Big trouble for anonymous Internet haters/liars/thugs!

With regard to the new rules, I fail to see how this thread itself has any redeeming value, as it's a D_B:

http://www.sportsjournalists.com/forum/threads/38487/

 

Is a 139-word sentence some sort of record?

 

You're annoying me. What specifically makes you think I work for you - lol? Uhh...I don't. I am not serving as a lawyer in any way nor giving legal advice to anyone on this board.

Besides it's Saturday.

Hire your own lawyer to give you answers/do your research.

BC I am nice here are a few clues

1.) You almost assuredly don't know crim law (and I don't care if you stayed at a Holliday Inn) so zip it.
2.) You need to check all possible jurisdictions
2.) You need to check the state statues of good jurisdictions
3.) You need to check the Federal statutes
4.) Be aware that there are far more laws and many "catch all" statutes that could impart criminal liability or a prosecutor could use to attach criminal liability.

But you knew that right?

Honestly, it is insulting that you guys think you know this stuff better than I do. You don't see me trying to tell you how to write a headline or edit copy/photos.

Give me a break.

 

Arent DB's supposed to get the ziggy under the new rules?

 

Nice try but this is a new article covering new news regarding the legal case now pending. This is a different & very timely and relevant subject.

Besides, how many Soprano's threads did you guys have (different topics, different show dates, Sopranos movies, etc.)?

Uh, sorry. Nice try to threadjack and kill any legit thread I start (especially funny that some calls to delete this thread are from those who called for the SJ slime "Jihad" against me).

I would propose your post & other similar ones be deleted.

Anyway, moving on. Since you want to post on my thread what is your opinion on this case or the anonymous posts on the Internet in general when they cross the line?

Where do you think that line is?

John

 

1) I never claimed to have expertise in criminal law. However, from your posts, it does appear that I might know it better than you.

2) What do you mean "all" possible jurisdictions? Do you somehow think Lousiana or Montana law could be binding here. Bullshit. The only criminal charges that could be filed here are those authorized by the criminal statutes of locales that have venue and subject matter jurisdiction over the alleged crime. I'd think here that'd only conceivably incorporate Federal law, Connecticut state and local law, or possibly that of the jurisdiction of where the alleged perpetrator sent the messages (I'd have to ask a real crim lawyer about that).

2 [sic]) WTF do you mean by "good jurisdictions"? It doesn't matter if its a "good" or "bad" jurisdiction, it only matters if its a jurisdiction whose crim statutes would be binding over this particular alleged crime. That statement sounds like a classic case of someone trying to bluff their way through this.

3) No shit? Really. Wow, well then can you give me an example of a federal criminal statute EVER being used to prosecute this kind of conduct. The closest I can think of is online child porn predators, but that is completely different because they were charged under specific child porn trafficking statutes that would never apply here.

4) Can you give an example of such a "catch all" provision? I was under the impression that criminal law was completely statutory and constitutionally required a greater degree of specificity than civil tort actions. Isn't that why civil actions often end up being used as a de facto "catch all" because the relevant jurisdiction doesn't happen to have a criminal statute that sufficiently covers what happened? Aren't criminal statutes that are overly vague, ambiguous, and don't give sufficient notice of the specific proscribed conduct often stricken as unconstitutional? Help me out, lawyer.

John, you seem to go into "try to bullshit my way through this" mode whenever this legal stuff comes up. Suggests that you might either be 1) not really a lawyer; 2) a really incompetent lawyer; or 3) one of those many blowhards out there that like to claim the lawyer identity because they went to law school, but who have never actually passed a bar exam, been admitted, and practiced before a court.

 

Please don't confuse him with facts, he can't handle it.

 

IU90

Well, you really must be a newbie. My credentials in law (law school, dates attended, bar admittance, elite law firm I worked for, etc.) are well established and proven/documented.

Look, your new, let me inform you of something when you say "jump" I don't say "how high." Particularly when it involves complex legal analysis and research that I went to school & practiced for & paid a lot of money to get & you are paying me....oh right, NOTHING for, sorry.

The bottom line is I stand by everything I said & similarly feel that your post speaks for itself.

My post makes perfect sense to any decent lawyer & makes the salient points.

Now stop the BS and post something on topic/constructive or please post on another thread. Either way, I am not going to go back and forth with you. We are trying to move forward on this board.

Thanks,

John

 

I just find it ironic one of the biggest liars ever on here posts something about them being held accountable.

 

Oh there you go again with the untrue filth attacks. This coming from someone who ADMITTED he lied about his source (uh he had none) regarding KDKA & me, brilliant!

Here is a tip new mod. Don't delete my vid threads over on the AG board (if you deleted it). Webby specifically designated that as the place for my vids and I would not think it is real smart to start messing around straight off the bat as a new mod to exact a personal grudge on me.

Oh BTW, my vids are very entertaining & well watched. So much so that the NYT's has covered them, but then you knew that didn't you? Looks like I have some talent huh?

Need the link? Don't worry I will put it in my next thread for my vids.

Don't deny the SJ peeps the free entertainment. If you don't like it, don't read my thread or watch my vids.

Speaking of which, why are you on this thread and what do you have to say about this subject?

Do you think people should be able to slander people & lie about them anonymously?

Do you give me credit for posting under my real name & defending my real reputation?

I wonder?

John

 

I never said I lied about the KDKA part, I suckered you and you fell for it hook, line and sinker. You put a kids show I remember from the 70's on a resume? You think for a second that wasn't gonna get ripped?

I love the the threats, tough guy.
And I don't believe for a sec about the NYT. You, given your propensity for I LOVE ME threads, would have put that up already.

 

MarkVid,

At what point are you going to accept that I am a super-honest person? Please do not further impugn my veracity/credibility.

I am sure someone PM'd you &/or you already Googled it (but didn't want to report the truth), but in case they/you didn't & since you asked:

http://screens.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/06/13/my-car-is-better-than-aj-sopranos/#comment-34142

There you go, a most amusing and flattering column by Virginia Heffernan. I am very honored she covered me and felt I was entertaining enough to warrant NYT ink/bytes.

Anyway, look I don't want to go back and forth with you. I stand by what I said above and am comfortable that the record supports that clearly. However, As far as I am concerned that is all in the past. I am moving forward & would hope you would do the same & handle yourself professionally particularly now that you are a moderator .

My point is I am following Webby's request for my vid threads to the letter and would simply think that you should do the same for the benefit of all of us.

Thank you,

John