The Ray Gordon Litigation Train (Waz Re: Winterpuke: No job, living at home?)
Paul Robinson
> >I also didn't have any real gripe about gordon living
> >at home unless he then rants how much money he
> >earns, how much of a big bad seduction clown he is,
>
> What does where a man lives have to do with his ability to seduce women?
Well, most males prefer to be out on their own as opposed to living with their
mother. It's kind of a thing about being independent. Well, maybe that doesn't
apply to me since I still live with my mother. She's staying in a nice little 24
cm brass cube with praying hands on it, I think she's currently working as a
doorstop.
> I don't believe in bringing women "home" no matter where I live.
Some men do, some don't. Usually the reason for taking a woman home is it's a
whole lot cheaper than spending upwards of $75 a night or more to go to a hotel
room. Or it depends on the area. In this area the Motel 6 - Formerly the Walter
Reed Hotel - on Georgia Avenue in Washington, DC has nice, clean rooms with King
Size beds for $80 as opposed to $120 or more at other hotels. But that may have
gone down since the last time I rented a room here was before 9/11/2001.
> >and the only reason he has mentioned is that
> >"it saves money". IF grp-ie had said it's to take
> >care of his mom, he'd of ended the 'live at home' thing.
>
> Hardly. Saving money is necessary when employers retaliate and discriminate.
Here we go again with the 'retaliate and discriminate' chant. I guess it's like
Goebbels said, repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth. But we already
know the truth so it won't work here. If you're currently employed, Mr. Parker,
then you're not being discriminated against. If you're being discriminated
against, then you're not currently employed as you claim you are.
My opinion is that your shoddy work - as typified by your errors in postings here -
and your piss-poor attitude in person - as shown by your rude** attitude here on
alt.seduction.fast. - are the reasons places you have tried to get work at and
failed have not hired you.
I have on occasion wanted to express an opinion that you would not be qualified to
shovel shit in a manure factory but I have to take that back as you do an excellent
job of shoveling shit here every day. But your errors and omissions and
mean-spirited attitude would show from what I have seen you would not be qualified
to work in an office setting as a secretary or any job requiring contact with the
public. I base my opinion on having been a secretary on occasion, a file clerk, a
technical support person, a computer programmer and currently working as a Notary
Public that does involve contact with the public.
If you think you are personally being retaliated against, you can compensate for
that. You go rent a mail box from a mail receiving agency. You go buy a cell
phone from 7-11 and load it with some minutes. You only give out that address and
that phone number, and you can use some other name. Send out resumes using that
address and phone number. If you have any reasonable skills you should get some
responses. Unless and until they hire you they don't need to know your real name.
Then if they refuse to hire you or retract their offer, then you have grounds to
argue retaliation. Not before.
Personally, your comments and statements here give me reason to believe that your
inability to be hired at the places you have applied at where you were not hired
was the result of your errors and omissions, mistakes on applications or in
resumes, and/or because your personality grated on them.
> It's also wise in general. Not that this is your concern.
When you make a statement in a public newsgroup you open yourself up to fair
comment and response to your statements.
> >ya, like when I posted mine online, yet you STILL refuse to
> >serve me, even contact me in any way..you know my email
> >address(s) and after ONE email telling you to bugger off,
> >you never replied. So, who cares where you get your info,
> >you do nothing with it. It just makes your motives clear.
>
> Considering what you're doing with your sig, you're not one to be talking.
If the reference to http://www.ray-gordon.com - oh how you hate it when people do
that - represents something really bad, how come you were unable to get a
restraining order? Why were you unable to have it closed down if it contains
defamatory material? Maybe because it isn't defamatory? Or maybe, I wonder, do
the words 'inexcusable failure*' also fit in here somewhere?
> I consider it to be a hate-crime based on perceived mental illness (as in "get
> help or we will continue to ridicule and defame you) and will be pressing
> CRIMINAL charges very soon on that basis, in addition to any civil claims.
Ray, as soon as you can find a District Attorney or Commonwealth's Attorney
(whatever they call prosecutors in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania) to agree with
you you're good to go. Presuming you can find a prosecutor stupid enough to either
try such a case or moronic enough to grant you Ex-Relator status in order to
prosecute it yourself.
As for the verdict, oh yeah, a jury is really going to find you sympathetic enough
to believe that you were the victim of a hate crime. When someone brings in your
claims that the Firefighters and Police officers who died in the World Trade
Center, Second Edition were not important, and that there was "no significant loss
of life" there, I would expect a really fast verdict of not guilty. Then followed
by a very large malicious prosecution suit against the city, county, state (or
whoever prosecutes cases there) and YOU, which I dare say they might very well win.
Presuming any prosecutor was stupid enough to believe you and actually prosecute.
So maybe the people here need to take account of that and remove such ignorance.
I would recommend that someone get a list of every prosecutor in the county Ray
lives in, and every near by county, and mail all of them, individually a copy of
some of his posts, letting them know what kind of Rude* Inexcusable Failure** he is
so they don't take him at face value, but know what he has said before, so they
aren't blindsided.
> You could post ANYONE's info online. You already claim not to be "Fuz" even
> when it's obvious you were him. If it is shown that you were him, then you're
> harassing someone because they sued you, and that's also a crime.
As soon as you can get a prosecuting attorney to agree with you, you're good to
go. I won't hold my breath.
> The main obstacle to litigating and/or prosecuting this was that Penn has kept
> me so buried with paperwork that I literally couldn't do anything else since
> January.
Yeah, yeah, excuses, excuses.
> That has now lifted and the RICO case is being redrafted, for
> refiling, and I have everyone's info or access to it.
I can guess the result: the case will be dismissed, and maybe the defendants will
be able to countersue for costs and attorney's fees since there is no commercial
nexus and thus no case under RICO. We shall see.
> Your info is sitting with a few of your news posting services for my retrieval.
So would yours if you hadn't been busy trying to cover up the past by nuking your
posts on Google to hide what you said before.
> You have chosen to participate in a conspiracy that includes many crimes
> against me, including death threats. You have helped to incite others to
> commit these acts, and have "furthered the interests of the RICO enterprise."
If you can get a judge to agree with you, you're good to go. Only problem is that
SCOTUS has already ruled that if there is no commercial involvement, there is no
RICO case. And even if there was, you would be hard pressed to claim that there is
a conspiracy when, as I suspect, most of these people don't know each other except
by what is posted here. I've never met any of them and don't know any of them.
> The only "maroon" here would be you if you think you can't and won't be held
> accountable for your conduct.
A lawsuit is a two-edged sword, Ray, it can (and probably will) cut both ways.
Your comments and errors have given anyone you sue lots of ammunition to try to get
the case kicked in addition to the standard reasons. Not to mention countersuit
against you for court costs, attorneys fees and anything else they think is valid
to argue. And they might just end up stripping you bare.
I'd like to thank whoever posted the info on Ray having gone through bankruptcy
recently. It means he's locked out of bankruptcy court and can't escape to there
for several years. Giving plenty of time to strip him bare of what little he does
own in a successful countersuit or motion for court costs and attorneys fees by a
defendant.
> You have fucked with the wrong man. I'm someone who knows how to defend his
> rights.
So that's why a Federal District Court Judge said you have been acting as, uh, what
was it, oh yeah, an "Inexcusable Failure."* My guess is you do not know how, or
you wouldn't keep getting nonsuited.
> That will be proven a lot sooner than you think.
I do believe that is the only thing that you have correct. Your errors and
failures will be proven a lot sooner than you think.
> Ray Gordon: BACK by popular demand!
In your mind, that is.
> Limited time only!
Limited only by however long you will be alive. Another oft repeated lie of yours.
> Everything you need to know about women.
Not even close.
> FREE!
Overpriced.
> http://www.cybersheet.com/library.html
"(For a dissenting opinion on my character, please visit the following website:
http://www.ray-gordon.com). This site contains many lies about me, but as a
defender of free speech I fully support its right to exist..."
- Ray Gordon, 19 March 1998 [Website address corrected to current location]
http://groups.google.com/groups?&selm=6ertau%2476b%241%40nnrp1.dejanews.com
"Have you been threatened with a lawsuit by Ray? Come visit our website at
http://www.ray-gordon-defendants.org and learn case strategies. To keep from
being sued by Ray over this, we have however, decided not to create this website,
since we suspect no one will ever need it."
* "... upon consideration of Plaintiff Gordon Roy Parker's... continued and
inexcusable failure..." {Gordon Roy Parker v. "Wintermute" et. al.} 02-CV-7215
(Feb. 25, 2003, Federal District Court, Eastern District, Pennsylvania)
** "[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
--
Paul Robinson "Above all else... We shall go on..."
"...And continue!"
"If the lessons of history teach us anything it is
that nobody learns the lessons that history teaches us."