Ginger, You're Only Hurting Yourself!

[Anonymous]

Ginger,

You are making statements, even now that you have been sued, suggesting you will conspire with Carey to make this as expensive a trip as possible for Sue, and your other comment that people are concerned about controlling free speech.  These two statements will probably cause Sue's attorney to amend his complaint.

In the first place, I have a copy of the suit.  The Florida precedent cited is right on point.  There is nothing canned about Sue's lawyer's Memorandum of Law.  If this were to be played out, you'll be lucky to avoid losing your house, probably through protection of the Bankruptcy Court.

Second, Sue has sued you in Florida.  Good Florida litigators are very, very expensive.  If you defend yourself, you will be looking at a legal bill upwards of $50,000 (even in the unlikely event you would prevail).  And while Florida Courts have traditionally permitted telephonic appearance for some hearings, you'll be traveling to Florida quite a bit in the upcoming months.

Third, I noticed that Sue is relying on some Federal Law in connection with her suit.  If her attorney or yours removes this to Federal Court, you'll need to hit the lottery to pay for your legal representation.  Also, Carey's lawyer will in all likelihood file a cross-claim against you for indemnity.  That's because your interests and hers seriously diverge.

Now, after that little commentary on the law, let me explain how your comments may serve to harm you and why you should think about shutting your mouth:

1. Threatening or even suggesting to protract litigation to intimidate a Plaintiff to dismiss their or its case is unlawful.  Sorry to say, that what you have allowed to be posted to the Fornits website is actionable in every State, not just Florida, and when a Judge reads that you propose to deliberately make this a long, hard road for Sue by having an attorney file dilatory pleadings, you'll may find yourself looking at interim sanctions and you could pay Sue's legal bills as well.  Given who her attorney is, I don't think you want to talk yourself into that.

2. You have been wrong about your comments all along, that everyone can post whatever they want and you are just allowed to sit back and watch explosion after explosion take place with no consequence to you.  You have been told this time and again, yet you persist in living in a fantasy world, probably to compensate for your admittedly srewed-up childhood.

This society has rules.  As adults we have agreed to live by the Rule of Law and the Social Compact.  Your website is ruleless (if there is such a word) and that flies in the face of the laws that we as a society have agreed to live by.

Ginger, this would be a very good time for you to shut your hole.  Your lawyer is going to tell you this if you get that far.  If you don't hire a lawyer, then Sue will get a Judgment by default and you will be very sorry you did not take the sound advice people have tried to give you for months.

Think it over Ginger!

[Anonymous]

Yes, Anon1 is 99.9% correct.  He did, however, leave out one thing.  Even if Ginger were to comply with the TRO or TPO issued by the Florida Court, it doesn't make Sue's lawsuit go away.  A lot of lay-people might misunderstand this point.

When a suit like this one is filed, and the circumstances are emergent, as seems to be the case in this situation, a Motion is filed together with a Verified Complaint, Brief, Proofs and a Proposed Order which covers just the initial application for a TRO or TPO.  So, even though you are dealing with one cause of action, there are two separate types of relief being sought.  First is interim relief and second is permanent relief together with a money judgment.

Ms. Warbis should consider herself lucky in one respect.  If this case had been filed in Escambia County, instead of Broward, I'd rate her chances of winning at about 1%.  This is "trouble a brewin" as Floridians like to say.

[Antigen]

What, exactly, is the difference between this forum and Usenet?

Tough Love: Abuse of a type particularly enjoyable to the abuser, in that it combines the pleasures of sadism with those of self-righteousness. Commonly employed and widely admired in 12-step groups.
--Chaz Bufe

[Antigen]

And I'll tell you right now, David Pollack said to me on the phone yesterday that this is going to be just a whole lot of litigation, very expensive to me, and that I should just fold. Not in exactly those words, but you get the point.

How is that different from my returning the favor? And what are the sanctions for malicious lawsuits?

It is the absolute right of the state to supervise the formation of public opinion.

--Joseph Goebbels

[Antigen]

On 2004-01-01 04:32:00, Anonymous wrote:

In the first place, I have a copy of the suit.

Ok, who the hell are you and how to you come to have a copy of the suit?

The legislature is to society as a physician is to the patient. If a physician ignored side effects of medications like today's legislators ignore the side effects of their legislation, the physician would be accused of malpractice. I accuse today's legislators (with rare exception) of legislative malpractice. Many of the ills that are so obvious in our society are a direct result of previous legislation. Their solution? More laws!
-- John A. Bennett, DO

[Anonymous]

This post is actually in reply to Deborah's post on another thread.  It's more appropriate to address it here.  Oh, and Ginger, in response to your question about who I am, I will simply say you don't deserve to know.

OK, first I want to comment on Deborah's post, which admittedly is a cut-and-paste from a Q and A on another website, but the result is horribly misleading to the readers at Fornits.

Let me first draw a parallel which will help.  Everyone knows there are websites where you can buy drugs from Mexico.  On those sites, they refer you to a Federal Law which is supposed to legitimize having their stockpile of drugs, either not approved by the FDA/DEA in the US, or otherwise can only be obtained by prescription in the US, shipped to US Citizens in the US.  The Federal Law these internet vendors recite does actually exist; however, its meaning legally versus how the website in Mexico interprets the meaning of the law is so different that many of its patrons do not realize they are breaking the Law when they buy drugs from these sites and then have them mailed to their homes in the US. It's exactly what's going on here in relationship to Deborah's careless post.

With all due respect Deborah, chillingeffects.org may not be the place to conduct serious legal research and then use it on Fornits to make Ginger or her readers feel better about what's going on.  You may even be hurting people.

Title 47, USC ss230 also known as the Computer Privacy Decency Act provides a type of Statutory Immunity to Interactive Web Service Providers.  There are different kinds of immunity.  For example, you have Virtual/Full and Qualified (qualified means there are exceptions).  So, this Law, which is a Federal Law, not a State Law confers a type of immunity, which does not (repeat, does not)mean that Interactive Webservice Providers, hosts and subscribers can say whatever they want about anyone or anything without consequence.  In Ginger's case, privacy laws are said to have been seriously violated, and much of the Law being relied on is Law from the Southeast District.  Remember too, that States have laws that conflict with Federal Legislation.

Unlike Deborah, I have done a little research to substantiate this post.  In Morrison v. American Online (N.D. Ind. 2001) Docket No. 3:00CV0723AS America Online found itself on the business end of a lawsuit similar to the one Ginger is now involved in.  I'll let the curious readers here find and read the text of that case, but keep in mind Ginger is not America Online and does not have even a micro-fraction of its resources and they found themselves bearing the huge cost of a legal defense in the end regardless of the outcome.

Other cases which would make me violently shake, if I were Ginger, are Mitan v Davis (Kentucky) Docket No. 3:00 CV-841-S, Hammer v. Trendl (E.D.N.Y. 2002).  This case is particularly on point as Amazon.com was enjoined, again, in a situation most similar to the one Ginger is in.  Also, Fischer v. Mt. Olive Lutheran Church (W.D. Wis 2002) Docket No. 01-C-0158-C.

So Deborah, I reassert that chillingeffects.com does not provide the whole picture in terms of unfettered freedom on the World Wide Web.  The host and the provider have been found to, in many instances, to have a level of responsibility.

Next Deborah, there won't be any motion granted for severance.  I have, in my hand a full copy of the Complaint against Ginger in Carey.  Conspiracy is one of the Counts in the Complaint.  Conspiracy, as it has been set forth here, means that Ginger and Carey acted in concert.  No Judge anywhere will grant a motion to sever when conspiracy is one of the priciple causes of action.  As previously posted here, Ginger's lawyer will want her to sue Carey for Indemnity and Carey's lawyer will advise the same.  This is a very complicated lawsuit.  Also, in a civil conspiracy theory, it doesn't matter if Ginger knew there were private issues that could not be disclosed.  The right hand doesn't have to necessarily know what the left is doing.

Finally, Ginger, on your question about what makes yours and Carey's threat on Fornits, to make this litigation expensive for Sue, different from what Sue's lawyer said to you over the phone is that he filed his lawsuit.  In other words he took his action than made his comments, which is different than not taking action and conspiring on Fornits to do something expressly prohibited in the Federal Rules of Court.

[Antigen]

On 2004-01-02 14:01:00, Anonymous wrote:

Finally, Ginger, on your question about what makes yours and Carey's threat on Fornits, to make this litigation expensive for Sue, different from what Sue's lawyer said to you over the phone is that he filed his lawsuit. In other words he took his action than made his comments, which is different than not taking action and conspiring on Fornits to do something expressly prohibited in the Federal Rules of Court.

This comment, in the context of the whole situation, would indicate to me that his intent in filing suit is malicious, not legitimate.

And, btw, there are many different kinds of expense. But I guess you'll just have to wait and see. BTW, is this you David?

The clearest way into the Universe is through a forest wilderness.
-- John Muir

[Anonymous]

No Ginger, not David.  Whoever David is.

Whoever I am Ginger, try to benefit from the comments instead of resisting.  I realize that's your nature, but you have no victory to take here.

By the way "than" should have been "then" last paragraph.  Also a few other errors, sorry you got the unchecked version cause of my lack of computer prowess.

[Carey]

Finally, Ginger, on your question about what makes yours and Carey's threat on Fornits, to make this litigation expensive for Sue, different from what Sue's lawyer said to you over the phone is that he filed his lawsuit. In other words he took his action than made his comments, which is different than not taking action and conspiring on Fornits to do something expressly prohibited in the Federal Rules of Court.

The suit had not been filed at the time of their phone conversation.  I have a faxed copy that was faxed to me after their phone conversation and it had not been filed at that time.  So, it was a threat.  It was a threat just like the threatening phone call made here to my place of employment on Monday.

[Anonymous]

Carey,

If there was a Retainer Agreement in place between the lawyer and Scheff, that would be sufficient in place of the suit having been filed.  The threat wasn't idle and that's the standard.

[Deborah]

"Misleading People". Give it a rest. Sharing information is not misleading people. In fact, you could very well be misleading.

I imagine you're a fraud. I don't believe, based on the posts you've made, that you have Ginger's best interest at heart, and doubt that you are an attorney.  I read your messages to be deceptive- attempts to instill fear, not only directed at Ginger but to others here; whom some would like to silence. I trust Ginger to make the right decisions for herself. You should too.

It's pretty obvious to me that she's not interested in your advice, so why don't you hush now and watch this unfold. One thing for certain, we'll all learn.

[Anonymous]

Deborah:

The reason I don't "hush now" is because you don't know what you're talking about.  As far as instilling fear, nothing makes people more fearful than the unknown.  You posted something which was not realistic, not analyzed and unsupported, so why don't you give it a rest.

Also, I am not giving Ginger advice (would never presume, because Ginger knows everything - even I know that).  Just contributing like everyone else here.  Why do you want to silence me Deborah?

[Carey]

Look, Mr. Intimidation, the threat did not come by way of the attorney.  The threat came anonymously.  The female gave a ficticious name and would not leave a return phone number.  It was not an attorney calling to notify me I was being sued, is was a threat made to shut me up.

[Anonymous]

Carey, maybe I misunderstood you, but I think we're talking about two different things.  I was commenting on the call Ginger had with Scheff's lawyer, not a prank call you say you received.  Prank calls are annoying and that is not right.  I doubt though, that a licensed attorney would engage in anything like that.

Again, perhaps I am not understanding the point you're trying to make.

[Anonymous]

I missed the "Mr. Intimidation" remark (tisk, tisk, tisk Carey)!!  No intimidation here, just observation and contribution.  It doesn't matter to me what happens to any of the parties.