for $25 million, there
is no way for you to argue by any stretch of the imagination that you
could be damaged that badly. My guess is that - and I'm being
generous here - if you had any damages for libel it might be 2 or 3
cents. You'd have to open your books and show that as a result of
this libel your sales went down. If it had no affect on your sales
you have no damages to speak of, and that's all the courts allow is
what you can speak of.
Further, it's real easy to defend. All they have to do is argue that
you're mentally ill, and boom, you're on the hook to take a competency
exam. And I think that is the one thing you fear more than anything
else, that there will eventually come a time when you end up being
required to take a competency hearing, and can't get out of it, lest
you get contempt proceedings filed against you. Take the test or go
to jail until you agree, and that's all they wrote, the court will
suspend the case while you're in psychiatric treatment. Which could
be a long, long time in your case.
So I suspect what will happen is you'll be stuck between a rock and a
hard place, you'll have a choice: drop the suit with prejudice or take
a competency test, and when you refuse the defendant will get a
judgment or a dismissal, possibly with prejudice. And you'll chalk up
another loss, complaining how the judge hates you, rather than you
simply being the rude ** incompetent*** we all love. :)
** "[Y]ou can again go fuck yourself. I am too polite to get into
detail about what I think is wrong with someone like you." - Ray
Gordon, March 16, 2003
http://groups.google.com/groups?&selm=20030316063856...@mb-bj.aol.com
http://tinyurl.com/nhof
*** "Plaintiff is... completely incomprehensible..." {Gordon Roy
Parker v. Google, Inc.} 422 F. Supp 2d 492 (2006, E.D. PA)
Paul Robinson
<BettorOffSin...@aol.com> wrote:
> It would also seem that the poster violated 47 USC 223 et seq, by
> anonymously harassing both me and Bauer.
>
> I think where it will really get interesting is when the name is
> revealed. I suspect this person was not acting alone.
Uh, Legal genius, 47 USC 223 covers use of making obscene phone
calls. It has no relationship to the Internet and no relation to
anonymous harassment other than by making a telephone ring for no
legitimate purpose.
The Supreme Court has held that the First Amendment includes the right
to anonymous or pseudononymous speech {McIntyre v. Ohio Elections
Comm'n}, 514 U.S. 334 (1995)., and a law making it illegal to
communicate anonymously has a very high probability of being struck
down as unconstitutional {Talley v. California}, 362 U.S. 60 (1960).
Your smrat ®
> Uh, Legal genius, 47 USC 223 covers use of making obscene phone
> calls. It has no relationship to the Internet and no relation to
> anonymous harassment other than by making a telephone ring for no
> legitimate purpose.
Oh dear.
Toto
> On Mar 22, 7:52 pm, "BettorOffSin...@aol.com"
> <BettorOffSin...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> It would also seem that the poster violated 47 USC 223 et seq, by
>> anonymously harassing both me and Bauer.
>>
>> I think where it will really get interesting is when the name is
>> revealed. I suspect this person was not acting alone.
>
> Uh, Legal genius, 47 USC 223 covers use of making obscene phone
> calls. It has no relationship to the Internet and no relation to
> anonymous harassment other than by making a telephone ring for no
> legitimate purpose.
Wrong. See 223 (a)(1)(C)
(C) makes a telephone call or utilizes a telecommunications device,
whether or not conversation or communication ensues, without disclosing
his identity and with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass any
person at the called number or who receives the communications;
and see (c)(1)(h)(C)
(C) in the case of subparagraph (C) of subsection (a)(1) of this
section, includes any device or software that can be used to originate
telecommunications or other types of communications that are
transmitted, in whole or in part, by the Internet (as such term is
defined in section 1104 [1] of the Internet Tax Freedom Act (47 U.S.C.
151 note )).
>
> The Supreme Court has held that the First Amendment includes the right
> to anonymous or pseudononymous speech {McIntyre v. Ohio Elections
> Comm'n}, 514 U.S. 334 (1995)., and a law making it illegal to
> communicate anonymously has a very high probability of being struck
> down as unconstitutional {Talley v. California}, 362 U.S. 60 (1960).
Time will tell. The Supremes have long held that the 1st Amendment right
to freedom of expression is not absolute.
Bobcat
"...Further, it's real easy to defend. All they have to do is argue
that
you're mentally ill, and boom, you're on the hook to take a competency
exam. And I think that is the one thing you fear more than anything
else, that there will eventually come a time when you end up being
required to take a competency hearing, and can't get out of it, lest
you get contempt proceedings filed against you. Take the test or go
to jail until you agree, and that's all they wrote, the court will
suspend the case while you're in psychiatric treatment. Which could
be a long, long time in your case.
"So I suspect what will happen is you'll be stuck between a rock and a
hard place, you'll have a choice: drop the suit with prejudice or take
a competency test, and when you refuse the defendant will get a
judgment or a dismissal, possibly with prejudice. And you'll chalk up
another loss, complaining how the judge hates you, rather than you
simply being the rude ** incompetent*** we all love. :)"
Ah Yes, reminds me of the good ol' days and our favorite "Ambassador",
Marcus W. Roberts. I wonder what happened to him and into what booby
hatch they threw him -- a reasonable assumption as no one has heard a
word from him. I hope he is in a padded cell somewhere so he can't
hurt himself.
Nomen Nescio
"BettorO...@aol.com" <BettorO...@aol.com> not using a re-
mailer wrote in news:d0b7f3dd-a3e2-43df-a232-efa9833d030b@k10g2000prh.
googlegroups.com...
> it seems our latest imposter (the one who impersonated Randy Bauer),
> did NOT use an anonymous remailer, even though he or she thought they
> had.
> The IP address of 75.XXX.XXX.XXX appears very clearly in the post, and
> traces to Verizon Wireless. Further investigation is pointing towards
> an indivdiual from the suburbs of Chicago.
You must be the person called "Raytard" by a replier.
"Raytard", what you wrote is bullshit.
A re-mailer was used for that post. No doubts at all.
So any IP shown in a header is spoof and nonrelevant.
You claimed it is the real deal and you are fooling other fools.
You know the reality so who are y o u trying to frame?
The post was sent to alt.hypnosis, alt.sports.gymnastics, alt.seduction.
fast, I looked there to find you are a famous netk00k Gordon Roy Parker
famous mainly for loosing 20 lawsuits. http://www.rayfaq.com
Is framing your victims your new method to improve your scoring rate
"Raytard"? I got it. You re-mail a post insulting yourself and having
spoof headers containing some respectable person's IP then you threaten
suit and hope they view it cheaper to give you a couple hundred bucks
than to bother to get your frivolous suit dismissed.
The sickest thing is whatever was put in this Fake "Randy Bauer" post
was probably true or not as bad as what I read at rayfaq.com. This
Gordon Roy Parker Parker blamed a baseball bat death threat on his own
mother, prematurely driven to her grave by her moocher lowlife son.
"The "baseball bat" remark was made by my mom in response to a
gymnastics groupie who harassed half of the national team, with help
from several chat hosts and gymnastics coaches and hackers." - GRP
Yeah right, Penny Parker is to blame, not her braindead child-stalking
child-obsessed child-threatening unemployed sexually-deviant cowardly
asswipe wimp and all-round loser Gordon Roy Parker.
Here's some food for thought for any future Employer of the netl00n
Gordon Roy Parker, I checked the allegation he made in it and it is a
lie, just an application within a divorce action.
From: "BettorO...@aol.com" <BettorO...@aol.com>
Subject: Susan Polgar is a CHILD-ABUSING CUNT!
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.politics
Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2011 11:45:15 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID:
<6ea14f00-3466-42fe...@u12g2000vbf.googlegroups.com>
X-Organization: http://groups.google.com
X-NNTP-Posting-Host: 71.175.254.125
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1300560315 26823 127.0.0.1 (19 Mar 2011
18:45:15 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups...@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2011 18:45:15 +0000 (UTC)
Complaints-To: groups...@google.com
Injection-Info: u12g2000vbf.googlegroups.com; posting-host=71.175.254.125;
posting-account=feGkJQoAAACgEviiKOq8q37tNxW3-6W5
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 5.1;
Trident/4.0; GTB6.6; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 3.0.4506.2152; .NET CLR
3.5.30729; NET_mmhpset),gzip(gfe)
That SICK woman HOTSAUCED a TWO YEAR-OLD because he didn't STUDY CHESS.
This woman is involved in SCHOLASTIC CHESS!! That is DISGUSTING.
That cowardly piece of shit, who lacked the talent to become the Men's
world champion on her own, tried to live vicariously through her own
children. Pity her ex-husband, who had to get a COURT ORDER to get
her to stop doing this.
Is she still running tournaments? If so, someone should ask around at
them to see if the parents are even AWARE this court order existed.
Ray Gordon
If you have macular degeneration, it is probably because you've been
busy playing with your tool, fruitl00p, instead of libeling innocents.
"BLafferty" <b...@nowhere.com> not using a re-mailer wrote in news:
YLedndedTa4Sz-PQ...@giganews.com...
>> Why hasn't Sam Sloan started graping his youngest daughter so far?
SNIP AWAY LIBELS BY OP vid...@nowhere.com, ALL QUOTED BY "BLafferty"
> If you're going to be the Fake MrVidmar
SNIP AWAY "HUMOR" BY "BLafferty"
My first thought was that the O.P. was Gordon Roy Parker, preparing
the territory for his scam against "Randy Bauer" by creating a diversion.
But my second thought went this way
"BLafferty", is it strange that while the OP had marked the libeling
post with the x-no-archive hdr, so the shit did not get stored in the
most obvious places, you chose to quote it in full and with archiving
switched on, so any harassment of "Sam Sloan" is maximized. Don't
like him much?
Stranger still when a search for "vid...@nowhere.com", the fake addr
used by the OP, revealed that it is or was your own (or "BLafferty"'s
as that is probably not your real name) favored posting address. You
could then be the last person who would be suspected of frogging it.
Are all you chesspoliticos sickos? Is water wet?
When I note "Sam Sloan" (a fictional detective?) being attacked by
BLafferty or Gordon Roy Parker, I assume "Sam Sloan" is okay.
Billy Cowper (not my real name and not @ http://www2.cowper.com/nets)
fup>2 rec.games.chess.politics
zdrakec
BLafferty or Gordon Roy Parker, I assume "Sam Sloan" is okay. "
Actually, they all three are pretty much equally obnoxious.
Bobcat
I tend to agree. Sam Sloan however *sometimes* -- seldom, but
*sometimes* -- has something worthwhile to say.
You are thinking of Sam Spade, the fictional detective in the "Maltese
Falcon". Sam Sloan as a gumshoe?!? Given his self promoting hype who
knows, but the only thing Sam Sloan is capable of is gumming up the
works of well *everything* he gets involved in!!!!
Paul Robinson
> On 3/28/2011 8:34 PM, Paul Robinson wrote:
>
> > On Mar 22, 7:52 pm, "BettorOffSin...@aol.com"
> > <BettorOffSin...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >> It would also seem that the poster violated 47 USC 223 et seq, by
> >> anonymously harassing both me and Bauer.
>
> >> I think where it will really get interesting is when the name is
> >> revealed. I suspect this person was not acting alone.
>
> > Uh, Legal genius, 47 USC 223 covers use of making obscene phone
> > calls. It has no relationship to the Internet and no relation to
> > anonymous harassment other than by making a telephone ring for no
> > legitimate purpose.
>
> Wrong. See 223 (a)(1)(C)
>
> (C) makes a telephone call or utilizes a telecommunications device,
> whether or not conversation or communication ensues, without disclosing
> his identity and with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass any
> person at the called number or who receives the communications;
>
> and see (c)(1)(h)(C)
>
> (C) in the case of subparagraph (C) of subsection (a)(1) of this
> section, includes any device or software that can be used to originate
> telecommunications or other types of communications that are
> transmitted, in whole or in part, by the Internet (as such term is
> defined in section 1104 [1] of the Internet Tax Freedom Act (47 U.S.C.
> 151 note )).
But you missed (h)(1)(b):
(h) Definitions
For purposes of this section--
(1) The use of the term "telecommunications device" in this
section--
(B) does not include an interactive computer service, and.
Therefore it's arguable it was intended to refer to telephone calls -
including VOIP services - and not to include text messaging services
like Usenet. (This is why lawyers wives have mink coats.)
micky
>
> On Mar 31, 8:58 am, zdrakec <zdra...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > "When I note "Sam Sloan" (a fictional detective?) being attacked by
> > BLafferty or Gordon Roy Parker, I assume "Sam Sloan" is okay. "
> >
> > Actually, they all three are pretty much equally obnoxious.
>
> I tend to agree. Sam Sloan however *sometimes* -- seldom, but
> *sometimes* -- has something worthwhile to say.
Are u always so thumthink bobdik ?
Or only thumtimes ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
BL
Paul Robinson
47 USC 223 (h)(2) says:
(2) The term "interactive computer service" has the meaning provided
in section 230(e)(2) of this title.
47 USC 230 (e)(2) says:
Actually, the law in the above is wrong, (e)(2) doesn't define it, (f)
(2) does, and (f)(2) says:
"(2) Interactive computer service
The term “interactive computer service” means any information service,
system, or access software provider that provides or enables computer
access by multiple users to a computer server, including specifically
a service or system that provides access to the Internet and such
systems operated or services offered by libraries or educational
institutions. "
Therefore my claim stands, that 47 USC 230 is intended to refer to
voice communications such as obscene phone calls, and doesn't apply to
an information service like Usenet. Section 230 makes a lot of
references to 'caller' and 'telephone' and to similar terms. I
haven't read the legislative history but I suspect it was intended to
cover obscene or harassing phone calls because the individual
subscriber is harassed.
My only correction is that I should have said it doesn't apply to the
Internet in general (like the Web or to anything similar where you go
to the service to get it like Internet Radio or Usenet), as opposed
to, say, a VOIP telephone number or one's personal e-mail box), or I
should have said it doesn't apply to Usenet. I really wasn't thinking
of the Internet with respect to telephone calls; I'd forgotten about
VOIP which technically was incorrect on my part. But we're still not
talking about private communication on a one-to-one basis where the
recipient is forced to receive a direct message as opposed to the
recipient receiving a public communication where they choose to go get
it.
Since one chooses to connect to Usenet, and one can see the message
headers and senders in advance, and one usually knows the general
character of what messages in that newsgroup are about, one can choose
not to view what's in a particular newsgroup. It's not the same as
one's telephone or even one's personal e-mail, and I think we can
classify Usenet to be of the character of a newspaper and as such,
subject to much greater protection than, say, a user of a telephone or
even a recipient of e-mail which is usually private.
I think someone trying to stretch 230 to apply to Usenet is making a
big overgrab and is likely to find their interpretation wrong.
Because if it is, Ray has annoyed and harassed ME many times, not
among those being his attacks upon my size and his terribly
insensitive comments about James King's deceased fiancee/wife. If
being annoying on a public information service like Usenet is enough
to be a crime, we've got more than enough to have Ray arrested many
times.
Holding the law that way would be so overbroad as to be
unconstitutional; it would criminalize anything that anyone saw on
Usenet that annoyed them. On the other hand, holding it to a
telephone line could probably be considered narrowly tailored enough
to withstand challenge since while people do have the right to
communicate, I have the right to not get a commnunication on my
private instrument and there is no constitutional right to communicate
to any specific person, especially if the communication is an unwanted
one, to their private space, as opposed to a public one such as
Usenet. I think {Rowan v. Post Office Dept.}, 397 U.S. 728 (1970)
would be the standard in such a case. It has to be one's private
space (like a phone or a mailbox), not a public one (like Usenet).
I think {Cohen v. California}, 403 U.S. 15 is applicable here, where
the Supreme Court ruled that someone wearing a jacket reading "fuck
the draft" in the public corridors of the Los Angeles County
Courthouse was not enough to charge him with disturbing the peace.
BL
ISP. If you use your (or a friend or someone else's) computer to harass
someone as set out in the statute, you've committed a crime.
Bobcat
Thank you for your input Mickey Mouse.
Paul Robinson
> > system, or access software provider that provides or enables computer
> > access by multiple users to a computer server, including specifically
> > a service or system that provides access to the Internet and such
> > systems operated or services offered by libraries or educational
> > institutions. "
>
> > Therefore my claim stands, that 47 USC 230 is intended to refer to
> > voice communications such as obscene phone calls, and doesn't apply to
> > an information service like Usenet. Section 230 makes a lot of
> > references to 'caller' and 'telephone' and to similar terms. I
> > haven't read the legislative history but I suspect it was intended to
> > cover obscene or harassing phone calls because the individual
> > subscriber is harassed.
>
> ISP.
It does not say that.
Let's start over. What is the title of 47 USC 223?
"§ 223. Obscene or harassing telephone calls in the District of
Columbia or in interstate or foreign communications"
In order to violate this law one must use a telephone, a
telecommunications device or a telecommunications facility. We can
skip the parts about sending stuff to someone under 18; Ray isn't
under 18. (h)(1)(b) specifically exempts an "interactive
communications service" (h)(1)(c) includes "telecommunications" under
47 USC 151, which defines telecommunications as "(43)
Telecommunications
The term “telecommunications” means the transmission, between or among
points specified by the user, of information of the user’s choosing,
without change in the form or content of the information as sent and
received. "
A user of Usenet cannot specify what points to where the message is
transmitted.
Thus the statute does not apply to Usenet.
"[I]n interpreting a statute a court should always turn to one
cardinal canon before all others. . . .[C]ourts must presume that a
legislature says in a statute what it means and means in a statute
what it says there." Connecticut Nat'l Bank v. Germain, 112 S. Ct.
1146, 1149 (1992). Indeed, "when the words of a statute are
unambiguous, then, this first canon is also the last: 'judicial
inquiry is complete.'" 503 U.S. 249, 254.
In construing an ambiguous criminal statute, the court should resolve
the ambiguity in favor of the defendant. See McNally v. United States,
483 U.S. 350 (1987);
> If you use your (or a friend or someone else's) computer to harass
> someone as set out in the statute, you've committed a crime.
Not according to what the statute says. It excludes messages that
can't be routed to a specific choice of person. You might stretch it
to cover e-mail (and I think that even under the most lenient reading
of the statute that's beyond its reach), but you're not going to
squeeze Usenet - where the sender cannot dictate where the messages go
- into coverage under the statute.
Thom Geiger
<pa...@paul-robinson.us> wrote:
So, if Parker's legal beagle buddies seem to think they can apply
telecommunications harassment statutes to Usenet, then howz 'bout they
start with these gems, eh?
>Subject: Dominique Moceanu Is A CRIMINAL #121 Of infinity
>Subject: Dominqiue Moceanu Is A CRIMINAL #124 Of Infinity
>Subject: Dominique Moceanu Is A CRIMINAL #125 Of Infinity
>Subject: Dominique Moceanu Is A CRIMINAL #130 Of Infinity
>Subject: Dominique Moceanu Is A CRIMINAL #133 Of Infinity
>Subject: Amanda Borden Is A Homsexual #1 Of Infinity
I see a shitboat load of harassment based on gender and sexual
orientation, but maybe Parker's buddies can give him a pass on his
spew since they're so close and all. *BLEECK*
"142 of infinity" DYKE messages and Shit-for-brains and his colleagues
want to threaten others with communications harassment? Just about
every rational reader on Usenet knows Gordon Roy Parker's a child
stalking, child obsessed piece of shit, but what the hell's his
buddies' excuse? Is this another case of the 'speeding info' kind of
wannabe dickheads wallowing in Parker's feces?
Thom E. Geiger, Domain Name Owner
Ray-Gordon.com
Ray-Gordon.net
Newsloon.com
Legal exhibit submitted by Gordon Roy Parker into the public record in PAED case #03-cv-6396
http://www.HeavyData.net/exhibit-c-parker-v-LTSC-03-cv-6396-EDPA--rayFAQ.zip
Don't buy anything from any business trying to use SLAPP lawsuits to
stop criticism of the company, owners, officers or products.
Guido Gump Parker blames a baseball bat death threat on his own mother, Penny "Skull Crusher" Parker: