For some time now, your claims of “internet terrorism” have been noted, but to be honest, I haven’t paid that much attention to them. It appears that overnight, you have gone through many old threads and bumped them to the front page.
Please help me understand. You’ve mentioned filing suit a number of times, so let’s think ahead a bit. Let’s assume that you’ve filed your suit, and the judge has set it for an initial status conference.
At that status conference, the judge says something like “Nice to see you again, Mr. Parkerson, how is your family? And can you tell me what this suit is all about? Can you show me some examples of what has happened?”
At this point before the judge, of course, you want to state your case as strongly as possible and show your best evidence. So what would you show him?
Thanks for explaining all of this. With kind personal regards, Trollfessor.
Hes going to probably have a harder time explaining to any judge or jury why he has gone back and deleted many of his own posts.
And what is interesting is that he has called out the LASC numerous times, but surprisingly of all the posts of his to delete, he hasnt deleted any of the ones where he disparages the very same tribunal to whom he will have to go and beg for his law license back, as he says he desires to do. But that is not even a possibility since he PERMANENTLY resigned in lieu of discipline. Right, Troll?
I don’t read everything here and I try not to pay attention to the various personal bickering that goes on, so it is likely that I have missed whatever it is that is offending Hardy so much. I really don’t know exactly what he means by “internet terrorism” and that’s why I’m asking.
Hardy, if the judge would ask for examples of threads that contain internet terrorism, what would you show him or her? Presumably these would be printed out and introduced into the record as exhibits.
Thanks Hardy, I’m just trying to understand now, because I haven’t really been following it up to this point.
>
>
KR, people may represent themselves in Court, you only have to be a member of the Bar in order to represent others.
For some time now, your claims of “internet terrorism” have been noted, but to be honest, I haven’t paid that much attention to them. It appears that overnight, you have gone through many old threads and bumped them to the front page.
Please help me understand. You’ve mentioned filing suit a number of times, so let’s think ahead a bit. Let’s assume that you’ve filed your suit, and the judge has set it for an initial status conference.
At that status conference, the judge says something like “Nice to see you again, Mr. Parkerson, how is your family? And can you tell me what this suit is all about? Can you show me some examples of what has happened?”
At this point before the judge, of course, you want to state your case as strongly as possible and show your best evidence. So what would you show him?
Thanks for explaining all of this. With kind personal regards, Trollfessor.
Nobody can go on a local television channel
and anonymously defame another person.
Free speech carries with it a responsibility;
the speaker has a duty to identify himself.
Yet with the advent of the internet, now
one can use a forum such as Politicsla.com
and anonymously defame and slander a
person over and over and over and over
and there is no way the one defamed can
even know who it is that is doing it, nor
why; and this is a type of Terrorism. What
if I were leaving a defamatory message in
your mailbox--or in your neighbor’s--day after
day after day, week after week after week,
month after month after month, year after
year after year...wouldn’t this be Terrorism?
No, this stuff is going to stop, and I am not
going to let this so-called RegisteredZZ run
me away from this potentially good forum.
And when I attempt to defend myself against
his anonymous Terrorism and Demafatory
Campaign of Internet Terrorism against me,
other anonymous posters on this forum tear
into me instead of him. I just want to know
who this so-called RegisteredZZ is so that I
can put the pieces together and figure out
why he had continued his sustained Campaign
of Internet Terrorism against me. Frankly, I
did not do anything to get disbarred for, and I
suspect he might be behind, at least in
conspiracy with someone else, the ODC’s
coming after me. Sure, I called a guard
down at the courthouse who had been
talking to me like a dog for a long timne a
racial slur, and I should not have done so;
and surely, if the issue had been pushed,
I’d have been “disciplined”. Well, a long story,
but it’s just my nature to stand up and defend
myself and to fight back when one jumps on me.
As I used to say when I was a younger man
and somebody threatened to whip my you-
know-what, “I’d tell him I don’t see no lunch
pail in your hand,” and when he’d laugh and
ask what a lunch pail had to do with it,
I’d tell him, “‘Cause you gonna get hungry
‘fore it’s all over with, ‘cause it’s gonna take
you all day to do it.” Oh, well! As
the Cajuns, say, “C’EST LA VIE! Or,
as we Native Texans would say, “ITA VITA!”
Maybe so; but what you say here is not
defamatory, just your opinion. However, to
call me an idiot is defamatory, for I am
not an idiot. Maybe a free spirit, maybe
a political radical, but not many of the
things that so-called “RegisteredZZ” has
been calling me and saying about
me on this public forum for the last
several years, regardless of what name
or names he has posted his defamatory
statements under. I just want to know
who the guy is, who has been carrying on
this defamatory campaign against me for
the past several years. When I finally find
out, I will probably find out that he is some
guy that I have done one or more good
deeds for over the years. As they say,
no good deed will go unpunished; and
although I don’t beleive it, sometimes
I wonder. And, as has been said also,
a man will never forgive you for the
wrong he does you; and I am beginning
to believe that one. Oh, well, only
time will tell! And, finally, even you, Fred,
ought to apologize for calling me an “idiot”
on this public forum. I may be a free
spirit, different, but not an idiot. However,
it’s up to you.
All I can tell you is that that you are
wrong, pal! That is a medical term
and it has to do, among other things, with
someone’s intelligence quotient. An idiot I do
not believe will be admitted to the public school
system, unless perhaps in a so-called “special
education” setting. You might call your wife an
idiot and get by with it; but don’t call third
persons an idiot, especially where what
you say is recorded, such as in a public
forum. Again, I did not do anything wrong
except defend myself against a coward who
is afraid to append his name to what he
says. He does not want to be held responsible
for what he says, so he posts it under a
pseudonym. Again, only time will tell! If they
are not doing so already, it will be only a short
matter of time until the White House, the U.S.
Congress, the United States Department
of Justice, the United States Attorney General,
the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the
Federal Communications Commission will be
looking into this--and hopefully similar matters--
and appropriate legal action will be taken and the
F.C.C. will step in and begin to regulate internet
communications, just like they do air-wave
communications. Thanks for your comments,
however!
Hardy, do you think that if someone calls you an idiot online, then you have a cause of action?
I’m not quite sure if it works that way.
Every time roux makes a post, his signature ”Ignorance can be cured with knowledge but stupid is forever “About himself, the president speaks loudly. For America, he carries a small twig.”—Mark Steyn"” gets repeated. He’s made over 14,000 posts now.
But if roux’s signature read something different - say ”Trollfessor is an idiot who likes to wear a duck suit while his wife spanks him with a ping pong paddle.” - I still don’t think I would have a cause of action against him.
So if roux would write that and I wanted to sue him, what statutes or case law would I rely upon? Thanks.
But if roux’s signature read something different - say ”Trollfessor is an idiot who likes to wear a duck suit while his wife spanks him with a ping pong paddle.”
Troll, what a married couple does in the privacy of their own home is none of my business. . . .
Hardy, do you think that if someone calls you an idiot online, then you have a cause of action?
I’m not quite sure if it works that way.
Every time roux makes a post, his signature ”Ignorance can be cured with knowledge but stupid is forever “About himself, the president speaks loudly. For America, he carries a small twig.”—Mark Steyn"” gets repeated. He’s made over 14,000 posts now.
But if roux’s signature read something different - say ”Trollfessor is an idiot who likes to wear a duck suit while his wife spanks him with a ping pong paddle.” - I still don’t think I would have a cause of action against him.
So if roux would write that and I wanted to sue him, what statutes or case law would I rely upon? Thanks.
Just an excited utterance spoken only
one time might not rise to the level
of a defamatory statement, but making
such an utterance a repeated part of
a sustained campaign of other defamatory
statements and postings will certainly
cause the term “idiot” to rise to the level
of a defamation. Again, as with all legal
matters, there is more to it all than
this statement, but this is something to
think about. Nice talking with you! You
are a real gentleman and a credit to
the legal professon and to this web-site.
Keep up the good work!
Sincerely,
Hardy Parkerson, J.D.
Tulane Law, Class of 1966
Lawyer in Exile
Naples, Italy (I shall return!)
But if roux’s signature read something different - say ”Trollfessor is an idiot who likes to wear a duck suit while his wife spanks him with a ping pong paddle.”
Troll, what a married couple does in the privacy of their own home is none of my business. . . .
Troll, you and Elton John have a lot in common. You both have a desire to see gay marriage legalized and you both like to wear duck suits...not sure about the ping pong paddle. I wouldn’t be surprised, though, if Elton didn’t like the paddle just as much as you.
While I am a fan of some of Sir Elton John’s music, I must confess that there are no duck suits or ping pong paddles at our house; my example was a mere hypothetical one.
One that hopefully isolates a legal point.
Again, Hardy, let’s assume that roux kept posting that statement about me. Could I sue to get him to stop? If so, under what law?
While I am a fan of some of Sir Elton John’s music, I must confess that there are no duck suits or ping pong paddles at our house; my example was a mere hypothetical one.
One that hopefully isolates a legal point.
Again, Hardy, let’s assume that roux kept posting that statement about me. Could I sue to get him to stop? If so, under what law?
It’s so sad when one feels the necessity to repress their sexuality.
