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.)

10 thoughts on “Comments”

  1. “…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?”

    You didn’t document anything accurate, what you posted is misleading and you made many misidentifications trying to blame IPs and accounts I never used. Secondly, the email I sent to the WMF as I already told you was very short (one or two lines) requesting them to remove where you doxed my name. You’ve admitted doing this, but with a hyperlink (although there was also at least one comment). There also exists evidence since these were hidden for doxing, but can still be seen in the sense of a strike/line on the edit (this happens when an admin wants something hidden.)

    If you think you are going to sue me for the WMF removing a comment and hyperlink where you doxed me (and the WMF agreed this was harassment and inappropriate). All I can say is LOL.

    1. You were not harassed. And if all you sent to the WMF was a request to remove a link, you would be in the clear when the truth comes out. However, the WMF response you published implied something more serious. The only incident where your name was published by me on WMF servers was in the original SPA disruption study on Wikiversity, where a URL was posted that accidentally included your name (that was not intentional, I had searched for Anglo Pyramidologist, found the page, and linked to it for reference and did not read the link itself carefully). The page was very quickly and properly deleted by Dave Braunschweig, and then restored without that link, all of which was fine with me.

      I did not reveal your name until later. I know of no other link that would have been visible at the time of complaints to the WMF. So I don’t trust your account. But you could send me a copy of the mail, with headers if possible. I don’t know what you are talking about, with reference to deleted edits. What page history? This was the page with that problem link (imported to Wikiversity). Notice the sock attacks, for essentially nothing. At that point I was following a red herring that had been planted that the impersonation socking had been Mikemikev. Technical evidence later appeared that pointed to RatWiki socks, you or your brother. (That evidence could be confusing if you and your brother shared IP at any point in that period).

  2. I think it’s time you gave up your delusions and crazy trolling, Lomax.

    I don’t have a brother who edits RationalWiki. We’ve been over this numerous times and you don’t provide any evidence to substantiate your allegations.

    The RationalWiki sysop or mod you erroneously claim is my brother has an email linked to his account and apparently some social media. It’s obviously not my brother, but some named John. He apparently doesn’t even live in UK.

    Of course, you’re welcome to your delusions. But any sane person will see consider creating fake emails and even fake social media to pretend to be someone else – is extremely far-fetched.

    1. Oliver, you have admitted lying about your brother, which means that your assertions without evidence are meaningless. The “there is no brother” story, though, is implausible with all the evidence I’ve seen. If it was all a lie to avoid a block on, why did you maintain it in so many comments on RatWiki? There would have been no need. This was long after there was any relevance to that story. Oliver, don’t lie to me. At this point, you have the right to correct errors, but if you lie, I will retract that. So be careful. If you think I will not trust what you say, provide evidence. You provided none at all, just claims that imply that evidence might exist.

      1. I’ve never admitted to “lying” about my brother because I never have. Do you mean when I said I *trolled back* some Kiwi Farmers/Encyclopedia Dramatica trolls for fun? I pointed this out in my old emails to you, which you seem to have taken out of context; not a surprise since you do that to nearly everything I’ve ever said to misrepresent me. I never originated what became the “Smith brother conspiracy theory” –> Kiwi/ED trolls did in 2016. Heck, even Mikemikev played along and was commentating about this on Kiwi Farms. I engaged with these misleading claims for a year or more, hardly “lying”. I thought it was funny at the time fun to mislead trolls and it started out harmless and a joke. I had no idea some of these people (who are totally deranged) would take things too far and dox a real family member (my twin brother) and then target him online by stalking, defaming and even bizarrely blackmailing him i.e. threats appeared on blogs he had to reveal himself or his name would be smeared across the internet. To some extent the latter has happened, although he’s not interested in any of this stupid internet drama; I’ve mentioned this to him a few times and he doesn’t care. He doesn’t even view your blog despite you writing 1,000,000 words on him and falsely accusing of being random internet sockpuppets.

        Of course, I’ve not denied sharing an IP with my brother when he was young, but that was when he was a teenager, pre-2010s. So in this sense, there’s a small grain of truth in the misidentification of my online profiles or accounts with my brother, but it relates to a different time period, the 2000s; examples include a bunch of forums I never posted / accounts I don’t own, alongside a few that were shared JuniusThaddeus dug up as far back as 2006.

    2. You present no evidence, only claims. The history of John66 fits Darryl like a glove, and how do you know about him? No links. The entire Smith brothers history is fantastic, but it’s now known and accepted by many. And why do you care about John, if he is not your brother? However, I found John through your comments to me and Michaeldsuarez on Encyclopedia Dramatica about SkepticfromBritain, of which John66 was an obvious continuation. More “brother” lies? Why? That’s what makes no sense, but that you started to feel the heat from your brother being exposed by you so many times would explain why you would lie now.

      I’m not convinced that it’s worth allowing communication over useless arguments. I have conclusions, based on evidence, that I’m not going to abandon simply on your say-so. Isn’t that obvious? So, you have some attempts here to correct errors, and if I have accused you of something that you did not do, I will, at the very least, allow you to make a statement. Generally accusing me of “delusion” is just stupid. Nobody is ever convinced by that. Oliver, you spent far too much time on RatWiki, where snark rules, not reality.

      1. John66 has a public email attached to his RationalWiki account. He was dragged into the Mikemikev drama (as noted by Bongolian), hence his edits concerning Mike.

        The email certainly isn’t my brother; according to sysops, John66 has social media profiles.

        So like I said, if this is my brother – it’s extremely far-fetched; he’s not only hiding his online identity from me, but creating fake emails/Facebook profiles, pretending to be someone from John and even fabricating his personal background as someone involved with cooking and cuisine.

        In my opinion, and likely most people’s to believe the above is delusional, at least far-fetched.

        Finally, the edits on the John66 account don’t match the other accounts you accused my brother of owning (without evidence). John66 primarily focuses on food woo, that’s totally unlike any of the other accounts you claimed were my brother that focused on debunking the paranormal. Why the sudden change in behaviour? There’s no even consistency in the edit history.

  3. If you mean an email address and name with ‘lawson’, this person also emailed me. It’s certainly not my brother. You also appear to have misread the email/name; ‘lawson’ doesn’t mean lawyer, it’s a surname: There’s was no impersonation of a lawyer and this individual (whoever they are) said they found this claim from you quite preposterous.

    As for:

    “Oliver is apparently losing a defamation suit in the U.K. These guys are very bad news.”

    Yes, you’ve been spreading misinformation about Kirkegaard v Smith for a while. I’m certainly not losing that lawsuit, but the opposite (considering the preliminary judgement was in my favour).

    Someone on Reddit also contacted me via Twitter pointing out you falsely claimed my defence “was pleading insanity or disability” or something as absurd. Screenshot:

    I’d just advise you cease and desist posting about a lawsuit you know absolutely nothing about.

    1. It was not Lawson and I would not assume that a “Lawson” was a lawyer. That’s dumb. The email username was “robert_lawyer,” which certainly implied that Robert was a lawyer.

      There’s was no impersonation of a lawyer and this individual (whoever they are) said they found this claim from you quite preposterous.

      Uh, how have you communicated with “this individual” to know what they said about the lawyer impersonation claim?

      Looking at that screenshot, that was an off-hand conversation about the overall situation, and not carefully crafted, the wording was clumsy. The “defense” was not a legal defense, but rather an argument that Kirkegaard should give up. This has been covered elsewhere with more accuracy.

      It is not true that I know nothing, but there is, indeed, much I don’t know. The preliminary judgment was possibly in your “favor” on a legal point, but it also concluded that you defamed Kirkegaard, and the trial is going forward. It did not state the conclusions you have stated. Those is a legal interpretation that was not present in it, as far as I saw.

Leave a Reply