From comments here:
You were recently discussing your lawsuit on Reddit with Vigilant so I want to offer a few thoughts. I am not one of your defendants but I have been following this.
While the lawsuit was mentioned, there was little discussion there.
In regard to your lawsuit none aof your other defendants are going to be served.
Technically, at this point there are no other defendants. That’s because I did not obtain permission of the court to add them, imagining that the right to amend initially (as I did) included the right to convert John Does to named defendants. So to serve them I need to obtain subpoenas from the court, and to get them I’d need to obtain permission to amend, and, if granted, this could moot the pending motions to dismiss, under advisement at this time. I decided to wait, because, almost certainly, the court will allow amendment, particularly for a pro se plaintiff who had allegedly pled the case deficiently.
There are quite a few of them but none of them live anywhere near you.
Not true and not relevant, actually. The last addresses I have for Schroeder is in New York and for Umbrect is Rhode Island. Both are close to me. However, I can also have anyone in the U.S. served, it’s roughly $100 per defendant. And it looks like it is about the same for the U.K. So it’s only money, and not a lot.
You live in the US and many of the others live in Europe or different states to you. There are jurisdiction issues. You are not going to someone living thousands and thousands of miles away from you served over a Wikipedia ban. You are living in a fantasy land.
(1) Yes, there are jurisdiction issues, but what jurisdiction applies to internet defamation? This faux “lawyer” is assuming a definite answer, that the jurisdiction of residence of the alleged defamer would apply. The claim of “fantasy land” assumes that I believe something, a fantasy. No, I don’t know things, but consider possibilities and I filed on possibilities. It was far easier to file in Massachusetts, the court is a half hour down the interstate highway. And I get to discover things. I do not have a belief in any particular outcome. I do have strong opinions about what actually happened.
Then you have the problem that nobody in writing has defamed you, yes literal writing that is VISIBLE. None of your listed defendants defamed you on the WMF servers in writing.
That is an opinion, not a fact.
You say there is defamation but it is ALLEGED private defamation in secret emails.
There is also that.
No judge is going to by that.
… to [buy] that. First of all, I may allege that there was private defamation, and whether or not the case will be allowed to go into discovery is an open question at this point. From the circumstantial evidence I have, there was indeed private defamation. It has been more or less admitted by one or two defendants. Upon discovery, there will be more direct evidence. It is unclear what “Robert” means by “buy.” The issue will be plausibility, it is not necessary to prove what is alleged, it is enough that it is plausible from the asserted evidence. And remember, at this point the defendants other than the WMF are moot, they have not actually been sued yet.
Jones Day noted your whole case rests on an unlikely unproven idea. It’s an insane conspiracy theory. There is no actual EVIDENCE you have been defamed. You were unable to link to it in your replies.
I disagree and we will see what the judge rules. This case is very complex and if I failed to allege the necessary evidence, I expect that the judge will provisionally dismiss the case if it is not properly amended. At that point I would consider my options. Most likely I would amend to remedy any defects, a new motion to dismiss would be required, etc. As part of obtaining permission to amend, I would add defendants, I assume. There is some preparatory work to do.
In your filed replies you were not able to point to any defamation on the WMF servers.
He is repeating himself.
Various users saying they want to have you banned, or saying they want your cold fusion material deleted is NOT a crime, nor libel. It is not defamation to call you an “internet troll” or offer a personal opinion about cold fusion.
That is correct, generally. However, those are not the basis for my complaint. There was a conspiracy to defame, I came to realize, and “cold fusion” was an aspect to it, linking several of the possible defendants, providing a motivation. But the core of the conspiracy was retaliation for documenting the Anglo Pyramidologist impersonation and trollsocks, i.e., Darryl L. Smith, with his brother being a minor player — yet still clearly having filed a complaint to the WMF, though he had certainly not been harassed. So what did he claim to the WMF?
No real life crimes have been committed – you are basically suing a bunch of people because you were banned on Wikipedia and the WMF published your username “Abd” as banned.
No, I was banned on Wikipedia in 2011 and this is not a basis for any claim. Further, the WMF has the right to ban anyone, that’s clear in the TOS. But the TOS does not give them the right to publish the names of banned users. I actually pointed out the problem years ago, long before being banned myself. At that point I had not researched all the issues, to be sure.
It was apparent in the Reddit discussions that the fact of the WMF ban is used for defamation. That is because the WMF is expected to be reliable and to not ban people arbitrarily. Now, Vigilant surely knows that they do ban for political reasons and without adequate investigation. But many people don’t know that and don’t even imagine it and if they see a WMF Office ban, they assume that the person must have done something Very Bad, and this was all discussed recently over the Fram ban.
Do you realise how childish this all is? It is a waste of the courts time and you know that.
Here I can confidently say that I do not know that, and I would not have filed if I knew that. I was advised by a legal expert that I had a possible case, and that person I trust. I do not trust random internet trolls, and that includes Etherman, even if he is actually a lawyer as he claims. I have a lot of experience with real lawyers, and they don’t behave as Etherman behaves.
“Abd” is not your real name.
It is the name by which I am actually known in real life. Again, this is an argument that has often been advanced by these trolls. That name is quite recognizable, and I am frequently mentioned using it.
You have no business and you have not suffered any economic damage (which you have admitted) and Jones Day took you to point for.
I have claimed defamation per se which does not require economic damage. Jones Day is lawyer for the WMF and is going to argue everything they can think of and toss in the kitchen sink. Frankly, that they felt it necessary to file that Reply to the Opposition, raising no new arguments of relevance, indicates a level of desperation, but reality will decide.
As for your other defendants they are not the WMF, a few of them might be admins (Guy Chapman, Michael Umbrecht etc) but they did not globally ban you, so they are not responsible for anything.
I am claiming civil conspiracy, and if civil conspiracy is shown, all defendants found to be co-conspirators are responsible for the actions of the whole conspiracy. Several defendants were clearly attempting to create an office ban, over something that I had been assured by a WMF Board member would never rise to that level. So what I suspect is that some, at least, lied to the WMF. For example, suppose Schroeder not only lied in claiming I had harassed him by email, but made that same claim to the WMF, and backed it with alleged harassing text. But did he show the context of that text? The communications were voluntary and contrary to what was claimed by a troll on Reddit, Schroeder never asked me not to email him. He stopped responding so I stopped sending. And then he claimed harassment. Now, one possibility is that someone spoofed an email from me that was actually harassing him. Without discovery, I can’t know, I can only speculate. I do believe that the Smith brothers are capable of deception like that. They stirred Schroeder up, archiving the alleged outing so that it could not be deleted, and their goal was certainly not to defend him. It was to attack me.
You basically filed this lawsuit to abuse those defendants and you have admitted you are playing a game. In your recent reply to Vigilant you describe your lawsuit as a “game”.
The game of life. No context is provided. This is meaningless. This troll is playing on words, implying meanings to them that they would not have had in context. And that is very much a Smith habit. I did not file to abuse anyone. The main purpose in filing was to find the truth, what actually happened. I know that what I did did not deserve an Office ban, so the WMF was negligent in their investigation. Or was biased, looking to ban a critic. Either way can be a basis for a defamation claim. (“Malice” can be negligent, and this can make a difference under Massachusetts law.)
You do not care if you win or lose. You are basically trying to piss the WMF off by wasting their money on Jones Day whilst you are pro-se and pay nothing.
No, more accurately, I expected that the WMF would settle quickly to avoid expense, by agreeing on a process for resolution, which could have been done cheaply. Instead, I think they decided that they preferred to prove that they are immune from suit, that their decisions have no access to any kind of appeal whatever. And if the lawsuit is allowed to proceed, I expect that it is quite likely they will settle.
It is not true that I “pay nothing.” I paid $400 to file and I may have other expenses as well, and certainly there is my time, and if the case is to go forward, I may need to consult counsel. To serve the other defendants will involve expense as well.
The WMF could have kept their expenses very low, to what would have amounted to chicken feed for them. But they elected to fight this instead of looking for a settlement, which would have been easy.
In European countries there is also the issue of one-year defamation law. Your entire lawsuit in regard to “defamation” about your Wikipedia ban on the WMF servers is from activities in 2017. You filed the lawsuit in 2018 a year AFTER the activity on the WMF. We are now in 2020.
Guess what? I know what year it is! And I’m also quite aware of the statutes of limitations. The issue will be jurisdiction. If Massachusetts jurisdiction is allowed, then it is Massachusetts’ statute which will apply, and it is three years.
Once your case against the WMF is dismissed this year by the judge there is NO chance of you serving any of the other defendants.
If the case is dismissed as to the WMF, it is possible that the judge would allow it to proceed against the other defendants, by allowing an amendment to add them. Claiming that there is “NO chance” is a clear sign that “Robert” is not a lawyer. They don’t write like that, even though Etherman does, sometimes.
You repeatedly say you want to go back and “re-amend” your complaint but you will not be allowed to do this.
I’ve read a lot of cases and allowing amendment is normal. Only if there is no possibility at all of any amendment being effective would dismissal with prejudice be likely, and I might well appeal such a ruling. It gets a little complicated, but it’s possible. I really doubt that we will see such a ruling.
You have wasted the court’s time, it is abuse of the court system and you know it as Etherman a lawyer told you on Reddit.
How does Etherman know what I know? He is effectively a troll who insists he is completely right and anything else is nonsense, but his knowledge of case law in this affair was not strong at all. And it is not Etherman’s opinion that matters at all. This is concern trolling. I want the opinion of a real judge, upon hearing arguments presented in an orderly fashion, not some transient jackass on Reddit. (But Etherman is not responsible for what these trolls assert. Nevertheless, I’d suggest, if he is actually a lawyer, he would properly be more careful about how what he writes is used.;
Please stop what you are doing and stop harassing your defendants by publishing all this nonsense on your blog. They are all silent but you pop up every week and can’t stop harassing them. Jones Day have likely seen all of your blog posts and threads about your defendants. You are only making it worse for yourself.
I have no idea what Jones Day is reading. They will be paid $500 per hour to read, though. Nice work if you can get it. If any proposed defendant is suffering from this, they are welcome to contact me and negotiate some settlement, and they will have an opportunity to do that before being served.
The claim of ongoing “harassment” would only have some legs with regard to the Smith brothers. What ongoing defamation of the others? I do write about Smith socking, because they are continuing to sock, including impersonation socking. What they have created continues to harm. Oliver is apparently losing a defamation suit in the U.K. These guys are very bad news.
The impersonation of a lawyer, providing fake legal advice, is an actual crime in the U.S. It is even more clearly illegal in England and Wales, where the Smiths reside. But these trolls have violated many laws with impunity for years. So I decided to do something about it. And it’s bearing fruit. Oliver Smith has been banned from RationalWiki. Darryl is being watched and is aware that he’s watched and has become less active, as to known accounts, but he has amped up the impersonation and troll accounts, because he believes he cannot be sanctioned for them. Maybe, maybe not. But he can definitely be exposed, and he is obviously feeling the heat.
(It is not always possible to distinguish between the brothers, but there are certain distinctive patterns that can be recognized. It has gotten a bit blurred.)