| Author |
Message |
    
Albatross
Citizen
Username: Albatross
Post Number: 544
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 2, 2005 - 10:33 am: | 
|
Dave - do you know when hearings start? |
D.
Moderator
Username: Dave
Post Number: 5433
Registered: 4-1998
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 2, 2005 - 10:46 am: |
|
Discovery has been extended to 450 days because some of the defendants are out of state.
However, we still have to respond in about 25 days and, if there's any justice, be done with it soon after. Meanwhile, EFF, Public Citizen and the ACLU have yet to respond (it's only been a week and I don't know what's normal for their turn-around in these matters).
The message board part of the site will go offline if we aren't successful in being removed from the suit or haven't received the support of some superhero. It's just not worth it. |
SO Refugee
Citizen
Username: So_refugee
Post Number: 18
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 2, 2005 - 10:59 pm: |
|
As someone coming in at the 11th hour...is there any legal support taking place for MOL at this time? If not, is it being considered and/or is there thought given to raise money for the effort?
|
Taylor M
Citizen
Username: Anotherusername
Post Number: 344
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, March 3, 2005 - 1:25 am: |
|
Dave
Discovery has been extended 450 days as in FOUR HUNDRED AND FIFTY DAYS? That's more then a year! I hope that was a typo! LOL |
LibraryLady(ncjanow)
Supporter
Username: Librarylady
Post Number: 2258
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, March 3, 2005 - 7:20 am: |
|
Evidentially, this isn't big enough news for the Snoozed Wretched to cover. Just went to their website which is updated to today, 3/3/05. NAry a mention. Do ya think it's in the print edition? Maybe they are afraid that if they cover the lawsuit they'll be sued as well? |
singlemalt
Supporter
Username: Singlemalt
Post Number: 839
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, March 3, 2005 - 7:41 am: |
|
I've read the lawsuit. I think MOL, Jamie and Dave will be fine. It's unfortunate they will need to pay so much to defend themselves. I hope everyone helps out with the legal bills. |
jeffl
Supporter
Username: Jeffl
Post Number: 1015
Registered: 8-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, March 3, 2005 - 8:27 am: |
|
I don't know, if I was the parent of a kid who nearly caused a riot in my high school I'd probably feel somewhat guilty and embarassed about it. I probably wouldn't sue the BOE and MOL. But hey, that's just me. |
LibraryLady(ncjanow)
Supporter
Username: Librarylady
Post Number: 2259
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, March 3, 2005 - 8:34 am: |
|
I was wrong. It's on the front page of the print edition. |
D.
Moderator
Username: Dave
Post Number: 5445
Registered: 4-1998
| | Posted on Thursday, March 3, 2005 - 8:39 am: |
|
My sense is that this is a large suit with a lot of complexity. Except one thing is clear: MOL and its participants are immune to prosecution under 47 USC §230(c)(1): "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider." The "other content provider" in this case, is the Board of Education.
The legal director for the Electronic Frontier Foundation believes this to be the case, too. (Got phone call back from EFF yesterday.) More news on that front in a few days. |
Bob K
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 7796
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, March 3, 2005 - 8:49 am: |
|
Nancy, they probably didn't want to put it on the website because they were afraid that they would get sued. I think first amendment protections for newspapers are pretty well established. Unfortunately things aren't quite as clear for electronic bulletin boards, Blogs, etc. |
D.
Moderator
Username: Dave
Post Number: 5446
Registered: 4-1998
| | Posted on Thursday, March 3, 2005 - 9:01 am: |
|
The N-R could be sued for publishing alleged defamatory information. In fact, the N-R is more vulnerable to suit than MOL, which has the CDA protection mentioned above.
|
D.
Moderator
Username: Dave
Post Number: 5447
Registered: 4-1998
| | Posted on Thursday, March 3, 2005 - 9:03 am: |
|
The fact the N-R isn't mentioned, in fact, for publishing alleged defamatory letter from Ms. Pollack's daughter is very fishy.
Hey teachers, hey SOMEA, are you lobbying for MOL? Suzanne Ryan: please call me. |
Just The Aunt
Supporter
Username: Auntof13
Post Number: 640
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, March 3, 2005 - 9:12 am: |
|
LL
I too checked the NewsWrecked website early this morning. I was all set to post on note on MOL about the lack of a story concering the lawsuit, especially since the date on the site was March 3. I then realized the 'top stories' were from last week!
Wonder how often the paper updates it's website!!! Then again, would you expect anything different from our wonderful community paper? |
sac
Supporter
Username: Sac
Post Number: 1868
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, March 3, 2005 - 2:12 pm: |
|
I've noticed that the online version is always behind the print. My guess is that it is because they don't want people cancelling their print subscriptions as a result of getting the information online instead. |
michelezembow
Citizen
Username: Michelezembow
Post Number: 107
Registered: 5-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, March 3, 2005 - 2:21 pm: |
|
Dave,
Any word from your/MOL's lawyer suggesting you exercise caution or even refrain from any sort(s) of posting(s) related to the lawsuit--as further protection (i.e., minimizing exposure risk) to yourself? Not exactly sure I'm phrasing this quite right with respect to the legal particulars, but I imagine you get the gist... Just feeling protective of you in light of this awful thing. Hang in there.
Michele |
D.
Moderator
Username: Dave
Post Number: 5457
Registered: 4-1998
| | Posted on Thursday, March 3, 2005 - 2:26 pm: |
|
I'm not the Dave Ross mentioned in the suit. That must be someone else. |
Ond
Citizen
Username: Ond
Post Number: 33
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, March 3, 2005 - 3:25 pm: |
|
http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/prose/index.htm#civil
This may be helpful if you are representing yourselves. It has a PDF version of an answer that you can fill in. Even if you hire an attorney (recommended), you could probably write up the answer yourselves and have the attorney review it.
I agree with above posters who have warned not to put too much out on the web. The court of public opinion is a nice place to vent, but may not be in your best interest.
One way to save costs is to represent yourself, but have an attorney draft or review your answer, motions, etc. That way you're included on all correspondence between attorneys and don't have to pay your attorney to review anything that's irrelevant to your case. If you haven't done so already, you might want to contact the school board attorney to introduce yourself. That may be one avenue for some practical advice since you are a co-defendent and also to determine whether your interests are aligned.
My advice - though I did not follow it when I was sued recently for the first time - don't let it eat you up. Life's too short. Get your filings done on time. Spend appropriate time to educate yourself on the applicable case law. Tread cautiously with the press. Keep your communications with the other parties (grit your teeth) including the plaintiff's attorney concise and professional.
If you know that you are right, chances are pretty good that a judge or jury will also know that you are right.
Best of luck. |
Bob K
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 7805
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, March 3, 2005 - 3:40 pm: |
|
Sac, the story is on the localsource website now. |
Chris Prenovost
Citizen
Username: Chris_prenovost
Post Number: 375
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 7, 2005 - 7:32 pm: |
|
Who are all the other John Doe's named as defendants? And why so many? |
1-2many
Citizen
Username: Wbg69
Post Number: 930
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 8, 2005 - 8:40 pm: |
|
this suit is, in general, a big, steaming pile.
it looks attorney-driven to me, and so far, all of her comments truly underwhelm. but, it can be a sticky proposition to extricate yourself from an attack by someone like this. glad to hear EFF is getting involved.
waiting 2 years is not a biggie. lawsuits are often not filed until the eve of expiration of th limitations period (and sometimes after). NJ's limitations period is 2 years for torts. so the timing actualy makes sense.
the John Doe's are just placeholder defendants. it's a common practice in the NJ (and other states) to add anonymous defendants, whose identities are not yet known, this way. personally, I don't think it makes much sense. seems to me to be an historical relic.
good luck, Ross Brothers. |
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page