Non-Sequiturs: 06.11.07
* Wow, talk about passive-aggressive behavior. (The husband, not the wife.) [Island Packet]
* The FTC may be good at many things, but creative punny language is not one of them. [Truth on the Market]
* Sexual harassment: once a dog, always a dog. [Reuters / Oddly Enough]
* I blame the same wiring responsible for guys’ breasts-as-stimuli reaction for the double take on that guy with the Che Guevara neck tatt. Reflex trumps judgment. [Agoraphilia]
(7) Comments
Comments
Comments hidden for your protection. Show them anyway!
Well THIS could be worth monitoring!
http://www.xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=643868&mc=143&forum_id=2
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: drosenlaw@gmail.com.
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)
PWN3D!!!!
wtf is a reasonable period of time after service? That's not an acceptable standard for filing an answer anywhere that Im familiar with. Even with expedient service there has to be a set period for filing an answer or so I've been taught. I call flame on this.
Seems pretty clear to me: "YOU ARE HEREBY SUMMONED and required to serve upon PLAINTIFF'S ATTORNEY 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." I guess if he gets it, that's enough; and then they have to get it to the court in a reasonable period of time.
ANOTHER POST ON XOXO
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.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=643868&forum_id=2#8243905)
ANOTHER POST FROM XOXO
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.
It seems based on the subsequent posts at AutoAdmit that this is a fake or flame?
It looks like this is the real deal:
http://www.abovethelaw.com/2007/06/has_autoadmit_been_pwn3d.php