Lomax v. WikiMedia Foundation, Inc. et al

[Abd]

http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtop ... 21#p241321

Re: Fram blocked by User:WMFOffice for 1 year

Vigilant wrote:

mendaliv wrote:
"In general lawyers are a huge grabbag of quality."

What about pro se litigants?

Almost perfectly uniform in quality.

Nice snarky comment, but disappointing. I've been reading a lot of cases, and many of them had pro se litigants. Some of these were plainly obsessed and incompetent. Others were not. Some lost and some won. It is common with pro se litigants that their first complaints are defectively pled, but this is readily remediable, if the pro se plaintiff actually pays attention, researches objections, and remedies defects.

I have also seen utterly incompetent pleadings from lawyers. It is likely true that pro se litigants, as a group, are less competent than the average lawyer, but that is simply not surprising. However, mendaliv does not seem to realize that litigants are often pro se because they have no other option, and that this is why the federal court guidelines suggest specially accommodating pro se litigants.

In any case, seeing the above has placed some of mendaliv's other statements into a context of strong bias against pro se plaintiffs, especially. As a result, I think, he has not been careful examining my claims in the Amended Complaint. It's pretty obvious from some comments that he has misunderstood them.

Only Claim 4 raised the issue of the WMF's right to ban. The other Claims don't depend on that at all. And I am abandoning Claim 4 precisely because of the difficulty of arguing it against a growing trend in U.S. Federal Court of what I see as overbroad application of Section 230. (There is also at least one Federal Appeals Court Judge who dissented from that.) Without Count 4, my case is far clearer and simpler.

Pleading deficiencies can be remedied. I have ample evidence for everything claimed, at least to the level needed to establish reasonable suspicion of untruth and/or malice.

I will consult and use an attorney to whatever extent becomes practical. I will briefly consult before filing any new pleadings, and my sense is that more extensive lawyer involvement will become practical after the case survives MFD, which isn't going to happen soon, because I will be asking permission of the court to file a Second Amended Complaint, which, if that is granted (it is not routine but almost so), will moot the existing MTD, and then they may file another, and then I may object, and then it can take months for the court to rule. But meanwhile, with an SAC, I will obtain subpoenas from the court and serve requests to waive service, or, as necessary, will obtain support (paid or otherwise) in serving.

[Graaf Statler]

That's ham fisted.

Maybe Sheikh Lomax and the Swivel-Eyed Loon can entice him into joining the lolsuit...

No way Vig. Fram has no case because the foundation has the right to block whoever they want, even without any reason. His name is not on that SanFanBan list, and there it is about. Deformation under a CC license, it is what you concider as lol, isn't it?
Not bad for pro se don't you think, Vig? Although I am not complete pro se of course.

[Abd]

and this is telling: http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtop ... 21#p240921
mendaliv wrote:

Post Re: Fram blocked by User:WMFOffice for 1 year
Poetlister wrote:

mendaliv wrote:

I was with him until about the last quarter to third of it. And the whole idea that WMF is somehow "responsible" for the encyclopedia is also bogus, as the motion to dismiss in Abd's lawsuit shows: They believe themselves insulated by the CDA, even when it's speech by the Foundation itself in banning Abd.

Surely each individual editor is liable for his or her own edits. Can the CDA really protect the WMF from its own edits?

I'm not entirely sure to be honest, but that's the gist I got from their moving papers. Obviously their moving papers are self-serving, but I highly doubt they're actual distortions and misrepresentations of the law.

They are actual distortions and misrepresentations of the law, and clearly so, combined with ordinary obfuscation and misdirection. He is not specific about what they claimed. I have created a page on every case cited, and they are currently linked from the Authorities section of a copy of the WMF MTD.

The WMF motion is murky, confused, and repetitive. First of all, it is very clear from precedent that Section 230 immunity does not apply to content created by the service provider. In fact, the WMF does not challenge that they provided the content in question (briefly, Abd is banned), but their defense is not, on that, immunity, it is that the text was truthful, and then they attempt to claim that they are not responsible for reasonable implications from that text, and they cite Noonan (the second case, I think). In that case, the court concluded that a *possible* implication was not enough, but then still considered a "reason to suspect malice" as enough to proceed, and that reason was speculative. I can see that I need to lay out the case more clearly. One of the problems is that much of what is alleged is not about the WMF.
(1) There was a conspiracy to harm, almost openly declared as retaliation for exposing impersonation socking.
(2) Various individuals were recruited to participate in the conspiracy, persons with some reason for malice.
(3) These persons then collectively participated in efforts to "delete all your work" and otherwise defame the plaintiff.
(3) The WMF then acted to support this defamation. Was that with malice? I have no proof, but because there is an appearance of joining in a conspiracy, and because of the appearance that the WMF has issued retaliatory bans, there is reason to suspect malice.

So the layers of claim are here:
(1) The statement "Abd is banned" is true on the face, neglecting implications.
(2) The implications of a statement depend on context, including other statements by the alleged defamer.
(3) The statement, to be fully truthful, then, must be judged by what impact the statement would be reasonably anticipated to have.
(4) So the "truth" of the statement is in question, and this will require a jury to decide.
(5) And then even if the statement is true, if malice is reasonably alleged, on specific evidence (i.e, a claim of such evidence), then it can still, under Massachusetts law, be defamatory. In Noonan, very thin evidence was enough to suspect malice, then allowing discovery to determine if there was better evidence.

So, bottom line, I have not yet gone over my Amended Complaint to see if I adequately pled defamation. I cannot trust their analysis, because it is so obviously self-serving (which I think could be normal, it is their job at this point to attempt to blow my case out of the water, not to fairly argue balance. It is my job to argue the other side. It seems to me that they have provided me with a very convenient list of precedent cases, I don't think I will need more.

Their MTD is so confused, and because I will need to amend my complaint anyway, for a number of reasons, I expect it will be mooted. Most of it will become irrelevant, and if they recycle it, it will be worse than useless.

My claim is that there was a conspiracy, and the evidence for that is very clear. What is not so clear is whether or not the WMF joined the conspiracy, or were merely useful idiots, who might still be liable in some way for negligence. It might be worth looking at Doe v. Amherst Coll., where there are many resemblances. True statement by the College, on the face. Defamatory implications. I have not read all the pleadings yet, I intend to, because, after an initial dismissal of most claims, the pleadings were amended and the case was live, and then a complainant confessed fabrication, demonstrating that, in fact, the Amherst investigation had been defective. So the case was going into discovery, and Amherst caved, apparently, and settled.

[Abd]

That's ham fisted.

No way Vig. Fram has no case because the foundation has the right to block whoever they want, even without any reason. His name is not on that SanFanBan list, and there it is about. Deformation under a CC license, it is what you concider as lol, isn't it?

Well, the WMF has made statements about the Fram ban and those might possibly be defamatory. I have not reviewed them from this point of view, and don't plan to. The WMF did announce that Fram was banned, which takes them into Lomax v. WMF territory.

It would be a weaker claim, but still possible.

If you look at precedents, service providers do not publish the names of banned users. You may suspect a ban from a removed account, but the user could also have removed it. Reddit bans accounts. You see nothing but [deleted] with the account's posts as author.

[Graaf Statler]

Says the guy who believes Abd will triumph in court?

Just quit with the white knighting, Martin.
Laura's not going to fuck you.

Beside doing the kindergarten over to pimp your social skills it would also a great to do the same with the primary school because you simple can't read, Vig. Because I have never said that in that context.
I have said I simple don't know if publishing someones name on that list in America is deformation or not because I don't know the American legal system. Maybe it is, remember the dog in the microwave and the temperature of MacDonalds coffee and other American legal cases. Or maybe not, time will learn I have said.

He, Vig, why don't you just come over here to Crowy, Eric, Bird and Bad and me? Because now you are for weeks and weeks producing tons of bullshit and crap on WO and it should be much easier to correct all you mistakes if you where posting it here.
Or are you to cowerly to come over? We zullen je echt niet opvreten hoor, and take Bart Legal with you for some support! Yes, that would be fun bro!

[Graaf Statler]

Here Abd Lomax, here, read what Dysk writes and let that bunch of fucking spergs there on WO and Discord.

Arguably most non-vandal blocks are because of conduct so it would make sense that Wikipedia's dispute resolution focuses on it. But the system is woefully lacking. One could say Abd's entire case is an example of how once you get blocked/banned there is absolutely no proper procedure to deal with it.

This are interesting things if you want to win. Yes you can win if you don't lose all the time complete track Abd Lomax! Damm it!
Leave sperg Vig and fucking sperg mendaliv and Bart Legal, concentrate you on the right things!

[Graaf Statler]

Copy from Dysk's discord:

*>>>>>>Copyvio Abd wrote:"Yeah. However, in the U.S., if the commercial user promptly takes the material down on request, assuming they can do that, they are probably protected. If they have profited from it, they will likely have to share that fairly. A limitation of liability for the WMF for misrepresentation on Commons might not fly. I'm not aware of any case. Strictly speaking, all Commons content is not WMF publication so . . . probably no WMF liability. User, maybe. It is possible to subpoena the WMF for user access information, but it better be quick! More than three months, probably gone.
The really dangerous thing is downloading copyrighted movies to watch, from pirate sites. It can be very expensive.
The Monkey Selfie case could be expensive if that photographer ever gets it together to sue the WMF, because they rejected a takedown notice, based on an opinion that might not actually stand up in court.
And in that case the photographer could possibly ding them for consequential infringment. It could get very, very expensive. It's beyond me why there were willing to risk that for a cute photo. The principle they were upholding?"


F>U>C>K>I>N>G Bullshit, Abd.
And you serious think you can win that trail, Abd? A cliam of millions is what you can expect back and them you are even poorer than you already were and a tremendous loser. Vig is simple right.

[Abd]

Copy from Dysk's discord:

*>>>>>>Copyvio Abd wrote:"Yeah. However, in the U.S., if the commercial user promptly takes the material down on request, assuming they can do that, they are probably protected. If they have profited from it, they will likely have to share that fairly. A limitation of liability for the WMF for misrepresentation on Commons might not fly. I'm not aware of any case. Strictly speaking, all Commons content is not WMF publication so . . . probably no WMF liability. User, maybe. It is possible to subpoena the WMF for user access information, but it better be quick! More than three months, probably gone.
The really dangerous thing is downloading copyrighted movies to watch, from pirate sites. It can be very expensive.
The Monkey Selfie case could be expensive if that photographer ever gets it together to sue the WMF, because they rejected a takedown notice, based on an opinion that might not actually stand up in court.
And in that case the photographer could possibly ding them for consequential infringment. It could get very, very expensive. It's beyond me why there were willing to risk that for a cute photo. The principle they were upholding?"


F>U>C>K>I>N>G Bullshit, Abd.
And you serious think you can win that trail, Abd? A cliam of millions is what you can expect back and them you are even poorer than you already were and a tremendous loser. Vig is simple right.

Graaf, unfortunately, is bending over and showing his butt. None of this has anything to do with my relationship with the WMF and the lawsuit. Copyright is not an issue, and I was not in any kind of trouble with the WMF over copyright.

I also don't "expect" anything from the lawsuit except perhaps the truth coming out, and then reasonable consequences from that.

Graaf has some very extreme ideas about copyright (nobody is agreeing with him), and applies what might be valid about them out of context, over-generalizing and insisting on his interpretations vehemently and with utter and complete certainty. And then he claims this or that authority proves he is right and anything else is wrong. It's all paranoid argument (paranoia being the generation of certainty from circumstantial evidence or even, in extreme cases, no evidence at all, just thoughts).

And almost every other word is "fuck."

[Graaf Statler]

[
Graaf has some very extreme ideas about copyright (nobody is agreeing with him), and applies what might be valid about them out of context, over-generalizing and insisting on his interpretations vehemently and with utter and complete certainty.
And almost every other word is "fuck."

Well, the truth is except you no one disagreed me there, but it is not about me.
It is about the Dutch/European copyright law, about European jurisdiction and Dutch/European cause law what you simple doesn't recognise. And I think I know why your are SanFanBanned.
You are properly SanFanBanned because of copyright infringements.
Because WMF lives (properly) in the same reality as I. The only thing what is left is the deformation because of publishing your name on that name and shame list. But I am not familiar with the American legal system, so I have no idea how the judge interpret this. But it wouldn't surprise me at all if you wins.

[Anyone]

F>U>C>K>I>N>G Bullshit, Abd.
And you serious think you can win that trail, Abd? A cliam of millions is what you can expect back and them you are even poorer than you already were and a tremendous loser. Vig is simple right.

I thought you funded Abdul's lawsuit. Is that true? If so, how much did you give?