Hi I'm Earl Shyster and we'll sue anyone(or anything), anywhere for just $ 29.95, but wait there's more. Sue someone, or something today and we'll throw in this amazing CHOP O MATIC, that's right, for free (Can't sell it on TV any more too many defective product lawsuits).
Here, put the defendant's finger here, slap the CHOP O MATIC once, and the finger is off. Defendant still won't settle? Put two fingers in, slap, off with another two (Caution don't take all the fingers off or they won't be able to sign the settlement papers), but wait there's more!!
For the first 100 law suits we'll throw in the ShamWOW to clean up all that blood.
> Hi I'm Earl Shyster and we'll sue anyone(or anything), anywhere for > just $ 29.95, but wait there's more. Sue someone, or something today > and we'll throw in this amazing CHOP O MATIC, that's right, for free > (Can't sell it on TV any more too many defective product lawsuits).
> Here, put the defendant's finger here, slap the CHOP O MATIC once, and > the finger is off. Defendant still won't settle? Put two fingers in, > slap, off with another two (Caution don't take all the fingers off or > they won't be able to sign the settlement papers), but wait there's > more!!
> For the first 100 law suits we'll throw in the ShamWOW to clean up all > that blood.
> Operators are standing by(in India).
Caveat: Mr. LawyerKill also stated that my motion to quash Reid's ridiculous complaint in the Campbell Supreme Court didn't stand much of a chance.
I didn't say anything in court, nor did I have to. It did not take the judge long to know what Reid is all about, He then granted my motion to quash faster than you can say, "Who granted Reid waived court fees?"
Reid also promised to vacate this newsgroup if I beat him in court. Even though I beat him in his hometown court presided by a locally elected judge, Reid is still posting his nonsense in this newsgroup which makes Reid not only a nutjob but a lying nutjob.
On Nov 8, 1:36 pm, Lubow <dynamitem...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Caveat: Mr. LawyerKill also stated that my motion to quash Reid's > ridiculous complaint in the Campbell Supreme Court didn't stand much > of a chance.
> I didn't say anything in court, nor did I have to. It did not take > the judge long to know what Reid is all about, He then granted my > motion to quash faster than you can say, "Who granted Reid waived > court fees?"
> Reid also promised to vacate this newsgroup if I beat him in court. > Even though I beat him in his hometown court presided by a locally > elected judge, Reid is still posting his nonsense in this newsgroup > which makes Reid not only a nutjob but a lying nutjob.- Hide quoted text -
Here's what I wrote in answer to your post on this;
"I read them, I don't see how they apply to the issue here, defamation over the internet.
There's an unpublished case, Healthgrades.com v. Northwest Healthcare Alliance, from the 9th circuit(I'm sure your legal team knows that CA is in the 9th circuit), that held courts has personal jurisdiction over an out of state defendant in defamation cases. It was taken to the Supreme court, but they denied cert, so the ruling stands. I believed the 9th circuit cited Calder v. Jones, 456 U.S. 783 (1984) in their support.
Lower courts are sometimes crazy and disregard case law, so this is not open and shut either way. And many times it's not the case law that wins or loses the case, but how the case law is argued.
Can't you guys just settle this in like a steel cage match or something. "
End Quote
Here read it again;
"Lower courts are sometimes crazy and disregard case law, so this is not open and shut either way. And many times it's not the case law that wins or loses the case, but how the case law is argued."
End quote
Now how does that equal you claim that I said you didn't have a chance?
PS He still can sue you in NY or Federal Court in CA, or just appeal the lower court.
On Nov 8, 1:46 pm, Lawyerkill <Lawyerk...@aol.com> wrote:
> Here read it again;
> "Lower courts are sometimes crazy and disregard case law, so this is > not open and shut either way. And many times it's not the case law > that wins or loses the case, but how the case law is argued."
> End quote
> Now how does that equal you claim that I said you didn't have a > chance?
> PS He still can sue you in NY or Federal Court in CA, or just appeal > the lower court.
Yes. He can sue anyone anywhere. But the next time around the taxpayers will not be subsidizing his litigious behavior in the form of waived court fees and the Federal judges just "love" pro-se plaintiffs.
And here's what I had just said:
"I didn't say anything in court, nor did I have to."
Does that sound like I argued anything? Well I didn't. Why waste the court's time when the plaintiff was the George Costanza of the internet?
I never did get served with Reid's opposition to quash until a few weeks ago. If Reid did bother to serve me on time, I would be laughing my entire time in court. Reid claimed that if Shirley MacLaine can sue a Florida corp in California, he [Reid] could sue anyone he pleases in California as well.
> On Nov 8, 1:46 pm, Lawyerkill <Lawyerk...@aol.com> wrote:
> > Here read it again;
> > "Lower courts are sometimes crazy and disregard case law, so this is > > not open and shut either way. And many times it's not the case law > > that wins or loses the case, but how the case law is argued."
> > End quote
> > Now how does that equal you claim that I said you didn't have a > > chance?
> > PS He still can sue you in NY or Federal Court in CA, or just appeal > > the lower court.
> Yes. He can sue anyone anywhere. But the next time around the > taxpayers will not be subsidizing his litigious behavior in the form > of waived court fees and the Federal judges just "love" pro-se > plaintiffs.
> And here's what I had just said:
> "I didn't say anything in court, nor did I have to."
> Does that sound like I argued anything? Well I didn't. Why waste the > court's time when the plaintiff was the George Costanza of the > internet?
> I never did get served with Reid's opposition to quash until a few > weeks ago. If Reid did bother to serve me on time, I would be laughing > my entire time in court. Reid claimed that if Shirley MacLaine can > sue a Florida corp in California, he [Reid] could sue anyone he > pleases in California as well.
> Yep... you heard it here first.
I'm still waiting for you to post a quote where I said you didn't have much of a chance as you claimed I said.
Lawyerkill
> "Lower courts are sometimes crazy and disregard case law, so this is > not open and shut either way. And many times it's not the case law > that wins or loses the case, but how the case law is argued."
PS Most of this type of stuff is heard on the papers and the parties never appear in person in court, ask your son about that. You argued on the papers you submitted.
On Nov 8, 2:13 pm, Lubow <dynamitem...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Yes. He can sue anyone anywhere. But the next time around the > taxpayers will not be subsidizing his litigious behavior in the form > of waived court fees and the Federal judges just "love" pro-se > plaintiffs.
Federal judges give a lot of leeway to pro-se defendants and plaintiffs in following the technical rules of pleading and procedure see Tabron v. Grace, 6 F.3d 147, 153 n.2 (3d Cir. 1993).
I'll tell you what would really get them pissed if they find out that you are appearing pro-se and getting the leeway, but having your son as a lawyer writing the briefs.
On Nov 8, 2:19 pm, Lawyerkill <Lawyerk...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > "Lower courts are sometimes crazy and disregard case law, so this is > > > not open and shut either way. And many times it's not the case law > > > that wins or loses the case, but how the case law is argued."
> > > End quote
> > > Now how does that equal you claim that I said you didn't have a > > > chance?
All I did was quote case law as well as well as a layman could quote case law. It was the same case law you -- and Reid -- believed to be inapplicable. I could understand Reid's motivation. His knowledge of the law comes from reading "Law for idiots." Your comments carried a little more weight.
Of course, what turned out to be inapplicable was Reid's contention that if Shirley could sue anyone in California, so can Reid.
I took your quote to mean I did not have much of a chance unless there the law was incorrectly interpreted by a judge. I apologize if you believe you were misquoted, but the judge did not misinterpret anything.
You should know we had one of the best and one of the most experienced judges in the Campbell court system. Hon. Judge Murphy is not only a law school instructor but his ground breaking -- and upheld -- decisions made news from coast to coast. And Judge Murphy's case load is not huge (at least by New York standards) at all so he had the time to know exactly what he was doing.
Then, of course, continuing with the discourse of 9/3/2009, Reid made some demeaning if not disgusting statements about state court judges...
On Nov 8, 2:33 pm, Lawyerkill <Lawyerk...@aol.com> wrote:
> Federal judges give a lot of leeway to pro-se defendants and > plaintiffs in following the technical rules of pleading > and procedure see Tabron v. Grace, 6 F.3d 147, 153 n.2 (3d Cir. 1993).
> I'll tell you what would really get them pissed if they find out that > you are appearing pro-se and getting the leeway, but having your son > as a lawyer writing the briefs.
First, I write my own material. Invest a few bucks and look at my motions, then tell me if they look like a great attorney and legal scholar like my son wrote them.
Second, I do not get any leeway nor do I require leeway because I have so little to say in court. To repeat, why waste the court's time when the opponent is Reid? I mean he argues my case brilliantly.
Third, Judge Emerson warned Reid that he will not be getting any leeway at all.
On Nov 8, 3:08 pm, Lubow <dynamitem...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> First, I write my own material. Invest a few bucks and look at my > motions, then tell me if they look like a great attorney and legal > scholar like my son wrote them.
I would love to, but I can't.
First off Amazon.com said if I don't send them all my money they are not going to send me any more books.
Second, I'm into Zen Buddhism today and they don't allow us to get into that type of stuff. I'm seeking Nirvana right now, maybe tomorrow when I'm into Tao, oh, they don't allow that either. Wait the next day I'll be seeking Susan, maybe then.
Would you care to buy a flower?
Hare [Chanting]
Krishna Hare Krishna Krishna Krishna Hare Hare Hare Rama Hare Rama Rama Rama Hare Hare
> Hi I'm Earl Shyster and we'll sue anyone(or anything), anywhere for > just $ 29.95, but wait there's more. Sue someone, or something today > and we'll throw in this amazing CHOP O MATIC, that's right, for free > (Can't sell it on TV any more too many defective product lawsuits).
> Here, put the defendant's finger here, slap the CHOP O MATIC once, and > the finger is off. Defendant still won't settle? Put two fingers in, > slap, off with another two (Caution don't take all the fingers off or > they won't be able to sign the settlement papers), but wait there's > more!!
> For the first 100 law suits we'll throw in the ShamWOW to clean up all > that blood.
> Operators are standing by(in India).
Are you aware that the FBI has a Profiler(in their Donut Division) who does work on the side???
> > Hi I'm Earl Shyster and we'll sue anyone(or anything), anywhere for > > just $ 29.95, but wait there's more. Sue someone, or something today > > and we'll throw in this amazing CHOP O MATIC, that's right, for free > > (Can't sell it on TV any more too many defective product lawsuits).
> > Here, put the defendant's finger here, slap the CHOP O MATIC once, and > > the finger is off. Defendant still won't settle? Put two fingers in, > > slap, off with another two (Caution don't take all the fingers off or > > they won't be able to sign the settlement papers), but wait there's > > more!!
> > For the first 100 law suits we'll throw in the ShamWOW to clean up all > > that blood.
> > Operators are standing by(in India).
> Are you aware that the FBI has a Profiler(in their Donut Division) who does > work on the side???- Hide quoted text -
> On Nov 8, 4:36 pm, Blash <bla...@comcast.net> wrote: >> Lawyerkill wrote on 11/8/09 2:09 PM:
>>> Yep you read that right.
>>> Hi I'm Earl Shyster and we'll sue anyone(or anything), anywhere for >>> just $ 29.95, but wait there's more. Sue someone, or something today >>> and we'll throw in this amazing CHOP O MATIC, that's right, for free >>> (Can't sell it on TV any more too many defective product lawsuits).
>>> Here, put the defendant's finger here, slap the CHOP O MATIC once, and >>> the finger is off. Defendant still won't settle? Put two fingers in, >>> slap, off with another two (Caution don't take all the fingers off or >>> they won't be able to sign the settlement papers), but wait there's >>> more!!
>>> For the first 100 law suits we'll throw in the ShamWOW to clean up all >>> that blood.
>>> Operators are standing by(in India).
>> Are you aware that the FBI has a Profiler(in their Donut Division) who does >> work on the side???- Hide quoted text -
>> - Show quoted text -
> Hell, I think they have an M.I.S. Division.
I've always wondered if dumb mikeys' wifey/girlfriend/whatever got her retainer back......She gave one to K. Cohen, Esq. on 4/30/07 cause her and hubbys' feelings were hurt....... I just can't picture ANY lawyer with low enough ethics taking someones' welfare check for such a frivolous case(unless that's the ONLY kind he can get)...........
> On Nov 8, 3:08 pm, Lubow <dynamitem...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > First, I write my own material. Invest a few bucks and look at my > > motions, then tell me if they look like a great attorney and legal > > scholar like my son wrote them.
> I would love to, but I can't.
> First off Amazon.com said if I don't send them all my money they are > not going to send me any more books.
> Second, I'm into Zen Buddhism today and they don't allow us to get > into that type of stuff. I'm seeking Nirvana right now, maybe tomorrow > when I'm into Tao, oh, they don't allow that either. Wait the next day > I'll be seeking Susan, maybe then.
> Would you care to buy a flower?
> Hare > [Chanting]
> Krishna Hare Krishna > Krishna Krishna Hare Hare > Hare Rama Hare Rama > Rama Rama Hare Hare
> On Nov 8, 1:36 pm, Lubow <dynamitem...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Caveat: Mr. LawyerKill also stated that my motion to quash Reid's > > ridiculous complaint in the Campbell Supreme Court didn't stand much > > of a chance.
> > I didn't say anything in court, nor did I have to. It did not take > > the judge long to know what Reid is all about, He then granted my > > motion to quash faster than you can say, "Who granted Reid waived > > court fees?"
> > Reid also promised to vacate this newsgroup if I beat him in court. > > Even though I beat him in his hometown court presided by a locally > > elected judge, Reid is still posting his nonsense in this newsgroup > > which makes Reid not only a nutjob but a lying nutjob.- Hide quoted text -
> Here's what I wrote in answer to your post on this;
> "I read them, I don't see how they apply to the issue here, > defamation > over the internet.
> There's an unpublished case, Healthgrades.com v. Northwest Healthcare > Alliance, from the 9th circuit(I'm sure your legal team knows that CA > is in the 9th circuit), that held courts has personal jurisdiction > over an out of state defendant in defamation cases. It was taken to > the Supreme court, but they denied cert, so the ruling stands. I > believed the 9th circuit cited Calder v. Jones, 456 U.S. 783 (1984) > in > their support.
> Lower courts are sometimes crazy and disregard case law, so this is > not open and shut either way. And many times it's not the case law > that wins or loses the case, but how the case law is argued.
> Can't you guys just settle this in like a steel cage match or > something. "
> End Quote
> Here read it again;
> "Lower courts are sometimes crazy and disregard case law, so this is > not open and shut either way. And many times it's not the case law > that wins or loses the case, but how the case law is argued."
> End quote
> Now how does that equal you claim that I said you didn't have a > chance?
> PS He still can sue you in NY or Federal Court in CA, or just appeal > the lower court.
Although the action is still in the original court per my motion of a few weeks back, Federal court is looking more and more like the most appropriate forum for ALL the defendants...since we have a LOT of court time next week in the matter, I'll probably bring the issue up of my voluntarily removing it to Federal court just to apprise the judge of my possible intentions...
But in the meantime, I AM arguing the jurisdictional issue on the "principle" of the thing, since I can't see why Jones v. Calder WOULDN'T apply (as well as the follow-on celebrity case, Gordy v. NY Post), particularly with the additional circumstances here of the defendants hiding behind anonymous "handles" and even committing identity theft REQUIRING filing the suit in local court just to gain power of subpoena to identify them (and not even THEN, because they operate in "real life" using multiple phony names apparently to defraud)...
With these facts, and the existing case law, THIS case NEEDS to be argued to the Supreme Court if needed to settle the jurisdictional issue, but I'll say this: any judge taking these facts into account who rules otherwise is without justification is just wasting the appellate courts' time, as the issue WAS settled 28 friggin' years ago in the US Supreme Court, and if we need a NEW precedant, it should be the DEFENDANT to appeal the settled case law with a new interpretation of the facts here...
--- William Ernest Reid Post count: probably less than all the phony names the defendants have used in their worthless lifetimes
> On Nov 8, 2:13 pm, Lubow <dynamitem...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > On Nov 8, 1:46 pm, Lawyerkill <Lawyerk...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > Here read it again;
> > > "Lower courts are sometimes crazy and disregard case law, so this is > > > not open and shut either way. And many times it's not the case law > > > that wins or loses the case, but how the case law is argued."
> > > End quote
> > > Now how does that equal you claim that I said you didn't have a > > > chance?
> > Yep... you heard it here first.
Yep, everytime you post, it is the first time we've heard your "facts", since you are a pathological liar and just make stuff up as you go along...
> I'm still waiting for you to post a quote where I said you didn't have > much of a chance as you claimed I said.
And you never will, since you still haven't grasped the simple fact that Michael "Lubow" Tenenbaum is a pathological liar...the closest he would come would be to find a post where you said the words "much of a chance" about some completely different topic and different person, like he did with his 215 pages (and counting) of ridiculously inappropriate "evidence" supporting his motion to quash on jurisdictional grounds.
> PS Most of this type of stuff is heard on the papers and the parties > never appear in person in court, ask your son about that. You argued > on the papers you submitted.
Yes, in talking to the law clerk it turned out MY papers were not put before the judge, hence the "ruling" was that the defendant's motion was unopposed even though it actually was...but note that the pathological liar defendant has misrepresented the "ruling" as the judge deciding the case on the merits, which would of course be egregious judicial error for a jurisdictional challenge...
--- William Ernest Reid Post count: struggles to keep up with Tenenbaum lies
On Nov 9, 9:53 am, Bill Reid <hormelf...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Although the action is still in the original court per my motion of a > few weeks back, Federal court is looking more and more like the most > appropriate forum for ALL the defendants...since we have a LOT of > court time next week in the matter, I'll probably bring the issue up > of my voluntarily removing it to Federal court just to apprise the > judge of my possible intentions...
I think what may happen it the federal court on a sua sponte motion may just rule on the jurisdictional issue and remand it back to one state court or another.
> But in the meantime, I AM arguing the jurisdictional issue on > the "principle" of the thing, since I can't see why Jones v. Calder > WOULDN'T apply (as well as the follow-on celebrity case, > Gordy v. NY Post), particularly with the additional circumstances > here of the defendants hiding behind anonymous "handles" > and even committing identity theft REQUIRING filing the suit > in local court just to gain power of subpoena to identify > them (and not even THEN, because they operate in "real life" > using multiple phony names apparently to defraud)...
> With these facts, and the existing case law, THIS case > NEEDS to be argued to the Supreme Court if needed to > settle the jurisdictional issue, but I'll say this: any judge > taking these facts into account who rules otherwise is > without justification is just wasting the appellate courts' > time, as the issue WAS settled 28 friggin' years ago in > the US Supreme Court, and if we need a NEW > precedant, it should be the DEFENDANT to appeal > the settled case law with a new interpretation of > the facts here...
> --- > William Ernest Reid > Post count: probably less than all the phony names > the defendants have used in their worthless lifetimes- Hide quoted text -
On Nov 9, 10:59 am, Lawyerkill <Lawyerk...@aol.com> wrote:
> I think what may happen it the federal court on a sua sponte > motion may just rule on the jurisdictional issue and remand it back to > one state court or another.
LK, leeway or no leeway, you never read the nonsense and the non- sequiturs he had submitted to the judges. Your goading this person into thinking he is capable of conducting a case at higher levels, when he has been a failure at the lowest levels, is not in anyone's interest, particularly Reid's.
Just stop an think for a moment. If Reid swore to Judge Emerson that he did not have the funds to pay the $350 initial court fee, how is he going to finance a federal action, if not by dipping into every taxpayer's pocket?
> On Nov 9, 10:59 am, Lawyerkill <Lawyerk...@aol.com> wrote:
> > I think what may happen it the federal court on a sua sponte > > motion may just rule on the jurisdictional issue and remand it back to > > one state court or another.
> LK, leeway or no leeway, you never read the nonsense and the non- > sequiturs he had submitted to the judges. Your goading this person > into thinking he is capable of conducting a case at higher levels, > when he has been a failure at the lowest levels, is not in anyone's > interest, particularly Reid's.
> Just stop an think for a moment. If Reid swore to Judge Emerson that > he did not have the funds to pay the $350 initial court fee, how is he > going to finance a federal action, if not by dipping into every > taxpayer's pocket?
Mike before Bill filed his motion to reconsider I posted that I think those types of motions are mostly a waste of time, but he felt it was a good idea and filed it anyway. I don't think he waits for my opinion, or anyones else's opinion to do what he thinks is good for him.
I started this thread as a joke, it wasn't directed at any one special person just a joke about all the people talking about suing each other. You are the one that turned it into a debate on you and Bill. I just relied to your post directed at me and then replied to Reid's post directed at me.
On Nov 9, 12:05 pm, Lawyerkill <Lawyerk...@aol.com> wrote:
> I started this thread as a joke, it wasn't directed at any one special > person just a joke about all the people talking about suing each > other. You are the one that turned it into a debate on you and Bill. I > just relied to your post directed at me and then replied to Reid's > post directed at me.
Just so you know, he's crazy enough to sue you too.
