Lenr Forum on Lomax v. WMF


Zeus46, a LENR Forum troll we have seen quoted by the Smith brothers, wrote this mess on the Forum, Jul 30th 2019


The easily-bored polymath, alleged *********-enabler (removed at request of lawyer), and budding vexatious litigant, Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax has been a little bit too quiet recently. Clearly a storm of some description had to be brewing…

The lawsuit was filed in February. I have never filed a lawsuit before. and Lomax v. does not qualify as vexatious litigation, though some defendants might not like it. Does anyone like being sued?

Capitalising on time spent indulging in the legal minutae/demented brinksmanship of the ‘Damp-squib Lawsuit of the Year’ (Darden v Rossi)…. And completely failing to acknolwedge the maxim “A man who is his own lawyer, has a fool for client”

Of course, this is being repeated by trolls in many places. The maxim is often attributed to Lincoln, possibly incorrectly. It’s very old, and was apparently originally about all kinds of counsel, referring to the importance (even for lawyers) of obtaining independent advice.

… Adb has fired off a $6,000,000 S.L.A.P.P. suit at his two greatest nemeses – The Wikimedia Foundation – And some 16-year-old kid from the UK. (…And his…”twin brother”…:rolleyes:)

$2 million is the nominal figure. Should I amend that to $6 million? The WMF is not my “greatest nemesis” but the Smith brothers became consistent and persistent harassers, and to understand that would require understanding a complex history.

The twins are 29 years old this year, not 16. One is already being sued in the U.K., actually for accusing an academic of being, variously, a “child rape apologist” and a “pedophile,” and so what Zeus would have in mind is “pedophile enabler,” which even they did not allege, they only claimed I defended this fellow. But what I did was to point out that the evidence asserted was quoted out of context and there is no credible evidence for the claims. This all happened later than the events the lawsuit is about.

Notwithstanding the valid question as to whether the jurisdiction of Massachusetts Court extends to whatever grubby part of the English ‘midlands’ the petulant oik hails from, the young pork pie muncher has already engaged an equally high-powered team of lawyers as Abd has. – Apparent to all, when they dismissed the complaint as merely “a Lolsuit”.

There are possible issues of jurisdiction, but I was filing against the WMF and it was strange to not make claims against those whose conspiracy to defame (civil conspiracy, it’s a thing) was the cause of the WMF action. They have not yet been served, there are some hoops to jump through.

The heinous tort committed by the Wikifiddlers appears to be their public list of shame, doxxing and pillorying those less fortunate individuals, who can’t help but get themselves globally banned from all WikiMedia sites for perpetuity. (Or untill they register a sock account, at least).

“Heinous tort” has not been alleged. Just defamation.

See, as a service provider, the WMF has immunity from Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act for content provided by others, and they may also, the courts have generally interpreted, ban users for any or no reason. However, their policies make it clear that they do not ban except for serious risk to the community represented by repeated harmful behaviors, so the list has indeed been called the “wall of shame.” That is content that they provided, which removes their immunity.

Not thrilled at being on the recieving end of a $6,000,000 (plus damages and fines to be determined) doxxing lawsuit from the Doxxer-in-chief himself, the Wikimedia Foundation has employed the eye-wateringly expensive services of non other than Jones Day.

Originally $200,000 when I first spoke with Jones Day. Before that, the WMF refused all communication. Clue: want to get sued? Refuse to communicate with someone who has a complaint.

(Presumably Abd is gambling on a risky “last minute settlement” gambit, as seen employed by Jones Day up-close and in-person, thanks to his previous junket to the “Sunshine State”).

Sane people settle ASAP, ordinarily. Jones Day did not “employ” that “gambit,” they had been seeking settlement all along, always refused by Rossi. So the “last minute” shift, I have speculated, was the work of Rossi’s most recently retained attorney, Lukacs, settlement was his specialty, and I suspect he clued Rossi in as to just how much he could lose.

I’m not gambling. I’m simply standing up for what I think possible, and trusting the outcome.

Hopefully the overpaid Harvard Law graduate dealing with this doesn’t spend a few billable hours discovering that Abd maintains an uncannily similar ‘Hall of Shame’ on his own website. 8|:D (Listing the persona-non-grata of this very forum, no less)

Where is that list, and who is “persona non grata,” that is, who is exiled or rejected? There is a page where I listed some banned users on LF, which included me. This does not remotely resemble what the WMF has. The WMF first started banning users as a child protection policy, so the earliest office-banned users were alleged pedophiles, or, more accurately, were being disruptively accused of such, true or not. (And Wikipedia was being accused of enabling them.)

As is becoming de-rigeur these days, a go-fund.me account has been set up to fund this venture. Zero $ has been raised so far, so donations are not just encouraged – but advised… as it would probably be good for him to talk to a lawyer at some point.

Well, thanks. In fact, zero is the figure for the GoFundMe account. I have already been covered for my filing costs and a little more. To talk to defamation specialists will cost a minimum of $250 for probably a half-hour consult. The fellow suing that Smith brother in the U.K. had to come up with about 5,000 Euros to get that started. With no hope of recovery of that, as the only pot the fellow has to piss in belongs to his parents, where he lives.

And its probably best that the lawyer isn’t one from Jones Day, presenting him with an outsized costs claim.

Oh, they have certainly advised me that my suit has no chance, forget about it, I’m wasting my time, but . . . that is not as my lawyer! Jones Day would not take a conflicting case, I’m sure. The GoFundMe is seeking $200,000, which could be what it would take to prosecute this case professionally. Maybe. Maybe the WMF will smell that coffee and seriously negotiate a settlement.

WMF strategy at this point, I suspect, is to see if the case survives a motion to dismiss. If it does, it goes into discovery and their costs begin to skyrocket.

Zeus46 added a comment:

WikiMedia’s latest motion to dismiss argues: “The truth cannot defame, and it’s true you’re banned” – and – “you mention your banning so often on your own website, that you can’t be all that bothered about it”.

That is two separate issues. The first is a legal argument, commonly asserted as a defense against a defamation claim, that the published statement was true. A statement can include what the statement reasonably implies, and a WMF implies very bad behavior. Secondly, a true statement can be defamation in Massachusetts, and this has been tested in the First Circuit, with Noonan v. Staples, the first case and the second case.

The second statement was dicta, legally irrelevant. Defamation is not excused by the target writing about it at a later date. There are a number of comments like that in the Motion to Dismiss. That I increased the claim from $200,000 to $2 million is moot.

I have until August 9 to file a Memorandum in Oppostion to the Motion to Dismiss. I expect to meet that deadline. It has already been drafted, I’m just reviewing it.

Now, about “fool for a client.” It was utterly impractical for me to obtain a lawyer to file this. Lawyers do not take defamation suits on contingency, I’m told. If a lawyer is willing to consult, I’m open to it. Given that, it was either file pro se or not file, and I was concerned about a possible statute of limitations issue. So I filed a simple pro se form the court provides.

That can be amended as things get serious. I was planning on asking, in fact, for permission to file a Second Amended Complaint, but realized that it could be better to see how the Motion to Dismiss flies, to see what the court considers necessary. That could be months away.

I have had two phone calls with the WMF, a total of two hours, with two lawyers, plus they wrote two Motions to Dismiss. Jones Day apparently bills at about $500 per hour.

I proposed a settlement concept that would be far less expensive for them than what they are doing. I assume that the WMF is calling the shots, and is concerned about precedent. I.e., if some user can sue them in federal court in another state, bypassing the Terms of Use, as appears possible here, they could have quite a bit of difficulty. My sense is that they are likely to change policies out of this.

Meanwhile the complaints that led to the ban were clearly a conspiracy to harm and defame, and the ban that ensued has frequently been used as “proof” against my reputation, including in a mail to one of my children. The Smith brothers are vicious and well-known for it. The motive was revenge for documenting impersonation socking-to-defame on Wikipedia (of someone else, not me). They threatened what they then did, through “private complaints to administrators.” They sucked others into the plan, who may not realize what they assisted. Or they do. I trust that the truth will come out in discovery.

I have very little to lose here except time, and I’m learning, and I consider learning to be of high value. Yes, as a non-lawyer, I will make mistakes, but I’ve also read a lot of case law, including observing the mistakes made by pro se litigants. Most are avoidable, though not all. My task at this point is, again, to survive dismissal. At that point it all gets much more serious. At that point I might be in a better position to raise funds, and as well, the WMF may be more motivated to actually investigate what happened, instead of assuming that they could not possibly have made a mistake.

Leave a Reply