Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
napsgear
genezapharmateuticals
domestic-supply
puritysourcelabs
UGL OZ
UGFREAK
napsgeargenezapharmateuticals domestic-supplypuritysourcelabsUGL OZUGFREAK

Can you sue posters on a discussion board by issuing a summons on the site? (Heatherrae?)

Date: June 11th, 2007 8:38 PM
Author: DavidRosen
Subject: Notice of lawsuit pending vs. certain AutoAdmit posters

To the defendants listed below, you are being sued in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut. The defendants are the persons using the following pseudonyms on the website autoadmit.com or xoxohth.com: Pauliewalnuts; neoprag; STANFORDtroll; :D; :D (Hillary v. Jeb’08); MoreDoughHi; Remember when I said I would kill you last? I lied; lkjhgf; yalelaw; Spanky; ylsdooder; Community Norm; HI; David Carr (Glass of water for Mr. Grainger); vincimus; Beach Body Brady; Cheese Eating Surrender Monkey; Todd Christopher; A horse walks into a bar (saving one CPGWBT at a time); The Ayatollah of Rock-n-Rollah; DRACULA; Sleazy Z; Whamo (Let me lay it on the line, he had two on the vine); Ari Gold; Ugly Women; playboytroll; Get_to_da_choppa; Dean_Harold_Koh. The allegations are as follows: copyright infringement under 17 U.S.C. § 501; appropriation of another’s name or likeness; unreasonable publicity given to another’s life; publicity that places another in a false light before the public; intentional infliction of emotional distress; negligent infliction of emotional distress; and defamation.


The plaintiffs are attempting to serve you with a complaint and summons in a civil action. The text of the summons appears below. So that we may deliver a copy of the summons and complaint to you, please provide your complete contact information to the following email address: [email protected].


UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT


SUMMONS IN A CIVIL CASE


CASE NUMBER: 307CV00909 CFD


I. (a) PLAINTIFFS

DOE I, and DOE II


v.


DEFENDANTS

Anthony Ciolli; Individuals, whose true names are unknown, using the following pseudonyms: Pauliewalnuts; neoprag; STANFORDtroll; :D; :D (Hillary v. Jeb’08); MoreDoughHi; Remember when I said I would kill you last? I lied; lkjhgf; yalelaw; Spanky; ylsdooder; Community Norm; HI; David Carr (Glass of water for Mr. Grainger); vincimus; Beach Body Brady; Cheese Eating Surrender Monkey; Todd Christopher; A horse walks into a bar (saving one CPGWBT at a time); The Ayatollah of Rock-n-Rollah; DRACULA; Sleazy Z; Whamo (Let me lay it on the line, he had two on the vine); Ari Gold; Ugly Women; playboytroll; Get_to_da_choppa; Dean_Harold_Koh


YOU ARE HEREBY SUMMONED and required to serve upon PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY

David N. Rosen, Esq.

David Rosen & Associates, P.C.

400 Orange Street, New Haven, CT 06511



an answer to the complaint which is herewith served upon you, within twenty days after service of this summons upon you, exclusive of the day of service. If you fail to do so, judgment by default will be taken against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. You must also file your answer with the Clerk of this Court within a reasonable period of time after service.



(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=643868&forum_id=2#8243886)





:cow:
 
Re: Can you sue posters on a discussion board by issuing a summons on the site? (Heat

No way that's legal. I know the standard is to put the summons in the hand of the person being served, but I think in cases of repeated attempts to serve someone sometimes alternative means are accepted. This is total BS though.
 
SpyWizard said:
are you asking if posting in a web forum qualifies as public notice??
Click to expand...

That, and if this whole thing can actually happen.

The board's already had dealings with http://www.reputationdefender.com/, but this newest drama seems to have people wondering whether this actually a flame or not -- and perhaps more so, whether this kind of thing has the potential of happening.




:cow:
 
What if those user handles are alters of one user?

Maybe I can make up an alter and then sue my own alter?




b0und (ponders)
 
Re: Can you sue posters on a discussion board by issuing a summons on the site? (Heat

RottenWillow said:
No way that's legal. I know the standard is to put the summons in the hand of the person being served, but I think in cases of repeated attempts to serve someone sometimes alternative means are accepted. This is total BS though.
Click to expand...

Did he really just ask posters "Help me serve you so that I can sue you in court?" What a ttt attorney (to go along w/ his ttt personality & sense of humor).
Click to expand...
this counts as expedient service. if the posters choose to ignore it they'll be in default. if plaintiffs ever find who the posters are they can come after them, and the only thing the posters will be able to do is claim lack of personal jurisdiction. it may work. or not.
Click to expand...
I call BS as well. Someone can't just go to a website where someone once posted and serve them notice.
Click to expand...
yet placing an add in a newspaper can count?
Click to expand...
It's expedient service in NY. In CT it's called service by electronic means. http://www.jud.ct.gov/Publications/PracticeBook/PB1.pdf#page=169


Sec. 10-13
Click to expand...
im a rising 2L, so maybe I'm wrong, but how does the Connecticuit have jurisdiction here?
Click to expand...
it was filed in district court and they can use CT's long-arm statute.
Click to expand...
http://www.ssbb.com/yesjuris.html


for some examples. You are torting someone in CT, they are feeling the brunt of it there, something like that
Click to expand...
long arm statute is what you're thinking of. tortious act committed outside of the state that has effect within the state.
Click to expand...



These kids are law students or working in law, so it's kinda odd that they're unsure after 350+ posts discussing it...




:cow:
 
b0und said:
What if those user handles are alters of one user?

Maybe I can make up an alter and then sue my own alter?
Click to expand...

He could sue Rach, GTO, and John/Jane Doe. Then have subpoenas issued to discover the identity of posters.
Click to expand...

The above listed posters are the guys running the discussion board.




:cow:
 
Re: Can you sue posters on a discussion board by issuing a summons on the site? (Heat

samoth said:
These kids are law students or working in law, so it's kinda odd that they're unsure after 350+ posts discussing it...




:cow:
Click to expand...

If for no other reason I think it's not binding because the defendants aren't named. "ILikesMeToHumpTurtles" et al doesn't count.
 
Re: Can you sue posters on a discussion board by issuing a summons on the site? (Heat

RottenWillow said:
No way that's legal. I know the standard is to put the summons in the hand of the person being served, but I think in cases of repeated attempts to serve someone sometimes alternative means are accepted. This is total BS though.
Click to expand...
wow i feel like you used so many words to convey that point
 
I didn't read any of this.. .but you sue

John Does / Jane Does aka list all the handles and IPs that you may have for that person. Then you subpeona anyone and everyone that can reveal the true identity of those Johns / Janes.

Issuing a Summons to someone that is clearly not your target will get you no where - it is not their job to deliver it and they won't show up, nor should they.
 
http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/Rule4.htm

Above is rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Normally, you can serve someone by personally delivering the summons (normally performed by the local sheriffs office or the marhalls in federal cases) or by certified mail (they have to sign for it).

In cases where the whereabouts of the defendant are unknown, the court can grant service by publication by posting the notice in a NEWSPAPER of general circulation. However, notice by publication only grants the court jurisdiction In Rem (meaning over property that is the subject of the action). It does not confer In Personam jurisdiction that would allow the plaintiff to get a personal judgment against the defendants and then later pursue to collect the money.

The proper way for the attorney to do what he is attempting to do, if this isn't a sick joke, is to file the suit, listing the unknown defendants and then issue a subpoena to the site to gather any information regarding the identity of the defendants. Once the names and addresses of the parties are obtained (if that is even possible) then he could get PERSONAL service on them by having them served by personal delivery or certified mail.

This smells of a joke to me. It would be simple for them to figure it out. Just get a copy of the case number from the courthouse to see if it was actually filed.
 
Last edited:
Plus, there is no explaination why this would be in federal court. There is not subject matter jurisdiction or proven diversity jurisdiction (I don't feel like explaining these...lol) Suffice it to say that the jurisdiction does not appear appropriate.

PLUS, time to respond is 30 DAYS in FEDERAL COURT. They put 20 days on the fake summons.

PLUS, you have to deliver a copy of the complaint with the summons.

IF THIS IS A REAL SUIT, the attorney must not be very good at his job...lol. It looks like a prank by a law student who needs to study civil procedure more and commit pranks less.
 
jh1 said:
I didn't read any of this.. .but you sue

John Does / Jane Does aka list all the handles and IPs that you may have for that person. Then you subpeona anyone and everyone that can reveal the true identity of those Johns / Janes.

Issuing a Summons to someone that is clearly not your target will get you no where - it is not their job to deliver it and they won't show up, nor should they.
Click to expand...

That's why proxies exist.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jh1
They can look the case number up on PACER and verify whether it was filed or not.
 
heatherrae said:
They can look the case number up on PACER and verify whether it was filed or not.
Click to expand...

As of yesterday, it wasn't.

THIS SEEMS LEGIT.

This case isn't in pacer, yet. https://ecf.ctd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/login.pl


The case no., however, is too accurate to be flame. The highest case no. in PACER is 3:07-cv-00902, for a case filed on 6/8. That makes a new case with 909 a possibility. No flame would be so meticulous as to get the case number right.

The supposed judge on this case (last three letters of case no.) is http://www.ctd.uscourts.gov/droney.htm . Someone might want to call his clerk to see if this case exists. Edit: or better yet call the courthouse so as not to overwhelm his clerk.
Click to expand...




:cow:
 
samoth said:
As of yesterday, it wasn't.






:cow:
Click to expand...
I would bet that that is a joke. From a civil procedure aspect, the summons over the internet is 100% ineffective for service of process. The only other thing that I could possibly guess is that the lawyer would be hoping that it would scare the defendants into contacting him and thus revealing their identities.

What is the whole mess about anyway?
 
heatherrae said:
What is the whole mess about anyway?
Click to expand...

I don't even know this time. The board's been in legal trouble before for posting pictures of law students in a who's-the-hottest contest recently, but I don't know about this one. I think it might be something not dissimilar, lol.




:cow:
 
lol you've been talking about this law chat forum for yrs now wtf already
 
samoth said:
Well, it gets a better response than most other obscure topics I talk about.




:cow:
Click to expand...
are you a college student still?
anytime you're looking for a outdoor adventure (non-:rainbow:)
lemme know right up the fuggin road
 
Gambino said:
are you a college student still?
anytime you're looking for a outdoor adventure (non-:rainbow:)
lemme know right up the fuggin road
Click to expand...

Yeah.

It'd be nice to get out into some more remote areas... they keep expanding a new park into the woods I claimed ten years ago here next to Lake Michigan, lol.




:cow:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

S
University closed and evacuated -- Because of message posted on a discussion board. (No, this is not a joke, lol.)
Replies
6
Views
568
javaguru
javaguru
Top Bottom