Path: news.nzbot.com!not-for-mail
From: Doc <Here@there.net>
Newsgroups: alt.multimedia.tk
Subject: Re: David D'Amato files $5 million dollar lawsuit against Google
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 06:38:47 -0400
Message-ID: <u8pv82h1cq44mvkcc0mcjqr4u24gaktars@4ax.com>
References: <1150190015.891374.222500@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.93/32.576 English (American)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 50
Organization: Unknown
X-Complaints-To: abuse@shared-secrets.com
Xref: news.nzbot.com alt.multimedia.tk:2732
On 13 Jun 2006 02:13:35 -0700, david90212@gmail.com wrote:
>NEWS STORY: Garden City New York man sues Google in US District
>Court in the Eastern District of New York for $5 million dollars over
>blog that exposes his criminal past, including his Federal conviction
>relating to the tying/tickling of a 17-year-old high school student.
>
>
>I am writing to let you guys know that David D'Amato (famous Internet
>criminal, google the name) has filed a $5 million dollar lawsuit
>against several notable people and companies because of a blog I author
>that exposes his criminal past as a federal convict, and publishes the
>actual court documents relating to his federal conviction. His 2001
>federal conviction was directly related to a 17-year old boy who
>refused to remove his shirt, be tied down, and tickled.
>
>At the time of his arrest, he was pretending o be a 23 year old college
>'sexy co-ed' to lure young males to his ticklish web, but in reality
>David D'Amato is in his 40s, and a former high school vice-principal
>and guidance counselor in West Hempstead, this is until school
>officials discharged him in 2001 because of parent's complaint
>regarding the tickling issue.
>
>The documents relating to this suit, including the documents filed in
>US District Court against Starr, Google, et al. along with the story
>can all be viewed at
>http://thecourtofpublicopinionandlaw.blogspot.com
>
>
>I have the dubious honor of being the lead defendant on this case.
>It is going to be an issue of the First Amendment, and the public's
>right to access court
>records. The court has already refused their petition for restraining
>order citing it as, "repugnant," to the First Amendment in her written
>ruling.
LOL! that is some damn funny stuff!
Consider a counterclaim for attorney's fees and cost for a frivolous
claim. Your attorney of course would be more aware of the particular
circumstances than I am but it's something you might ask him about
given what u said.
If you published court documents that are in the public record anyway,
any claim based on that won't pass the "laugh" test. (excuse the pun).
Public records are PUBLIC records... and the public has a right to
know... and a right to protect itself. So it's in the public interest
too. He must have something else, doesn't he?
Good luck. Keep the group apprised. Sounds interesting. - Doc
|
|