Re: Re: Re: "Flagged by the community" is a LIE! Took five minutes late on Friday night?
I'm personally with you — I flag posts sparingly, mostly outright spam. However, it is understandable that the community tries to weed out intellectual dishonesty.
In my observation, opposing views presented honestly are pretty much tolerated here. What is frowned upon is rhetorical card-shifting. For example, in the first flagged comment above the author disingenuously substituted "copyright is brain damage" with "creators are brain damaged." I'd call it "rotten red herring": this type of "argument" nullifies any grain of otherwise legitimate disagreement.
There is one pet peeve that annoys me often: if I check the "Email me when there are new comments on this thread" checkbox and then click "Preview," the check on the preview page is gone: should be carried over.
Malibu doubles down and opposes Verizon's MTQ, claiming that... since the requested information was not about defendant’s cable TV viewing, but his Internet usage only, the Cable Act doesn’t apply. I'm not kidding.
Since I observe a great interest in the report that claims "military grade spoliation," I'm posting it. It is currently officially not accessible. Lipscomb & Co, as they did many times before, poorly redacted the document and exposed the defendant's name in violation of the protective order. After I notified defendant's counsel, the document was removed from both ECF and archive.org. It will be eventually refiled, but for those who can't wait, I did my own redaction:
I do want people to discuss the report before I write about it. It is suspicious, starting with the simple fact that such massive spoliation was not detected by the purported expert during the first pass. WDS mentioned the "Asus wipe," which comes bundled with Asus laptops, etc.
The report lacks supporting evidence, while legal conclusions are abundant, which is not appropriate for a forensic expert to make: this is not only my opinion: it also raised many brows among lawyers.
Mr. Crowell is a resourceful troll, just like John Steele who was also known to threaten laypeople with bogus criminal charges.
Presented here are only few of Crowell’s sleazy tactics. There is a lot more douchebaggery going on. For example, recently Crowell overscumbagged Steele by asking the court to authorize pre-discovery depositions of unrepresented defendants. Needless to say, it is a grave mistake to agree to be deposed by a crook without an attorney, no better than talking to the police.
Re: Re: frivolously crying slander should be a form of slander
What libelslander are you talking about? I think of this motion as a form of flattery and a validation that my humble effort was not in vain.
On a serious note, of course they can inflict a ton of damage by a mere fact of suing me (even if suing critics for defamation is always an uphill battle, to put it charitably), but on the other hand, discovery is a two-way street... Mutual Assured Distraction.
Good catch! This misspelling could be deliberate: someone typosquatted my domain name a while ago (which I regard as a flattery), redirecting fightcopyrightrolls (with one "t") to a copyright maximalist blog Trichordist.