Cyberstalkers Lose In Court
DOUGLAS G.V. REIMAN
Those that think they can use libel and cyberstalking on the
Internet with impunity, are in for a big surprise.
Since it appears we might need to file our complaint in yet
another State, (Florida) I asked our Attorneys to call the Miami
Law Firm listed below and ask for an opinion in respect to our
outsiding libel lawsuit (now pending in eight states) against
those John Does that have been using libel and cyberstalking
against me and others on this newsgroup. I will post the reply
when we receive it.
Article Follows:
NAMING NAMES
Reeder says service providers rarely, if ever, voluntarily
divulge the identity of an online poster. Thus, the only recourse
companies generally have is to file a defamation lawsuit and ask
the court to force the service provider to reveal the poster's
identity.
In one recent case, J. Erik Hvide, the former CEO of Fort
Lauderdale-based Hvide Marine Inc., sued eight anonymous posters
in 2000, claiming that their defamatory postings led to his
forced resignation in 1999.
After a defeat in Miami-Dade Circuit Court, Hvide won an
important victory in the 3rd District Court of Appeal, which
rejected the arguments of the eight "John Does" that they had the
right under the First Amendment to express their opinions
anonymously. The anonymous posters are appealing. But the court
issued the ruling without any oral or written opinion, leaving
the constitutional issues unresolved.
"If somebody goes out and hits you with their car, you have a
right to know who the driver is," says Bruce Fischman, a partner
at Fischman Harvey & Dutton in Miami who represented Hvide. He
says online defamation now comprises more than half his practice.
End.
Take note the ruling was in Federal Court, and was handed down by
a U.S. Appeals Court. That (unless the US Supreme Court agrees
to hear the case which is very doubtful) makes this ruling black
letter law in Federal Court.
Not only did I file my lawsuit in various State Courts, I also
(as Abdul/Solinas found out) filed in Federal Court just to be
sure as we knew this case was about to be resolved.
Oh, BTW, for Abdul & Solinas: Sorry guys, but apparently you
have never heard of the US Court of Appeals, or you have been
reading too many Rusty Martin posts. Although Judge Irenas did
initially dismiss the Internet Libel case, that verdict was
overturned by the US Court of Appeals. Like I said, you really
need to stop reading all these Rusty Martin distortions, and hire
a lawyer.
BTW, the statute of limitations was tolled on our lawsuit all the
way back to 1995. So all that libel and cyberstalking that
occurred from 1995 to now is preserved for our case. See ya in
court.
Doug Grant (Tm)
BRubin7878
>From: "DOUGLAS G.V. REIMAN" dgg...@worldnet.att.net
>Date: 6/29/01 6:20 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <Ta7%6.1270$Hl1.1...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
>
>The following is an excerpt from a recent article from LawGuide.
You are a moron. You have lost every suit you have ever filed against the
casinos. You have been threatening to file suit against posters for years. You
are a liar and a coward. You have never filed any suits because you haven't any
grounds. You are a sad waste of life who hasn't anything better to do than make
yourself a laughing stock on usenet.
What a will never sue anyone maroon.
http://members.aol.com/rustyblkjk/dg-faq.html
For the TRUTH about Doug Grant(no tm exists)
Larry W. (Wayno) Phillips
>Reeder says service providers rarely, if ever, voluntarily
>divulge the identity of an online poster.
<Boop, Betty>
Panama
Can I verbally abuse you at will?
You have a smelly bottom (allegedly)
pip pip
"DOUGLAS G.V. REIMAN" <dgg...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:Ta7%6.1270$Hl1.1...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Jim Kelley
> Since it appears we might need to file our complaint in yet
> another State, (Florida) I asked our Attorneys to call the Miami
I notice you use this expression with some regularity, so FYI, properly
used it should read _with_ respect to...., or in regard to...., or even
regarding, or as regards...., rather than "in respect to..." The latter
is poor grammar.
Mike Benveniste
> Take note the ruling was in Federal Court, and was handed down by
> a U.S. Appeals Court. That (unless the US Supreme Court agrees
> to hear the case which is very doubtful) makes this ruling black
> letter law in Federal Court.
Actually, the Hvide case is in Florida State Court, not Federal Court.
The appellate court refused to hear an interlocatory appeal on the
subpoenas and did not issue a written opinion. The Third District
referred to is that of Florida.
See: http://www.aclufl.org/body_hvidedcaruling.html
--
Michael Benveniste -- m...@clearether.com
Any comments or statements made are not necessarily those of any
employer or client, their subsidiaries, or affiliates.
The Baron
> The following is an excerpt from a recent article from LawGuide.
> Those that think they can use libel and cyberstalking on the
> Internet with impunity, are in for a big surprise.
>
> Since it appears we might need to file our complaint in yet
> another State, (Florida) I asked our Attorneys to call the Miami
> Law Firm listed below and ask for an opinion in respect to our
> outsiding libel lawsuit (now pending in eight states) against
> those John Does that have been using libel and cyberstalking
> against me and others on this newsgroup. I will post the reply
> when we receive it.
> important victory in the 3rd District Court of Appeal, which
> rejected the arguments of the eight "John Does" that they had the
> right under the First Amendment to express their opinions
> anonymously. The anonymous posters are appealing. But the court
> issued the ruling without any oral or written opinion, leaving
> the constitutional issues unresolved.
Miami-Dade Curcuit Court to the Florida Third District Court of Appeal.
(Hint #1: State Courts)
> Take note the ruling was in Federal Court, and was handed down by
> a U.S. Appeals Court. That (unless the US Supreme Court agrees
> to hear the case which is very doubtful) makes this ruling black
> letter law in Federal Court.
The ruling was in the Florida Third District Court of Appeals. This is a
Florida State Court, hence the name, "FLORIDA Third District..."
It has a long way before it even makes a Federal Court let alone a
Federal Circuit Court.
(Hint #2: Florida is in the US Governments Eleventh Circuit, not the
Third Circuit)
(Hint #3: Even if it were a Federal Circuit Ruling, it only bears in
that Circuit. It's only citable in the other Circuits,
not binding. It's not precedental.
SNIP FOR STILL MORE BREVITY
> Doug Grant (Tm)
Learn how the court system works, then get back with us. You'll be
tested and the test will serve as 75% of your grade for this semester.
--
J.A. James
"The Baron"
-----------------------------------------------
The enemy invariably attacks on one of two occasions:
When you're not ready for them
When you're ready for them.
Either time is inconvenient and generally a bummer
DOUGLAS G.V. REIMAN
just see this pathetic little fool foaming at the mouth when he
wrote this.
What this idiot does not apparently know, is that I have
*already* sued the very people he is claiming I will *never* sue!
Moreover, as I have proved often, I have yet to lose a lawsuit.
This twit is going off the deep end.
BTW, BRubin is trying to hide the fact that 8 anonymous posters
just lost in court big time. They were trying to hide their
identities and the US Court of Appeals slammed them. Too bad for
those that thought they could hide.
Doug Grant (Tm)
Doug Grant (Tm)
"BRubin7878" <brubi...@aol.comnospam> wrote in message
news:20010629182807...@ng-mr1.aol.com...
DOUGLAS G.V. REIMAN
and Subpoenas. When they do, then it is a simple process to mail
out a lawsuit service letter to the owner of the account. Even
if you do not get it, the court considers you served if we mail
it Certified Mail. You cannot hide...run Yes....hide No.
The days of using libel to attack anyone that posts the truth
about how all these casino systems fail is slowly coming to an
end. I like "slowly" don't you?
Heh Heh Heh
Choo Choo
Doug Grant (Tm)
"Larry W. (Wayno) Phillips" <Larr...@charter.net> wrote in
message news:3b3d0324...@news.cis.dfn.de...
DOUGLAS G.V. REIMAN
my "bottom" does not smell....gosh... do you really think it
might? O Woe is me! My bottom could be *smelly!" Help me,
ARRRRRGGGGHHH. I need to forget, pass the Chivas, quick....catch
that snail. ARRRRRGGGHHH. Smelly Bottom....oh no oh no oh no!
Doug Grant (Tm)
(I think.)
BTW, which jurisdiction are you insulting from?
"Panama" <gba...@dial.pipex.com> wrote in message
news:3b3d05db$0$3759$cc9e...@news.dial.pipex.com...
DOUGLAS G.V. REIMAN
understand how "in respect to" is used in the legal sense of the
phrase. IF you are right, (which you are not) then every
lawyer's brief in this country is using incorrect grammar.
Using " in regard to" in place of "in respect to" is atrocious
grammar. "In regard to" implies generalities, or a general
sense. "In respect to" implies specificity.
I will not charge you for this lesson.
However, please take note the post was about how cyberstalkers
lost in court big time. It was about how people that try to hide
behind fake names and libel others just lost a very important
case at the US Court of Appeals level. Which means that recent
ruling sets a legal precedent.
I noticed that you completely ignored the content of the post,
and pathetically tried to correct my grammar while ignoring the
volumes of questionable literacy from all the aliases, such as
BRubin/RustyMartin/BingoBilly/"The Thing" (A.K.A. MizzTie) and
the rest of the gaggle. Could it be that you have some ulterior
motive for posting such off topic nonsense?
Doug Grant (Tm)
"Jim Kelley" <jwke...@uci.edu> wrote in message
news:3B3D095A...@uci.edu...
The Baron
> my "bottom" does not smell....gosh... do you really think it
> might? O Woe is me! My bottom could be *smelly!" Help me,
> ARRRRRGGGGHHH. I need to forget, pass the Chivas, quick....catch
> that snail. ARRRRRGGGHHH. Smelly Bottom....oh no oh no oh no!
>
> Doug Grant (Tm)
> (I think.)
>
> BTW, which jurisdiction are you insulting from?
Hint #1: Chivas is no more Scotch than Nutra-Sweet is sugar.
Hint #2: If it has the word, "Blended", on the label, it's not
Scotch.
Posting from deep inside the People's Grand Ninth Circuit Soviet.
DOUGLAS G.V. REIMAN
quite a bit as I doubt if every state will agree with Florida.
Doug Grant (Tm)
"Mike Benveniste" <m...@clearether.com> wrote in message
news:3B3D2387...@clearether.com...
DOUGLAS G.V. REIMAN
respect to Florida or the Federal District Court. I know how the
system works, but the sender of the article misinterpreted the
jurisdiction and I did not check his information.
Regardless, you are absolutely right, it was Florida and NOT the
US District Court that ruled.
When I said it established a precedent I clearly meant Florida.
I even said in my post (you snipped it) that we were contacting
the Florida lawyers in respect to filing our lawsuit against the
John Does in that State, as we are sure several of the John Does
live or operate in that state. I did not imply nor infer that
(if it was a Circuit Court Ruling) that it was automatically a
precedent in any other districts (although it certainly is
citable.)
You said: (Hint #3: Even if it were a Federal Circuit Ruling,
it only bears in
> that Circuit. It's only citable in the other Circuits,
> not binding. It's not precedent.
>
I think I deserve an 85 at least for (1) finding the article (2)
posting it. I deserve losing 15 points off my 100 due to my
failure to double check what others are telling me. That was my
fault. I will not do it again. (BTW, your term "precedental" is
not a real word. Also, NO ruling is "binding" on any court as
the circumstances can be quite different in each case...precedent
yes, binding NEVER!) On second thought, I think I deserve a 90
instead of an 85. (I should get five more points for correcting
your glaring errors..don't you think?)
I give you a 65 for this test. One Hundred points for catching
my error, and -35 points for making false statements in respect
to my error.
Doug Grant (Tm)
"The Baron" <x01...@icqmail.com> wrote in message
news:9hjg0j$4p9$6...@216.39.163.74...
Larry W. (Wayno) Phillips
>dum dum,
>
>service letter
>
>cannot hide...Yes....No.
Cubs 7-1...
Yes! Eurekee
Miz...@webtv.net
Since the other problems have been caught, I'll point out the obvious
one.
The gentleman sued for defamation, rather than libel. The article
clearly stated that there were 8 people that posted in such a manner
that he was forced to resign as CEO of the marina.
The article, all so, clearly stated that a _court order_ is the only
way _"companies"_ can force an ISP to revel the names of their users.
If that law suit was a victory tis only a minor one, and can not be
applied to this group. Unless of course you are a company.
Rusty Martin
"DOUGLAS G.V. REIMAN" <dgg...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
> I did not imply nor infer that
>(if it was a Circuit Court Ruling) that it was automatically a
>precedent in any other districts (although it certainly is
>citable.)
ROFLMAO!!!
Of course that's *exactly* what you stated, not even implied. You can't even
get your lies straight for 10 minutes can you?
You wrote:
| >That (unless the US Supreme Court agrees
| >to hear the case which is very doubtful) makes this ruling black
| >letter law in Federal Court.
Yes, maroon, you stated it was 'black letter law' in Federal Court.
Duck and hide.
Yet you criticize *me* for not knowing the law? You and Altschuler are a joke.
Rusty Martin
If Doogie were a movie star, for what studio would he work?
http://members.aol.com/rustyblkjk/movies.html
Rusty Martin
"DOUGLAS G.V. REIMAN" <dgg...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>When I said it established a precedent I clearly meant Florida.
>I even said in my post (you snipped it) that we were contacting
>the Florida lawyers in respect to filing our lawsuit against the
>John Does in that State, as we are sure several of the John Does
>live or operate in that state.
Oh, what a load of crap!
Your John Doe lawsuit which was thrown out of the Federal Appeals Court was
specifically tied to your action against the Casinos. You alleged that the
John Does on the internet were tied to the casinos.
Well, the last time I visited Florida, there *were no casinos* in Florida! If
I recall correctly, the residents of the State of Florida have rejected casino
gambling as an amendment to the State Constitution on three separate occasions.
So, are you saying now that A) the John Does are *not* tied to the casinos? or
B) the casinos have employees there, even though they don't have any place of
business in that state? Which is it Duh-g?
In order to bring an action in Florida, it seems to me that you would have to
drop your assertion that we all work for casinos. And then where would that
leave you? It would leave you with what we've been telling you all along, that
we're just plain old blackjack players who know that you don't know your ass
from a hole in the ground about counting cards.
Thanks for confirming what we've been saying all along.
What a maroon.
BRubin7878
>Message-id: <YEc%6.16582$C81.1...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
>
>Thanks Mike I was misinformed. However, that does change things
>quite a bit as I doubt if every state will agree with Florida.
>
You are were not misinformed. You were lying and you were caught.
What a lying maroon.
The Baron
> understand how "in respect to" is used in the legal sense of the
> phrase. IF you are right, (which you are not) then every
> lawyer's brief in this country is using incorrect grammar.
>
> Using " in regard to" in place of "in respect to" is atrocious
> grammar. "In regard to" implies generalities, or a general
> sense. "In respect to" implies specificity.
>
> I will not charge you for this lesson.
>
> However, please take note the post was about how cyberstalkers
> lost in court big time. It was about how people that try to hide
> behind fake names and libel others just lost a very important
> case at the US Court of Appeals level. Which means that recent
> ruling sets a legal precedent.
>
> I noticed that you completely ignored the content of the post,
> and pathetically tried to correct my grammar while ignoring the
> volumes of questionable literacy from all the aliases, such as
> BRubin/RustyMartin/BingoBilly/"The Thing" (A.K.A. MizzTie) and
> the rest of the gaggle. Could it be that you have some ulterior
> motive for posting such off topic nonsense?
>
> Doug Grant (Tm)
Your near total lack of grasp of grammar aside, have you made the
connection that your case was in a single Circuit of the Florida State
Appellate Court? Not a Federal Court. See the difference? One is a State
Court, the Court your case is cited from; the other is a Federal Court, the
Courts your case has nothing in common with. Simple, no?
DOUGLAS G.V. REIMAN
posted on the Internet. There were damages to his person, not
his company. It has nothing to do with companies, that was the
point. The verdict went to the individual that filed the suit,
not to the company he resigned from.
The only error I made was to report what was reported to me, in
that the verdict was from federal court and not from a Florida
court. Although it is citable in all jurisdictions, it certainly
does not set a precedent in any other circuits other than its
own.
Moreover, some ISP's respond to Subpoena's and some do not. ALL
respond to court orders.
BTW, how did your conversation with Mike P go?
Doug Grant (Tm)
<Miz...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:863-3B3...@storefull-167.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
DOUGLAS G.V. REIMAN
is. First it was his "clean hands" claim that everyone is still
laughing at, now it is his outright lies about what I said in my
original post. Rusty must think that people cannot read. Here
is what I posted:
"The following is an excerpt from a recent article from LawGuide.
Those that think they can use libel and cyberstalking on the
Internet with impunity, are in for a big surprise.
Since it appears we might need to file our complaint in yet
another State, (Florida) I asked our Attorneys to call the Miami
Law Firm listed below and ask for an opinion in respect to our
outsiding libel lawsuit (now pending in eight states) against
those John Does that have been using libel and cyberstalking
against me and others on this newsgroup. I will post the reply
when we receive it."
Article Follows:
I clearly said Florida above several times, and even referred to
the Miami law firm! I even mentioned that we had filed in
several other states and were considering Florida, which now is a
lock. How could Rusty simply not understand the simple language
above? Oh Well, he is not known for his reading comprehension
skills, or any other skills, just hype and diatribe and lies.
Rusty has been caught again, whew, what is that about 312 times
he has been caught in mid-lie?
Doug Grant (Tm)
"Rusty Martin" <rusty...@aol.comBATSPAM> wrote in message
news:20010630101829...@nso-fn.aol.com...
> In article
<o6d%6.16614$C81.1...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> "DOUGLAS G.V. REIMAN" <dgg...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>
> > I did not imply nor infer that
> >(if it was a Circuit Court Ruling) that it was automatically a
> >precedent in any other districts (although it certainly is
> >citable.)
>
> ROFLMAO!!!
>
> Of course that's *exactly* what you stated, not even implied.
You can't even
> get your lies straight for 10 minutes can you?
Rusty read the post first before you make a fool out of yourself.
Calling me a liar without a shred of evidence is falling on deaf
ears, especially when the clear and unmistakable evidence proves
it is you that have been lying to readers of this newsgroup for
years.
DOUGLAS G.V. REIMAN
"Rusty Martin" <rusty...@aol.comBATSPAM> wrote in message
news:20010630101829...@nso-fn.aol.com...
> In article
<o6d%6.16614$C81.1...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> "DOUGLAS G.V. REIMAN" <dgg...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>
> >When I said it established a precedent I clearly meant
Florida.
> >I even said in my post (you snipped it) that we were
contacting
> >the Florida lawyers in respect to filing our lawsuit against
the
> >John Does in that State, as we are sure several of the John
Does
> >live or operate in that state.
>
> Oh, what a load of crap!
No crap Rusty, with that ruling we are sure to file in Florida.
>
> Your John Doe lawsuit which was thrown out of the Federal
Appeals Court was
> specifically tied to your action against the Casinos. You
alleged that the
> John Does on the internet were tied to the casinos.
No, Rusty, how could we be sure about casino connections if we
did not know who the John Does were? The US Court of Appeals
overturned Judge Irenas's ruling and allowed us to re-file an
amended complaint, which we already have filed in Federal Court
and in several states.
ALL of the courts (including the Federal Court) have already
accepted the lawsuits.
You really need to learn about how the law works. If the John
Does turn out to just be individuals, or associated with system
huckstering, or any institutions, then we will amend our lawsuit
to name those individuals specifically and their associated
companies once we determine their names.
What the US Court of Appeals did was preserve all of our claims
from 1995 in respect to libel, which means all that libel you
guys spewed since 1995 will be considered in the lawsuit for
damages.
>
> Well, the last time I visited Florida, there *were no casinos*
in Florida! If
> I recall correctly, the residents of the State of Florida have
rejected casino
> gambling as an amendment to the State Constitution on three
separate occasions.
Duh, we are not suing casinos you moron...we are suing John Does!
We do not know the names of the people we are suing....yet.
Please try and understand, talk to a lawyer at least before you
keep making these idiotic statements.
Casinos need not be involved for use to sue over libel. We
clearly told the court we were not sure if these individuals were
connected or not to the casinos, and we certainly did not
predicate our lawsuit against them by requiring them to be
connected.
Regardless it is our position that all system hucksters and
their agents ARE in some manner connected to casinos. They bunko
steer for the casinos by providing fraudulent system
representations. They are, in fact, operating as agents for the
casino industry regardless of their jurisdiction.
>
> So, are you saying now that A) the John Does are *not* tied to
the casinos? or
> B) the casinos have employees there, even though they don't
have any place of
> business in that state? Which is it Duh-g?
>
> In order to bring an action in Florida, it seems to me that you
would have to
> drop your assertion that we all work for casinos. And then
where would that
> leave you? It would leave you with what we've been telling you
all along, that
> we're just plain old blackjack players who know that you don't
know your ass
> from a hole in the ground about counting cards.
Considering my background in card counting teams, and you
apparent lack of knowledge about the subject, what you just said
is hilarious. :Libel is libel. If you think you can use libel
to attack those that you disagree with, then blackjack player or
destitute bum living in Florida, whatever you are, you WILL find
yourself in court.
I do not play, and I never quit. I do however, like to take my
time in doing things. It's more fun that way.
Doug Grant (Tm)
DOUGLAS G.V. REIMAN
posted that I made a mistake in saying that it was from a Federal
Court instead of from a Florida Court. When the article was sent
to me the sender told me it was from a Federal Court, I should
have checked myself. I know the difference between Federal and
State Courts, unfortunately. BTW, you really need to try and
stick to the subject of the post you are responding to.
Doug Grant (Tm)
"The Baron" <x01...@icqmail.com> wrote in message
news:9hl1no$mne$0...@216.39.163.74...
The Baron
From the Court that may well hear the case you cite and will likely
crush its ruling on Floridan Constitutional grounds.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO: 94,653
DONALD G. RAY, LOUIS P. KALIVODA,
SYBIL C. MOBLEY, DAVID W. BOWERS,
And CLARENCE FORT, DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
FIRST DISTRICT NO. 98-4705
Appellants,
vs. CIRCUIT COURT CASE
NO. 98-1024
SANDRA B. MORTHAM, Florida Secretary
of State, in her capacity as
Florida’s Chief Elections Officer,
Appellee.
See, e.g.,
Collins v. Horten, 111 So. 2d 746, 751 (Fla. 1959)
(stating that, under the Florida Constitution, the
Supreme Court Justices, not the Court itself, may give
their individual opinions to the Governor on questions
concerning the interpretation of the Constitution, but
such opinions do not have the force of legal precedent
and are not binding on the Court). Because advisory
opinions are not decisions where real issues and real
parties are involved – a “case or controversy” in
jurisprudential parlance—and because they are most often
offered at the early stages of any developing
controversy, this Court has always held that advisory
opinions are not of precedental value in later
litigation.
Shall I find more for you? Do a simple text search for the word,
"precedental", you'll find it used throughout the judicial system.
Next, rulings being binding. This falls to the precedence of the Court.
A superior Court's rulings are binding on those Court's subordinate to the
court making the ruling.
From
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
MIAMI DIVISION
Case No. 00-206-CIV-MOORE
ELIAN GONZALEZ, a minor, by and
through LAZARO GONZALEZ, as
next friend, or, alternatively, as
temporary legal custodian,
Plaintiff,
vs. ORDER
JANET RENO, Attorney General of the
United States; DORIS MEISSNER,
Commissioner, United States Immigration
and Naturalization Service; ROBERT
WALLIS, District Director, United States
Immigration and Naturalization Service;
UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND
NATURALIZATION SERVICE; and
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE,
Defendants.
9 Decisions of the Fifth Circuit rendered on or before September
30,1981 are binding on the Eleventh Circuit. See Bonner v. City of
Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1207 (11th Cir. 1981).
Oh bother, a decision is binding even if it's from the Circuit before
the new Court split off. What a nuisance that would be for your thinking.
Shall I continue? Okay, I will.
From: 'Nolo's Pocket Guide to Family Law' by Attorneys Robin Leonard & Stephen
Elias Copyright (c) 1994 Nolo Press
======= SIDE BAR--PRECEDENT
Precedent is a legal principle, created by a court decision, which provides an
example or authority for judges deciding similar issues later. Generally,
decisions of higher courts (within a particular system of courts) are
mandatory precedent on lower courts within that system-- that is, the
principle announced by a higher court must be followed in later cases. For
example, the California Supreme Court decision that unmarried people who live
together may enter into cohabitation agreements (Marvin v. Marvin), is binding
on all appellate courts and trial courts in California (which are lower courts
in relation to the California Supreme Court). Similarly, decisions of the U.S.
Supreme Court (the highest court in the country) are generally binding on all
other courts in the U.S.
Decisions of lower courts are not binding on higher courts, although from time
to time a higher court will adopt the reasoning and conclusion of a lower
court. Decisions by courts of the same level (usually appellate courts) are
considered persuasive authority. That is, they should always be carefully
considered by the later court but need not be followed.
As a practical matter, courts can usually find precedent for any direction
they want to go in deciding a particular case. Accordingly, precedent is used
as often to justify a particular outcome in a case as it is to guide the
decision. =======
I leave it to your judgement as to whether the good esquires Leonard and
Elias are suitable references to your needs. If not, might I suggest a simple
net search using the search keywords, "judicial hierarchy", "judicial
precedence", "judicial ruling". You'll find just how wrong you actually are.
Could you be kind enough to find the "false" statements I made and post
them, it appears on simple reading of the posts in question, I was correct in
my commentary.
SNIP
--
J.A. James
"The Baron"
-----------------------------------------------
Alive and well in the Ninth Supreme Soviet of the US Circuit Court.
DOUGLAS G.V. REIMAN
That is your opinion, and clearly not an informed one. Looking
up cases is easy, your prognostication of how a court will rule
in the future goes beyond arrogance and borders on unbelievable
arrogance. We shall see what we shall see.
> Shall I find more for you? Do a simple text search for the
word,
> "precedental", you'll find it used throughout the judicial
system.
OK, I did a simple search in several dictionaries and they tell
me that "precedental" is not a word. If it is not defined in the
American Heritage Dictionary, then forgive me, but I think I will
consider that Dictionary the authority on proper words, and not
someone that calls himself "the Baron" and looks up gaggles of
meaningless court references that clearly are not applicable to
the issue.
>
> Next, rulings being binding. This falls to the precedence of
the Court.
> A superior Court's rulings are binding on those Court's
subordinate to the
> court making the ruling.
Duh, more backpedaling I see. You seem to think that all cases
carry the same precise circumstances and characteristics. The
ruling cannot be binding unless the circumstances and principles
of the lititagation are exactly the same. That is why both sides
provide several different case law historical rulings in their
briefs.
Please understand the term 'binding" as it applies here. IF the
conditions are precisely the same in the correct jurisdiction a
lawyer can reference the ruling and present to the presiding
judge his opinion that the ruling is binding. But for it to be
automatically binding on every case containing just some of the
same characteristics like you implied, naw, you are dreaming.
If the principle of the case is well defined, and redundant in
respect to the key ruling case of a higher court, then a binding
precedent can be successfully argued. However, unless those
circumstances are true, then it will be up to the Judge and the
Appellate Division or perhaps the State Supreme Court to make the
final decision as to whether the principle cited is "binding" or
not. Of course this can be done via an interlocutory appeals
process.
Please do not bother posting self-serving excerpts, out of
context and pointless to the issue. We both can do that, it does
not make you look smarter or better informed. Stick to the
subject, and deal with the issues, stay off the tangents and you
might pass this course....eventually.
Again, I will not charge you for this lesson. But I am
considering it if you keep it up.
Doug Grant (Tm)
> Shall I continue? Okay, I will.
Rusty Martin
"DOUGLAS G.V. REIMAN" <dgg...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>I wish Rusty would not make it so easy to prove him the idiot he
>is. First it was his "clean hands" claim that everyone is still
>laughing at
Excuse me?
Who the f**k are you trying to bullshit? Let me remind you maroon, that a
Federal Judge described your complaint as at "verbose, overreaching, immature
work product." Who do you think isn't still laughing at that you imbecile.
> now it is his outright lies about what I said in my
>original post. Rusty must think that people cannot read. Here
>is what I posted:
No dipwad, *here* is what you posted:
| >That (unless the US Supreme Court agrees
| >to hear the case which is very doubtful) makes this ruling black
| >letter law in Federal Court.
You really can't ever be right can you?
Lying maroon.
The Baron
> Doug Grant (Tm)
Imprimus. My name is not Jimmy. It's one of those pesky conventions
of usage. First initial. Middle initial. Last name. Rarely
is a cognomen such as, "Jimmy", applied to one's surname.
Diminuation of a name is a convention generally applied to
one's given name. But I'm guessing you know that and were
hoping for a quick score with, "Jimmy."
Secundus. "The Baron" is a nickname that goes back several decades and
when combined with my actual name, will readily identify me
to a number of ongoing and former corespondents dating back
to ARPAnet.
Tertius. My concern is not making myself look smarter. My apparent
intelligence is only of a minimal concern. If such becomes
a legitimate metric, then it will stand on it's own
appearance and merit. FWIW, your opinion of that metric is
of markedly less concern to me than nearly anything else
I can imagine.
Quartus. "Precedental", being taken directly from the text of a
citation local to the area in which you're making your
legal investigations, this being Florida, seems to make
your use of your dictionary rather moot. Since it's a legal
term in use in an area you claim to have a legal interest
in, it strikes me as rather absurd for you to claim it's
not. I gave you all the information you need to look it up
and verify it all by yourself. Don't put the burden of your
ignorance on the person spoon feeding you the information.
Quintus. I'll take the word of the two attorneys over yours pretty
any day.
Sextus. Are you ever going to bother explaining to those of us who
haven't killfiled you exactly what your "law suits" have to
do with this rec.gambling.poker?
Septus. There is no septus.
Octus. I was saving octus for something particularly scathing for
you but then I realized just how little effort I was
actually putting in to this interchange so I gave up on it.
--
J.A. James
"The Baron"
-----------------------------------------------
There are three kinds of men:
The living,
the dead,
and the
AIRBORNE !
_____________
Gen. Carl W Stiner,
USSOCOM CINC
DOUGLAS G.V. REIMAN
firm has one big client, the Atlantic City Casino Redevelopment
Authority! HAHAHAHAHAHA. What did you *expect* him to say.
However, in respect to our lawsuit against the Internet
cyberstalkers, the US Court of Appeals overturned his ruling
anyway.
And if that is not enough, the NJ CCC completely contradicted 90%
of what that Judge had to say in its February 19, 1999
ruling....and even Judge Irenas admitted the NJ CCC might do just
that.
So keep up with the times Rusty. Quoting old, overrulled, tired
and dispoven comments from an obviously pro casino judge means
nothing. Trying to claim that we cannot pursue our case against
you and the other Internet clowns is hirlarious!
Clean Hands rule! Pathetic. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
Doug Grant (Tm)
"Rusty Martin" <rusty...@aol.comBATSPAM> wrote in message
news:20010630182100...@nso-ft.aol.com...
> In article
<dfq%6.25123$J91.5...@bgtnsc06-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> "DOUGLAS G.V. REIMAN" <dgg...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>
> >I wish Rusty would not make it so easy to prove him the idiot
he
> >is. First it was his "clean hands" claim that everyone is
still
> >laughing at
>
> Excuse me?
>
> Who the f**k are you trying to bullshit? Let me remind you
maroon, that a
> Federal Judge described your complaint as at "verbose,
overreaching, immature
> work product." Who do you think isn't still laughing at that
you imbecile.
> Giggle. Poor Rusty is quoting a Judge in which his former law
firm has one big client, the Atlantic City Casino Redevelopment
Authority! HAHAHAHAHAHA. What did you *expect* him to say.
However, in respect to our lawsuit against the Internet
cyberstalkers, the US Court of Appeals overturned his ruling
anyway.
And if that is not enough, the NJ CCC completely contradicted 90%
of what that Judge had to say in its February 19, 1999
ruling....and even Judge Irenas admitted the NJ CCC might do just
that.
So keep up with the times Rusty. Quoting old, overrulled, tired
and dispoven comments from an obviously pro casino judge means
nothing. Trying to claim that we cannot pursue our case against
you and the other Internet clowns is hirlarious!
Clean Hands rule! Pathetic. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
> > now it is his outright lies about what I said in my
> >original post. Rusty must think that people cannot read.
Here
> >is what I posted:
>
> No dipwad, *here* is what you posted:
>
> | >That (unless the US Supreme Court agrees
> | >to hear the case which is very doubtful) makes this ruling
black
> | >letter law in Federal Court.
I noticed that you somehow avoided mentioning the first paragraph
that I posted, and further failed to get the headings. HERE is
what I posted!
----- Original Message -----
From: "DOUGLAS G.V. REIMAN" <dgg...@worldnet.att.net>
Newsgroups:
rec.gambling.blackjack,rec.gambling.poker,rec.gambling.craps,rec.
gambling.other-games
Sent: Friday, June 29, 2001 3:20 PM
Subject: Cyberstalkers Lose In Court
> The following is an excerpt from a recent article from
LawGuide.
> Those that think they can use libel and cyberstalking on the
> Internet with impunity, are in for a big surprise.
>
> Since it appears we might need to file our complaint in yet
> another State, (Florida) I asked our Attorneys to call the
Miami
> Law Firm listed below and ask for an opinion in respect to our
> outsiding libel lawsuit (now pending in eight states) against
> those John Does that have been using libel and cyberstalking
> against me and others on this newsgroup. I will post the
reply
> when we receive it.
> Poor Rusty, is having "selective" reading problems again.
>
> Doug Grant (Tm)
DOUGLAS G.V. REIMAN
> In the following post, dgg...@worldnet.att.net says...
> SNIP
> > Doug Grant (Tm)
>
> Imprimus. My name is not Jimmy. It's one of those pesky
conventions
> of usage. First initial. Middle initial. Last name. Rarely
> is a cognomen such as, "Jimmy", applied to one's surname.
> Diminuation of a name is a convention generally applied to
> one's given name. But I'm guessing you know that and were
> hoping for a quick score with, "Jimmy."
Alpha: Nope, I am not interested in your real name. You have
not libeled me or anyone else that I have noticed. You can call
yourself anything you want....anything at all....yep, go right
ahead....so you are not Jimmy....OK, whatever you say.....yep
it's OK with me....yesireebob....there... "Not Jimmy."
>
> Secundus. "The Baron" is a nickname that goes back several
decades and
> when combined with my actual name, will readily identify me
> to a number of ongoing and former corespondents dating back
> to ARPAnet.
Bravo: Exactly how old are you anyway? Are you referring to
ARP like in the Association of Retired Persons?
Actually, I sorta like the handle "The Baron" since I am a direct
descendant of a real one: (Horst Frederick Von Reiman.) Maybe
"I" should be called "The Baron" and you Doug Grant? You will
have lots of fun if you do call yourself Doug Grant, especially
Doug Grant (Tm), lots and lots of fun, I promise. So what do you
think? Shall we trade names for the fun of it?
>
> Tertius. My concern is not making myself look smarter. My
apparent
> intelligence is only of a minimal concern. If such becomes
> a legitimate metric, then it will stand on it's own
> appearance and merit. FWIW, your opinion of that metric is
> of markedly less concern to me than nearly anything else
> I can imagine.
Charlie: I am glad to hear that. For awhile there I was
concerned that your ego was getting in your way. I can't imgaine
why I thought that...
> Quartus. "Precedental", being taken directly from the text of a
> citation local to the area in which you're making your
> legal investigations, this being Florida, seems to make
> your use of your dictionary rather moot. Since it's a legal
> term in use in an area you claim to have a legal interest
> in, it strikes me as rather absurd for you to claim it's
> not. I gave you all the information you need to look it up
> and verify it all by yourself. Don't put the burden of your
> ignorance on the person spoon feeding you the information.
Delta: I did look it up, the word does not exist. Anyone can
do this...it is easy. Just go to a dictionary or a dictionary
program and type in "Precedental." You will find it is not a
proper word.
Lawyers make up words to suit themselves sometimes, to sound
important, you know, trying to sound arrogant and informed when
they really are not.
Just because some lawyer used an improper word and got away with
it (done every day I suspect a thousand times) that does not
automatically incorporate the word into the English language.
Moreover since we were talking about English Grammar, I
suspected you were referring to the English language, not "lawyer
speak" which is a language of its own. I will admit that word
might be used in "lawyer speak" and probably is used often as it
is the type of word that sounds sort of impressive.
In respect to your intelligence, I never doubted it for a moment.
But, it is still early in the conversation.
> Quintus. I'll take the word of the two attorneys over yours
pretty
> any day.
Echo: Define "yours pretty any day?" You still cannot be
trying to claim that a ruling is binding on all similar cases,
although the circumstances and base principles are different, are
you? Is this "lawyer speak" also?
>
> Sextus. Are you ever going to bother explaining to those of us
who
> haven't killfiled you exactly what your "law suits" have to
> do with this rec.gambling.poker?
Foxtrot: Kill file me please! The only relevance of our
lawsuit (it is not *my* lawsuit as 48 people are plaintiffs and I
am just one of those plaintiffs with no special additional
interests or expectations) is that some of the hucksters that are
using cyberstalking tactics to attack people that disagree with
their fraudulent system claims are also posting on
rec.gambling.poker, and in some cases, using the same tactics.
My posts that are crossposted to rec.gambling.poker should have
some relevance to poker. If I make a mistake and post one that
does not then let me know and I will remove any such post from
the newsgroup immediately. In respect to general casino
information, I do believe it is relevant to all gambling
newsgroups.
In respect to those that do not wish to read my posts, then I
urge them to ignore them. Perhaps you did not know that reading
all posts is not a mandatory requirement to subscribe or post to
newsgroups? Please no "bandwidth" stuff. That went out with
paying for bandwidth and not unlimited usage.
> Septus. There is no septus.
Golf: Yes there is...there is *always* a Septus...somewhere.
> Octus. I was saving octus for something particularly scathing
for
> you but then I realized just how little effort I was
> actually putting in to this interchange so I gave up on it.
Octus-Hotel: Well, if you want more effort, next time try to
write something.
>
> Doug Grant (Tm)
Over-the-hill, up the hill...AIRBORNE - AIRBORNE! Now how many
times have I heard that? Ft. Benning Ga.
Jim Kelley
"DOUGLAS G.V. REIMAN" wrote:
>
> Uh, Jimmy,
You may call me Mr. Kelley.
> I will not charge you for this lesson.
Go ahead. I promise to pay exactly what it was worth. I have a check
right here made out to Herr Von Reiman for zero dollars and zero cents.
Where should I mail it? :-)
Gosh I wish it wasn't so much fun jousting with cyberbuffoons.
The Baron
The sad thing about Herr (tm) is that it's not even really jousting.
It's more along the lines of playing Windows Solitaire while you're waiting
for a print run to finish. Takes no real brain power, no real physical effort,
nothing in the way of significant time and it's one of the few things you can
do in such a short amount of time. Well, except for going to the biffy but
that doesn't happen nearly as often as Dougie posts something asinine.
--
J.A. James
"The Baron"
-----------------------------------------------
Rusty Martin
>Gosh I wish it wasn't so much fun jousting with cyberbuffoons.
Please forgive me for correcting you, but the term cyberbuffoon is not the most
applicable in this case.
In reality, you should be using the word net.kook.
Our esteemed Duh-g Grant has been voted the internet's "Looney Maroon Award" on
alt.usenet.kooks twice, back in September of 1999 and again in April of 2001.
Additionally, he won the once-in-a-lifetime honor of Usenet "Kook of the Month"
for September of 1999.
He scores off the scale in the Kook Appraisal Test. He is a true and
documented net.kook.
Just offering my input. :-)
L.C.Uphouse
LCUPHOUSE(from Pennsylvania).
> >
DOUGLAS G.V. REIMAN
aliases were the only ones to vote for me in respect to this net
kook farce.
Yet in typical huckster style, he somehow forgets that part of
the "official vote" anytime he posts such nonsense.
Doug Grant (Tm)
"Rusty Martin" <rusty...@aol.comBATSPAM> wrote in message
news:20010703062705...@nso-fh.aol.com...
Jim Kelley
> Of course what Rusty is not telling you is that he and his
> aliases were the only ones to vote for me in respect to this net
> kook farce.
It was nevertheless, well deserved IMO. In my approximately 8 years on
usenet, I have encountered only one other individual with your
particular propensities and obsessions. Not unlike yourself, he was
accomplished and knowlegeable in his field. And not unlike yourself, he
found it impossible to correspond with others without threatening
lawsuits, imagining all manner of conspiracies, and resorting to ad
hominim attacks. In that instance, the group found the need to
collectively agree not to respond to, or in any way address or refer to
that individual in their posts to the group. Within a few weeks the
individual had decided to seek his entertainment, and satiate his
perverse needs elsewhere. The level of decorum of the group
subsequently returned to that of polite and constructive discourse.
How tall (or short) are you?
Miz...@webtv.net
The case you posted had to do with posters posting statements about
the CEO that were apparently so bad the company did not want him working
for them.
The CEO was forced to resign from his job and sued for defamation of
character. If the CEO was given his job back I would say he won!
I do not know any Mike P. nor have I had any conversations, to my
knowledge, with him. Could he be one of your lap dogs?
Miz...@webtv.net
Doogie failed to mention that approximately 5 of those 48 plaintiffs
are Doogie himself.
MT (TM)
Miz...@webtv.net
Rusty was correct, Judge I, over turned the ruling with the
stipulation that _IF_ you could _PROVE_ the John Does were employed by
the casinos named in the suit, _AND_ acting under the direction of those
casinos named, you could refile.
If that stipulation can not be met you would have to start all over.
Mizz Tie (TM)
Rusty Martin
"DOUGLAS G.V. REIMAN" <dgg...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>Of course what Rusty is not telling you is that he and his
>aliases were the only ones to vote for me in respect to this net
>kook farce.
>
>Yet in typical huckster style, he somehow forgets that part of
>the "official vote" anytime he posts such nonsense.
It's truly sad that you actually believe I have aliases. However, it *is*
indicative that you are a classic net.kook.
The only 'official vote' that I can recall whereby someone from this NG used a
bunch of aliases to stuff the ballot box, was when you used over 100 aol
accounts to try to stop rec.gambling.blackjack.moderated.
What a maroon.
Miz...@webtv.net
I found an interesting name in the mod. group vote. Doogie's lawyer!
armadajoe
> Rusty,
> I found an interesting name in the mod. group vote. Doogie's lawyer!
>
>
> http://community.webtv.net/MizzTie/MYTWOCENT
>>>>>>>>>## Whats up with these Cyberstalkers?This guy Sean Parlaman
has been having a skirmish with them on a deja-news website.He said
something about the cyberstalker being a 'bedwetter'.I guess he did
some investigating of his own.They try to post anonymousely,but that
doesn't work for long.
DOUGLAS G.V. REIMAN
and you cannot find a way to describe what you do not like
without using libel, (like you claim) then your best course of
action would be simply to stop reading my posts and thereby stop
torturing yourself.
Doug Grant (Tm)
"Jim Kelley" <jwke...@uci.edu> wrote in message
news:3B421F02...@uci.edu...
Jim Kelley
> Please do not read my posts, PLEASE!
Please do not write them. :-)
DOUGLAS G.V. REIMAN
read all of my posts if I write them? One of the basic
fundamental reasons people subscribe to newsgroups is to have the
option to read or not read specific authors.
Your subscription does not require you to read all posts. I am
sorry that you were uninformed of that fact. But now you know,
and I suspect your problem is solved in respect to my posts?
Especially when you seem to not be able to come up with anything
specific that you do not like about them....it would appear that
your lack of specificity in respect to your general ridicule, and
your desire to read posts of which you claim you hate, borders on
some pathological reason to attack me for no obvious reason.
Hmmmmm. Now why does that sound familiar?
Doug Grant (Tm)
"Jim Kelley" <jwke...@uci.edu> wrote in message
news:9k16a1$2h3$1...@news.service.uci.edu...
R. Dale Thomas
them.
Doug Grant
<JmV87.25303$gj1.2...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
"DOUGLAS G.V. REIMAN" <dgg...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> Jim, are you suffering under some kind of delusion that you must
> read all of my posts if I write them? One of the basic
> fundamental reasons people subscribe to newsgroups is to have the
> option to read or not read specific authors.
That's a laugh coming from you. You try to intimidate, threaten and
harass almost everyone in this newsgroup who doesn't completely agree
with your opinions. Disagree with Mr. (tm) - that's cyberstalking.
Complain about his incessant crossposting - you better hire a good
lawyer.
Hypocrisy, thy name is Reiman.
Doug Grant
DOUGLAS G.V. REIMAN
are making general statements of fact that are in fact libelous.
I do not try to intimidate, harass or threaten anyone that simply
does not agree with my opinions. That is a lie. Retract and
apologize.
You need to learn how to debate without resorting to malicious
libel.
I do not use libel nor cyberstalking. I do not need to do so, my
math on the subject is correct, and I have proved without
question that card counting cannot win against real world
casinos.
Your problem is that you think you must read every post. My
question is why are you reading them if they upset you so? You
should simply ignore them. But then you know that don't you Jim?
This is not about my posts, and YOU reading them, I believe you
just do not want any one else to read them! So you are trying to
use general and baseless ridicule and fabricated nonsense to
discredit my posts in the eyes of others. Yet when I ask you for
any specifics to back up your baseless claims, you run and hide.
Your tactics are obvious to us all Jim, you are trying to stop me
from posting.
Doug Grant (Tm)
"Doug Grant" <dfg...@nospamo.islandnet.com> wrote in message
news:dfgrant-1885EF...@news.islandnet.com...
Jim Kelley
"DOUGLAS G.V. REIMAN" wrote:
>
> Jim, you really need to learn to be specific in your libel.
Who are you speaking to?]
> "Doug Grant" <dfg...@nospamo.islandnet.com> wrote in message
> news:dfgrant-1885EF...@news.islandnet.com...
> > That's a laugh coming from you. You try to intimidate, threaten
Jim Kelley
"DOUGLAS G.V. REIMAN" wrote:
> Your subscription does not require you to read all posts. I am
> sorry that you were uninformed of that fact. But now you know,
> and I suspect your problem is solved in respect to my posts?
> Especially when you seem to not be able to come up with anything
> specific that you do not like about them....it would appear that
> your lack of specificity in respect to your general ridicule, and
> your desire to read posts of which you claim you hate, borders on
> some pathological reason to attack me for no obvious reason.
It is you I don't like. In fact you become less likeable with every
post. I assume that is your goal.
DOUGLAS G.V. REIMAN
truth that card counting cannot win against real world casinos,
then I suspect you should not read my posts.
Why are you so afraid of the truth?
Doug Grant (Tm)
"Jim Kelley" <jwke...@uci.edu> wrote in message
news:3B65A3C2...@uci.edu...
MidniteParis
Just ignore him. I decided not to answer his posts.
It's waste of your time - of course, it is up to you.
It IS your time. I personally decided not to.
I even blocked him from my mail from his sarcastic emails.
MidniteParis
<< Subject: Re: For Mr. Kelly
From: "DOUGLAS G.V. REIMAN" dgg...@worldnet.att.net
Date: Wed, Aug 1, 2001 1:52 PM
Message-id: <YdY97.63201$C81.5...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
Jim Kelley
time again.
MidniteParis <midnit...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010801150722...@ng-da1.aol.com...
Jim Kelley
From: DOUGLAS G.V. REIMAN <dgg...@worldnet.att.net>
Newsgroups: rec.gambling.blackjack
Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2001 11:52 AM
Subject: Re: For Mr. Kelly
> If you don't like me posting the truth about Blackjack, and the
> truth that card counting cannot win against real world casinos,
> then I suspect you should not read my posts.
You have a bit of a perception problem there, Doug. What gives you the
impression that I don't like you to post the truth about blackjack? I'm
quite interested in the truth about blackjack. I wish that's all you would
post.
> Why are you so afraid of the truth?
Have you stopped beating your wife?