This very thread contains the evidence of the relative insignificance of FreeRepublic.com - Here we have a legal dispute of constitutional and internet precedent setting significance in direct proportion to the importance of Free Republic on the national scene.
The discussion dies after the first day.
Not even Dan Moldea is interested in this story.
The Washington Post and LA Times can't be bothered to print a story. I contacted the Southern Poverty Law Center, and they weren't interested. Contributions to both the TCA legal defense fund and the Free Republic legal defense fund are miniscule.
Although thanks to contributions I did come out ahead in terms of expenses versus income, it was not enough to make much of a difference in the household bottom line.
The lawsuit was for domestic consumption, to keep the freepers cowed and in line. The Freepers, not unlike the East Germans during the Cold War, being shielded from truthful updates on the way their money is being spent, are impressed by the spin and Brian Buckley protects his hegemony. Nobody bothers to ask, if Eschoir had done all the things he had been accused of doing, i.e., plead the fifth, posted on FR in February, posted filth, stalked Connie Hair, and trespassed, why Brian Buckley relented, and didn't even ask for damages or costs or attorney's fees.
The lawsuit was essentially costly jamming of Radio Free Republic.
Bottom line: nobody really cares that much about the expensive right-wing whacko chat room FreeRepublic.com.
The lesson to be learned by potential freedom-fighting defendants: Free Republic, like any bully, is a coward when challenged. They will do anything not to have their financials revealed in discovery.
Therefore any lawsuit based on complaints of damages done to Free Republic will be withdrawn (and probably not filed in the first place, thanks to my actions in this lawsuit).
Free Republic may rely upon the intimidation factor (as long as it is funded and can employ white-shoe firms like Winston & Strawn) to keep people from speaking up. But when the true story behind this lawsuit is know, no one will fear the empty threats of suits for monetary damages from FreeRepublic.com, for Free Republic will never allow the scrutiny of the books necessary to prove their monetary damages, and will fold like a cardboard suitcase when resisted.
As they did with me.
There are some indications that Free Republic is not better off, and is in fact worse off, after the lawsuit against me.
Consider this: all I had to do was seek to discover their financial records, and they dropped all claim for monetary damages, so as to try and shield their shadowy money world from public scrutiny.
Likewise they acted to protect their client list.
So from now on, anyone who is sued by FreeRepublic.com knows with confidence that FR will drop the lawsuit if threatened by an audit.
Since the injunction was part of a universal settlement, and not from a judge-rendered decision, there is no precedent that FR can use in any other lawsuits. And since the injunction only has what vestigial teeth it may be perceived to have in actions against those acting in concert with me, those doing exactly the same acts of multiple authorization but not acting in concert with me have no reason to feel threatened by the reach of the US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.
I tried for three years to get any of the Mouse Warriors to act in concert with me and had NO SUCCESS. There just isn't anyone capable of acting in concert with anyone out there.
Hey, internet maven, the management here has offered to provide a link to my side of the story if I can find a website to link to. How bout you provide the bandwidth, and I provide the content. I will even give you the police report to which Connie Hair attached a copy of a post of mine from the Crapper wherein I quoted the John Cleese "That's the sort of philistine pig ignorance . . . " rant from "The Architect Sketch" to show why she was justified to be in fear of my derangement.
I am Chappell Aldridge, the Respondent in the lawsuit. You are being fed a load of hogwash and spin by Anonymous Cowards. Heed them at your own risk.
Here is the inside skinny. I am not deranged, I have never been institutionalized ("Not once, not even one time"). I have never participated in any organized campaign to destroy FR. I have poked my share of fun.
I used to post on FR in '97-'99. I was banned in July 99. I submitted a declaration at the request of the LAT lawyers on the matter in August '99. I have occasionally in the interim accepted the offer to reregister publically posted on FR, and posted updates on the lawsuit (especially when things started going sour and they stopped self-reporting).
Back in October, Brian Buckley announced on FR that he had successfully negotiated a million dollar judgment against his client. I closed down my internet activities, including posting any information on the lawsuit. (I may have come back on in December to announce that, contrary to his oft repeated mantra that once the judgment was entered, he would file FRs appeal the NEXT DAY, Brian Buckley waited as long as legally possible to file the appeal, maybe, but I don't remember.)
In January, the Anti-Freepers, who had banned me ruthlessly, were keening in their mouse-warrior site
http://pub11.ezboard.com/ftothecontrarynewsofthe we ird
about how much they wish they could respond to the lunacy on FR. I had some screen names I had registered (I found that even though it was still possible for me to register, I had nothing to say on FR when I could post. It was played out.).
I posted the screen name and password on TTC to show that they were mouse warriors and would not post even when they could. I was proven correct. Nobody took advantage of the screen name.
Point being, in early January you couldn't GIVE away screen names. No market for it.
On January 5, I am served with a Virginia lawsuit, the part which is now forgotten, which demands $950,000 damages plus perdiem damages which could rise to $27 million, plus attorney fees and costs. It also asked for an injunction.
Freeper President and Pizzamaker Bob Johnson came to my YAHOO clubsite and crowed that I was going to have to pay the Million Dollar Judgment Brian had gotten against FR.
I responded on Monday the 8th with discovery requests, including requests for member lists and financial. I also offered to settle with an agreement not to post enforced by the court like a divorce decree enforces child support agreed in a Property Settlement Agreement. They declined.
On or about Jan 17th, they served the Motion for Emergency Injunction, that is posted on the internet (the original copy announcing the now forgotten lawsuit is conveniently deleted from the FR site).
Since their crack research team had neglected to attend to my personal information posted on their website since 1997, they didn't realize that I was not a Virginia Resident. That gave me the ability to remove to federal court and short circuit their motion for Emergency Injunction. (The motion was declared "moot" by their lawyers. Now they are saying that is what they wanted all along.)
Removing to Fed Court started the timer running on discovery. According to the Fed Rules, I had until March 15 to file objections to interrogatories, and April 4 to file answers to interrogatories.
Anyone who has been involved in civil litigation knows that in objections, you put everything including the kitchen sink, and let the other side bring a motion to overrule the objections.
The anonymous trolls are saying that I pled the fifth amendment to a judge. What I did was include, among invocations of attorney-client, attorney-work product and spousal immunities, the immunnity against self incrimination.
The cause of action was based in part on alleged violations of Virginia Criminal law, because they reached out and accused me of sending FR (which doesn't even have an email addy) unsolicited bulk commercial electronic mail. This put a civil suit which purported to be breach of contract into the criminal realm, and enabled me to threaten to use 5th amendment immunity.
From the uproar that this caused, and the almost immediate offer to settle that ensued, it makes me think that the tactic was more effective than I had ever believed it would be.
But I must emphasize, that no hearing was held, no questions were ever refused to be answered, and answers weren't due for weeks, when the privilege was referenced in objections to discovery.
The Breach of Contract count brings up another troll argument that has been oft made, but not seriously addressed.
"FR is JR's PRIVATE PROPERTY" has been repeated ad nauseam. But he purports to contract with users.
My house is my private property, too. But if I contract to sublet portions of it, then kick out the subtenants on a whim (because after all it is my private property) and keep their furniture, true conservatives would think that impermissible.
But that point of view is based on the sanctity contract. Jim Robinson MAKES HIS LIVING stealing property that is by contract other person's intellectual property.
The user agreement is no contract. Jim Robinson doesn't follow his own "guidelines" (notice they aren't referred to as "terms of contract") because he wouldn't be able to ban people at will for their political beliefs.
So in sum, conservative Jim Robinson doesn't believe in contract, nor in free speech, nor in the benefit of resolving problems without resorting to the "nanny state" government legal apparatus, nor in requiring his anonymous cowards to tell the truth.
As a long-time poster at Free Republic, I'd like to clear some things up.
Like an octopus spewing clouds of ink, is old Rick "Breach of Contract is a Tort" Fisk clearing things up.
FR was created by a cantankerous Perl programmer from Fresno named Jim Robinson. The genesis for Free Republic was the old White Water discussion on Prodigy. Jim got so fed-up with the censorship occurring on the Prodigy boards that he decided to try his luck on the wire and without a net.
Rick the hagiographer and lickspittle wasn't there, so he is recycling mythology. The "censorship" that he alludes to is the refusal of Jim Il Sung to accede to the requests of Prodigy manangement and cease and desist posting other peoples copyright material without permission. For constant and flagrant copyright abuse, Jim Faginson was banned. Thanks to the legal advice of Brian Buckley, Jim Rob'emsome has parlayed that banning into a million dollar judgment against him personally.
Robinson wrote the code, slapped it onto a PC running linux and invited many of the old Prodigy crowd to come along.
Now I am not a geekazoid, but apparently the code he wrote is a prodigious consumer of bandwidth, "a bandwidth hog" as Rick puts it later in this very thread, "like a lion on a wildebeest" one of his greatest admirers has described it as.
The site turned out to be a tremendous success.
The site provided chat room features, but the chat was saved on the server for all times. At first the cost associated with that expense was bourne by others - James Golden's ISP at first, and then a sweetheart deal for below cost unmeasured service with another ISP. When the ISP dumped the money loOsing contract, and FReepers had to pay market prices for the chat that they had become accustomed to, the fundraisers began in earnest. Bandwith costs are supposed to be $12,000 a month. FOR CHAT!!!
For those who were tired of the same old regurgitated news and analysis or being shouted down because they were {gasp} conservative, Free Republic proved to be a sort of safe haven for conservative ideas.
"For those who were tired of venturing onto the websites of copyright holders to get the same old regurgitated news, they could get the same old stories clipped from their home URLs and posted on FR." ". . . and "analysis" or being shouted down because they were {gasp} Birchers, Contrail conspiracists, militia supporters Y2K millenialists, or Bush as a cokehead felon Commie CIA drug runner, Free Republic proved to be a sort of safe haven for conservative ideas that Jim Robinson temporarily agreed with."
And frankly, the software kicks ass over any forum software I've seen with one caveat. All replies are refreshed in-line. This makes it a tremendous bandwidth hog, but it is so much easier for the user to interact, that perhaps it's worth it.
PERHAPS IT'S WORTH IT. A ringing endorsement. Just don't expect "Parasite" Rick to make any contribution to pay for the bandwidth hogging.
Even a dedicated lonely lickspittle like Rick admits that the software is a wastful mess.
I registered in August of 1998 and found some of the npolitical analysis to be quite good.
Rick was big into stockpiling Spam and black trash cans for the Y2K disaster, so the "analysis" was right up his intellectual alley.
Clinton seemed to be causing the same sort of distrust among conservatives as did Reagan in the 80's.
If you can figure out what Rick means by the previous sentence, you are doing better than I, and FR is the place for you to be.
FR was a place where anyone (even Libertarian whack jobs such as myself) could post an article.
Because the moderation was so lax.
Yes, it is true that Liberals who show up will get shouted down in much the same fashion as Libertarians and conservatives get shouted down at liberal sites. (and there is even a small but nasty contingency of anti-libertarian trolls at FR)
Yes, it is true that there are some FR posters there who are openly racist or anti-homosexual bigots.
That is far from the norm and Robinson makes his best effort
That is the problem. His "best effort" seems to have him working to moderate the site about four hours a day. Does he get an "A for effort" from the conservatives even though he fails to keep out the bigots and Presidential assassination threateners? How touchy-feely liberal!
to keep the place "clean." I haven't seen him in a
while, but there was a "Green" liberal from up in Eugene who posted at FR regularly and was afforded a remarkable amount of respect given his political background.
Politeness and honesty can gain anyone respect at Free Republic.
Simply not true, as the legions of banned polite posters will attest to, or would if they had not been banned without warning and/or explanation.
The liberal columnist Chris Hitchens was particularly loved at FR due to his absolute disdain for Clinton.
Relevance? He has never posted on FR.
At any rate, Aldridge (Eschoir) was one of the most vile, attention-grabbing, cretins ever to post at FR.
Ahhh, Eschoir's true sin revealed. He grabbed attention! He wrested it away from the more deserving under recognized posters, like, uhhh, Demidog, who, now, in order to curry favor with Brian Buckley and Connie Hair, is on a mission to spread the party-line disinformation and lies about eschoir, as exemplified by what follows this:
He would post articles with obsenities in the title,
I wonder if obsentities are like obscenities? Anywhy he doesn't bother to even lie and produce references, much less links to URLs
personal information about other posters
hey, my personal information was posted starting in 1997. I don't have a right to fight fire with fire? A freeper posted that he was following my WIFE around.
and went so far as to post a description of the interior of a prominent poster's living room in an apparent attempt to intimidate her.
A prominent hysterical lie.
In an effort to investigate a local address that Alan Keyes was funnelling money to in internet FEC fillings anonymously, I walked by the address. It turned out to be a town house, and I reported what could be observed by a person walking by on the sidewalk. It didn't appear to be an Keyes Campaign office, as the light from a big screen tv set was coming out the window. I reported what was coming out of the aging town house. I had no knowledge, thanks to Alan Keyes failure to report names on his FEC filings, that the site was a residence, much less who lived there. Connie ("Can't Understand Normal Thinking") parlayed that into a charge that I had "described the interior of her house to a tee" and has been squawking "stalker! stalker!" ever since.
Eschoir was not a friendly person at all.
As you can see from the smiling pictures Connie took at the spurtz bar on July 25, 1999, of me with Hank and Jolly, the cute chick who has subsequently cut off all ties with FR, not friendly at all.
He is certainly an intelligent man. Since I myself, am no big fan of the
GOP and their politics, I found some of what he posted to be quite hillarious.
However, he crossed the line of common decency
Any documentation?
I thought not.
and has, for the past 2 1/2 years, made his mission in life the harrasment of FR.
I submitted a declaration that was admitted into evidence in the LAT/WP v. FR suit.
He has recruited other banned and anonymous cowards into engaging in his game.
simply mythologizing. The Anti-Freepers hate me as much as they hate Connie.
And to be sure, his vitriol was met in kind by certain FR posters including thepublishing of his photo, office address and phone number (he is an attorney). Once banned, Eschoir returned under no less thatn 50 sperate aliases in an attempt to badger and harras pasters. His favorite pastime appeared to be to ridicule Jim Robinson, who is confined to a wheel chair, by calling him "RimJob" and repeatedly attacking him via any one of his myriad of screen names.
Simply untrue. The "attacking" referenced occurred when RimJob used to come late at night to the AntiFreepers website (where I had been recruited), and I would bait him into making statements against legal interest, knowing that the LAT lawyers were monitoring the site. At the time he didn't know about my Declaration. He clammed up once he realized that his words were being monitored. Bob J never learned.
In 1999, Freeper activism had gained the site some modicum of respect (as much as can be expected for conservative activists) and they organized a march on Washington called the March for Justice.
That would be 1998 in Freeper math.
If you can find yourself a copy of the CSPAN coverage of this event, you would be way ahead of the FReepers, who have been promised "professional-quality videotapes" of the event for THREE YEARS! you might just notice a man hanging on the stage, on stage? That is new addition to my mythology attempting to shout down Alan Keyes. what was amusing was the efforts by security (led by the Ignoble Rodger Hunter) to drown me out when I heckled during Keyes's pauses. They surrounded me and would roar cheers in concert to drown me out. It got to where all I had to do was raise my arms, and they would holler and yahoo NO MATTER IF KEYES WAS SPEAKING OR NOT. I was like a disruption conductor.
Fact is, that the Freepers (and there were a few thousand at the event) tolerated Eschoir even in that most embarrasing moment.
I was there October 31 1998, I counted less than a thousand. And remember, this was the high water mark of FR's influence. Next thing was the '98 election, bye bye Newtie, bye bye Robbie, and hello hastert.
He has finally received the bounty he deserves. He is enjoined from ever posting at FR in the future or else face a contempt of court charge.
Please don't throw me in the briar patch, Brer Rick!
The injunction was agreed upon by both parties and is not a judicial precedent nor do I believe was that the intent.
The intent was to cause me legal expenses and get a million dollar judgment against me to pay for the LAT/WP stipulated damages for intentional copyright infringement.
They seem to have forgotten all about that part of the lawsuit. They are claiming to have done their own version of the Briar Patch strategy. "Please don't allow us to drop all our claims for money, Mr. Aldridge!"
HA!
Eschoir has claimed in response to the/. article that a mere letter would have motivated him to cease.
I had ceased maintaining FreeRepublic DeathWatch YAHOO club in October 2000 when Brian announced that he had agreed to a million dollar judgment in the LAT case.
I hate to use a propaganda technique here, but any rational person, having witnessed Eschoir's harrasment campaign, could not possibly believe such an assertion.
So it was worth $75,000 not to TRY to send a certified letter, or contact my ISP?
Regardless of my differences in opinion with most of the freepers, I am proud to call myself a freeper BECAUSE THERE IS NO PLACE ELSE I CAN GO The site rocks. It's one of the most happening sites for diverse political information you will ever find on the Internet.
It is certainly the most expensive chat on the internet.
You appear to be the actual dreaded Navigator. All hail.
Re: BLB I doubt that any rational person would describe an present FR ptb as bright or shining, and certainly no one would describe a maxed-out donor to the Bradley presidential campaign as a conservative.
Which is why I want them to be the public face of internet conservatism. Geaux Connie (Can't Understand Normal Thinking) Hair!
Re: Low batteries life. That wasn't a personal attack, that was pure poetry.
Don't quit your day job.
Re: High Value Messages. I want you to know that you are one of a select few posters on the net that actually are capable of writing a forum message worth the read. Often demented, but just as often readworthy.
Ta.
Re: Fighting til the last. If you had you wouldn't look like the chump loOoser you look like now. Next time don't do your own PR spin. You killed yourself. We both know you escaped the noose but only a few others see it that way.
I really don't care what the masses think. They think that the linked thread to a motion for injunction in Fairfax County Circuit Court that was never heard and which the W&S lawyers were pleading was "moot" so that the perjury that was included therein would not be counted against them is proof that a motion for an injunction in Federal Court was heard and ruled upon. Hopla!
Re: FR got injunctive relief. And it only cost them maybe 75 large to clear the books of you. Of course I cleared you off of Lucianne.Com by inventing the BOP, which cost me nothin'.
And you get great credit for that. Of course, you are not a lazy thieving moderator. You actually worked to police the area. Believe me, there is no better way to deal with a potential disruptor than to do as you did to this one, to delete the words he spent so much time on, or to [horrors] rewrite them under his name. You didn't have to do that twice.
But Jim Robinson is too lazy to moderate his own site. It is only this year that he has begun deleteing individual messages, as opposed to leaving the messages and banning the poster. Sure it is more work, but he is supposed to be making $240,000 dollars a year for his 24-7 work on the net. He doesn't post any messages anymore unless Linda Tripp is in the news, what else has he got to do except read the FReepmail?
Your "brilliant" retrospectively contrived Briar Patch "strategy" may have brought an abrupt conclusion to the lawsuit and saved you some bucks, and a few postage stamps, but it's also oiled up the flea-eaten feathers on a certain semi-male peacock and managed to re-rivet Free Republic.Com's leaking hull as well.
That is fine with me. May Brian Buckley, "founder and President of FR" be the new bright shining face of internet conservatism - FOREVER. Go Brian Go!
Unfortunately for you, no one perceives any brilliance on your part,
Perhaps you can't believe in such a thing, but I wasn't litigating to be percieved as brilliant by mouse-warriors like yourself. My litigation strategy was designed to get my butt out of the way of a well funded and deranged machine of personal destruction without personal cost. I succeeded.
though we both know it's sorta there, trying to shine in a low-batteries kind of way, hidden in that jammed and dirty closet of obsessive compulsion you call a life.
They must allow personal attacks here.
But in fact, You gave them an injunction against you. And you gave them as close to a win as they could have reasonably hoped for in a court of law had they finally found one.
I agree that an injunction simply was not available in a Court of Law as a prior restraint of speech. But the case was designed to bankrupt me and ruin me. Settling ended any possibility of that.
And lastly you gave them equal value for all the money that they wasted in your pursuit---estimated at 75 large.
You put a high value on my messages.
You haven't made yourself look smart TC, you've made them look intimidating, powerful, bold. They've got money to throw around at chumps like you. Chumps who count their stamps.
So I would have looked smarter paying 75 large myself, and fighting till the last dog died? I missed getting your contribution to that fight, mousie, but your check must be in the mail still.
The injunction is against you T. Chappell. FReeRepublic.Com sued you and they got it. It's real. There's nothing virtual at all about it. And the world isn't better for it. Your done, they decided when not you, and that's FR's fork stuck in your rump to prove it.
Please don't throw me in the briar patch, Brer Fox!
COMES NOW the Respondent, THOMAS CHAPPELL ALDRIDGE, JR. and hereby answers the Complainant, FREE REPUBLIC, LLC as follows:
Parties and Jurisdiction
Complainant Free Republic, LLC [California Limited Liability Company #199825410007, registered with the Secretary of State of California on September 11, 1998, in an unsuccessful attempt to shield its principal, James C. Robinson, from personal liability in a million dollar lawsuit alleging intentional violation of copyright by him filed by the Los Angeles Times and Washington Post on September 28, 1998, Case No. 98-7840 MMM(AJWx), U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Western Division], has withdrawn its application for non-profit tax status. Therefore Respondent denies the allegation and demands strict proof. At the time this allegation was made, Complainant knew it to be not well grounded in fact and unwarranted by existing law.
Respondent denies the allegation of 2 and demands strict proof thereof. At the time this allegation was made, Complainant knew, or should have known in the exercise of due diligence, it to be not well grounded in fact.
Respondent denies the allegations in paragraph three and demands strict proof thereof.
Nature of the Case
Respondent submitted a declaration introduced in evidence against Complainant in the aforementioned federal case (L.A. Times v. Free Republic, et. al). The present complaint is part of a pattern of defamation, witness intimidation and malicious retaliation by Complainant against Respondent, going so far as to involve repeatedly publishing messages inviting supporters to desecrate the grave of Respondent's father in Arlington National Cemetery. (1) Respondent denies publishing messages without authorization, and demands strict proof thereof. (2) Respondent denies publishing messages that were exceptional in their language except in their invention and restraint, and demands strict proof thereof. This allegation, even if true, would be irrelevant to the lawsuit, and is raised for improper purpose. (3) Respondent denies the allegation and demands strict proof thereof. This allegation, even if true, would be irrelevant to the lawsuit, and is raised for improper purpose. (4) Respondent denies the allegation and demands strict proof thereof. This allegation, even if true, would be irrelevant to the lawsuit, and is raised for improper purpose. Furthermore, Complainant denies in the above-referenced federal lawsuit and on its web site that it has employees. At the time this allegation was made, Complainant knew it to be not well grounded in fact and unwarranted by existing law. (5) Respondent denies the allegation and demands strict proof thereof. Complainant operates an Internet bulletin board, and is not an electronic message service provider. At the time this allegation was made, Complainant knew it to be not well grounded in fact and unwarranted by existing law. (6) Respondent denies the allegation regarding unsolicited bulk electronic E-mail, unsupported by any of the attached Exhibits, voluminous as they are, and demands strict proof thereof. At the time this allegation was made, Complainant knew it to be not well grounded in fact and unwarranted by existing law. (7) Respondent denies the allegation and demands strict proof thereof.
Complainant's seeks to persuade the government to enjoin political speech and enforce prior restraint on constitutionally protected activity, a remedy not available in equity. Complainant knows or should have known such a request to be unwarranted by existing law.
Factual Background
On information and belief, Jim Robinson started his own online bulletin board under the domain name freerepublic.com in 1996 when he was banned from the Prodigy online bulletin boards for refusal to abide by their moderators' requirements that he cease republishing copyright-protected articles without permission, in violation of federal law, which placed the Prodigy company in jeopardy of the same judgment that has subsequently been entered against Free Republic. Though here, in 6, Complainant claims that the bulletin board "provides breaking news updates," its losing "Fair Use" defense for intentional copyright violation in L.A. Times v. Free Republic included explicit representations to that Federal Court that Complainant's web site was not a news source, and that "the purpose of the 'posting' (copying) of these articles is to enable other users of the site to comment upon the article and to criticize or praise the quality of the media coverage of current and political events. It is not to allow freerepublic.com to be used as a substitute for the original publications." [Free Republic's Memorandum in Support of Summary Judgment, at I.B.1.] Despite Complainant's claim here that Complainant's bulletin board "encourages users of all political persuasions to comment on current events," Complainant's own Exhibit One, attached, says that "The Free Republic forum is intended for Conservative users." Though Complainant alleges that "Free Republic is a not-for-profit company," U.S. District Court Judge Margaret Morrow held that "it appears undisputed that Free Republic is presently a for-profit limited liability company." Free Republic was formed and still is organized as a profit-making company, which received at least a hundred thousand dollars from James Golden, of WorldStream Communications, former call screener for conservative entertainer Rush Limbaugh, and, per Complainant's own admissions, planned to commercially market Linda Tripp's tapes of Monica Lewinsky's phone calls for five dollars per listen, a scheme which Complainant planned would have reaped him profits of many millions, but for the actions of the Independent Counsel. Therefore Respondent denies the allegations in 6 and demands strict proof thereof. At the time the allegations were made, Complainant knew them to be not well grounded in fact and unwarranted by existing law
On information and belief, FreeRepublic.com routinely inflates the number of "members" (the term falsely implies a one-to-one ratio of "members" to discrete human beings, but see TERMS below) and hits it receives, since a web site's profitability is directly related to those numbers. Respondent denies the allegations in 7 and demands strict proof thereof.
Respondent denies the allegation that Free Republic is in any way "vulnerable" to Respondent, and demands strict proof thereof.
The Free Republic Web Site Registration Process and User Agreement
Respondent is without information sufficient to affirm or deny the allegations in 9, and therefore denies them, and demands strict proof thereof.
On information and belief, the bulletin board sign-up process, which began in November, 1997, has always been automated. Respondent is otherwise without information sufficient to affirm or deny the allegations in 10, and therefore denies them, and demands strict proof thereof.
Respondent is without information sufficient to affirm or deny the allegations in 11, and therefore denies them, and demands strict proof thereof.
Respondent is without information sufficient to affirm or deny the allegations in 12, and therefore denies them, and demands strict proof thereof.
Respondent is without information sufficient to affirm or deny the allegations regarding the various registration practices that have been employed at the bulletin board in 13, and therefore denies them, and demands strict proof thereof.
Respondent is without information sufficient to affirm or deny the allegations in 14, and therefore denies them, and demands strict proof thereof.
Respondent is without information sufficient to affirm or deny the allegations in 15, except that registered publishers on Free Republic are subject to being blocked by James Robinson from publishing for any reason or no reason, and therefore denies them, and demands strict proof thereof.
Respondent admits that the registration process requires a valid E-mail address. Respondent is otherwise without information sufficient to affirm or deny the allegations in 16, and therefore denies them, and demands strict proof thereof.
Respondent is without information sufficient to affirm or deny the allegations on registration practices in 17, and therefore denies them, and demands strict proof thereof.
Respondent denies the allegation in 18 and demands strict proof thereof. The registration process from the beginning contemplated multiple accounts per user and multiple users per account. Complainant knowingly allows members to have multiple accounts. At the time this allegation was made, Complainant knew it to be not well grounded in fact.
Despite Complainant's protestation of lack of resources, its home page proclaims that it has a $240,000.00 annual budget. James C. Robinson currently draws at least ten thousand dollars a month from his intentional copyright-infringement operation. Computer savvy Registrants have been suggesting the use of varying IP filters for years to eliminate unwanted messages from disfavored ISPs. Despite Complainant's huge income and virtually unlimited volunteer manpower to moderate the site, Complainant has refused to delegate moderating power to others, including the other 132 members of Complainants' "Forum Advisory Board." Otherwise, Respondent is without information sufficient to affirm or deny the allegations in 19, and therefore denies them, and demands strict proof thereof.
Aldridge's Illegal Conduct Targeted At Free Republic, Its Founder, and Its Users
Respondent admits that his political beliefs are incongruent with those allowed to be published without molestation on Complainant's bulletin board. Respondent denies that "legitimate political debate" is encouraged by Complainant, and demands strict proof thereof. Respondent denies that he has engaged in systematic and conspiratorial actions to halt or otherwise disable Complainant's bulletin board, and demands strict proof thereof.
Respondent admits that at the time registration was originally implemented, in November 1997, he registered under the screen name Eschoir.
The allegations in 22 are false and defamatory, and Respondent demands strict proof thereof. At the time this allegation was made, Complainant knew it to be not well grounded in fact and alleged in bad faith and for improper purpose.
Respondent admits that he has registered different screen names, a common practice on Complainant's bulletin board and all others known to Respondent. He denies registering at Complainant's bulletin board under all the screen names alleged, and demands strict proof thereof.
The allegations in 24 are false and continue the pattern of harassment engaged in by Complainant, and Respondent demands strict proof thereof. At the time this allegation was made, Complainant knew it to be not well grounded in fact and alleged in bad faith and for improper purpose.
Respondent denies that his messages were either unauthorized or were in any way designed or capable of halting or disabling Free Republic's bulletin board, and therefore denies the allegations in 25, and demands strict proof thereof.
Respondent denies that Free Republic "has had to shut down" its re-publishing program, and therefore denies the allegations in 26 and demands strict proof thereof.
Respondent admits that his messages commonly elicited many more responses from Free Republic users that most other users, generating increases in the hits that Complainant relied upon in 7. Respondent has no knowledge of Free Republic's publishing program being caused to halt or even slowed due to any message or messages published by Respondent. Respondent has never intended any interruption in his messages being promulgated on Free Republic bulletin board, and Complainant has never complained of such interruption on its bulletin board, therefore Respondent denies the allegations in 27 and demands strict proof thereof.
Respondent denies any efforts to halt and disrupt Free Republic's bulletin board, and therefore denies the allegations in 28 and demands strict proof thereof.
Respondent published his first message under his own name, on the Free Republic bulletin board on Saturday, September 27, 1997, at 18:32:10 PDT. Shortly thereafter Respondent noticed the community standard of signing messages using a pseudonym, and began signing his messages as "Eschoir," the name on his E-mail account. Within thirty-six hours of Respondent's first published message, "Doug from Upland," real name Doug Cogan, published the first known vulgar message using the screen name "eschoir," at 7:31:59 PDT on Monday, September 29, 1997. It was not uncommon at the time for anonymous participants to publish vulgar or unflattering messages using the screen name "eschoir," and can even be seen in Complainant's Exhibit 3, page 5, message published Wednesday, 10/01/97 06:50:42 PDT, and again at Exhibit 3 page 11, message published 10/01/97 20:06:33 PDT, and protested by Respondent at Exhibit 3, page 13, message published 10/02/97 11:47:40 PDT, and protested again at Exhibit 3, page 18, message published 10/3/97 at 15:40:58 PDT. The practice was condoned by Jim Robinson. On Friday, October 3, 1997, Respondent published three very amusing, and creative variations in parody of a message that Mr. Robinson had published in which he clumsily betrayed one of his sympathizers. No intelligent reader would have thought that they were from Mr. Robinson, and upon being asked by Mr. Robinson to refrain from that kind of parody, Respondent did. Therefore, Respondent denies the allegations in 29, and demands strict proof thereof. Insofar as this allegation occurs nearly a year before the creation of the Complainant Limited Liability Company, then at the time this allegation was made, Complainant knew it to be irrelevant to the present cause of action, not well grounded in fact and unwarranted by existing law, and raised for improper purpose.
Respondent denies the allegations in 30, and demands strict proof thereof, especially of their relevance to Free Republic LLC v. Aldridge.
Insofar as the "post" referenced in this paragraph appears, according to the affidavit of Connie Hair and the exhibits thereto, attached to Complainant's Motion for Temporary Injunction, to be a "post" allegedly made on a unlisted private "membership-by-invitation only" YAHOO club that the affiant denies going to or reading, rather than Complainant's bulletin board, Respondent denies the allegations in 31, and demands strict proof thereof. At the time this allegation was made, Complainant knew it to be irrelevant to the present cause of action, not well grounded in fact and unwarranted by existing law, and raised for improper purpose.
Complainant has been in continuous possession of the computer files which contain the statements alleged to have been made by Respondent, and has had every opportunity and motive to falsify or change the entries in its data. Respondent has no actual memory of publishing the words alleged in 32. Respondent remembers a "flame war" with Mr. Barclay, and denies that his responses were any more offensive, disturbing, and inconsistent with community standards than the messages directed at Respondent in the same thread and tolerated by Mr. Robinson, such as "Bend over, Billy Clinton will sperm you . . . we got guns, you little national socialist" from "millar" [Ex. 3 p. 5], "Do you hold the pig first or does BB?" from "MD" [ibid] or "Eschoir, F you, F the ground you walk on, F your thoughts, F your support of Clinton, F your mother, F the day you were born, if you cross my path again it will be not pleasant." from "bmwcyle" as recently as November 8, 2000. Therefore Respondent denies these allegations and demands strict proof thereof. Insofar as this allegation occurs nearly a year before the creation of the Complainant Company, then at the time this allegation was made, Complainant knew it to be irrelevant to the present cause of action, not well grounded in fact and unwarranted by existing law.
Respondent is not aware of being asked not to register on Free Republic by Complainant. Respondent therefore denies the allegations in 33 and demands strict proof thereof.
Free Republic Death Watch
Respondent has no scheme, therefore he denies the allegations in 34 and demands strict proof thereof.
Respondent denies that he created any of the "Clubs" he is alleged to have "formed" in 35, and demands strict proof thereof. The term "Freeper," on information and belief, was coined by Linda Tripp's literary agent, Lucianne Goldberg, and not by Respondent, (see TERMS, below) and is constantly used by Complainant, even on its home page. Lucianne Goldberg was the connection that was supposed to produce the wiretap tapes from Linda Tripp that Free Republic hoped to market for millions in profits. She used to participate and publish at the bulletin board, but its participants' messages became too anti-Semitic, homophobic, and just plain kookie, and she broke off her connection with the site, referring to Mr. Robinson as "a mean shit" in an article by Jeff Stein in Salon magazine published on July 13, 1999.
Respondent denies that any of Respondent's messages on Free Republic were unauthorized, and demands strict proof of "the havoc wreaked."
Respondent denies the allegation in 37 that he implied any intention to disrupt and harass in the alleged message and demands strict proof of his implications.
It is common by the community standard of the Internet to refer to people by shortened names, or handles. Participants at the Free Republic bulletin board routinely refer to James C. Robinson as JimRob. Respondent admits that, though he did not originate the handle, he, and a host of Free Republic's disgruntled former members have in the past referred to him as "RimJob," but admit that the more common ways to refer to Mr. Robinson at this time are as "JimGod," "JimCon,", "Jim Robber," "Jim Faginson," or "Jim Il Sung."
Respondent denies the allegation in 39 that he contacted the Social Security Administration and demands strict proof.
Respondent admits publishing messages similar to those in Complainant's Exhibits, but has no knowledge of their accuracy, denies they have anything to do with this lawsuit, and demand strict proof thereof. At the time this allegation was made, Complainant knew it to be irrelevant to the present cause of action, not well grounded in fact and unwarranted by existing law.
Respondent denies the allegations in 41 that these alleged messages implied that the named individuals should end their relationship with Free Republic, and demands strict proof thereof.
Respondent denies the allegations in 42 and demands strict proof thereof.
Respondent denies the allegation in 43 that he has conspired with any individuals to disrupt Free Republic's bulletin board with unsolicited bulk electronic mail submissions, and Complainant has failed to produce any examples of bulk electronic mail submissions. At the time this allegation was made, Complainant knew it to be not well grounded in fact and unwarranted by existing law.
Respondent admits he takes pride in the lingering popularity of his messages on this or any Internet bulletin board. As illustrated by 7 of this frivolous cause of action, Complainant also takes similar pride in the same thing, that is, the number of times messages to Free Republic bulletin board are viewed ("hits"). Respondent has no technical knowledge of bandwidth, and so denies the allegation regarding same in 44 and demands strict proof thereof.
Respondent denies the allegation in 45 that he intended any of his conduct to halt or disable Free Republic's bulletin board and harass its users, and demands strict proof thereof.
COUNT ONE
(Virginia Computer Crimes Act - Theft of Computer Services)
Respondent hereby denies any allegations not admitted in 1-45.
Respondent denies the allegation in 47 that he intends or that it is even possible to disable Free Republic's California-based computer data, computer programs, and or computer software, or that the allegations 1-45 support such a cause of action, and demands strict proof thereof. FreeRepublic.com is an Internet bulletin board, and publishing political speech thereon does not implicate its computer data, computer programs or computer software. At the time this allegation was made, Complainant knew it to be not well grounded in fact and unwarranted by existing law.
Respondent has no knowledge of any allegation of computer malfunction even being alleged in 1-45, and therefore denies the allegation in 48 and demands strict proof. At the time this allegation was made, Complainant knew it to be not well grounded in fact and unwarranted by existing law.
Respondent has no knowledge of any bulk electronic mail, and Complainant has provided no evidence of bulk electronic mail, nor referenced it heretofore in its allegations, and therefore he denies the allegations in 49 and demands strict proof thereof. At the time this allegation was made, Complainant knew it to be not well grounded in fact and unwarranted by existing law.
Virginia Code 18.2-152.12 does not allow for the issuance of an injunction, indeed does not allow for any civil action under its authority unless there are damages. Injunctions fail to issue unless damages or imminent irreversible harm is alleged. Complainant has not alleged any damages as a result of Respondent's alleged conduct, indeed, Complainant has only alleged the benefit of higher numbers of "hits" and increased membership numbers in 7. For a Court to issue an injunction precluding someone from publishing political commentary on an Internet bulletin board would be a prior restraint on speech, and as such would be an unconstitutional exercise of government power under the First Amendment. At the time this allegation was made, Complainant knew it to be not well grounded in fact and unwarranted by existing law.
COUNT TWO
(Virginia Computer Crimes Act - Theft of Computer Services)
Respondent hereby denies any allegations not admitted in 1-50.
Since Complainant, an Internet bulletin board similar to a chat room, does not supply computer services, and since all Respondent's messages on Complainant's bulletin board are by definition necessarily authorized, Respondent denies the allegations in 52 and demands strict proof thereof. At the time this allegation was made, Complainant knew it to be not well grounded in fact and unwarranted by existing law.
Virginia Code 18.2-152.12 does not allow for the issuance of an injunction, indeed does not allow for any civil action under its authority unless there are damages. Injunctions fail to issue unless damages or imminent irreversible harm is alleged. Complainant has not alleged any damages as a result of Respondent's alleged conduct, indeed, Complainant has only alleged the benefit of higher numbers of "hits" and increased membership numbers of which it is so proud of in 7. For a Court to issue an injunction precluding someone from publishing political commentary on an Internet bulletin board would be a prior restraint on speech, and as such would be an unconstitutional exercise of government power under the First Amendment. At the time this allegation was made, Complainant knew it to be not well grounded in fact and unwarranted by existing law.
COUNT THREE
(Virginia Computer Crimes Act - Harassment by Computer)
Respondent hereby denies any allegations not admitted in 1-53.
In its complaint, filed with a total indifference to the use of dates, Complainant relies upon a statute that was enacted on July 1, 2000, and the only alleged messages of Respondent it relies upon were published in 1997. Respondent denies the allegations in 55 and demands strict proof thereof. At the time this allegation was made, Complainant knew it to be not well grounded in fact and unwarranted by existing law.
Virginia Code 18.2-152.12 does not allow for the issuance of an injunction, indeed does not allow for any civil action under its authority unless injury is sustained. Injunctions fail to issue unless damages or imminent irreversible harm are alleged. Complainant has not alleged any injury or damages as a result of Respondent's alleged conduct, rather Complainant has only alleged the benefit of higher numbers of "hits" and increased membership numbers of which it is so proud of in 7. For a Court to issue an injunction precluding someone from publishing political commentary on an Internet bulletin board would be a prior restraint on speech, and as such would be an unconstitutional exercise of government power under the First Amendment. At the time this allegation was made, Complainant knew it to be not well grounded in fact and unwarranted by existing law.
COUNT FOUR
(Virginia Computer Crimes Act - Injury From Unsolicited Bulk Mail)
Respondent hereby denies any allegations not admitted in 1-56.
Respondent denies, and Complainant fails to produce any evidence of, injury due to or even the existence of unsolicited bulk electronic mail, from Respondent or any other source, and therefore Respondent denies the allegations in 58 and demands strict proof thereof. At the time this allegation was made, Complainant knew it to be not well grounded in fact and unwarranted by existing law.
Complainant has not supported its bare allegation of the existence of any bulk electronic mail with the slightest evidence, and therefore Respondent requests that the relief requested by Complainant be denied.
Because the Complainant can show no damages nor injury, but only benefit, and because punitive damages and attorney's fees are not authorized by the code section cited, Respondent respectfully requests the Court deny the request for punitive damages and attorney fees and costs.
COUNT FIVE
(Civil Conspiracy)
Respondent hereby denies any allegations not admitted in 1-60.
Respondent denies the allegation in 62 and demands strict proof.
Respondent denies the allegation in 63, and demands strict proof. Free Republic denies that it is engaged in trade or business on its home page, and its reputation couldn't be any worse. At the time this allegation was made, Complainant knew it to be not well grounded in fact and unwarranted by existing law.
Respondent denies any damages attributable to his actions, and demands strict proof of any sum (here "estimated" to be $200,000). Since any damages (though not a scintilla of evidence is alleged in support of such allegation) to the reputation of Free Republic are due to its own actions, such as those in filing this frivolous lawsuit, and since Respondents alleged actions (except for those actions done in the lawful duty to testify in an ongoing civil proceeding, against the Complainant) only result in increased hits, memberships, and profits to Mr. Robinson's business, Respondent requests the demand for relief be denied, and the action be dismissed with prejudice.
Respondent respectfully requests that the demand for costs and a reasonable attorney fee be denied.
COUNT SIX
(Breach of Contract)
Respondent hereby denies any allegations not admitted in 1-65
Insofar as Complainant has not produced a signed contract, but merely a blank registration form of uncertain provenance, and has not connected Respondent with the alleged contract in any way, Respondent denies the allegation in 67 and demands strict proof thereof.
Respondent denies that Complainant "has performed in accordance with its promises under the User Agreement," or that it has even bound itself under any contract and therefore denies the allegations in 68 and demands strict proof thereof.
Respondent denies the allegations in 69 and demands strict proof thereof.
Respondent denies the allegations in 70 and demands strict proof thereof.
Insofar as the Complainant has not produced an enforceable contract executed by Respondent, Respondent denies the allegation in 71 and demands strict proof thereof.
Respondent denies the allegation in 72, as Free Republic has many remedies, and demands strict proof thereof.
Respondent respectfully desires the Court to deny the request for an injunction promulgating an unconstitutional prior restraint against Respondent and unnamed co-Respondents.
Prayer
The Respondent denies all allegations in the Bill of Complaint unless otherwise admitted herein.
The Respondent states that he intends to rely upon any and all defenses, legal and equitable, which may become known to or during trial of this matter
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES Respondent pleads the following affirmative defenses in the interests of disclosure, but does not thereby admit that it has the burden to prove any of them, as opposed to Complainant's having to prove the contrary of them.
FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Complainant's claims fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Complainant has committed improprieties such as, but not limited to, knowingly making false accusations against Respondent and using the legal process
There was no precedent set in this case. There was no judgment. There was no opinion. There was no "win."
There was an out of court settlement of all claims. One of the terms of settlement was an agreed (stipulated) injunction. You could ask a judge to sign a stipulated injunction that orders water to flow uphill, and if it is stipulated, he would sign it.
Get a clue. This is all spin of an out of court settlement.
Mr. Howard doesn't know what he is writing about.
I am Chappell Aldridge, the defendant in the abovereferenced lawsuit. There was no decision by the Eastern District. There is no precedent.
There was a frivilous lawsuit, one which consumed an estimated $75,000 in legal fees from Free Republic. I am out the $150 removal fee to take the case from Fairfax County Virginia to Federal Court (the Free Republic Crack research team neglected to discover that I was not a Virginia resident) and about eight dollars in postage. I made a little more than that in donations, so I am a little ahead on the deal.
FR originally sued me in January 2001 for - well, they sued me for unsolicited bulk email with perdiem damages that all totaled came to $27 million dollars. Plus costs and attorney fees.
I had retired from posting information on the website in October 2000, when they stipulated to a million dollar judgment against them by the Los Angeles Times/Washington Post.
I was successful in a "Briar Patch" strategy, making the failure of Brian Buckley (Counsel for Free Republic) to get an injunction as he promised his Freepers on February 8th the monomaniacal focus of his efforts.
In return for dropping all of the accusations against me, all causes of action that were or could have been, I agreed to ask the court for an injunction against me. No injunction was won. I asked the court to enter an injunction. No injunction COULD HAVE BEEN WON, as it would have been a prior restraint of speech, and would be unconstitutional. Of course parties may agree and contract to forgo their constitutional privileges. I was already done with FR. The trick was to get them done with me.
If anyone is interested I will post the answer I submitted to the court.
But no Injunction was won. I gave them the injunction in return for dropping the case and all requests for damages and attorney fees and costs.
They sucked up an estimated $75,000 in legal fees to get something they could have gotten with a certified letter.
And I say, Go Free REpublic, Go! That is a great way to spend conservative money. Invest in Gold and Jim Robinson.
Slashdot Mirror
This very thread contains the evidence of the relative insignificance of FreeRepublic.com - Here we have a legal dispute of constitutional and internet precedent setting significance in direct proportion to the importance of Free Republic on the national scene. The discussion dies after the first day. Not even Dan Moldea is interested in this story. The Washington Post and LA Times can't be bothered to print a story. I contacted the Southern Poverty Law Center, and they weren't interested. Contributions to both the TCA legal defense fund and the Free Republic legal defense fund are miniscule. Although thanks to contributions I did come out ahead in terms of expenses versus income, it was not enough to make much of a difference in the household bottom line. The lawsuit was for domestic consumption, to keep the freepers cowed and in line. The Freepers, not unlike the East Germans during the Cold War, being shielded from truthful updates on the way their money is being spent, are impressed by the spin and Brian Buckley protects his hegemony. Nobody bothers to ask, if Eschoir had done all the things he had been accused of doing, i.e., plead the fifth, posted on FR in February, posted filth, stalked Connie Hair, and trespassed, why Brian Buckley relented, and didn't even ask for damages or costs or attorney's fees. The lawsuit was essentially costly jamming of Radio Free Republic. Bottom line: nobody really cares that much about the expensive right-wing whacko chat room FreeRepublic.com. The lesson to be learned by potential freedom-fighting defendants: Free Republic, like any bully, is a coward when challenged. They will do anything not to have their financials revealed in discovery. Therefore any lawsuit based on complaints of damages done to Free Republic will be withdrawn (and probably not filed in the first place, thanks to my actions in this lawsuit). Free Republic may rely upon the intimidation factor (as long as it is funded and can employ white-shoe firms like Winston & Strawn) to keep people from speaking up. But when the true story behind this lawsuit is know, no one will fear the empty threats of suits for monetary damages from FreeRepublic.com, for Free Republic will never allow the scrutiny of the books necessary to prove their monetary damages, and will fold like a cardboard suitcase when resisted. As they did with me.
Consider this: all I had to do was seek to discover their financial records, and they dropped all claim for monetary damages, so as to try and shield their shadowy money world from public scrutiny.
Likewise they acted to protect their client list.
So from now on, anyone who is sued by FreeRepublic.com knows with confidence that FR will drop the lawsuit if threatened by an audit.
Since the injunction was part of a universal settlement, and not from a judge-rendered decision, there is no precedent that FR can use in any other lawsuits. And since the injunction only has what vestigial teeth it may be perceived to have in actions against those acting in concert with me, those doing exactly the same acts of multiple authorization but not acting in concert with me have no reason to feel threatened by the reach of the US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.
I tried for three years to get any of the Mouse Warriors to act in concert with me and had NO SUCCESS. There just isn't anyone capable of acting in concert with anyone out there.
Hey, internet maven, the management here has offered to provide a link to my side of the story if I can find a website to link to. How bout you provide the bandwidth, and I provide the content. I will even give you the police report to which Connie Hair attached a copy of a post of mine from the Crapper wherein I quoted the John Cleese "That's the sort of philistine pig ignorance . . . " rant from "The Architect Sketch" to show why she was justified to be in fear of my derangement.
Here is the inside skinny. I am not deranged, I have never been institutionalized ("Not once, not even one time"). I have never participated in any organized campaign to destroy FR. I have poked my share of fun.
I used to post on FR in '97-'99. I was banned in July 99. I submitted a declaration at the request of the LAT lawyers on the matter in August '99. I have occasionally in the interim accepted the offer to reregister publically posted on FR, and posted updates on the lawsuit (especially when things started going sour and they stopped self-reporting).
Back in October, Brian Buckley announced on FR that he had successfully negotiated a million dollar judgment against his client. I closed down my internet activities, including posting any information on the lawsuit. (I may have come back on in December to announce that, contrary to his oft repeated mantra that once the judgment was entered, he would file FRs appeal the NEXT DAY, Brian Buckley waited as long as legally possible to file the appeal, maybe, but I don't remember.)
In January, the Anti-Freepers, who had banned me ruthlessly, were keening in their mouse-warrior site
http://pub11.ezboard.com/ftothecontrarynewsofthe we ird
Later splinter site:
http://pub41.ezboard.com/faferswithanattitu de36385 frm1
about how much they wish they could respond to the lunacy on FR. I had some screen names I had registered (I found that even though it was still possible for me to register, I had nothing to say on FR when I could post. It was played out.).
I posted the screen name and password on TTC to show that they were mouse warriors and would not post even when they could. I was proven correct. Nobody took advantage of the screen name.
Point being, in early January you couldn't GIVE away screen names. No market for it.
On January 5, I am served with a Virginia lawsuit, the part which is now forgotten, which demands $950,000 damages plus perdiem damages which could rise to $27 million, plus attorney fees and costs. It also asked for an injunction.
Freeper President and Pizzamaker Bob Johnson came to my YAHOO clubsite and crowed that I was going to have to pay the Million Dollar Judgment Brian had gotten against FR.
I responded on Monday the 8th with discovery requests, including requests for member lists and financial. I also offered to settle with an agreement not to post enforced by the court like a divorce decree enforces child support agreed in a Property Settlement Agreement. They declined.
On or about Jan 17th, they served the Motion for Emergency Injunction, that is posted on the internet (the original copy announcing the now forgotten lawsuit is conveniently deleted from the FR site).
Since their crack research team had neglected to attend to my personal information posted on their website since 1997, they didn't realize that I was not a Virginia Resident. That gave me the ability to remove to federal court and short circuit their motion for Emergency Injunction. (The motion was declared "moot" by their lawyers. Now they are saying that is what they wanted all along.)
Removing to Fed Court started the timer running on discovery. According to the Fed Rules, I had until March 15 to file objections to interrogatories, and April 4 to file answers to interrogatories.
Anyone who has been involved in civil litigation knows that in objections, you put everything including the kitchen sink, and let the other side bring a motion to overrule the objections.
The anonymous trolls are saying that I pled the fifth amendment to a judge. What I did was include, among invocations of attorney-client, attorney-work product and spousal immunities, the immunnity against self incrimination.
The cause of action was based in part on alleged violations of Virginia Criminal law, because they reached out and accused me of sending FR (which doesn't even have an email addy) unsolicited bulk commercial electronic mail. This put a civil suit which purported to be breach of contract into the criminal realm, and enabled me to threaten to use 5th amendment immunity.
From the uproar that this caused, and the almost immediate offer to settle that ensued, it makes me think that the tactic was more effective than I had ever believed it would be.
But I must emphasize, that no hearing was held, no questions were ever refused to be answered, and answers weren't due for weeks, when the privilege was referenced in objections to discovery.
The Breach of Contract count brings up another troll argument that has been oft made, but not seriously addressed.
"FR is JR's PRIVATE PROPERTY" has been repeated ad nauseam. But he purports to contract with users.
My house is my private property, too. But if I contract to sublet portions of it, then kick out the subtenants on a whim (because after all it is my private property) and keep their furniture, true conservatives would think that impermissible.
But that point of view is based on the sanctity contract. Jim Robinson MAKES HIS LIVING stealing property that is by contract other person's intellectual property.
The user agreement is no contract. Jim Robinson doesn't follow his own "guidelines" (notice they aren't referred to as "terms of contract") because he wouldn't be able to ban people at will for their political beliefs.
So in sum, conservative Jim Robinson doesn't believe in contract, nor in free speech, nor in the benefit of resolving problems without resorting to the "nanny state" government legal apparatus, nor in requiring his anonymous cowards to tell the truth.
Like an octopus spewing clouds of ink, is old Rick "Breach of Contract is a Tort" Fisk clearing things up.
FR was created by a cantankerous Perl programmer from Fresno named Jim Robinson. The genesis for Free Republic was the old White Water discussion on Prodigy. Jim got so fed-up with the censorship occurring on the Prodigy boards that he decided to try his luck on the wire and without a net.
Rick the hagiographer and lickspittle wasn't there, so he is recycling mythology. The "censorship" that he alludes to is the refusal of Jim Il Sung to accede to the requests of Prodigy manangement and cease and desist posting other peoples copyright material without permission. For constant and flagrant copyright abuse, Jim Faginson was banned. Thanks to the legal advice of Brian Buckley, Jim Rob'emsome has parlayed that banning into a million dollar judgment against him personally.
Robinson wrote the code, slapped it onto a PC running linux and invited many of the old Prodigy crowd to come along.
Now I am not a geekazoid, but apparently the code he wrote is a prodigious consumer of bandwidth, "a bandwidth hog" as Rick puts it later in this very thread, "like a lion on a wildebeest" one of his greatest admirers has described it as.
The site turned out to be a tremendous success.
The site provided chat room features, but the chat was saved on the server for all times. At first the cost associated with that expense was bourne by others - James Golden's ISP at first, and then a sweetheart deal for below cost unmeasured service with another ISP. When the ISP dumped the money loOsing contract, and FReepers had to pay market prices for the chat that they had become accustomed to, the fundraisers began in earnest. Bandwith costs are supposed to be $12,000 a month. FOR CHAT!!!
For those who were tired of the same old regurgitated news and analysis or being shouted down because they were {gasp} conservative, Free Republic proved to be a sort of safe haven for conservative ideas.
"For those who were tired of venturing onto the websites of copyright holders to get the same old regurgitated news, they could get the same old stories clipped from their home URLs and posted on FR."
". . . and "analysis" or being shouted down because they were {gasp} Birchers, Contrail conspiracists, militia supporters Y2K millenialists, or Bush as a cokehead felon Commie CIA drug runner, Free Republic proved to be a sort of safe haven for conservative ideas that Jim Robinson temporarily agreed with."
And frankly, the software kicks ass over any forum software I've seen with one caveat. All replies are refreshed in-line. This makes it a tremendous bandwidth hog, but it is so much easier for the user to interact, that perhaps it's worth it.
PERHAPS IT'S WORTH IT. A ringing endorsement. Just don't expect "Parasite" Rick to make any contribution to pay for the bandwidth hogging.
Even a dedicated lonely lickspittle like Rick admits that the software is a wastful mess.
I registered in August of 1998 and found some of the npolitical analysis to be quite good.
Rick was big into stockpiling Spam and black trash cans for the Y2K disaster, so the "analysis" was right up his intellectual alley.
Clinton seemed to be causing the same sort of distrust among conservatives as did Reagan in the 80's.
If you can figure out what Rick means by the previous sentence, you are doing better than I, and FR is the place for you to be.
FR was a place where anyone (even Libertarian whack jobs such as myself) could post an article.
Because the moderation was so lax.
Yes, it is true that Liberals who show up will get shouted down in much the same fashion as Libertarians and conservatives get shouted down at liberal sites. (and there is even a small but nasty contingency of anti-libertarian trolls at FR) Yes, it is true that there are some FR posters there who are openly racist or anti-homosexual bigots. That is far from the norm and Robinson makes his best effort
That is the problem. His "best effort" seems to have him working to moderate the site about four hours a day. Does he get an "A for effort" from the conservatives even though he fails to keep out the bigots and Presidential assassination threateners? How touchy-feely liberal!
to keep the place "clean." I haven't seen him in a while, but there was a "Green" liberal from up in Eugene who posted at FR regularly and was afforded a remarkable amount of respect given his political background.
Politeness and honesty can gain anyone respect at Free Republic.
Simply not true, as the legions of banned polite posters will attest to, or would if they had not been banned without warning and/or explanation.
The liberal columnist Chris Hitchens was particularly loved at FR due to his absolute disdain for Clinton.
Relevance? He has never posted on FR.
At any rate, Aldridge (Eschoir) was one of the most vile, attention-grabbing, cretins ever to post at FR.
Ahhh, Eschoir's true sin revealed. He grabbed attention! He wrested it away from the more deserving under recognized posters, like, uhhh, Demidog, who, now, in order to curry favor with Brian Buckley and Connie Hair, is on a mission to spread the party-line disinformation and lies about eschoir, as exemplified by what follows this:
He would post articles with obsenities in the title,
I wonder if obsentities are like obscenities? Anywhy he doesn't bother to even lie and produce references, much less links to URLs
personal information about other posters
hey, my personal information was posted starting in 1997. I don't have a right to fight fire with fire? A freeper posted that he was following my WIFE around.
and went so far as to post a description of the interior of a prominent poster's living room in an apparent attempt to intimidate her.
A prominent hysterical lie.
In an effort to investigate a local address that Alan Keyes was funnelling money to in internet FEC fillings anonymously, I walked by the address. It turned out to be a town house, and I reported what could be observed by a person walking by on the sidewalk. It didn't appear to be an Keyes Campaign office, as the light from a big screen tv set was coming out the window. I reported what was coming out of the aging town house. I had no knowledge, thanks to Alan Keyes failure to report names on his FEC filings, that the site was a residence, much less who lived there. Connie ("Can't Understand Normal Thinking") parlayed that into a charge that I had "described the interior of her house to a tee" and has been squawking "stalker! stalker!" ever since.
Eschoir was not a friendly person at all.
As you can see from the smiling pictures Connie took at the spurtz bar on July 25, 1999, of me with Hank and Jolly, the cute chick who has subsequently cut off all ties with FR, not friendly at all.
He is certainly an intelligent man. Since I myself, am no big fan of the GOP and their politics, I found some of what he posted to be quite hillarious.
However, he crossed the line of common decency
Any documentation?
I thought not.
and has, for the past 2 1/2 years, made his mission in life the harrasment of FR.
I submitted a declaration that was admitted into evidence in the LAT/WP v. FR suit.
He has recruited other banned and anonymous cowards into engaging in his game.
simply mythologizing. The Anti-Freepers hate me as much as they hate Connie.
And to be sure, his vitriol was met in kind by certain FR posters including thepublishing of his photo, office address and phone number (he is an attorney). Once banned, Eschoir returned under no less thatn 50 sperate aliases in an attempt to badger and harras pasters. His favorite pastime appeared to be to ridicule Jim Robinson, who is confined to a wheel chair, by calling him "RimJob" and repeatedly attacking him via any one of his myriad of screen names.
Simply untrue. The "attacking" referenced occurred when RimJob used to come late at night to the AntiFreepers website (where I had been recruited), and I would bait him into making statements against legal interest, knowing that the LAT lawyers were monitoring the site. At the time he didn't know about my Declaration. He clammed up once he realized that his words were being monitored. Bob J never learned.
In 1999, Freeper activism had gained the site some modicum of respect (as much as can be expected for conservative activists) and they organized a march on Washington called the March for Justice.
That would be 1998 in Freeper math.
If you can find yourself a copy of the CSPAN coverage of this event, you would be way ahead of the FReepers, who have been promised "professional-quality videotapes" of the event for THREE YEARS! you might just notice a man hanging on the stage, on stage? That is new addition to my mythology attempting to shout down Alan Keyes. what was amusing was the efforts by security (led by the Ignoble Rodger Hunter) to drown me out when I heckled during Keyes's pauses. They surrounded me and would roar cheers in concert to drown me out. It got to where all I had to do was raise my arms, and they would holler and yahoo NO MATTER IF KEYES WAS SPEAKING OR NOT. I was like a disruption conductor.
Fact is, that the Freepers (and there were a few thousand at the event) tolerated Eschoir even in that most embarrasing moment.
I was there October 31 1998, I counted less than a thousand. And remember, this was the high water mark of FR's influence. Next thing was the '98 election, bye bye Newtie, bye bye Robbie, and hello hastert.
He has finally received the bounty he deserves. He is enjoined from ever posting at FR in the future or else face a contempt of court charge.
Please don't throw me in the briar patch, Brer Rick!
The injunction was agreed upon by both parties and is not a judicial precedent nor do I believe was that the intent.
The intent was to cause me legal expenses and get a million dollar judgment against me to pay for the LAT/WP stipulated damages for intentional copyright infringement.
They seem to have forgotten all about that part of the lawsuit. They are claiming to have done their own version of the Briar Patch strategy. "Please don't allow us to drop all our claims for money, Mr. Aldridge!"
HA!
Eschoir has claimed in response to the /. article that a mere letter would have motivated him to cease.
I had ceased maintaining FreeRepublic DeathWatch YAHOO club in October 2000 when Brian announced that he had agreed to a million dollar judgment in the LAT case.
I hate to use a propaganda technique here, but any rational person, having witnessed Eschoir's harrasment campaign, could not possibly believe such an assertion.
So it was worth $75,000 not to TRY to send a certified letter, or contact my ISP?
Regardless of my differences in opinion with most of the freepers, I am proud to call myself a freeper BECAUSE THERE IS NO PLACE ELSE I CAN GO The site rocks. It's one of the most happening sites for diverse political information you will ever find on the Internet.
It is certainly the most expensive chat on the internet.
Re: BLB I doubt that any rational person would describe an present FR ptb as bright or shining, and certainly no one would describe a maxed-out donor to the Bradley presidential campaign as a conservative.
Which is why I want them to be the public face of internet conservatism. Geaux Connie (Can't Understand Normal Thinking) Hair!
Re: Low batteries life. That wasn't a personal attack, that was pure poetry.
Don't quit your day job.
Re: High Value Messages. I want you to know that you are one of a select few posters on the net that actually are capable of writing a forum message worth the read. Often demented, but just as often readworthy.
Ta.
Re: Fighting til the last. If you had you wouldn't look like the chump loOoser you look like now. Next time don't do your own PR spin. You killed yourself. We both know you escaped the noose but only a few others see it that way.
I really don't care what the masses think. They think that the linked thread to a motion for injunction in Fairfax County Circuit Court that was never heard and which the W&S lawyers were pleading was "moot" so that the perjury that was included therein would not be counted against them is proof that a motion for an injunction in Federal Court was heard and ruled upon. Hopla!
Re: FR got injunctive relief. And it only cost them maybe 75 large to clear the books of you. Of course I cleared you off of Lucianne.Com by inventing the BOP, which cost me nothin'.
And you get great credit for that. Of course, you are not a lazy thieving moderator. You actually worked to police the area. Believe me, there is no better way to deal with a potential disruptor than to do as you did to this one, to delete the words he spent so much time on, or to [horrors] rewrite them under his name. You didn't have to do that twice.
But Jim Robinson is too lazy to moderate his own site. It is only this year that he has begun deleteing individual messages, as opposed to leaving the messages and banning the poster. Sure it is more work, but he is supposed to be making $240,000 dollars a year for his 24-7 work on the net. He doesn't post any messages anymore unless Linda Tripp is in the news, what else has he got to do except read the FReepmail?
That is fine with me. May Brian Buckley, "founder and President of FR" be the new bright shining face of internet conservatism - FOREVER. Go Brian Go!
Unfortunately for you, no one perceives any brilliance on your part,
Perhaps you can't believe in such a thing, but I wasn't litigating to be percieved as brilliant by mouse-warriors like yourself. My litigation strategy was designed to get my butt out of the way of a well funded and deranged machine of personal destruction without personal cost. I succeeded.
though we both know it's sorta there, trying to shine in a low-batteries kind of way, hidden in that jammed and dirty closet of obsessive compulsion you call a life.
They must allow personal attacks here.
But in fact, You gave them an injunction against you. And you gave them as close to a win as they could have reasonably hoped for in a court of law had they finally found one.
I agree that an injunction simply was not available in a Court of Law as a prior restraint of speech. But the case was designed to bankrupt me and ruin me. Settling ended any possibility of that.
And lastly you gave them equal value for all the money that they wasted in your pursuit---estimated at 75 large.
You put a high value on my messages.
You haven't made yourself look smart TC, you've made them look intimidating, powerful, bold. They've got money to throw around at chumps like you. Chumps who count their stamps.
So I would have looked smarter paying 75 large myself, and fighting till the last dog died? I missed getting your contribution to that fight, mousie, but your check must be in the mail still.
The injunction is against you T. Chappell. FReeRepublic.Com sued you and they got it. It's real. There's nothing virtual at all about it. And the world isn't better for it. Your done, they decided when not you, and that's FR's fork stuck in your rump to prove it.
Please don't throw me in the briar patch, Brer Fox!
ANSWER WITH COUNTERCLAIMS
COMES NOW the Respondent, THOMAS CHAPPELL ALDRIDGE, JR. and hereby answers the Complainant, FREE REPUBLIC, LLC as follows:
Parties and Jurisdiction
Complainant Free Republic, LLC [California Limited Liability Company #199825410007, registered with the Secretary of State of California on September 11, 1998, in an unsuccessful attempt to shield its principal, James C. Robinson, from personal liability in a million dollar lawsuit alleging intentional violation of copyright by him filed by the Los Angeles Times and Washington Post on September 28, 1998, Case No. 98-7840 MMM(AJWx), U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Western Division], has withdrawn its application for non-profit tax status. Therefore Respondent denies the allegation and demands strict proof. At the time this allegation was made, Complainant knew it to be not well grounded in fact and unwarranted by existing law.
Respondent denies the allegation of 2 and demands strict proof thereof. At the time this allegation was made, Complainant knew, or should have known in the exercise of due diligence, it to be not well grounded in fact.
Respondent denies the allegations in paragraph three and demands strict proof thereof.
Nature of the Case
Respondent submitted a declaration introduced in evidence against Complainant in the aforementioned federal case (L.A. Times v. Free Republic, et. al). The present complaint is part of a pattern of defamation, witness intimidation and malicious retaliation by Complainant against Respondent, going so far as to involve repeatedly publishing messages inviting supporters to desecrate the grave of Respondent's father in Arlington National Cemetery.
(1) Respondent denies publishing messages without authorization, and demands strict proof thereof.
(2) Respondent denies publishing messages that were exceptional in their language except in their invention and restraint, and demands strict proof thereof. This allegation, even if true, would be irrelevant to the lawsuit, and is raised for improper purpose.
(3) Respondent denies the allegation and demands strict proof thereof. This allegation, even if true, would be irrelevant to the lawsuit, and is raised for improper purpose.
(4) Respondent denies the allegation and demands strict proof thereof. This allegation, even if true, would be irrelevant to the lawsuit, and is raised for improper purpose. Furthermore, Complainant denies in the above-referenced federal lawsuit and on its web site that it has employees. At the time this allegation was made, Complainant knew it to be not well grounded in fact and unwarranted by existing law.
(5) Respondent denies the allegation and demands strict proof thereof. Complainant operates an Internet bulletin board, and is not an electronic message service provider. At the time this allegation was made, Complainant knew it to be not well grounded in fact and unwarranted by existing law.
(6) Respondent denies the allegation regarding unsolicited bulk electronic E-mail, unsupported by any of the attached Exhibits, voluminous as they are, and demands strict proof thereof. At the time this allegation was made, Complainant knew it to be not well grounded in fact and unwarranted by existing law.
(7) Respondent denies the allegation and demands strict proof thereof.
Complainant's seeks to persuade the government to enjoin political speech and enforce prior restraint on constitutionally protected activity, a remedy not available in equity. Complainant knows or should have known such a request to be unwarranted by existing law.
Factual Background
On information and belief, Jim Robinson started his own online bulletin board under the domain name freerepublic.com in 1996 when he was banned from the Prodigy online bulletin boards for refusal to abide by their moderators' requirements that he cease republishing copyright-protected articles without permission, in violation of federal law, which placed the Prodigy company in jeopardy of the same judgment that has subsequently been entered against Free Republic. Though here, in 6, Complainant claims that the bulletin board "provides breaking news updates," its losing "Fair Use" defense for intentional copyright violation in L.A. Times v. Free Republic included explicit representations to that Federal Court that Complainant's web site was not a news source, and that "the purpose of the 'posting' (copying) of these articles is to enable other users of the site to comment upon the article and to criticize or praise the quality of the media coverage of current and political events. It is not to allow freerepublic.com to be used as a substitute for the original publications." [Free Republic's Memorandum in Support of Summary Judgment, at I.B.1.] Despite Complainant's claim here that Complainant's bulletin board "encourages users of all political persuasions to comment on current events," Complainant's own Exhibit One, attached, says that "The Free Republic forum is intended for Conservative users." Though Complainant alleges that "Free Republic is a not-for-profit company," U.S. District Court Judge Margaret Morrow held that "it appears undisputed that Free Republic is presently a for-profit limited liability company." Free Republic was formed and still is organized as a profit-making company, which received at least a hundred thousand dollars from James Golden, of WorldStream Communications, former call screener for conservative entertainer Rush Limbaugh, and, per Complainant's own admissions, planned to commercially market Linda Tripp's tapes of Monica Lewinsky's phone calls for five dollars per listen, a scheme which Complainant planned would have reaped him profits of many millions, but for the actions of the Independent Counsel. Therefore Respondent denies the allegations in 6 and demands strict proof thereof. At the time the allegations were made, Complainant knew them to be not well grounded in fact and unwarranted by existing law
On information and belief, FreeRepublic.com routinely inflates the number of "members" (the term falsely implies a one-to-one ratio of "members" to discrete human beings, but see TERMS below) and hits it receives, since a web site's profitability is directly related to those numbers. Respondent denies the allegations in 7 and demands strict proof thereof.
Respondent denies the allegation that Free Republic is in any way "vulnerable" to Respondent, and demands strict proof thereof.
The Free Republic Web Site Registration Process and User Agreement
Respondent is without information sufficient to affirm or deny the allegations in 9, and therefore denies them, and demands strict proof thereof.
On information and belief, the bulletin board sign-up process, which began in November, 1997, has always been automated. Respondent is otherwise without information sufficient to affirm or deny the allegations in 10, and therefore denies them, and demands strict proof thereof.
Respondent is without information sufficient to affirm or deny the allegations in 11, and therefore denies them, and demands strict proof thereof.
Respondent is without information sufficient to affirm or deny the allegations in 12, and therefore denies them, and demands strict proof thereof.
Respondent is without information sufficient to affirm or deny the allegations regarding the various registration practices that have been employed at the bulletin board in 13, and therefore denies them, and demands strict proof thereof.
Respondent is without information sufficient to affirm or deny the allegations in 14, and therefore denies them, and demands strict proof thereof.
Respondent is without information sufficient to affirm or deny the allegations in 15, except that registered publishers on Free Republic are subject to being blocked by James Robinson from publishing for any reason or no reason, and therefore denies them, and demands strict proof thereof.
Respondent admits that the registration process requires a valid E-mail address. Respondent is otherwise without information sufficient to affirm or deny the allegations in 16, and therefore denies them, and demands strict proof thereof.
Respondent is without information sufficient to affirm or deny the allegations on registration practices in 17, and therefore denies them, and demands strict proof thereof.
Respondent denies the allegation in 18 and demands strict proof thereof. The registration process from the beginning contemplated multiple accounts per user and multiple users per account. Complainant knowingly allows members to have multiple accounts. At the time this allegation was made, Complainant knew it to be not well grounded in fact.
Despite Complainant's protestation of lack of resources, its home page proclaims that it has a $240,000.00 annual budget. James C. Robinson currently draws at least ten thousand dollars a month from his intentional copyright-infringement operation. Computer savvy Registrants have been suggesting the use of varying IP filters for years to eliminate unwanted messages from disfavored ISPs. Despite Complainant's huge income and virtually unlimited volunteer manpower to moderate the site, Complainant has refused to delegate moderating power to others, including the other 132 members of Complainants' "Forum Advisory Board." Otherwise, Respondent is without information sufficient to affirm or deny the allegations in 19, and therefore denies them, and demands strict proof thereof.
Aldridge's Illegal Conduct Targeted At Free Republic, Its Founder, and Its Users
Respondent admits that his political beliefs are incongruent with those allowed to be published without molestation on Complainant's bulletin board. Respondent denies that "legitimate political debate" is encouraged by Complainant, and demands strict proof thereof. Respondent denies that he has engaged in systematic and conspiratorial actions to halt or otherwise disable Complainant's bulletin board, and demands strict proof thereof.
Respondent admits that at the time registration was originally implemented, in November 1997, he registered under the screen name Eschoir.
The allegations in 22 are false and defamatory, and Respondent demands strict proof thereof. At the time this allegation was made, Complainant knew it to be not well grounded in fact and alleged in bad faith and for improper purpose.
Respondent admits that he has registered different screen names, a common practice on Complainant's bulletin board and all others known to Respondent. He denies registering at Complainant's bulletin board under all the screen names alleged, and demands strict proof thereof.
The allegations in 24 are false and continue the pattern of harassment engaged in by Complainant, and Respondent demands strict proof thereof. At the time this allegation was made, Complainant knew it to be not well grounded in fact and alleged in bad faith and for improper purpose.
Respondent denies that his messages were either unauthorized or were in any way designed or capable of halting or disabling Free Republic's bulletin board, and therefore denies the allegations in 25, and demands strict proof thereof.
Respondent denies that Free Republic "has had to shut down" its re-publishing program, and therefore denies the allegations in 26 and demands strict proof thereof.
Respondent admits that his messages commonly elicited many more responses from Free Republic users that most other users, generating increases in the hits that Complainant relied upon in 7. Respondent has no knowledge of Free Republic's publishing program being caused to halt or even slowed due to any message or messages published by Respondent. Respondent has never intended any interruption in his messages being promulgated on Free Republic bulletin board, and Complainant has never complained of such interruption on its bulletin board, therefore Respondent denies the allegations in 27 and demands strict proof thereof.
Respondent denies any efforts to halt and disrupt Free Republic's bulletin board, and therefore denies the allegations in 28 and demands strict proof thereof.
Respondent published his first message under his own name, on the Free Republic bulletin board on Saturday, September 27, 1997, at 18:32:10 PDT. Shortly thereafter Respondent noticed the community standard of signing messages using a pseudonym, and began signing his messages as "Eschoir," the name on his E-mail account. Within thirty-six hours of Respondent's first published message, "Doug from Upland," real name Doug Cogan, published the first known vulgar message using the screen name "eschoir," at 7:31:59 PDT on Monday, September 29, 1997. It was not uncommon at the time for anonymous participants to publish vulgar or unflattering messages using the screen name "eschoir," and can even be seen in Complainant's Exhibit 3, page 5, message published Wednesday, 10/01/97 06:50:42 PDT, and again at Exhibit 3 page 11, message published 10/01/97 20:06:33 PDT, and protested by Respondent at Exhibit 3, page 13, message published 10/02/97 11:47:40 PDT, and protested again at Exhibit 3, page 18, message published 10/3/97 at 15:40:58 PDT. The practice was condoned by Jim Robinson. On Friday, October 3, 1997, Respondent published three very amusing, and creative variations in parody of a message that Mr. Robinson had published in which he clumsily betrayed one of his sympathizers. No intelligent reader would have thought that they were from Mr. Robinson, and upon being asked by Mr. Robinson to refrain from that kind of parody, Respondent did. Therefore, Respondent denies the allegations in 29, and demands strict proof thereof. Insofar as this allegation occurs nearly a year before the creation of the Complainant Limited Liability Company, then at the time this allegation was made, Complainant knew it to be irrelevant to the present cause of action, not well grounded in fact and unwarranted by existing law, and raised for improper purpose.
Respondent denies the allegations in 30, and demands strict proof thereof, especially of their relevance to Free Republic LLC v. Aldridge.
Insofar as the "post" referenced in this paragraph appears, according to the affidavit of Connie Hair and the exhibits thereto, attached to Complainant's Motion for Temporary Injunction, to be a "post" allegedly made on a unlisted private "membership-by-invitation only" YAHOO club that the affiant denies going to or reading, rather than Complainant's bulletin board, Respondent denies the allegations in 31, and demands strict proof thereof. At the time this allegation was made, Complainant knew it to be irrelevant to the present cause of action, not well grounded in fact and unwarranted by existing law, and raised for improper purpose.
Complainant has been in continuous possession of the computer files which contain the statements alleged to have been made by Respondent, and has had every opportunity and motive to falsify or change the entries in its data. Respondent has no actual memory of publishing the words alleged in 32. Respondent remembers a "flame war" with Mr. Barclay, and denies that his responses were any more offensive, disturbing, and inconsistent with community standards than the messages directed at Respondent in the same thread and tolerated by Mr. Robinson, such as "Bend over, Billy Clinton will sperm you . . . we got guns, you little national socialist" from "millar" [Ex. 3 p. 5], "Do you hold the pig first or does BB?" from "MD" [ibid] or "Eschoir, F you, F the ground you walk on, F your thoughts, F your support of Clinton, F your mother, F the day you were born, if you cross my path again it will be not pleasant." from "bmwcyle" as recently as November 8, 2000. Therefore Respondent denies these allegations and demands strict proof thereof. Insofar as this allegation occurs nearly a year before the creation of the Complainant Company, then at the time this allegation was made, Complainant knew it to be irrelevant to the present cause of action, not well grounded in fact and unwarranted by existing law.
Respondent is not aware of being asked not to register on Free Republic by Complainant. Respondent therefore denies the allegations in 33 and demands strict proof thereof.
Free Republic Death Watch
Respondent has no scheme, therefore he denies the allegations in 34 and demands strict proof thereof.
Respondent denies that he created any of the "Clubs" he is alleged to have "formed" in 35, and demands strict proof thereof. The term "Freeper," on information and belief, was coined by Linda Tripp's literary agent, Lucianne Goldberg, and not by Respondent, (see TERMS, below) and is constantly used by Complainant, even on its home page. Lucianne Goldberg was the connection that was supposed to produce the wiretap tapes from Linda Tripp that Free Republic hoped to market for millions in profits. She used to participate and publish at the bulletin board, but its participants' messages became too anti-Semitic, homophobic, and just plain kookie, and she broke off her connection with the site, referring to Mr. Robinson as "a mean shit" in an article by Jeff Stein in Salon magazine published on July 13, 1999.
Respondent denies that any of Respondent's messages on Free Republic were unauthorized, and demands strict proof of "the havoc wreaked."
Respondent denies the allegation in 37 that he implied any intention to disrupt and harass in the alleged message and demands strict proof of his implications.
It is common by the community standard of the Internet to refer to people by shortened names, or handles. Participants at the Free Republic bulletin board routinely refer to James C. Robinson as JimRob. Respondent admits that, though he did not originate the handle, he, and a host of Free Republic's disgruntled former members have in the past referred to him as "RimJob," but admit that the more common ways to refer to Mr. Robinson at this time are as "JimGod," "JimCon,", "Jim Robber," "Jim Faginson," or "Jim Il Sung."
Respondent denies the allegation in 39 that he contacted the Social Security Administration and demands strict proof.
Respondent admits publishing messages similar to those in Complainant's Exhibits, but has no knowledge of their accuracy, denies they have anything to do with this lawsuit, and demand strict proof thereof. At the time this allegation was made, Complainant knew it to be irrelevant to the present cause of action, not well grounded in fact and unwarranted by existing law.
Respondent denies the allegations in 41 that these alleged messages implied that the named individuals should end their relationship with Free Republic, and demands strict proof thereof.
Respondent denies the allegations in 42 and demands strict proof thereof.
Respondent denies the allegation in 43 that he has conspired with any individuals to disrupt Free Republic's bulletin board with unsolicited bulk electronic mail submissions, and Complainant has failed to produce any examples of bulk electronic mail submissions. At the time this allegation was made, Complainant knew it to be not well grounded in fact and unwarranted by existing law.
Respondent admits he takes pride in the lingering popularity of his messages on this or any Internet bulletin board. As illustrated by 7 of this frivolous cause of action, Complainant also takes similar pride in the same thing, that is, the number of times messages to Free Republic bulletin board are viewed ("hits"). Respondent has no technical knowledge of bandwidth, and so denies the allegation regarding same in 44 and demands strict proof thereof.
Respondent denies the allegation in 45 that he intended any of his conduct to halt or disable Free Republic's bulletin board and harass its users, and demands strict proof thereof.
COUNT ONE
(Virginia Computer Crimes Act - Theft of Computer Services)
Respondent hereby denies any allegations not admitted in 1-45.
Respondent denies the allegation in 47 that he intends or that it is even possible to disable Free Republic's California-based computer data, computer programs, and or computer software, or that the allegations 1-45 support such a cause of action, and demands strict proof thereof. FreeRepublic.com is an Internet bulletin board, and publishing political speech thereon does not implicate its computer data, computer programs or computer software. At the time this allegation was made, Complainant knew it to be not well grounded in fact and unwarranted by existing law.
Respondent has no knowledge of any allegation of computer malfunction even being alleged in 1-45, and therefore denies the allegation in 48 and demands strict proof. At the time this allegation was made, Complainant knew it to be not well grounded in fact and unwarranted by existing law.
Respondent has no knowledge of any bulk electronic mail, and Complainant has provided no evidence of bulk electronic mail, nor referenced it heretofore in its allegations, and therefore he denies the allegations in 49 and demands strict proof thereof. At the time this allegation was made, Complainant knew it to be not well grounded in fact and unwarranted by existing law.
Virginia Code 18.2-152.12 does not allow for the issuance of an injunction, indeed does not allow for any civil action under its authority unless there are damages. Injunctions fail to issue unless damages or imminent irreversible harm is alleged. Complainant has not alleged any damages as a result of Respondent's alleged conduct, indeed, Complainant has only alleged the benefit of higher numbers of "hits" and increased membership numbers in 7. For a Court to issue an injunction precluding someone from publishing political commentary on an Internet bulletin board would be a prior restraint on speech, and as such would be an unconstitutional exercise of government power under the First Amendment. At the time this allegation was made, Complainant knew it to be not well grounded in fact and unwarranted by existing law.
COUNT TWO
(Virginia Computer Crimes Act - Theft of Computer Services)
Respondent hereby denies any allegations not admitted in 1-50.
Since Complainant, an Internet bulletin board similar to a chat room, does not supply computer services, and since all Respondent's messages on Complainant's bulletin board are by definition necessarily authorized, Respondent denies the allegations in 52 and demands strict proof thereof. At the time this allegation was made, Complainant knew it to be not well grounded in fact and unwarranted by existing law.
Virginia Code 18.2-152.12 does not allow for the issuance of an injunction, indeed does not allow for any civil action under its authority unless there are damages. Injunctions fail to issue unless damages or imminent irreversible harm is alleged. Complainant has not alleged any damages as a result of Respondent's alleged conduct, indeed, Complainant has only alleged the benefit of higher numbers of "hits" and increased membership numbers of which it is so proud of in 7. For a Court to issue an injunction precluding someone from publishing political commentary on an Internet bulletin board would be a prior restraint on speech, and as such would be an unconstitutional exercise of government power under the First Amendment. At the time this allegation was made, Complainant knew it to be not well grounded in fact and unwarranted by existing law.
COUNT THREE
(Virginia Computer Crimes Act - Harassment by Computer)
Respondent hereby denies any allegations not admitted in 1-53.
In its complaint, filed with a total indifference to the use of dates, Complainant relies upon a statute that was enacted on July 1, 2000, and the only alleged messages of Respondent it relies upon were published in 1997. Respondent denies the allegations in 55 and demands strict proof thereof. At the time this allegation was made, Complainant knew it to be not well grounded in fact and unwarranted by existing law.
Virginia Code 18.2-152.12 does not allow for the issuance of an injunction, indeed does not allow for any civil action under its authority unless injury is sustained. Injunctions fail to issue unless damages or imminent irreversible harm are alleged. Complainant has not alleged any injury or damages as a result of Respondent's alleged conduct, rather Complainant has only alleged the benefit of higher numbers of "hits" and increased membership numbers of which it is so proud of in 7. For a Court to issue an injunction precluding someone from publishing political commentary on an Internet bulletin board would be a prior restraint on speech, and as such would be an unconstitutional exercise of government power under the First Amendment. At the time this allegation was made, Complainant knew it to be not well grounded in fact and unwarranted by existing law.
COUNT FOUR
(Virginia Computer Crimes Act - Injury From Unsolicited Bulk Mail)
Respondent hereby denies any allegations not admitted in 1-56.
Respondent denies, and Complainant fails to produce any evidence of, injury due to or even the existence of unsolicited bulk electronic mail, from Respondent or any other source, and therefore Respondent denies the allegations in 58 and demands strict proof thereof. At the time this allegation was made, Complainant knew it to be not well grounded in fact and unwarranted by existing law.
Complainant has not supported its bare allegation of the existence of any bulk electronic mail with the slightest evidence, and therefore Respondent requests that the relief requested by Complainant be denied.
Because the Complainant can show no damages nor injury, but only benefit, and because punitive damages and attorney's fees are not authorized by the code section cited, Respondent respectfully requests the Court deny the request for punitive damages and attorney fees and costs.
COUNT FIVE
(Civil Conspiracy)
Respondent hereby denies any allegations not admitted in 1-60.
Respondent denies the allegation in 62 and demands strict proof.
Respondent denies the allegation in 63, and demands strict proof. Free Republic denies that it is engaged in trade or business on its home page, and its reputation couldn't be any worse. At the time this allegation was made, Complainant knew it to be not well grounded in fact and unwarranted by existing law.
Respondent denies any damages attributable to his actions, and demands strict proof of any sum (here "estimated" to be $200,000). Since any damages (though not a scintilla of evidence is alleged in support of such allegation) to the reputation of Free Republic are due to its own actions, such as those in filing this frivolous lawsuit, and since Respondents alleged actions (except for those actions done in the lawful duty to testify in an ongoing civil proceeding, against the Complainant) only result in increased hits, memberships, and profits to Mr. Robinson's business, Respondent requests the demand for relief be denied, and the action be dismissed with prejudice.
Respondent respectfully requests that the demand for costs and a reasonable attorney fee be denied.
COUNT SIX
(Breach of Contract)
Respondent hereby denies any allegations not admitted in 1-65
Insofar as Complainant has not produced a signed contract, but merely a blank registration form of uncertain provenance, and has not connected Respondent with the alleged contract in any way, Respondent denies the allegation in 67 and demands strict proof thereof.
Respondent denies that Complainant "has performed in accordance with its promises under the User Agreement," or that it has even bound itself under any contract and therefore denies the allegations in 68 and demands strict proof thereof.
Respondent denies the allegations in 69 and demands strict proof thereof.
Respondent denies the allegations in 70 and demands strict proof thereof.
Insofar as the Complainant has not produced an enforceable contract executed by Respondent, Respondent denies the allegation in 71 and demands strict proof thereof.
Respondent denies the allegation in 72, as Free Republic has many remedies, and demands strict proof thereof.
Respondent respectfully desires the Court to deny the request for an injunction promulgating an unconstitutional prior restraint against Respondent and unnamed co-Respondents.
Prayer
The Respondent denies all allegations in the Bill of Complaint unless otherwise admitted herein.
The Respondent states that he intends to rely upon any and all defenses, legal and equitable, which may become known to or during trial of this matter
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
Respondent pleads the following affirmative defenses in the interests of disclosure, but does not thereby admit that it has the burden to prove any of them, as opposed to Complainant's having to prove the contrary of them.
FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Complainant's claims fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Complainant has committed improprieties such as, but not limited to, knowingly making false accusations against Respondent and using the legal process
There was an out of court settlement of all claims. One of the terms of settlement was an agreed (stipulated) injunction. You could ask a judge to sign a stipulated injunction that orders water to flow uphill, and if it is stipulated, he would sign it.
Get a clue. This is all spin of an out of court settlement.
Mr. Howard doesn't know what he is writing about. I am Chappell Aldridge, the defendant in the abovereferenced lawsuit. There was no decision by the Eastern District. There is no precedent. There was a frivilous lawsuit, one which consumed an estimated $75,000 in legal fees from Free Republic. I am out the $150 removal fee to take the case from Fairfax County Virginia to Federal Court (the Free Republic Crack research team neglected to discover that I was not a Virginia resident) and about eight dollars in postage. I made a little more than that in donations, so I am a little ahead on the deal. FR originally sued me in January 2001 for - well, they sued me for unsolicited bulk email with perdiem damages that all totaled came to $27 million dollars. Plus costs and attorney fees. I had retired from posting information on the website in October 2000, when they stipulated to a million dollar judgment against them by the Los Angeles Times/Washington Post. I was successful in a "Briar Patch" strategy, making the failure of Brian Buckley (Counsel for Free Republic) to get an injunction as he promised his Freepers on February 8th the monomaniacal focus of his efforts. In return for dropping all of the accusations against me, all causes of action that were or could have been, I agreed to ask the court for an injunction against me. No injunction was won. I asked the court to enter an injunction. No injunction COULD HAVE BEEN WON, as it would have been a prior restraint of speech, and would be unconstitutional. Of course parties may agree and contract to forgo their constitutional privileges. I was already done with FR. The trick was to get them done with me. If anyone is interested I will post the answer I submitted to the court. But no Injunction was won. I gave them the injunction in return for dropping the case and all requests for damages and attorney fees and costs. They sucked up an estimated $75,000 in legal fees to get something they could have gotten with a certified letter. And I say, Go Free REpublic, Go! That is a great way to spend conservative money. Invest in Gold and Jim Robinson.