Again, this is not a class action suit so that reference doesn't matter. If you want to sue an individual, you must sue them in THEIR jurisdiction.
What you are trying to do (I think) is to jurisdiction shop. You can't do that.
The government and a person not acting on behalf of the government would never share the same suit.
They would have to be separate.
Not forum shopping, I just don't want to file a Federal Suit and then file a State suit on the same issues. If I can get the non-state actor in the same suit it's easier than balancing both suits at once. Conversely, it may be "safer" to proceed with the Federal suit, and if the gov. is liable it would be easier to prove, by extension, the private actor is liable as well.
Goody. Don't know why you wouldn't take the advice of the judge, then. You remember? That whole "don't contact them directly or indirectly" thing.
You see, this is where coming to this forum has its drawbacks. The No-Contact order stated not to contact the CW or commit Stalking as Defined by the statute.
There was no contact, either directly or indirectly. The state is alleging that I violated the order by taking the pictures off her facebook without permission and creating this website. Both acts occurred before the OP.
Why not? They were certainly meant that way. Whenever you go out of your way to defame another person and then hide behind what you believe your constitutional rights to be, you look, sound and are acting crazy....
What is that old line about "if it walks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck..."
That's correct, if it talks like a shyster, acts like a shyster, it's a shyster.
There is no defamation. There is nothing libelous on that website. You are taking "facts" that exist in an empty universe (your head) and applying inept legal reasoning (i.e. I contacted someone indirectly through a public website). That would mean I contacted her again by posting on this forum.
You see - the only one that sounds crazy is you.
Well, except for the court order, of course. Oh, and the overblown sense of entitlement.
Free Speech was not made to protect polite speech.
Again, you really have no idea what you are talking about. You keep stating "facts" as given that aren't facts.
Like that website forums and blogs can be indirect contact? Like I violated the order by collecting images prior to the order? That I purchased the website with the sole purpose of harssing the person?
I am certainly entitled to my opinion. In my opinion, you are a nutbag and more than a casual rider on the crazy train. My opinion is legally protected. You, however, have a bit of a restriction on that freedom of speech you hide behind so happily - a no contact order. Try to remember that we don't know the players here and certainly don't know the truth or fiction behind any of your statements. I do know that a judge told you to stop and you didn't. I also know that you cybersquatted a site name that was also a person's name for the sole purpose of harassing that person...And you actually talk about THIS case in that post restraining order post... don't think that the judge won't appreciate seeing THAT. Especially when you called him a crook.
Different Judge for one, again, for the 12th time - how a website can be considered as "contact" is a non sequitar. In-fact, the State is alleging that I violated the order by taking the pictures off her facebook, not that I contacted her.
Therefore the idea that a public website could be a form of "contact", either directly or indirectly, might be a tenable legal theory at Phoenix Online, or wherever you got your J.D., it is a non-issue as the State is not arguing contact, but emotional distress caused by the making of the website and the use of pictures without permission.
As I explained before, both those acts occurred before the OP, so the State would need to amend the charge if they want to include the post after I was arrested - so far that has not happened.
You do, of course, realize that the judge could hold you in contempt on that little bit of libel alone, right?
If I was your professor, I would make you write a tome on indirect/direct contempt. And libel - which, as you should have learned at law school, needs to be false.
Elected Judges are held to scrutiny as any elected officials. They are public - you know what, you just don't get it. Never mind.
(by the way, don't bother deleting it now. Too late for that.)
No. I already received discovery, they only have the blank blog, actually only the picture gallery. Regardless, there is nothing there**************.But it is better to error on the side of caution.
I asked for advice in one area of law I was not familiar with. I am not worried about the criminal violation, I will beat that with my eyes closed.
You seem not to understand, the State has already drew up the charges as actions occurring before the OP. They have already lost. They would have to amend the charges - to what could possibly be an offense, I have no idea.
I'll tell you what jerk-face. After this gets dismissed I will post the order dismissing the case. Then you can scream "you violated the order" all you like.
Cyber squatting is not illegal. If you go to fredphelps.com it is ran by someone who HATES Fred Phelps.
Regarding your other comments, they are frivilous.