IAAL's big day in court...

[Quaere]

So they got a preliminary injunction. This stops him from posting here as IAAL.

Sure seems like a lot of drama about nothing, shrug.

 

[You Are Guilty]

So they got a preliminary injunction. This stops him from posting here as IAAL.

Sure seems like a lot of drama about nothing, shrug.

Bleh, a default judgment. Not to mention this part "Judge Ritchie then issued a Preliminary Injunction against IAAL, and any person acting in concert with him".

I'm still curious to see how it plays out. I suspect the failure to appear was quite deliberate.

 

[K'Ta]

I've been trying to puzzle out why this is such a big deal. Yes, s/he was a jackass, but so what? So are a lot of people on the internet. It's full of freaks who like to be very inflamatory. Big deal. Ban them and move on.

Maybe there's some history I'm missing. I've been a lurker for about a year now. IAAL's posts always gave me a chuckle as it seemed to me s/he was being deliberately obstreperous.

 

[racer72]

Umm, this is old news. I take it you don't come here often.

 

[K'Ta]

I've been away from this site for a while, yep. I must've missed something good.

 

[BL]

Yes you did , the verbal attacks against other members as well as Free Advice Staff , and his/her despicable languages went too far .

Up top , read all about it , click on the link .

 

[Quaere]

Huh? YAG, I don’t see anything about him defaulting. Have you seen something I can’t see?

I was wondering if he was going to appear in disguise! It makes more sense that he defaulted. He had already agreed to go along with the injunction and nothing else was going to come out of yesterday’s hearing. What would have been the point of showing up?

I’m sure FA knows they have no claim against IAAL. If they don’t immediately withdraw the complaint I expect IAAL to have it dismissed for failure to state a claim.

Personally, I believe FA filed the complaint for the free publicity.

I doubt they really want to unmask IAAL and I don’t think it is in their best interest to do so.

If they did want to identify IAAL, the place to start was with the forum. They could have put up a banner months ago, asking users for help.

Instead of doing that, they sent out a press release asking the public to help? I wonder how much traffic they have enjoyed because of that press release.

BL, verbal attacks against users of this site are the norm. Being called the "c" word is nothing compared to the way I've seen some users here treated. I’ve seen a lot of downright cruelty on this forum and the worst of what I’ve seen did not come from IAAL, it came from other senior members.

 

[You Are Guilty]

Huh? YAG, I don’t see anything about him defaulting. Have you seen something I can’t see?

Robert F. Knox, Esq. of Mill Valley, California, and co-counsel Advocate Law Group P.C. of Irvine, California, appeared on behalf of Advice Company. [highlight]Neither IAAL nor Mr. Koenig appeared in court.[/highlight] Based on the papers filed by Mr. Knox, Judge Ritchie orally ruled that IAAL had been lawfully served in the action by July 4, 2006, and based upon an appellate decision in a very similar situation, that Mr. Koenig's stipulation to postpone the hearing until July 31, 2006, was a general appearance on behalf of IAAL.

I was wondering if he was going to appear in disguise! It makes more sense that he defaulted. He had already agreed to go along with the injunction and nothing else was going to come out of yesterday’s hearing. What would have been the point of showing up?

Thus, my suspicion of "deliberateness".

I’m sure FA knows they have no claim against IAAL. If they don’t immediately withdraw the complaint I expect IAAL to have it dismissed for failure to state a claim.

I agree, although I suspect it might take some time to actually reach that point.

Personally, I believe FA filed the complaint for the free publicity.
I doubt they really want to unmask IAAL and I don’t think it is in their best interest to do so.
If they did want to identify IAAL, the place to start was with the forum. They could have put up a banner months ago, asking users for help.
Instead of doing that, they sent out a press release asking the public to help? I wonder how much traffic they have enjoyed because of that press release.

Not sure I agree with this part, though. What publicity was generated by filing? And as far as I know, only 2 regular posters knew IAALs name -- asking the people he called names to help wouldn't produce many useful results.

BL, verbal attacks against users of this site are the norm. Being called the "c" word is nothing compared to the way I've seen some users here treated. I’ve seen a lot of downright cruelty on this forum and the worst of what I’ve seen did not come from IAAL, it came from other senior members.

"Senior" status is in no way indicative of useful posts. Maybe it's time to add a few more titles. (I'd like mine to be "Exhaulted Grand Poobah Of Law")

 

[badapple40]

The "concert" part of the injunction is unenforceable -- there are notice issues. I'm surprised any judge in his right mind issued that -- but we are talking about state court judges here...

More fundamentally, they have yet to obtain real service on IIAL. As such, it seems to me that showing up or revealing his identity would not be to his advantage. It also helps if FA can't collect on their bogus judgment.

In any event, it seems to me to be a lot to do about nothing. Maybe I'll have to go to court and sue Satan to get a default judgment against him too...

wait, that has already been done....

http://exogenous.org/images/Mayo_v_Satan.pdf

 

[HappyHusband]

The "concert" part of the injunction is unenforceable -- there are notice issues. I'm surprised any judge in his right mind issued that -- but we are talking about state court judges here...

More fundamentally, they have yet to obtain real service on IIAL. As such, it seems to me that showing up or revealing his identity would not be to his advantage. It also helps if FA can't collect on their bogus judgment.

In any event, it seems to me to be a lot to do about nothing. Maybe I'll have to go to court and sue Satan to get a default judgment against him too...

wait, that has already been done....

http://exogenous.org/images/Mayo_v_Satan.pdf

Maybe I'll have to go to court and sue Satan to get a default judgment against him too...

wait, that has already been done....


Except that there was no default judgement in that case.

 

[Quaere]

I don’t know if any print media is using the press release but at least a few blogs have picked it up. It is only natural that after reading the release, peeps are going to come to the forum to see what exactly has happened.

I agree with YAG. “Senior” means a person has posted a certain number of times and implies nothing about the nature of those posts. It is unfortunate that visitors to this site undoubtedly assume the status is something of an endorsement.

Bad Apple wrote: The "concert" part of the injunction is unenforceable -- there are notice issues.

I haven’t been to a concert in a while but if I WERE in IAAL’s band, I wouldn’t want to bet on that defense. The notice issue can get very sticky in conspiracy cases.

More fundamentally, they have yet to obtain real service on IIAL.

This is in the current TCOU but I am not sure when it was inserted: You ...agree to accept service of legal process and other legal papers by email or electronic transmission sent to you at the/an email address you used to register on the FreeAdvice Forum.

If they get a certified return receipt showing the email was opened, do you think it will hold up?

From the recent press release:

Given the number of IAAL's abusive postings, damages could exceed $1 million.

Who wrote this release and what has she been smoking?

Counsel for Advice Company, Robert F. Knox of Mill Valley, California, predicts the identity of IAAL, who now must answer written interrogatories, will be uncovered soon. "It's just a matter of time."

Is this a California thing? Do they normally proceed with discovery before the complaint is even answered? Or has an answer been filed but they only plan to show us FA’s filings?

The recent press release may have cast IAAL in a false light. A reader that is unfamiliar with the facts could easily get the impression IAAL engaged in criminal activity here. I see no reason to dramatize the situation in such a manner.

 

[rmet4nzkx]

I don’t know if any print media is using the press release but at least a few blogs have picked it up. It is only natural that after reading the release, peeps are going to come to the forum to see what exactly has happened.

I agree with YAG. “Senior” means a person has posted a certain number of times and implies nothing about the nature of those posts. It is unfortunate that visitors to this site undoubtedly assume the status is something of an endorsement.

Bad Apple wrote: The "concert" part of the injunction is unenforceable -- there are notice issues.

I haven’t been to a concert in a while but if I WERE in IAAL’s band, I wouldn’t want to bet on that defense. The notice issue can get very sticky in conspiracy cases.

More fundamentally, they have yet to obtain real service on IIAL.

This is in the current TCOU but I am not sure when it was inserted: You ...agree to accept service of legal process and other legal papers by email or electronic transmission sent to you at the/an email address you used to register on the FreeAdvice Forum.

If they get a certified return receipt showing the email was opened, do you think it will hold up?

From the recent press release:

Given the number of IAAL's abusive postings, damages could exceed $1 million.

Who wrote this release and what has she been smoking?

Counsel for Advice Company, Robert F. Knox of Mill Valley, California, predicts the identity of IAAL, who now must answer written interrogatories, will be uncovered soon. "It's just a matter of time."

Is this a California thing? Do they normally proceed with discovery before the complaint is even answered? Or has an answer been filed but they only plan to show us FA’s filings?

The recent press release may have cast IAAL in a false light. A reader that is unfamiliar with the facts could easily get the impression IAAL engaged in criminal activity here. I see no reason to dramatize the situation in such a manner.

http://www.co.marin.ca.us/depts/MC/main/localrules-civil.cfm
There has been no print or TV coverage of this and only the press releases.
There has been minimal coverage on Blogs which has for all intents, has ceased with the exception of a few trolls.
When on reads the local rules of court along with a knowledge of CA rules of court and Civil Proceedure, other things will become clear.

 

[You Are Guilty]

This is in the current TCOU but I am not sure when it was inserted: You ...agree to accept service of legal process and other legal papers by email or electronic transmission sent to you at the/an email address you used to register on the FreeAdvice Forum.

If they get a certified return receipt showing the email was opened, do you think it will hold up?

Absolutely not. Can I send you an email that says, "By opening tihs email you agree to aceeot service of legal process by being kicked in the crotch by a midget" and go hire Barnum & Bailey to be my process server?

From the recent press release:

Given the number of IAAL's abusive postings, damages could exceed $1 million.

Who wrote this release and what has she been smoking?

Somewhere in the same notice is (was?) something about a $250 fine per post.

Counsel for Advice Company, Robert F. Knox of Mill Valley, California, predicts the identity of IAAL, who now must answer written interrogatories, will be uncovered soon. "It's just a matter of time."

Is this a California thing? Do they normally proceed with discovery before the complaint is even answered? Or has an answer been filed but they only plan to show us FA’s filings?

Wondering that myself. CA does have some wacky rules.

 

[rmet4nzkx]

Wondering that myself. CA does have some wacky rules.

I already posted the local rules. The Ca rules of court can be found at www.courtinfo.ca.gov/rules/
and statutes here http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/calaw.html While there are electronic filings and fax filings, service still needs to be personal and there has been no proof of service filed.

 

[Quaere]

They will never be able to enforce that ridiculous “fine” policy. I have agreed not to “use the FreeAdvice Forum to post any knowingly false, defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, or threatening message”.

I have agreed to the terms as I understand them. My interpretation of the terms, is affected by what I see in all of the other posts on this forum.

There are currently HUNDREDS of posts that I believe a reasonable person would consider defamatory, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, and threatening.

As far as I can tell, there is no effort to moderate the posts unless someone complains. Essentially, anything goes unless or until another user complains and then I see no rhyme or reason to the moderator’s edits.

It is impossible to know in advance then, what might “violate” the agreement. At the very least, FA would have to tell a user specifically what they are objecting to and maybe AFTER such notice repeat offenders could be fined.

It’s obvious FA couldn’t care less what happens between users of this site. In fact, I suspect they profit from the frequent flame wars.

The fact is IAAL’s behavior is distinguished by only one thing. He directed his nastiness at the moderator herself. They are in the same power struggle that has plagued every forum owner since the beginning.

A forum owner should be able to keep an unwanted person out of his forum. While there is no easy way to accomplish that, there are certainly more practical solutions than that chosen by FA.