The docket reads:
7 Mar 8, 2019 Mail Returned as Undeliverable. Mail sent to Dennis Lomax.
At the time, the court called me and asked about my address. I had them read it to me. It was correct. They re-mailed it and I received it.
I did not notice that there was a document shown. It's almost the end of the quarter and I still have 50 pages I can download for free, or it costs me $15 plus any charges over (it's ten cents per page, limit of 30 pages chargeable per document (so long documents cost $3.00). (Yes, it is is a very weird system, they are being sued, apparently). So I went over the docket and downloaded whatever minor documents there were, so that my copy of the docket is complete.
And that attached document was an image of the returned mail . They had mispelled the name of the street. How they ended up reading it to me correctly, I don't know, though I can speculate.
Vigilant jumps to conclusions. And Pope Catholic! He wrote:
That is not my Patreon page. It was created by Ruby Carat, who did an interview of me. I don't think she asked me for permission. I wondered at first, did I create this and forget about it? Possible at my age! However, Feynman mispelled and I would not call myself the Director of the blog, nor would I describe the 2009 Wikipedia activity that way. I challenged JzG (Guy Chapman) over his abuse of admin tools, and "Wikipedia" agreed with me. (through the Arbitration Committee). Little did I know at that point that winning an arbitration case against an administrator was a method of creating a pack of howling dogs who would be after me for forever.His patreon
https://www.patreon.com/posts/abd-ul-rahman-18151650
Does he do anything but beg on the internet and get in stupid slap fights?
Other miscellany today. I caught the Buzzfeed article on the FramBan quickly and posted a mention of Lomax v. WMF there. I do need to raise money for expenses to serve defendants and I just realized that I may not have followed correct procedure in adding additional defendants. It's a bit unclear, but I'll probably need to serve them quickly, at least by mail. (Then, if this survives dismissal, it all gets pretty serious and there will be discovery expenses). In any case, three IPs using TOR nodes rattled my talk page cage on my wiki, and one pointed out that Guy Chapman had commented on that. So, of course:
Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax
WMF Office bans began to ramp up in 2015, in a slippery slope. Originally only against obvious hazards requiring privacy, they moved into new and dangerous territory. I am in court with the WMF over one, look up "Lomax v. WMF." There are many details alleged there that show how the WMF global ban process (secret, no warning or appeal) was abused to pursue a private vendetta, with defamation and harm as the purpose.
Guy Chapman
WMF response to the Abd lolsuit is here:
[link to the Courtlistener copy of document 9, a Memorandum of Law in support of the motion to dismiss, which has been moot for almost two weeks, because it was based on the original complaint, which was just a simple pro se form provided by the court, and quite deficient. I knew that amendment would likely be necessary, if the WMF decided to fight this.]
So the rest of that is just a quotation of points of law, and not actually an Answer to the suit.
Then Chapman gives us his legal opinion.
These errors are common with pro se litigants, of course, as indeed is the underlying issue, failure to understand that when you use a website, you are bound by its terms of use, and your use can thus be terminated if you violate these terms of use (or for any other reason, or none). Wikipedia is a private property of the Wikimedia Foundation. RationalWiki is a private property of the RationalMedia Foundation.
Your enforceable rights are limited to the right to fork, and the right to leave.
He's FOS. The cause of action against the WMF is not based on any claim that they cannot terminate use, with or without cause. He apparently has not read the amended complaint, nor has he followed discussion of this. He does not know the basis of my claim against the WMF. It is not about their right to ban, which I acknowledged in a conversation with WMF lawyers yesterday. They have that right, certainly in an emergency. They must have it. There might be limitations on it, under a theory of implied contract, the expectation of fair dealing and due process, and, to my knowledge, this has never been tested and may vary with conditions. Their right to ban is covered by the Terms of Use, and damages there are limited to $1000. And, so, in the 4th Count, "violation of implied contract," I ask for $1000 in damages. However, what they publish is another matter. The way that they implement the ban is through the global lock tool, which publishes the fact. But they could easily privately ban. Essentially, they have decided to protect the privacy of complainants, who might be libelling a user, but not that of the accused user. The assumption is that banned users have been bad and do not deserve privacy.
I claim and have evidence to the contrary, so he can present this to the court. So I replied:Also, just for the record, I have no grudge against you, but I concur pretty much entirely with this: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Abd_ul-Rahman_Lomax
Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax
Guy Chapman
That Motion to Dismiss is moot, because there was an amended complaint, see Document 16, available from the docket at http://coldfusioncommunity.net/lomax-v-wmf/
We will see if the legal argument Chapman tacks onto the WMF statement flies in court. I don't think it will, but, I have already come out ahead by filing this. My opinion is that the WMF is being pig-headed with this, as they were with the Fram ban. This could have easily been settled, but they have elected to fight it, so far. So we will see. Of course Chapman likes that article. He collaborated and conspired with those who wrote it.
I am happy to have a court resolve the issues. Instead of wringing my hands and complaining, I'm taking action. I am confident that Reality will prevail.
Chapman has been inactive on Wikipedia since March 14, apparently leaving in a snit over being reprimanded for being his usual usual.