CrowsNest wrote:Y'know, I think the WMF would be stupid enough to think they could win even if you had a Peter Thiel bankrolling you. You get that impression every single time you hear them talking about a legal matter.
Well, yes. Pride cometh before a fall. I've been studying precedent. If I'm correct, the legal term for their situation is "fucked." That doesn't mean I'll win, there are lots of twists and turns in defamation law. But it is very strong that it is going to take at least discovery before they can move for summary judgment, and I think I can survive that as well, it will take a trial, and then I get to convince a jury. Can I do that? I think it will be fun to find out! I've gone through training where I had a roomful of experts watching me make a presentation. I was lousy, but the whole point was to be lousy so that you can learn how to not be lousy. Ah, that was so much fun! So they start to point out problems, and I say, "I know . . ." and they said, in unison, "Shut up and listen!"
And that revealed habits I had since my teenage years. OMG! We don't have to continue our old identity!
It really did blow my mind, that having seen your complaint, their actual response to the Court, something that crossed a highly expensive lawyer's desk, would go anywhere near the possibility that you might have been banned for "no reason at all".
Well, not mine, because they were simply trying to blow the complaint out of the water as quickly as possible, and the WMF could claim that they don't actually ban people for no reason, this was simply a legal fact, that they can (and, by the way, that's correct, they can. But, ah, can they publish the fact? Further, can they do this while providing no recourse, no appeal and published? This is going to get interesting.
I don't know if you've seen it, but it will probably help your case to include the fact that the WMF is petitioning the European Court of Human Rights because Turkey's ban of their website's somehow infringes the "fundamental human right" to "freedom of expression", specifically by denying Turkish citizens their rights to "contributing, debating, and adding to Wikipedia’s more than 50 million articles".
Maybe, I'll look at it. A lot of stuff that may seem relevant to us may not be relevant in court. However I now have Count 3, which makes a common-law argument, and I might mention this there. They are formally claiming a right to "freedom of expression" that they are, themselves, denying, with no due process.
Nice.
I didn't go to no fancy lawyer school, I don't work for Jones Day, but I think your judge is going to be well aware of the basic legal principle that denying a person their fundamental rights for no reason at all, is kinda shady. And yet this appears to be the aggregate view of the WMF, at least insofar as how they intend to use the law.
I do think that this "no appeal" thing may strike a chord, yes. So a school can expel anyone, but can they publish it? What I have seen in case law is that factual issues are raised that can take a trial. It is strongest if malice is plausibly alleged, and in one case, the judge essentially assumed malice because the plaintiff had caused the company he was suing heavy legal expenses. That was neat to find. I found this stuff because idiots at Wikipediocracy wondered if I had sufficiently; 'Shepardized" the case. I had not seen that word for years. It is presently a Lexis-Nexis tool, and apparently expensive. But I also found a review article that claimed that Google Scholar was almost as good, and better in some ways, and the price is right. So that's how I found a ton of cases to read, covering Noonan v. Staples.
In Massachusetts, it turns out, there is an exception to the "veracity is an absolute defense against libel", because, per the law, a statement may be true and still be defamation if issued with malice. (this was the old common-law rule.) That's unconstitutional as to public figures, but is law with private figures.
So my complaint has two layers. First of all, I'll claim that the publication implies serious misbehavior even though technically it doesn't say that and technically, it is "true." I.e., they say Abd is banned and he is, and from their point of view, that's true, end of question. But not quite! I am so glad I filed in Mass instead of California (which I did consider!). So the statement is true but not the common implication from it. So *substantially* the statement is untrue.
And then secondly, I'm alleging malice, which I actually believed but it's not my habit to allege it. Here, I must.
A Judge can't in good conscience endorse the arguments of lawyers who are that incompetent.
Not true. That is not how judges think. They actually have the audacity to look at the arguments instead of the person, at least usually! The alleged incompetence here is that this could injure the reputation of the WMF, and my sense is that the WMF wanted them to do whatever they could to quickly blow the case out of the water, so they went for what is easy. And that wasn't incompetent. I have high respect for Jones Day, not so much their client. If I don't amend, my complaint is toast. Tomorrow, or I would need to get the judge's permission.
He will have to hear the case to settle the matter as to who has what rights, and it is hard to conceive any outcome where they win on any substantive point of disagreement.
"She", and I intend to visit the court and watch her in action. It's easy to conceive, these cases can go either way, but if I present an amended complaint, link below, and handle this with reasonable skill, it will take a trial, almost certainly. There are factual issues. Is the publication of a WMF office ban defamatory? Was there malice on the part of the WMF? If I have the thinnest of evidence, enough to allow a possibility that jury would conclude malice, it must go to trial.
What do you think? Any malice floating around that WMF brain?
(I can show malice, slam-dunk, for other defendants, my opinion, but the WMF's action might have been mere incompetence, it's possible. More likely, there is a mixture of incompetence and malice, along the lines of aligning with and protecting "precious volunteers" from "attack by trolls."
Draft_Amended_Complaint
Now, this: http://coldfusioncommunity.net/w/index. ... ldid=21630 This was "Max," here, as he claims.
And this: http://coldfusioncommunity.net/w/index. ... ldid=21780 Max doesn't really quite get his situation.
And then the Beast shows up: http://coldfusioncommunity.net/w/index. ... r_talk:Max
if you leak anything to Abd, just remember that friends can become enemies. Some advice (talk) 00:17, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
Now, this is interesting. I keep in mind that impersonations and fake accounts and lies have been part of this situation since before I was involved. But Max's story caused many tumblers to fall into place, the lock turned, it all made far more sense. If the WMF has destroyed the emails, I may be able to whack them for spoliation. If Max agrees to provide an affidavit ASAP, I would drop the case against him, all he has to do is tell the truth, which he may be legally compelled to do anyway. If he was lying, well, that would make him part of a larger conspiracy to create confusion. But I don't think he lied.
Them threatening him would seem to be about as stupid a thing to do as I can imagine, but the Smith brothers have done many, many stupid things. They get away with it, often, because they have learned how to manipulate wikis.
I just found strong evidence that the socks that lit up Wikipedia in March with threats and claims around Lomax v. WMF was a Smith brother, very likely Darryl. They make lots of mistakes, and they are protected because, mostly, nobody is watching.
Are we having fun yet?
