Wow, amazing that he's got the balls to stand up to someone with a team of the nations finest lawyers. They've certainly put him through the wringer. I doubt he'll be able to prevail against such a powerhouse legal team, but bravo for trying.

Don't pleadings typically get signed?

Did Jane Does make T14? Smart money says prolly not.

Guys in my high school used to counter-sue all the time, it's no big deal

Guys in my high school used to counter-sue all the time, it's no big deal

I am glad to see Ciolli fighting back. He's a folk hero, and it's terrible what The Man has done to him.

ATL cited on paragraph 97!

What is the clerkship bonus at T14 Talent Inc.?

owned you filthy disingenuous wop.

I'm a little rusty in civ pro but I don't how they get personal jurisdiction in Pa. state court -- most of the defendants are non-residents. I don't think having a phone call with the Plaintiff is enough.

By calling him an executive, you may get yourself sued. He didn't even have the power to call himself that. IT WAS ALL THE SHADOWY COHEN.

No authority at all...except for when CIolli deleted threads he didn't like. I guess his authority was fungible.

What a douchebag. His "resignation" was something of a fraud, and his frequent disclaimers of responsibility for xoxohth have been disingenuous all along. Now they're the subject of a lawsuit.

I hope this ends up destroying him.

its not justified!!! (ctrl + j)

1:57, there were meeting with at least some D's in Pennsylvania. Furthermore, if other D's contacted a law firm in PA that would establish contacts with the forum.

Combined with all the other communications that should get PJ over most all of the D's.

Why do Italians think the rest of the world is retarded?

You actually think we'll believe that you had no ability to delete those threads? That sort of "I didn't do it" bullshit didn't work for your filthy wop mafioso relatives, and it won't work here.

Go to hell you disingenuous piece of NJ pizza joint trash.

1:57(2), the defendants also directed letter-writing campaigns to Philadelphia-related firms and held a 14-hour meeting in Philadelphia regarding the suit. That might be enough.

I see Ciolli has busted all the old "blame the Jew" defense.

No way the judge is reading all 219 paragraphs of this shit- This complaint could have and should have been written in less than 50 paragraphs- Notice Pleading Asshat...

2:11, please see Bell Atlantic. And please see an IRL complaint. This one is extremely brief.

this is hot

This case is a lot stronger than any claims the ever had against him. The lawyers for Iravani and Heller committed some pretty serious violations.

This guy is an embarrassment to the word "douchebag."

And talk about hypocritical! He presents himself as having authority over a website and then disclaims that authority and refuses to use it to remove potentially libelous or otherwise unlawful remarks at the request of the person injured by those remarks. Then he turns around and sues her for suing him, while also someone for doing the same thing to him.

Pick one, asshole. You don't get to have your cake and eat it, too. Either refusing to remove harmful postings you have the power to remove is wrongful, or it isn't. God, what an insufferable ass.

wow - this is huge. and pretty sad overall. several future lawyers' reputations ruined.

Lat - you may want to ask Dan Solove to guest-blog a bit about the overall issue - might be a nice change of pace. i just read his book "the future of reputation"; he has some creative ideas on how to balance online anonymous and non-anonymous speech with privacy interests.

"Notice pleading" is just a minimum standard for overcoming a 12b6 motion.... this complaint isn't excessively long at all.

Actually do 2:24. That is the beaut of america.

The people I have no sympathy for here are Reputation Defenders and the lawyers. They all should have known better.

this is so weird--- apparently his attorney specializes in "Anglican Canon Law" and advises religious leaders:

http://www.jakubiklaw.com/profile.htm

he will almost definitely win on the abuse of service count if pa's law is remotely typical on that point. i dunno about everything else.

ciolli is also circulating an article that he's authored to various law reviews. the topic is 1st-amend related, if i remember correctly.

has anyone actually read the thing?

2:36, he's going to be serving some biblical justice on these suckas

ciolli is an idiot--and i hope he gets slammed

If his account of the facts are correct the lawyers are in for trouble. I would expect this suit to be followed up with an ethical complaint against all of the defendants involved in the various jurisdictions.

GTO is my personal hero. Makes me want to be a lawyer again.

Ciolli has the official support of the Alliance of Whokebians. We wish him luck in this noble endeavor.

Does PA have an anti-SLAPP statute? If so, how big are the punitives available against Ciolli?

Good for him. He is a dork who was naive in a lot of ways, but naming him personally was always a joke. They paid no attention to who may have actually done these women wrong, and instead tried a scorched-earth revenge/extort approach.

It's wrong what they did to his career.

Nice to see the defendants and/or their friends posting on ATL. (2:43, 2:24, 2:10, 2:08, 1:59, etc.)

If the facts of pleading are true, then by all means I hope he wins in a knockout.

Ciolli to D's...DING!

It's about time Reputation Defender and KVN's tactics were called into question. I foresee this type of suit by other Defendants who can piggy back on what GTO has revealed in this filing.

Seriously, he's gonna get hit with an anti-SLAPP motion. There are a lot of posts on AutoAdmit where people claimed he controlled the usernames.

He's seeking damages for public comments on a matter of public importance. That's a SLAPP. He'll get backSLAPPed if the Does decide to pursue it.

2:11 - PA is a fact pleading state, thanks for playing.

@2:53 -- you obviously aren't familiar with what happened on AutoAdmit.

How close are these allegations to making out the elements of a criminal extortion case?

@3:01

Not at all.

What is Ciolli's job situation? I know he got an offer revoked--will he ever be able to get a job at a reputable firm?

"Seriously, he's gonna get hit with an anti-SLAPP motion. There are a lot of posts on AutoAdmit where people claimed he controlled the usernames.
He's seeking damages for public comments on a matter of public importance. That's a SLAPP. He'll get backSLAPPed if the Does decide to pursue it."

Moronic. I smell 2L.

What Ciolli learned, I imagine, is that actions have consequences.

@3:08

Hi Anothony!

So one of the Does had a job at MOFO afterall?

that's a bunch of bs. GTO got screwed harder than anyone.

"What Ciolli learned, I imagine, is that actions have consequences."

He was upfront about his association with a website widely known to be a cesspool. No doubt he was not offered jobs at many places he otherwise would have. Those are legitmate consequences of his actions. Being subjected to unmeritorious and extortion-like litigation is not a forseeable or legitimate consequence.

"Being subjected to unmeritorious and extortion-like litigation is not a forseeable or legitimate consequence."

It absolutely is a foreseeable consequence. He was proud of what went on at AutoAdmit, and (if the complaint is any indication) spread the fact of his involvement with it far and wide. Of course it was foreseeable that the posters (if he was not one) would do something outrageous that would implicate him. It's ridiculous to pretend otherwise.

Who else thinks it'd be funny if Ciolli got hit with punitives under the Penn anti-SLAPP law for filing this?

How dare those women try to protect their reputations! Only Anthony Ciolli gets to protect his reputation! He has been wronged -- all he did was put himself forward as the administrator of a trashy message board, while these women actually (gasp!) went to law school and were attractive to a few people!! Those skanky whores deserved what they got! But not St. Anthony!! How dare anyone say anything bad about him for sitting on his ass and not bothering to control his own message board!! Oh, how Anthony has been wronged!!

This truly shows the vindictive nature of his inclusion in the complaint and their mischaracterization of the facts (if his version is correct). While I am not overly sympathetic for Ciolli I also don't think they should be able to abuse the legal system for purely vindictve purposes.

All in all this is a very interesting development and makes for great entertainment.

"How dare those women try to protect their reputations! Only Anthony Ciolli gets to protect his reputation! He has been wronged -- all he did was put himself forward as the administrator of a trashy message board, while these women actually (gasp!) went to law school and were attractive to a few people!!"

Of course, it's entirely possible and reasonable that the does were unfairly wronged by the various Doe defendants, AND that Ciolli was also wronged.

But let's continue with black-and-white hyperbole, by all means.

i think the Does had the right to mount an email campaign directed at Ciolli's firm, but i don't think they can include knowingly false statements. i guess he'll discover all the emails and perhaps get to the bottom of this conspiracy.

And remember, AK47 only said "Doe X should be raped" and he is being sued for iied. I think these Does are going after the wrong people b/c there's no one else to go after.

3:34, the point is that Ciolli is acting like HE was the only one who was wronged. Which, given the facts, is beyond absurd.

Elvis Grbac is dead.

How come the two associates from KVN mentioned in the complaint are no longer on the KVN website? Only Of Counsel Lemley is still on there. I find that interesting, considering there actions involving the suit all occurred within the last year.

I like it... Heide and Brittain (poor girl, what an unfortunate name) seem petty and ... well, careless with the truth. See, e.g., ¶¶58 and 61. And knowing what I know of EAPD (I work in Boston, after all), I totally believe Ciolli will be able to prove causation as to his job loss. The e-mail campaign was a colossally stupid idea.

The dig at Heide in ¶83 was a bit gratuitous ("I'm too tired to talk to you"). And the facts at ¶¶110 et seq sure sound like a textbook case of abuse of process to me. Heide, Brittain, I think you're going to have some s'plainin to do. You better put your various insurers on notice of this suit...

I'd love to see the discovery in this case, particularly all e-mails from Heide's and Brittain's accounts. I'd be utterly unsurprised to find they orchestrated a smear campaign. I only wonder if they were smart enough to do it from anonymous accounts.

IMHO, the original litigation was stupid and ill-advised. Had nothing been done, nobody would have remembered Heidi's and Brittain's name, aside from the 14 people who originally cared about this stuff. But the girls were the center of their universe, and thus had to respond.

And so we see the natural and foreseeable consequence of such stupidity. A much more vulgar person than I would observe that Does #1 and #2 are about to be raped courtesy of the legal system.

Elvis @ 3:34, you're totally right.

-- ET!

(who actually felt bad for the girls at the beginning & still hopes the stupid boys get their just rewards, but now is beginning to think everyone involved is a jerk)

3:34

I don't see how he's "acting like HE was the only one who was wronged."

Is he supposed to meantion everything bad that's happend to everyone in his legal complaint?

Ditto to 3:52--also, this reads like a stronger case for defamation than that in the Doe's complaint.

Lat, you should thank your lucky stars for this low budget Charney (or ugly Aleksey Vayner). This site has been a little boring lately. Maybe God is Filipino. Interesting that Ciolli would out Philabaum (sp). I wonder who's next. The Autoadmit crowd isn't such a band of brothers after all. Who'd of thought it. I'd line up a lawyer now if I were Cohen. The personal jurisdiction difficulties are real but not insurmountable, but summary judgment is out of the question. Just about every one of Ciolli's factual allegations is likely to be disputed. Many of them, in fact, will involve quoting Ciolli (then) against Ciolli (now). I hope he destroyed his laptop. As long as there's (inorganic) life, there's evidence. He has his own abuse of process and obstruction of justice issues to think about. I suppose he'll have the time, however, since he won't be interviewing for jobs in the foreseeable future. For a guy who always has seemed obsessed with money and prestige, this lawsuit is difficult to understand as a career move. Maybe he and Charney are planning to start a First Amendment practice.

3:52 and 3:58: The way he is characterizing what happened, he is at the very least trying to make it sound like what happened to him is worse. It isn't. Period. These women didn't do anything to get their names splashed across his website, and he did NOTHING about it. Now he is complaining that because of something HE DID -- i.e., openly and proudly run a scummy website -- he's been wronged. Maybe he has been wronged, but there's some contributory fault in his case. Not in the women's.

4:03: is "It isn't. Period," supposed to be an argument or just your personal feeling on the matter? And last I checked, he was perfectly within his rights to do NOTHING about postings on XOXO, even if he had the power to do so (which he denies). See 47 USC sec. 230.

In sum, I get your oh so righteous moral outrage loud and clear. It provokes a single response: yaaaawn.

he is trash. pure and simple. and i'm glad he is learning that his actions have consequences. as much as he pretends to not know what's going on, you know he had a much bigger role than he lets on.

4:12, you must be one of those people thinks it's okay to be an ass to everyone s/he meets because, hey, it's your legal right. Well aren't you a prize.

4:03, what you say may be true re: some amount of contributory fault, but how does his running a scummy website excuse abuse of the litigation process?

I think John Yoo is a terrible, sick human being, but he could still well have a meritorious lawsuit against people who abuse the litigation process by naming him in suits lacking any conceivable basis (including acknowledgement of that meritless by the plaintiffs). What his complaint alleges isn't terribly far off from that.

Of course, I have no idea if it's true. But it seems ludicrous to me that operating a sewer of a website means that people can abuse the litigation process & file suits against individuals whom they absolutely know they have no legal claims.

His complaint does seem to skirt the dangerous edges of an anti-SLAPP dismissal, depending on how broadly it's construed and how readily it's applied in PA.

the real bad guys in all this are Lemley and Reputation Defender. Too bad nothing will happen to them.

He has as much a chance of proving the job loss causation as the Does do (in the original suit, at least one claims that the publicity prevented her from getting a job).

They'll depose the hiring people at his old firm, who will say that they should have investigated XO more thoroughly, but once they found out the stuff that gets posted there, they acted to prevent harm to the firm's reputation. Certainly, hiring someone as an associate who is openly involved with a site full of racist and misogynist posts can have negative consequences for the firm. So whether there was a letter-writing campaign is irrelevant. Not to mention that, given the current economy, he could have been laid off a week after he started... Employment is at will; it'll be impossible to meet the burden on that claim.

"one of those people thinks it's okay to be an ass to everyone s/he meets because, hey, it's your legal right"

You mean like, maybe, the Does? Who, while doing nothing illegal anyone, apparently so offended their classmates as to provoke the postings that started this mess? Or is that different? The posters' reaction wasn't ok--but the Does' was?

"one of those people thinks it's okay to be an ass to everyone s/he meets because, hey, it's your legal right"

You mean like, maybe, the Does? Who, while doing nothing illegal to anyone, apparently so offended their classmates as to provoke the postings that started this mess? Or is that different? The posters' reaction wasn't ok--but the Does' was?

so now the Does are going to argue all this is a matter of public concern, except when it comes to the AK47 motion.

looks like pauliewalnuts was a practicing atty, pissing away a ton of time on xoxo. i find that hilarious.

according to this, he passed the NJ bar in 2003 or so.

check page 21:
http://www.njsba.com/membership_info/newsletters/Vol_3_2.pdf

4:16, you're assuming it's been proven that these women abused process. That's only been ALLEGED. The complaint is only Ciolli's version and interpretation of the facts. His allegations are no more automatically true than theirs were.

4:21, employment is at will so there can't be a claim for lost employment damages.

Brilliant!

Uh, 4:24, isn't that exactly what 4:16 said ("Of course, I have no idea if it's true")?

"You mean like, maybe, the Does? Who, while doing nothing illegal to anyone, apparently so offended their classmates as to provoke the postings that started this mess? Or is that different? The posters' reaction wasn't ok--but the Does' was?"

"Offended" their classmates? What, by turning them down for a date? That's seriously obtuse, man. The people making comments about them were assholes. Maybe they were assholes too, but that doesn't merit saying they should be raped etc.

hey, 4:24: can you read?????

My 4:16 post included this: "Of course, I have no idea if it's true."

I am aware of what a complaint is, you idiot.

My point is that the allegations (another word I used -- and understand) in his complaint seem to make out a valid legal claim. And his being a jerk should not -- contrary to assertions seemingly bandied about by you & others in this thread -- defeat his otherwise potentially valid legal claim.

that's all. the guy can be a total waste of space & still prevail in his lawsuit alleging abuse of the litigation process.

But, 4:29, if Ciolli was an asshole for not doing something to help the Does (assuming he could have), that *does* merit a defamatory letter campaign to get him dinged by his firm and frivolous inclusion of his name as a defendant? I'm having some trouble following your distinction.

He's claiming that it was false and defamatory to state that "images were posted" on the site when really "LINKS to images were posted" on the site? PUHLLEEEZ. Substantial truth, buddy.

yeah, 4:37, i thought that was a pretty shite bit of deceptive description.

uh, 4:16(1), how exactly is the suit against Yoo an abuse of the litigation process? From what I've read and seen, it's a perfectly legitimate lawsuit, in line with several other recent suits against high-ranking government officials. In fact, on its merits it's astoundingly non-controversial. Which plaintiff(s) described it as meritless? Are you basing your opinion solely on the WSJ editorial and/or Yoo's op-ed? Shame, shame.

As David Luban said about the suit, "the basic point of the suit (regardless what you think of its merits) is to hold government officials accountable for torture and prisoner abuse—about as fundamental an issue of core human rights as anyone could possibly find." Luban also concluded that "any human rights clinic that wouldn't at least consider filing this lawsuit would be asleep at the switch."

4:37, i think the distinction is that his site didn't/can't host any phots so that he couldn't have been liable for any copyright claims. thus, they had no reason to include him in the complaint and just did to gain leverage on Cohen.

The irony of this is that no one is talking about the forum. Isn't it just like ATL? Should Lat be held liable for all of the BS that is spouted here? No! I find it humorous that no one seems concerned with the First Amendment implications here.

Ciolli was a casualty of a pretty serious war that is raging now. Is an internet message board more like a traditional form of media (where the publisher can be held liable) or is it like the cork board in your local grocery?

Hey 4:16, did YOU read what you wrote?

"Of course, I have no idea if it's true. But it seems ludicrous to me that operating a sewer of a website means that people can abuse the litigation process & file suits against individuals whom they absolutely know they have no legal claims."

Right AFTER you say you have no idea if "it's" true (presumably, "it" being your above remarks about the parties' respective actions) you go on to say that him being a scumbag doesn't mean abuse of process is okay, WITHOUT reasserting the qualification. At best, you were imprecise. At worst, you're backtracking.

MY point was that the women didn't do anything to deserve what happened to them. He, arguably, did. Then you start ranting about abuse of process as though it's the most relevant piece of the puzzle, when in fact it's a piece that may not exist.

Do us all a favor and stop being a retard.

4:40, you misread my post. It wasn't super clear, but I do think you misread it.

I said: "I think John Yoo is a terrible, sick human being, but he could still well have a meritorious lawsuit against people who abuse the litigation process by naming him in suits lacking any conceivable basis (including acknowledgement of that meritless by the plaintiffs)."

I was using Yoo -- who, as you note, has in fact been sued -- in a *hypo* involving a *hypothetical* suit lacking any conceivable basis, which the plaintiffs themselves even acknowledge (which is similar-ish to what Ciolli pleaded about some of the Ps/Attys).

Sorry that wasn't clear. I despise the WSJ Ed board as much as I do Yoo.

SLAPP SLAPP SLAPP SLAPP

Those two Yale girls are pretty petty. It's pathetic that they are using their legal education like this.

"WITHOUT reasserting the qualification"

Oh! Horresco referens!

You, sir, are a d-bag.

4:43: you must be the dumbest human being ever to live.

Seriously -- you think I need to include a qualification in every single sentence? I used "allegations" throughout, and in the sentence immediately prior to the one you seem to find problematic. I believe that people have attention spans, and when they read:
***
"Of course, I have no idea if it's true. But it seems ludicrous to me that operating a sewer of a website means that people can abuse the litigation process & file suits against individuals whom they absolutely know they have no legal claims."
***
that they will understand the second sentence builds off the first.

But you are obviously an idiot. I figured I would need to repeat that, as that seems to be your main contention.

One more time -- you are an idiot.

Sheesh. Clearly if his allegations are not true, he has no abuse of process claim. But if the allegations *are* true, his operating a moral sewer does *not* excuse abusing the litigation process.

Oh, and one more time -- you are an idiot.

"if Ciolli was an asshole for not doing something to help the Does (assuming he could have), that *does* merit a defamatory letter campaign to get him dinged by his firm and frivolous inclusion of his name as a defendant?"

Uhhh... sorry, *where's* the defamation? Did they send letters to his firm saying he's a three-headed alien with plans to take over the earth and use humans as food? If so, then, yeah, that could be defamation. If all they said was "look at this asshole's website and see what an asshole you're hiring," you've got a REALLY uphill battle to prove defamation.

For that matter, maybe they should have gone to the state bar under the Himmel rule.

4:16 - thanks for clarifying. i think someone like Lat would work better than Yoo for a hypo, though, which leads to 4:43's post.

4:43 - Lat deletes posts which name names purely to "out" or spite people and he would presumably delete posts of the sort at issue in the xoxo suit. Lat moderates and sometimes his board - sometimes not that well, but he does it nonetheless.

4:03, I don't get what your point is. This is a complaint -- a presentation of Ciolli's allegations. What, is he supposed to put in a couple of paragraphs averring, "although I believe I have a colorable legal claim against the does, I am SO SORRY about what happened to them. They did not deserve it." Are you serious?

Personally, I think Ciolli is a d-bag, but none of this should have happened to him. That's the problem with America today and law students in particular - looking to the courts to solve your problems. Someone should have just given him a good ol'fashioned ass-whuppin or two and then we could all go on with our lives.

"I find it humorous that no one seems concerned with the First Amendment implications here.
"

4:43 - where's the state actor? idiot.

and you best believe that if someone pinned something even mildly offensive (let alone the filth AutoAdmit posters regularly churned out) to the "cork board" of a local store the PRIVATE owner of that NON-STATE entity would rip it down ASAP before losing any customers over it. and said owner would be not only well within their rights to do so, they'd be smart b/c they'd make more money not allowing every a-hole in the place to use their cork board for whatever effed up agenda said a-holes might pull out their collective ass.

seriously, you call 1st amendment on this? did you attend law school?

again, idiot.

4:16, you sure are entertaining. You must be awfully proud of yourself for learning the word "idiot." Do you wear big-boy underpants too?

Just suck it up and admit that your writing skills leave much to be desired. You gave no indication whatsoever that you thought there was much possibility that this was NOT an abuse of process. The whole *point* of the "asshole" line of thought is that his running the website means he MIGHT in fact have been partially liable, or at least that it would have been reasonable to initially think he was liable, for the wrongful acts occurring on his website. So when you go with that line of thinking and run with it (i.e., okay, maybe he is an asshole who kind of deserved this), the implication is that the abuse of process claim is a bit weaker. So making comments like "but if they abused process, it doesn't matter if he's an asshole" makes you sound biased in Ciolli's favor, or like you actually didn't understand the point under consideration.

I won't call you a name again, because I realize now I was being a bully. *pats head* Sorry, little fella!

He (or his lawyer) named a New York defendant, presumably to keep from being removed. Are Pennsylvania state courts likely to be more sympathetic? He trashes Penn Law School for one thing; wouldn't they take offense at that? Or, are they all Dickinson (Penn State) grads?

What that sharp mind, quick to point out the truly important distinctions in an argument, 5:00 will make a great lawyer.

In fact, s/he can be my opposing counsel any time.

Any YLS people who participated in the smear campaign in the house?

Worried about those emails getting discovered?

My writing skills leave something to be desired? Your 5:00 post is incoherent.

I am also clerking on for a federal court of appeals judge, but thanks for playing.

Being an asshole is, contrary to your fevered imagination, *not* actually cause for suit. Ciolli could be a raging asshole & have worked for a moral sewer, but if the plaintiffs absolutely knew that he did not have operational power (and again -- he may well have: i am simply reading his complaint and, as is proper at this stage of litigation, construing every allegation as true), and yet sued him anyway on theories they knew could not win, then, yes, they abused the process. And his being an asshole does not help them.

And I don't know what to say to this "reasoning" of yours: "You gave no indication whatsoever that you thought there was much possibility that this was NOT an abuse of process."

Uh, how about repeatedly using the word "allegation" and saying "I have no idea if this is true."

Readers who are *not* functionally retarded would have picked up on those cues. Sorry that you didn't.

Enjoy play time later! And eat your veggies, kiddo.

5:11,

Thank God we have people of your caliber clerking on our courts of appeal. My faith in America is restored.

Seriously, though, what is it about anonymity that makes law students and recent law graduates such absolute tools? Does it transform them or does it merely allow their true natures to emerge?

amen to that, 5:20. i think the direct cause is pure, simple, disgusting narcissism.

ah, yes, decline to address any argument.

I see you have acknowledged that your position is non-sense and that you have the intellectual capacity of a washcloth.

clearly many people on here... such as 4:03... havent read the complaint and dont know the facts... Assumiing Ciolli isn't lying through his teeth in his account of the facts (which for obvious reasons is higly unlikely), he didn't run any website.

Your arguments bore me. I am much more interested in your souls.

4:16,

I am a clerk on the U.S. Supreme Court, and your writing is atrocious. Oh, and I'm also a Senator, and your writing is abysmal. I'm also the president of the local PTA, and your writing is incoherent.

4:16 > 4:43

Nobody puts their best writing on a comments board, and this "I'm a ___" so I know better argument is BS.

That said, when you write about "allegations" and state that you don't know whether they are true or not, it's pretty clear you're not implying that you believe them to be true.

I have read these comments with mounting fascination in incredulity. Could somebody state (not characterize) what it is that Ciolli did which justifies, legally or morally, the treatment he alleges he received?

I have read these comments with mounting fascination and incredulity. Could somebody state (not characterize) what it is that Ciolli did which justifies, legally or morally, the treatment he alleges he received?

6:11 (the second)

I think one aspect of the discord is that some people believe Ciolli's version, and other's don't.

What I gather from commenters here that don't like Ciolli is that (a) they believe he had the power to remove hurtful comments and did not, and/or (b) he willfully affiliated himself with a message board that often contains nasty, filthy content.

What an idiot. And this is by no means an average-length complaint for claims that don't involve a massive antitrust conspiracy.

He refused to take down defamatory and threatening comment threads although he previously took down (or caused to be taken down) comment threads mocking (not defaming) friends of his. (Bad, but legally irrelevant to him being named in the Doe suit.)

Plus, for a long time, people (including I, who read autoadmit for a time) thought that he was one of the pseudonymous posters involved in the alleged/defamation threats. (Legally relevant.)

6:16pm

But it's a good way to get his side of the story out in a case that has drawn media attention.

6:19pm

I have no idea how anyone could believe he was one of the pseudonymous defendants except by total conjecture.

What made you think that?

thanks 6:11 (#1).

I would have expected better reading comprehension skills from this crowd, but I guess not.

And yes, I am aware that anonymously asserting claims of authority is a poor debate tactic. Still, I gathered that some doubted whether I had basic legal knowledge, and once I planned to state that I am a graduate & actual bar-certified lawyer, I may as well state that I am a clerk as well.

Anyhow, I only intended to make the very modest point that -- assuming everything Ciolli says is true (that he could not remove posts, etc) -- then the Ps' naming him in their suit after definitively learning that could well expose them to liability. And, further, that Ciolli's association with a cesspool does not somehow excuse litigation abuse.

That said, I remain rather unconvinced about the veracity of Ciolli's claims regarding his involvement with & control over xoxo. Then again, I never visited there and my primary knowledge of the site came from news stories -- the very news stories that Ciolli claims to be untrue. So, I really don't know.

But I thought it worthwhile to point out the nonsense of certain commenters who fixated on his ass'n w/ a hideous website as tho that disqualified him from possessing a potentially legitimate legal claim against people who *allegedly* filed lawsuits against him that they *allegedly* knew to be bogus.

to 6:19--

Because the writing style from some of the comments was very similar. (not just the actionable comments. I would have to go back to that cesspool to figure out why, at one time, I thought AC aka GTO used one or more of the pseudonyms who were sued.) Of course, there were a number of posters who obviously imitated "GTO's" writing style, but usually they would imitate (and make fun of) his pseudonym as well.

Even if the does initially thought (and said) that Ciolli was not pauliewalnuts, something could have happened that changed their minds.

4:16, that was such a convincing comment until the end. If the association was such that a reasonable person could have believed he would be liable in the first suit, then abuse of process did not occur. If abuse of process did not occur, then he does not have a potentially legitimate legal claim against them. Ergo, if he had a *certain type* of association with the website, then he does not have a claim.

So, it's not nonsense to posit that the one does have something to do with the other.

Actually, I ran the website.

Oink! Growl!

For those of us only tangentially aware of the case, we would really like to know whether the women in question were even attractive enough to merit this sort of attention.

Ismone, my writing style clearly had nothing in common with GTO.

GRO, I apologize. I was not referring to you. But your ass didn't get sued, now, did it?

What exactly does GTO stand for? I've gathered that it refers to Ciolli, but nothing else.

AC's pseudonym on AutoAdmit was Great Teacher Onizuka (or something like that). Hence, GTO.

remove for diversity, transfer venue to connecticut and relate the cases out of concerns for judicial efficiency.

he may have a claim, but he's not got a chance in hell of getting that claim heard in isolation from the main autoadmit suit.

I notice that very few, if any, of the commentors on this post appear to be civil litigators with any amount of actual experience.

Not one person has even mentioned the most fundamental questions about this lawsuit. Who will defend the defendants? The firm will either defend itself (foolishly) or have to now pick up the tab for hiring another expensive firm (in Philly) to defend it. Just reviewing the facts and the complaint to file an answer alone will cost the firm several thousands of dollars. Score one for Ciolli there.

Who will represent the Jane Does? Their current pro bono law firm? I don't think so. The firm is a defendant in the action, and it's not admitted in Philly anyway (this could be overcome through hac vice but the fact is they need Philly lawyers defending this). Representing co-defendants would make a clear conflict of interest. So what then? Who's going to pay for the expense of defending them? Do they have general liability policies? Possible (especially if they own a home which may require them to buy a homeowners' policy which often contains GL coverage), but unlikely. Score two for Ciolli.

The facts aren't great for his case. But they're enough to survive summary judgment and make it to a jury. Very bad news for each defendant, and brilliant move on Ciolli's part.

The guy wasn't smart enough to get into Columbia. But still, the dude is infamous. I'd change professions.

Does Tony have a job?

9:57 - Can't remove. Diversity is not complete. Ciolli is a New York domiciliary and so is one of the defendants. And if no removal, no transfer. Agree with 6:20 that this is probably just Ciolii's way of getting his most implausible story (at least to someone who used to read Autoadmit regularly during the time in question) out there. His parents might even be paying for it. Conversations for them at cocktail parties must have been forced at best over the last few months. And to Alligator Litigator, don't underestimate the willingness of the Pennsylvania public interest bar to help out in this case. The possibility is being discussed, as was the possibility of filing a law suit in the first instance. The level of animosity for Ciolli and the Autoadmit crowd runs deep and wide.

"Alligator-litigator" Yeah apparently you are the only "litigator" here. Your post reads like a bar review issue spotter. But the statement that exposes you for the law student that you are is "there is enough to get past summary judgment?" You think? Why, have you done all the discovery in the matter? Hey alligator litigator - between you and I, you are allowed to consider more than just the papers on summary judgment. I have seen much better go down on summary judgment.

Alligator litigator - more appropriately - alligator law student. PEACE

Between you and me...

I love it when people like Alligator say "between you and I"...they must really think they're smart.

This will survive SJ. Score one for the home team.

this guy is a complete scum bag. he is basically claiming that he was a high level executive for the Nazi party but didn't know about the concentration camps.

To the guy who thinks "between you and I" is proper English while simultaneously arguing that I'm the ridiculous one...

Your post illustrates my point perfectly. Every experienced lawyer reading this has an instinct that allows them to generalize and make educated guesses about the merits of a lawsuit based on certain known facts. You don't know that because you're some two-bit junior associate whose experience is limited to, at best, being a memo monkey or document reviewer. Assuming you're not a law student.

All this is beside the point anyway. The most burning question I have remains: how these defendants will retain defense counsel for themselves and who will foot the bill?

I also think it's unfortunate for Ciolli that he couldn't find a way to avoid being removed to federal court, which the defendants will likely do, followed by a motion to consolidate or transfer venue to Connecticut.

"this guy is a complete scum bag. he is basically claiming that he was a high level executive for the Nazi party but didn't know about the concentration camps."

The trolls on this thread are insufferable. He is not saying anything of the sort. First, he is not claiming---nor has he ever claimed---to be "high level" anything. He ran the studies section of the website. He's always been forthcoming about his lack of authority over the message board. This is not breaking news.

Second, he's not claiming that he lacked knowledge of anything. To the contrary, he openly states that he received e-mails informing him of the content. And when things got bad, he quit.

A more apt analogy is this: he's like a mid-level Nazi clerical worker who quit to disassociate himself from the Nazis and their concentration camps.

Alligator Litigator - If you want people to think you're a litigator you have to stop saying stupid things, particularly after they've been pointed out in previous posts. Pay close attention now. The defendants CANNOT REMOVE. Ciolli is a New York domiciliary, as is one of the defendants. Complete diversity is lacking. And if they can't remove, they can't transfer. Where, exactly, did you acquire your sophisticated "instincts" that permit you to "generalize and make educated guesses about the merits of [this] lawsuit." Traffic court?

9:28, the only NY defendant I see is "T14 Talent, an unincorporated association with its known membership comprised of adult citizens of New York, New Jersey, California, and Virginia"

I can't speak for alligator litigator, but just because you don't have complete diversity now doesn't mean you can't get it later. It is within the realm of possibility that this 'unincorporated association' will some day not be a party to this action. Practically speaking, it looks like P threw it in there just to destroy diversity.

The real question is if Ciolli was a UPenn law student, why isn't his address in Happy Valley, PA?

"Not alligator litigator" is right on this. It doesn't seem like T14 Talent is a real entity or party. I would be shocked if "it" responded. I would also be shocked if Ciolli then moved for default. Not alligator litigator is probably right, Ciolli likely included them to try to cling to state court and not have his case concolidated.

Alligator litigator also has a good point re defense counsel. Whether he is an actual litigator or nor, he has a valid point, unlike 9:28.

Not Alligator Litigator - Of course Ciolli threw it in there to destroy diversity. He wants to stay in state court. And he is not likely to dismiss the claim against T14 for just that reason. He also has pled a strong claim against it, so the defendants are not likely to get it knocked out as not a real party in interest. I take it you've never had a Civil Procedure course. This is Woodson v. World Wide Volkswagen, but probably with a different outcome.

And 9:55 - Ciolli points out in the complaint that he did not change his domicile from New York to Pennsylvania when he attended law school. Since he did not have to, that's probably going to be the final word. It wouldn't make any difference though, since there is a Pennsylvania defendant as well.

From 30,000 feet - if you come closer to the ground you might see things more clearly. Try reading the complaint as a start.

10:28 pm: good question! I also want to know: has he been admitted to the bar?

Heh.

Alligator, I believe you're a real lawyer. Your 9:59 point about the cost is absolutely spot-on.

But my ego requires me to point out that I alluded to the cost issue in my 3:50 p.m. post about putting insurers on notice...

-- ET!

(who really has to get back to work at his firm, but has hours of fun reading these mostly silly posts)

10:22,

Ciolli has 90 days under PA Civil Rules to perfect service on this 'defendant.' (Assuming this 'defendant' even exists as a legal entity, or has members in NY). If he doesn't, the action will probably get dismissed vis a vis that defendant. Then you have complete diversity. You can probably assume the other defendants will jump all over this, so service by publication would also be a long shot.

I'm sorry if I'm not speaking strictly in terms of what you just learned in your civil procedure class. (I have taken it, but it's been years). This doesn't involve minimum contacts (yet). It involves the more threshold issue whether T14 Talent is actually an 'unincorporated association' with officers or agents who are subject to service of process.

And admittedly, it is fairly obvious that Ciolli threw it in just to destroy diversity. I was pointing it out because I think he's grasping at straws - he will probably fail to keep it in state court. Sorry, I should have been more clear.

enjoin this - I take it you're a small, private firm lawyer and don't understand how the pro bono/academic bar works. Stay tuned.

Ciolli will perfect service on T14, you can count on it. It's central to his litigation strategy. And his claim against it is real. He outs "pauliewalnuts" in the process of pleading it. That burns any bridges he might have had to the group.

In addition, minimum contacts is a personal jurisdiction issue, diversity is a subject matter jurisdiction concept. Don't take on any procedure problems without checking with your clerk first.

Finally, for diversity purposes an unincorporated association is a citizen of every state in which it has members, and Ciolli won't have any difficulty serving it. He will serve "pauliewalnuts" (in Maryland, if we are to believe the complaint).

>First, he is not claiming---nor has he ever claimed---to be "high level" anything. He ran the studies section of the website. He's always been forthcoming about his lack of authority over the message board. This is not breaking news.

Um, no. Look at all the old threads that were bumped last night, where he claimed considerable editorial authority. Particularly harmful to his case is the one where he seeks out others to be moderators, and indicates that the system was built originally for him and one other guy (Rachmiel, the sysadmin) to have control over everything, and that he (Ciolli) just revamped the entire system to allow others to moderate.

Though my all-time favorite is the one where he "clearly" defines the policies he works under - he will delete any threads where active XO posters are "outted" but not threads where non-posters are outted. In other words, members of the club get protection, but victims from the general public are SOL. I can't wait to read the deposition transcript where he tries to defend that one.

11:12 - that's assuming he correctly outted pauliewalnuts, which is not necessarily the case. there was a lot of discussion about this on XO last night, and Ciolli may have fingered the wrong guy. hard to tell right now, but there is a chance it's not him.

11:12, again, you assume it is a legal entity capable of service. My whole point was that I suspect it's NOT a legal entity capable of service; there is no 'unincorporated association'. Just because it's a central part of his strategy, and because he really really really wants to perfect service, doesn't mean he will be successful.

I understand that the difference between personal and subject matter jurisdiction. Do you understand the difference between service of process and personal jurisdiction? Service of process is a threshold issue.

11:05 a.m. - actually a lowish-level partner at a mid-sized firm. I'm pretty familiar with pro bono work (having done more-than-enough of it, ugh) and stand by my statements. I bet there'll be a LOT of very interesting conversations between Does #1 & 2 and their current lawyers about the defense of Ciolli's suit. It's one thing to take a fun case in an interesting area of law (i.e., Doe's original suit), and quite another to defend a case where there's a very real claim for damages against your client.

And as an aside about removal -- I think the defendants will have a problem with the amount in controversy; what with 28 USC §1332(a) and all that... Just my $.02.

-- ET!

11:13 - I can't tell if you're deliberately distorting what you read, or if you actually read his posts that way. I, for one, find your "interpretation" of his comments implausible. He is acting---pretty clearly, I think---as an intermediary between Cohen and the posters on the message board.

But even if the older threads could be read to show that he had authority, his authority in the past is a separate question from whether he had authority when the offensive posts were made.

Why would a deposition be difficult for him? "I was acting as an intermediary between Cohen and the posters." Or, "I used to have authority, but Cohen revoked that authority before these posts appeared." I don't see a problem here.

I read those posts when they were first made, anywhere from one to three years ago. Anyone who was on XO that long knows that Ciolli had the ability to delete posts. It wasn't until well after all this (the posts harassing the Does) happened that he came up with the intermediary/lack of authority theory. And the thread where he asks for nominations for moderators is very incriminating on this point.

The deposition point has to do with him trying to defend an absurd policy. How is it acceptable to delete posts that identify XO users but not those that defame innocent third parties? And in case you missed the threads that started the whole lawsuit fiasco, the Does were accused of having STDs, of having lied to get into law school, etc., etc. But Ciolli refused to delete those posts. Had the Does been regular posters, according to Ciolli himself, he would have immediately taken them down.

i wonder if he brought the suit now in an attempt to head off any attempt to contact the NY bar examiners? looks like his character and fitness exam should be coming up . . . .

http://www.nybarexam.org/707_CD.htm

1:09 - I've been reading that board since it started in 2003 or 2004. I never assumed he had such authority.

You seem to have already decided that AC is lying. If so, I probably cannot change your mind with the facts. But just consider a few of the alternatives:

1. AC was acting as an intermediary.
2. AC had authority to delete posts at one time, but Cohen revoked that authority later.
3. Cohen permitted AC to delete some posts (e.g., those that "outted" users), but not to delete others (e.g., harassing posts).
4. Cohen initially gave AC limited authority to delete some posts, but later revoked that authority.

To put it simply, if I watch a child steal a cookie, then have them deny stealing it when I confront them about it, then yes, I feel comfortable concluding that they lied to me about it.

Interesting post by Ciolli's lawyer describing his (the lawyer's), politics. http://crimlaw.wordpress.com/2007/08/27/conservative-criminal-defense-lawyers/ Trained as a commercial litigator, now a family law practitioner, but with criminal defense experience.

How does he explain deleting threads outing posters but not thread naming third parties?

Here's a plausible answer.

He was providing an environment to protect anonymous free speech. Negative stuff about person X could be posted, regardless of whether X posted on the message board himself or was a third party.

You just couldn't destroy anonymity by linking X to his screen name.

I don't see this as the big problem some of you are making it out to be.

Say the real life name of pauliewalnuts is John T. Smith.

John T. Smith posts on the board. Jane P. Doe does not.

You could post saying John T. Smith is a jerk. You could post saying Jane P. Doe is a jerk.

The only thing you couldn't post is that John T. Smith is pauliewalnuts. That destroys the possibility of anonymous free speech.

12:06. If all the posts are "paulie walnuts is a jerk" and "jane p. doe is [redacted]", its only jane p. doe that's getting her life messed with, NOT John T. Smith.

Clearly speech should be free, but the speaker should be accountable.

@11:13
"But Ciolli refused to delete those posts."

Doesn't that imply he was asked to delete them? Sounds like he wasn't.

"I find it humorous that no one seems concerned with the First Amendment implications here.
"

4:43 - where's the state actor? idiot.

Does no one study Shelley v. Kraemer any more? The state actor is the District Court of Connecticut, or the trial court of Phila PA.