View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Mon Aug 19, 2019 6:20 am




Reply to topic  [ 125 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 9, 10, 11, 12, 13  Next
Lomax v. WikiMedia Foundation, Inc. et al 
Author Message
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:22 pm
Posts: 108
Reply with quote
Meanwhile, more fun. Back in March, there was much glee on Wikipediocracy over document 7 in the docket for Lomax v. WMF.

The docket reads:
Quote:
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:
Quote:
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?
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.

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:

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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
I claim and have evidence to the contrary, so he can present this to the court. So I replied:
Quote:
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.


Sat Jun 29, 2019 3:17 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 3218
Reply with quote
Where is that Chapman response?

I know a few hundred angry Separatists who would not be pleased to see one of their finest volunteers speaking such heresy against their sovereign rights.


Sun Jun 30, 2019 1:55 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2017 8:20 am
Posts: 2442
Reply with quote
What a tremendous difference between the American Common law and the continental Europe Code Napoleon law! Our system is so much closer to the people and the daily life!
Now I start to understand why law cases are so expensive in America.

We are farmers, and our judges use there boeren verstand as we say. There farmer's mind. They are extreem close to earth, they do what is logical, fair and responsible within the borders of the law. They can visit your home or come on a location, they invest, talk with the people. Professionals are considered to be professionals, civilians just good civilians who are doing there best, but can make mistakes. ToU's come in the second place and can be ignored. Reasonable and fair, that is the unwritten law we have to respect and what always prevails in a court room.

This is really a world of difference.

_________________
Mijn blog. (In Dutch) of kom eens gezellig bij de Kolonel langs in Eerbeek.
En kijk eens hier, het "Verboden" lijstje van door mij aangemaakte artiklen.

. Image
.Winner of
The SanBan


Sun Jun 30, 2019 4:34 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2017 8:20 am
Posts: 2442
Reply with quote
Total rubbish of the Jones lawyers.

1) It is not about the ban itself so all that case law is worthless. it is about the publication of Abd his (user) name on the name and shame list under a CC licence.
2) This is a action of WMF, not of a user so there is no protection of section 230 at all I presume.
3) Fine Abd published the ban himself, but it is also on many other places discussed like Reddit etc..

https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov ... 20.0_2.pdf

So in my opinion BRANDHOUT!

But I have of course finished only succesfull one year kindergarten, so I am looking forward for the analyses of my forum friend on WO. :mrgreen:

_________________
Mijn blog. (In Dutch) of kom eens gezellig bij de Kolonel langs in Eerbeek.
En kijk eens hier, het "Verboden" lijstje van door mij aangemaakte artiklen.

. Image
.Winner of
The SanBan


Mon Jul 01, 2019 11:05 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2017 8:20 am
Posts: 2442
Reply with quote
Poet wrote:
One of the WMF's points is " To the extent Plaintiff’s claims against Wikimedia are not dismissed, Wikimedia reserves the right to move to dismiss or transfer this case to the Northern District of California" (footnote 4, page 5). It will be interesting to see what the court thinks about that.

Thanks Poet for pointing this out. I can's believe this peace of brandhout is made by a real Jones lawyer because this is so complete rediciles it must be thought out by a wiki lawyer.
To me it seems a masterpiece if the extreme skilled legal department of WMF, because they are in general telling Utter Fucking Bullshit. What this is of course.

The court accept the case under it's jurisdiction in Massachusetts, the court, isn't it? But no, WMF has the right to move the case to California.
But I have a better idea. Lets move the complete law case to Paraduin, the empire of Prins Ogidius.

He prins Prins Ogidius, is de koffie al bruin daar? Want we komen allemaal, Vig ook. En zorg je wel voor genoeg taart? Leuk, kunnen we en taarten-gooi-wedstrijd houden!

Lunatics.

_________________
Mijn blog. (In Dutch) of kom eens gezellig bij de Kolonel langs in Eerbeek.
En kijk eens hier, het "Verboden" lijstje van door mij aangemaakte artiklen.

. Image
.Winner of
The SanBan


Mon Jul 01, 2019 12:41 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2017 8:20 am
Posts: 2442
Reply with quote
mendaliv wrote:
Yeah it's just another 12(b)(6) motion. This is roughly the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure equivalent of the common law demurrer, which has been perhaps most colorfully described as the litigation equivalent of saying "So what?": In its most basic form, it's a statement that even if everything pleaded in the complaint is taken as true, it could not result in judgment for the plaintiff. As the federal pleading standards have gotten more complex in the wake of Twombly and Iqbal, some more specificity is necessary in pleading a lot of stuff before you can get to discovery. Pleading is historically incredibly complex, but is supposed to be rather simple under the federal rules... but even under the federal rules the clever litigant can make hay out of weak pleadings and significantly delay a case.

Not the promised firework, mendaliv, this is shocking bad. It's a extreme weak defence and a bunch of weak 2(b)(6) claims. (motions to dismiss). Not what you should expect of a rich Foundation and the Jones Day lawyers. What a bullshit!

_________________
Mijn blog. (In Dutch) of kom eens gezellig bij de Kolonel langs in Eerbeek.
En kijk eens hier, het "Verboden" lijstje van door mij aangemaakte artiklen.

. Image
.Winner of
The SanBan


Mon Jul 01, 2019 3:46 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2017 8:20 am
Posts: 2442
Reply with quote
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.

Who, ho, ho mister lawyer. The world is bigger than the US of A. In Europe, 500 million inhabiters the German judge was very clear, WMF is responsible for the content. This is simple not true what you are cliaming. And seen the many EU users this is a huge risk for WMF seen the many legal contracts between America and the EU. The legal arm of Europe reach far in America.

Quote:
Poet wrote: 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.


Same story, and do your homework, mister lawyer. The world is bigger than your state and WMF is a global operating movement whit many, many users outside the US of A. In Europe and about other continents I don't know is everyone responsible for his own edits. Outside America you can't hide you behind the American jurisdiction, something I have pointed out now for years!

_________________
Mijn blog. (In Dutch) of kom eens gezellig bij de Kolonel langs in Eerbeek.
En kijk eens hier, het "Verboden" lijstje van door mij aangemaakte artiklen.

. Image
.Winner of
The SanBan


Mon Jul 01, 2019 11:57 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2017 8:20 am
Posts: 2442
Reply with quote
mendaliv wrote:
And keep in mind that statement could be great evidence in a lawsuit claiming breach of contract, at least for the purposes of getting past the motion to dismiss phase and into the discovery phase

Breach of contract is anyway something interest to explore, special in the continental legal system. And more specific because WMF is still capetaizing users there work in the form of banners. In different words, those office bans are legal nuclear time bombs.

_________________
Mijn blog. (In Dutch) of kom eens gezellig bij de Kolonel langs in Eerbeek.
En kijk eens hier, het "Verboden" lijstje van door mij aangemaakte artiklen.

. Image
.Winner of
The SanBan


Tue Jul 02, 2019 7:54 am
Profile
Psyop
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2017 5:56 pm
Posts: 1443
Reply with quote
Abd wrote:
Chapman has been inactive on Wikipedia since March 14, apparently leaving in a snit over being reprimanded for being his usual usual.

Hah. Good. The bully is still a coward.


Wed Jul 03, 2019 12:26 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:22 pm
Posts: 108
Reply with quote
Graaf Statler wrote:
mendaliv wrote:
And keep in mind that statement could be great evidence in a lawsuit claiming breach of contract, at least for the purposes of getting past the motion to dismiss phase and into the discovery phase

Breach of contract is anyway something interest to explore, special in the continental legal system. And more specific because WMF is still capetaizing users there work in the form of banners. In different words, those office bans are legal nuclear time bombs.

Graaf, when you quote someone from WPO like that, please, a link!

I am considering abandoning Count 4, not because I think I have no argument for it, but because the trend in U.S. courts is entirely against what I think is obvious, the plain meaning of Section 230 and while I can legally challenge it, it vastly complicates the counts that are most important for me personally, and which are far stronger, in terms of precedent, Counts 1-3. Count 4 is, in fact, covered by the TOU. Implicit contract is tacked onto actual contract, i.e., the TOU. So damages are limited unless one wants to argue unconscionability, which can get very, very complex legally. I am not a lawyer, and I'm learning as I go, and I believe I can handle Counts 1-3 and get to first base, i.e., survive dismissal, all clearly from established precedent.

It gets difficult enough after that, pursuing discovery, dealing with expected obstacles put up, etc. Count 4 takes the complexity to a higher level, and for little reward.

Collectively, yes, Count 4 could be important to many people, but there has not been an outpouring of support! Count 4 would benefit the community, so . . . let the community pursue Count 4 as a class action suit, with real lawyers, etc. I keep my life simpler by dropping that count. It leaves them with no Section 230 defense. All I need to do is, perhaps, plead the rest a little more skillfully, to survive dismissal. If that. I have not yet decided if the AC was adequate as-is. I'm still reviewing the law, though I'm about done with that.

And I don't want to edit Wikipedia or any WMF wiki. I gain no benefit by it, at all, not any more. I was able to rescue all my content (with a lot of work! I had to download multi-gigabyte site dumps and figure out how to extract individual pages from them without breaking things, so I needed to write programs, etc.)

What I will probably do is request leave of the court to amend the complaint again and I need to do that anyway for other reasons. Precedent is clear that they should allow such amendment at this point. I need to keep all this as simple as possible. The WMF, from their MTD, wants to make it complicated, bringing in irrelevancies, and that can backfire with a perceptive judge.

Section 230 is irrelevant to the rest of my suit, but, for those who are outside the U.S., section 230 only immunizes the WMF within U.S. jurisdiction, and probably for any case filed in U.S. Federal District Court.


Last edited by Abd on Sun Jul 07, 2019 8:59 am, edited 1 time in total.



Sun Jul 07, 2019 6:46 am
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 125 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 9, 10, 11, 12, 13  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group ColorizeIt.
Designed by ST Software.