Happy Lawsuit Thursday!

[ThatNickGuy]

Why would he close his letter with his nickname first, THEN his real name? Unless Milorad is his real name, but his nickname is Michael so and so.

---------- Post added at 10:30 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:29 AM ----------

Also, don't worry, Dave. I've got the best lawyer I could find:

 

[General Specific]

Also, don't worry, Dave. I've got the best lawyer I could find:

Oh Scrubs, is there any situation you can't make funny?

 

[AshburnerX]

This guy reminds me of Derek Smart, who threaten to sue a website I worked for once upon a time (Wiki Derek Smart if you don't know who he is) under similair circumsances. Suffice to say, as neither you nor a staff member of the website was the one who posted the post in question, you are not liable for the content of said post, as this is a public forum. He can request you remove the post, but you really don't even need to do that. That said, the content of the original message clearly falls under Parody. It's protected speech.

The only person he COULD EVEN REMOTELY SUE SUCCESSFULLY is the person who posted the original message and you are under no obligation to reveal said details unless he can get a court order for it (and he'd be laughed out of court when he tried to get one). Even then, he'd have to sue your server provider, not you, to get it done.

In all honesty, even if this does proceed to the point that he actually files suit against you, considering his history (and the fact that your not the only website targeted) you could probably get this dismissed as a nuisance suit.

 

[Hylian]

In my opinion


this guy is a raving lunatic who is looking for any excuse to sue anyone cause he is wanting to feel important and validated cause his life is probably pathetic.

The opinions expressed by me *Hylian* at this site are the opinions of the individual author and may not reflect the opinions of the site itself.

​

 

[ThatNickGuy]

Oh Scrubs, is there any situation you can't make funny?

Its last season with the "all new cast"? Ba-ZING!

 

[Philosopher B.]

Sometimes, when I'm alone, I sue myself.

---------- Post added at 04:45 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:43 PM ----------

Seriously, though, it's a shame Davinski has to put up with this shit. Some of the people in this world ...

 

[General Specific]

Oh Scrubs, is there any situation you can't make funny?

Its last season with the "all new cast"? Ba-ZING![/QUOTE]

I said "situation" not poorly thought-out show continuation. (and the new show had it's moments, mostly when it was the original cast doing something, but still, moments)

 

[Baerdog]

Sometimes, when I'm alone, I sue myself.

You'll go blind if you do that too much.

 

[Cajungal]

Sometimes, when I'm alone, I sue myself.

You'll go blind if you do that too much.[/QUOTE]

Watch the new Scrubs?

 

[ThatNickGuy]

[I said "situation" not poorly thought-out show continuation. (and the new show had it's moments, mostly when it was the original cast doing something, but still, moments)

Ah HA! But Scrubs is a sitcom, short for "situational comedy", wherein situations are made funny. Therefore....

....hang on, I was going somewhere with this. Screw it. I need to get out of the house.

 

[Cajungal]

[I said "situation" not poorly thought-out show continuation. (and the new show had it's moments, mostly when it was the original cast doing something, but still, moments)

Ah HA! But Scrubs is a sitcom, short for "situational comedy", wherein situations are made funny. Therefore....

....hang on, I was going somewhere with this. Screw it. I need to get out of the house. [/QUOTE]

Yes, you look like a shut-in, tan-man.

 

[Bumble the Boy Wonder]

In my opinion


this guy is a raving lunatic who is looking for any excuse to sue anyone cause he is wanting to feel important and validated cause his life is probably pathetic.

The opinions expressed by me *Hylian* at this site are the opinions of the individual author and may not reflect the opinions of the site itself.

​

Can we have this permanently fixed to surround all our posts? Only, you know, it'd change to have our own names.

It's clearly the only solution

 

[Piotyr]

Lawsuit Thursday already? And to think I forgot to get a card.

 

[Dave]

In my opinion, the guy is nuts and very litigious. Here's his last response, which I am going to ignore.

Mr David Nishsen my solicitor have advised me that the posting is Very DEFAMATORY

Just remember that the Google Inc and Yahoo Inc are BIG but they can not defamation me

I will instruct my solicitor to issue writ against you personally and appropriate website hosting.

In Australia : Concerns Notice: s 14 Defamation Act 2005 (Vic)
You are fully responsible for all posting on you website

Regards

Milorad aka Michael *******
[address, phone and email redacted]

He lost his lawsuits against Yahoo and Google not because he was wrong and - in my opinion - a nutbag, but because they are big corporations.

Nobody ever wins against big corporations. I guess now I'm beholden to Australian law.

 

[Gusto]

Bend over, Dave.

 

[Cajungal]

This is so obnoxious. Sorry you have to deal with this, Dave. :\

 

[ThatNickGuy]

So, wait, he LOST those lawsuits? Then, how is it scary and intimidating when he keeps reminding you that he sued them? That's basically saying "I'm an idiot who picks losing fights."

 

[Fun Size]

In my opinion, the guy is nuts and very litigious. Here's his last response, which I am going to ignore.

Just remember that the Google Inc and Yahoo Inc are BIG but they can not defamation me

Or force him to use proper grammar apparently.

Is it still defamation if the victim proves themselves to be a twit prior to the offending statement? I mean in theory of course.

 

[Piotyr]

That's it, I'm getting you a card now.

 

[Dave]

He can't even get my NAME RIGHT!! It's my damned email address!

Oh, and my response:

Mr. *******,

You are of course welcome to file any lawsuit which you see fit to.

My lawyer however has advised me that should you do so, he believes the best course of action would be to file a counter-suit here in the United States citing a frivolous lawsuit.

Federal Law mandates an attorney to thoroughly research the legality of all claims. Failure to make such efforts can result in serious consequences for all persons involved, including the representing lawyer.

As I am a US citizen my lawyer assures me that just as a defamation case is heard in the country of the defamation, so would a frivolous lawsuit case be heard in the country of the victim.

He has informed me that as you and your lawyer are aware that there are rulings against almost identical cases in the past, that I would most certainly be awarded my legal costs, and substantial punitive damages.

I felt I should warn you that this is my intended course of action should you decide to proceed with this matter.

In addition, any further correspondence to my email inbox will be summarily dismissed and will remain unanswered.

Yours,

David Nihsen

 

[Covar]

I'm saddened that I never read the original thread.

 

[Dave]

If this continues I'm going to give his information to anyone here who frequents 4chan.

 

[Troll]

What a fucking idiot.

 

[Cajungal]

Good response, Dave.

 

[Dave]

Dusty posted:

I bet it was that guy that seems to be an international criminal Michael *******. If he's not a criminal, he must be a pedophile or free range rooster. I googled it so it must be true!

And instead of reading it as it MEANS - which is to say everything you read on the internet should be suspect but there are those out there who read pure crap and believe it - he read it as calling him a pedophile and a free range chicken.

It's my opinion that it was the free range chicken part he's disputing. But that's just my opinion.

 

[Hylian]

Man Michael ******* doesn't seem to be the brightest bulb out there does he?



The opinions expressed by me *Hylian* at this site are the opinions of the individual author and may not reflect the opinions of the site itself.

 

[Calleja]

WAit, is this the swimmer guy?

Let's see... is this: Cavic or this : ******* turned to little stars?

---------- Post added at 12:35 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:34 PM ----------

AH! It's the second one.

Heh, hilarious, we're sort of famous now!

 

[Dave]

I can actually see now why he got upset, but it's still out of context.

If you Google his name we show up on the second page and it cuts off much of the post. In fact, it turns a very tongue-in-cheek post into something that could be taken incorrectly. Of course, once he read the actual thread he should have realize what was going on. But people skimming Google might read it wrong, too. I'm not saying we did anything wrong, but the truncation of the post by Google is probably what caused the issue in the first place.

 

[Calleja]

I wonder if we can get Jack Thompson to sue us. ¨That would put us in the news!

 

[Necronic]

The fact that it is him and not his lawyer contacting you is a big red flag. People who actually have lawyers use them for communication, because by not doing so you may end up saying something that will bite you in the ass. Also, the fact that he has not sent any paper communication is another red flag. In both cases his actions do not represent the actions that a remotely decent lawyer would ever take.

 

[Dave]

True, but he does have at least one case in front of the Australian Supreme Court right now.

And that search I spoke of on Google? I can't replicate it. When I Google his name now we don't show up on the first 10 pages. Do they change that dynamically or did they remove the listing?

 

[Tinwhistler]

it's still in Google..if you have mad skillz, you can search and get a cache of the page in question, revealing his name.

 

[Dave]

I'm not talking about mad skills. I can find the original, too. I'm talking about just the search that a random user might make.

 

[Necronic]

I'm not sure this guys is what I would call a legal bully. The fact that he has taken these other people to court means that he is willing to go to court, although seeing as he lost one battle already it probably sets precedence you would be able to cite yourself.

My suggestion (take it with a mound of salt and run it past your lawyer) is that you should let him know that he needs to show evidence that he is who he says he is before you can comply with his requests, because email like this is not an adequate way to show that.

 

[Covar]

I'm not talking about mad skills. I can find the original, too. I'm talking about just the search that a random user might make.

I searched his name in Google and nothing came up with us, even when searching "Michael ******* halforums"