Flagged Revisions installed. Unapproved pages display a Red unchecked notice under the title. Trolls attack here by creating and archiving pages with offensive content. To verify an archived page, check the original URL. Questions about administration? Contact User talk:Abd. Limited privacy on this site, see CFC:Limited privacy
User:Abd/Lomax v. WikiMediaFoundation/Internet discussions/Guy Chapman
- Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2019 September 2 See also Reddit discussion of this.
- These are pretty much the same allegations Abd was making ten years ago that failed to get any traction here, before he was banned as a time sink. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Abd and JzG and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Cold fusion 2. For bonus lulz, Abd asserts that presence on m:List of globally banned users is inherently defamatory. As an exercise for the reader, if mere presence on a list is defamatory, who should Abd sue? Clue: check the earliest page history.
- What does RationalWiki have to do with the WMF? Nothing, other than that Abd dragged his bullshit there. I actually left RW because Abd arrived and satrted trolling and some obnoxious tit refused to let me delete Abd's comments from my user page. I do my best to avoid him, have done since the arbitration case. There is no documented instance where debating anything with Abd has ever caused him to change his mind on anything, as far as I can tell, and since he's banned here he's not my problem. Guy (Help!) 19:34, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
- Template:U, "This is precisely the sort of fishing expedition the Supreme Court sought to avoid in requiring the plaintiff to plead facts demonstrating their entitlement to relief and the defendant’s liability for misconduct. [A] district court must retain power to insist upon some specificity in pleading before allowing a potentially massive factual controversy to proceed. Plaintiffs cannot be permitted to pursue “extensive discovery” with nothing more than a series of conclusory allegations and an unfounded hope that the process will yield favorable results." Ali v. Allergan USA, Inc., No. 1:12-cv-115, 2012 WL 3692396, at 14 (E.D. Va. Aug. 23, 2012)
- Obviously not Massachusetts, but an exact statement of what Abd is trying to do here. He's had two bites at this (three with his opposition motion) and has yet to produce any reason to suspect that the evidence he wants to get via discovery, exists. It is very likely that "Anglo Pyramidologist" has actual malice towards him, and it would be entirely plausible that AP has libelled him, ads he has clearly libelled AP in return. they have plainly harassed each other and engaged in outing and doxxing. There is no evidence whatsoever that anyone else is involved, and close to zero chance that Abd, as a self-proclaimed public individual, will get any meaningful redress against AP. Guy (help!) 16:23, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
An actual case to look at! Ali v. Allergan (2012) Chapman is doing what many literate non-attorneys do: reading a case looking for proof that what he wants is right. How did he find this case? He's quoting from the document I have linked. That is all basic practice of law since Iqbal and Twombly, and is well understood. What Chapman has obviously not done is to consider the context of that case and what the judge actually ordered, and what happened then. I obtained File:Ali v Allergan docket.pdf (cost me under $1, I could not find a free copy.)
This case supports exactly what I expect. The history (taken from the ruling cited):
- 11/9/2011 Complaint filed by attorney for Sara Ali et al in New York . Transferred to Federal Court in New York and then to Virginia. I don't have the New York docket, I can get it if it's needed.
- 2/6/2012 Motion to Dismiss filed by defendant.
- 2/24/2012 Answer by defendant filed.
- 3/5/2012 Opposition to MTD filed with exhibits
- 3/9/2012 Amended Complaint filed.
- 3/12/2012 Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint filed.
- 3/19/2012 Memorandum in Opposition to MTD filed by plaintiffs
- 3/21/2012 Reply to Opposition filed by defendant
- 3/23/2012 Hearing held on MTD
- 3/26/2012 Order, result of hearing and pleadings, provisional dismissal with prejudice.
- 8/23/2012 Order making dismissal an actual order, but:
- If Pltfs seek leave to amend, they are directed to file within twenty-one (21) days of the date of this Order a motion for leave to amend their complaint and attach their amended pleading for the Court's consideration.
- [No such file in docket]
- 10/17/2012 Case dismissed without prejudice. [Some parts may have been dismissed with prejudice, I have not read the order.]
- There were then plaintiff appeals and arguments, followed by:
- ORDER After considering the pleadings, it is hereby
- ORDERED that Deft's 55 Motion to Alter or Amend Order to Dismiss With Prejudice (Dkt. No. 55) is GRANTED. Pltfs failed to meet the requirements of the August 23 Order by failing to take any action within twenty-one (21) days of the Order. Furthermore, Pltfs failed to seek an extension of the twenty-one (21) day period or otherwise inform the Court of its intent to seek leave to amend. It is further
- ORDERED that Pltfs' 52 Motion for Relief from Order (Dkt. No. 52) is DENIED. Pltfs fail to demonstrate good cause requiring relief pursuant to Rule 59. The attached Declaration is untimely and does not change the requirements mandated by the August 23 Order. Accordingly, it is hereby
- ORDERED that Pltfs' causes of action for fraud by negligent misrepresentation, fraud by nondisclosure, negligence, breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty, and violation of Virginia's false advertising statute are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE (See order for details).
- 12/19/2012 The plaintiffs filed an appeal.
- 11/8/2013 Appeal dismissed by stipulation of the parties.
What does this mean? Well, this is speculation, but it appears that the plaintiffs believed that they adequately pled the claims, which would explain why they did not amend as ordered. Instead, they appealed. This kind of sequence occurred with Noonan v. Staples II, the precedent closest to Lomax v. WMF. Second case, the court ruled it could proceed, and then Noonan requested the case be closed. Why? He was on his way to possibly winning! Obvious: the defendant, Staples, finally smelled the coffee and settled, possibly for less than it would cost them to defend, or possibly even for more (because of the risk of losing, which could cost even more.) I think if we read the facts behind the Noonan cases, the status quo was that Noonan, for relatively small errors in filing expense reports (he conceded the errors, but denied that they were deliberate), was screwed out of what may have been millions of dollars in stock options. Had Staples not taken the most hard-nosed approach possible, there might never have been a lawsuit. Instead, they elected to make an example out of him. Hence malice was considered reasonably possible, hence even if it was true that he had been investigated and found to have filed false expense reports, the announcement of the fact without necessity could be malicious and thus defamation. And may, in fact, have been so. A jury in Noonan I found insufficient evidence for malice, so Noonan lost that case. But an executive, while Noonan I was pending, announced that Noonan had admitted "stealing" from them, creating a new cause of action. The court decided that language was loose enough to allow this as opinion and could cover what Noonan actually did admit, even though common interpretation of "stealing" is worse than "possibly accidental error." But malice was possible, and only the fact of Noonan having caused expense and "waste of time" for the executive was considered sufficient evidence to make malice plausible.
In Ali v. Allergan, the judge ruled:
- The Court dismisses the causes of action set forth in the Amended Complaint without prejudice, with the exception of the VCPA cause of action, which is dismissed with prejudice. Plaintiffs may seek leave to amend their pleading and submit an amended pleading for the Court's consideration if they are able to provide sufficient factual matter to state their claims in accordance with this opinion.
The VCPA dismissal was well explained and clear, the claim was legally improper in Virginia. As to the other claims, the judge considered whatever claims were made to have inadequate alleged factual basis, so the case was dismissed, all right, but without prejudice, and, as well, with specific recourse available to the plaintiff to amend to correct the deficiency. That the plaintiff had "two bites at this," to quote Chapman about Lomax v. WMF, was irrelevant. The plaintiff was not merely permitted to amend again, but was invited to do "seek leave to amend." Here is how that would work: the plaintiff would write an amended complaint, and attach it to a request for permission, and the court would decide to accept it or not. The defendant could then file another Motion to Dismiss, and the process would repeat. That is not what happened, and, above, I speculate as to why. They had pled the evidence they had.
""What Chapman has pointed out is true and remains true: "district court must retain power to insist upon some specificity in pleading before allowing a potentially massive factual controversy to proceed." In other words, if my pleading is inadequate, the court will "insist" that it be amended to make it so, if that is possible.
It will dismiss provisionally, as did the court in Ali v. Allergan, the defendants and their claque will jump and cheer, and it will all be meaningless and transitory, unless, of course, I don't request permission to amend and fail to file an amendment that corrects the deficiencies. They say over and over, "he has no evidence," but I have a great deal of evidence I have not mentioned, because the complaint could have become a tome, which often happens with pro se plaintiffs. I have attempted to keep it simple, but I will make it as detailed as required (with attached evidence and affidavits).
And what I expect, in the end, is that the WMF will seek to settle, since that could be quite simple. What would lead them to not settle would be a determination that they must prove that they cannot be sued, to discourage other plaintiffs. Fair enough, but that could be an expensive course to take, and losing would demonstrate even more powerfully that they are not invulnerable, which many have believed.
So far, the WMF, which refused direct communication, has refused, through counsel, to look at the case afresh, or to seek a means of finding mutual satisfaction. This case could have been easily resolved without legal action, but they apparently take the easy way: stonewalling all banned users as a matter of policy. They do not warn, they provide no opportunity for a user to know what behavior would result in a ban, it's all vague and mysterious. Why was Russavia banned? (There is common opinion, the Pricasso painting of Jimbo Wales) he commissioned and published was considered harassment.)
The identity of complainants should properly be protected, I agree with that, unless evidence appears that complaints were defamatory and false or misleading. Even then the presumption should be the maintenance of privacy. But if complaints are multiple, a description of the behavior could be provided to the accused without revealing specifics. The accused could then identify possible situations and respond to them. As well, where more specificity is needed, examination by a mutually trusted arbitrator could be arranged. This could be done with volunteers, actually. But the WMF does not care at all about the privacy of the accused, and that is malicious neglect.