5TJT Lawsuit Article
Larry Gordon has a great article in this week's 5 Towns Jewish Times on the lawsuit that names yours truly. He points out some of the hypocrisy inherent in Greenbaum's attempt here to quell free speech, especially when her past positions on the subject of freedom of expression are considered. Check it out.
posted by orthomom at 11:44 PM
38 Comments:
Question: Are you allowed to own a blog which defames people by name according to the Torah ?
I really would like to know the answer and I am sorry if this question was answered already on previous posts. Thank you.
Go ORTHOMOM! Can you be a politician without being hypocritical?
So, it seems that you do have positive attributes -("OrthoMom, a nice respectful 5 Towns Jewish mother"). ;>)
Respectful or did he mean respectable?
"Can you be a politician without being hypocritical? "
I would love to see fewer acts of outright hypocrisy from my elected officials than i am seeing from pamela greenbaum.
"
Question: Are you allowed to own a blog which defames people by name according to the Torah ?
"
I don't think calling someone bigoted based on their policy is defamatory.
You're not a named defendant in the lawsuit, get your facts straight. You're a fictional character bashing fellow Jews and enabling others to do the same under your cloak of anonymity.
Anonymous said...
You're not a named defendant in the lawsuit, get your facts straight. You're a fictional character bashing fellow Jews and enabling others to do the same under your cloak of anonymity.
The latter may be the case (I beg to differ), but teh first is most certainly true. My alias is most certainly named in a lawsuit.
Your blog is the subject of a legal proceding. Neither "You" nor "Orthomom" are named defendants. The Court will sort it out; its out of your hands.
Anonymous said...
Your blog is the subject of a legal proceding. Neither "You" nor "Orthomom" are named defendants. The Court will sort it out; its out of your hands.
Incorrect. But I don't really expect/need you to understand the details here.
Larry Gordon does gets points for trying, and the his 'mid-week exclusive' does add more strength to OM's cause, but it really does seem like an contrived attempt to get attention by slapping its brand name onto someone else's momentum.
" Anonymous said...
Your blog is the subject of a legal proceding. Neither "You" nor "Orthomom" are named defendants. The Court will sort it out; its out of your hands. "
It's clear from your comment that you are not an attorney. So let's clear this up. Being named in the suit even though she is not a defendant, Orthomom has standing and thus is entitled to file her own motion to quash even though Google is the named defendant. So it is far from "out of her hands".
Anyone can file whatever they want about all this, but its up to a judge to decide.
" Anonymous said...
Anyone can file whatever they want about all this, but its up to a judge to decide. "
Of course. Just like Pamela greenbaum can file any frivolous perjuring motion she wants. But she will be the one with egg on her face when this gets thrown out and Greenbaum has to pay Om's attorneys legal fees. Google just sucessfully defended a very similar suit regarding 4 anonymous bloggers. Not only were they not unmasked, the plaintiff was ordered to pay full legal costs for the defendant. In addition, their case was not as strong as OM's. Here, Om did not even make the comments in question. In addition, the alleged defamatory statements are not so at all, as epithets such as "racist" and "bigoted" are clearly not provable as true or untrue, unlike a claim of fraud or adultery, for example. Om is in great shape here.
Not sure why this person ever sued you. You would this that an elected official would have a better understanding of the legal system and would be able to realize that she is going to lose due to case precidences from other cases around the entire country and she could very well cause herself to lose the next election because of the backlash if people really support OM?
Gotta love the times we live in. People sue without thinking now.
"Can you be a politician without being hypocritical? "
So Hatten and Kaufman are politicians also, and are therefore hypocrites as well.
Othomom is not a named defendant in the pending legal proceeding, but only mentioned in the petitioner's affidavit. Sorry Orthomom, you do not have standing to bring on a motion, yet. If you do, and you lose, THAT will make headlines.
You must mean "realbadlawyer." Or "realstupidlawyer." Of course Orthomom has standing. She is the subject of the subpoena even if she isn't named. By your logic I can get information about anyone by just subpeonaing his doctor, his employer, his bank, his accountant, or his ISP and have leave him to the mercy of that party. In NY (and anywhere else that recognizes due process) a party that has a right in the information being subpoenaed has standing to move to quash. OM, it would be really great if "reallawyer" is the bozo who brought this action because if so, you will have a very easy time with this.
Whats funny about the bulk of the comments coming from the people on the plaintiff's side of this lawsuit is their utter imperviousness to reason and general silliness.
They remind me of that pugnacious but somewhat dim kid in the schoolyard who picks fights with other kids and then can only come up with retorts like "Oh....yeah??? Says you!!!!" They get pretty frustrated, and might take a swing at their faster classmates, but ultimately wind up gnashing their teeth in frustration when they can't get what they want due to a simple inability to express themselves.
Ah well. OM's gotta be tired of wading through all this tripe - I'm pretty sure I am.
In short, as one of the anonymous geniuses keeps saying in response to all comments, whether it fits or not: we'll let the judge decide. Best of luck trying out your one-liners on him/her.
reallawyerwithabrain probably got a law degree from a correspondence course and is still trying to pass the bar exam after 50 tries. The legal proceeding was not started with a subpoena. You don't know the difference between a subpoena, a summons, a motion, a submarine or a sub-human like yourself.
Only a party to a legal proceeding can address a motion, counterclaim or anything else to it, with one exception. It is called a friend of the court (amicus curae) brief, which can be submitted by someone who has an interest in the proceeding, but is not named in it.
reallawyerwithabrain needs an MRI to determine if anything occupies that space between his or her ears. It certainly is not a brain. Better make sur your malpractice insurance is paid up.
reallawyer:
wow. You don;t even google before you comment? the law is very clear:
Question: Can someone ask for my identity even if I am not the Defendant in the case?
Answer: Yes. The rules of civil discovery allow a party to a lawsuit (the plaintiff or defendant) to ask anyone for any information that may lead to the discovery of relevant evidence to their case. However, your ability to quash such a request if you are not named as a party to the lawsuit is the same as if you are named. You can still file a motion to quash.
http://www.chillingeffects.org/johndoe/notice.cgi?NoticeID=341
realdumblawyerwhosoundslikeathirdgrader:
First, I was addressing your point, which was about "standing," and which you claimed OM did not have because she was not a named party. As I said above, a party has standing to contest a subpoena as long they have some sort of interest in the subject of the subpoena.
Now you bring up an even less relevant point -- the fact that only a party to a case can be heard. Technically true, but quite irrelevant. A non-party can't be heard but he can become a party be intervening. While I am not sure what the precise procedural vehicle for intervening in this type of proceeding would be, I have no doubt that she can be heard.
And given that this might a little complicated for you, see the link below for an example just like this one. The standing of the non-party wasn't even an issue it was such a no-brainer:
http://www.eff.org/legal/cases/2TheMart_case/
And guess how the court ruled (hint: the subpoena was quashed).
Wow. And on the topic of bigotry:
REALLAWYER said...
reallawyerwithabrain probably got a law degree from a correspondence course and is still trying to pass the bar exam after 50 tries. The legal proceeding was not started with a subpoena. You don't know the difference between a subpoena, a summons, a motion, a submarine or a sub-human like yourself.
Subhuman like himself, eh? Subhuman like vermin, say? Sounds pretty much like bigoted language to me. Kind of reminds me of the Der Sturmer (since you've proven yourselves to be sans a fund of actual knowledge, I'll provide some historical background - DS was the Nazi propaganda newspaper) anti-semitic cartoons depicting jews as - you guessed it - subhuman!
Ouch. Subhuman indeed, but clearly in better form when it comes both to cogent argumentation AND knowledge of the law.
Pam, if you're reading (who am I kidding - of course you are), I'd instantly and loudly disavow this guy (reallawyer) who's nominally arguing for your side. It's guilt by association, you see. He's most definitely a hater. Right now whether or not you're a bigot is a matter of adjudication, and the only clear truth is that you're unable to tolerate a little criticism. With tacit approval of this guy however - there'll be proof for all to see that you're bigoted.
In fact, I think this stuff should get printed up on leaflets for the next board meeting. "Greenbaum camp calls orthodox opponents 'subhuman.'" I'd say that beats "bigot" and "ugly" for slurs by a mile. Hey, maybe reallawyerwithabrain should sue you.
PS: a cat scan will demonstrate the presence of a brain in the cranium for much less money than an MRI - but you guys have NEVER been about using money wisely, have you.
Ciao!
Oh, and Reallawyer? When you want to sound like lionel hutz, JD, you can keep misspelling "amicus curiae" while trying to be patronizing. It'll be a sure-fire way to show you drank a lot in law school and D'd your way through civ pro.
What's amazing is the sheer number of anonymi who are posting comments here that can be considered negative and harassing. Yet, I hasten to point out, even they and their meanspirited psych-war assault enjoy free-speech protections.
It would, of course, have been better had they forayed into the blog-olam before now, rather than finally making the leap when their lawsuit-happy friend had a bone to pick. Had they done so, they might have acquired a familiarity with critical thinking and some general rules of commenting - even in the blog world, intelligence and derech eretz are considered assets.
I note, in mittn drinnen, that most of the meanspirited comments above are by people who do not have clickable blog-addresses. Which betrays their recent arrival on the scene, or their wish to not have their lashon hara and motzi shem ra come back to haunt them. Kol ha kavod, rabbosai, your courage is an example.
At least there's no need to debate the ugly issue any more: http://yidwithlid.blogspot.com/2007/02/pam-greenbaumothomompamela-are-these.html
"And guess how the court ruled (hint: the subpoena was quashed)."
What subpoena? Thie Greenbaum case was started by an Order to Show Cause, requesting discrovery prior to the commencement of an action.
What subpoena? Thie Greenbaum case was started by an Order to Show Cause, requesting discrovery prior to the commencement of an action.
Wow. You can read. And the difference is what exactly? Your focus on technical details is a reflection of a very small mind. In fact I would pay anything to see Pam's lawyer argue before a judge: "But you honor, that was a subpoena." The point is that the John Doe in that case was allowed to be heard despite your blubbering above about not being a party, a point you seem to have no response to. The bottom line is that OM will have no problem intervening and making a motion to get this sorry case thrown out of court.
Actually she has been directed by the Court to do so if so advised; otherwise the relief will be granted. The question is, will OM make the motion, and will OM win?
reallawyerwithabrain
Yes I can read and do much more than that. You ought to learn to read. Maybe dictionary would help.
Calling Greenbaum's method of commencing her legal poceeding a "subpoena" is indicative of the mouthings of a semi-literate, jailhouse lawyer, who ought to keep his or her piehole shut.
Yes I can read and do much more than that. You ought to learn to read. Maybe dictionary would help.
Calling Greenbaum's method of commencing her legal poceeding a "subpoena" is indicative of the mouthings of a semi-literate, jailhouse lawyer, who ought to keep his or her piehole shut.
4:08 PM
You may not want to call them a subpoena. And I would have to agree on the technicality that it is an Order to show Cause and not a Subpoena. However, I think all we need to do is look at the sworn affidavit Pam signs next to Om's actual words, and we can all see without any doubt that Adam Feder has allowed a fraudulent filing to go before the court. OM, I suggest you consider a countersuit because of the fraudulent claims. Feder may just end up being censured by the bar for this.
Anon 4:43, an Order to Show Cause seeking permission to obtain discovery is not a subpoena, but accusing someone falsely of committing perjury is libel. Maybe Mr. Feder will "out" you too!
" Anonymous said...
Anon 4:43, an Order to Show Cause seeking permission to obtain discovery is not a subpoena, but accusing someone falsely of committing perjury is libel. Maybe Mr. Feder will "out" you too! "
Did you read the complaint? Greenbaum swore under oath that Om called her an anti-semite. That isn't in the filed evidence. She swore under oath that a commenter called her an anti-semitie. that is also not borne out by the evidence submitted. so please tell me, what do you call this if not a fraudulent filing? (and perjury is your word, not mine, so speak for yourself).
Also: Mr. Feder is not "outing" anyone. He is trying to. But I wish him all the luck with this time-wasting endeavor.
Anon 4:43
"Did you read the complaint? Greenbaum swore under oath that Om called her an anti-semite."
I read the complaint. Greenbaum alleged that someone called her a bigot, implying that she was an ant-semite. No perjury there. Besides, allegations in a legal proceeding are protected by a defense of privilege. Any legal proceeding or lawsuit against her based on a claim of allegations of libel made in the lawsuit would probably be swiftly dismissed. Perjury is a crime. If you think she committed perjury, contact Morgenthau and see what he will do. I can tell you. Nothing!
I read the complaint. Greenbaum alleged that someone called her a bigot, implying that she was an ant-semite.
You say you read the complaint? Well, this is what it REALLY says:
In the January 11, 2007 article "ORTHOMOM" takes issue
with my reservations
about the legality of using school district funds and teachers to provide
free extracurricular classes
for private school students. "ORTHOMOM" wrote that my concern revealed
an anti-semitic agenda,
given that over fifty percent of our district's students attend private school,
and the vast majority of
those attend Yeshivas.
She pretty clearly says that OM said she was an anti-semite. She actually makes up the whole damn paragraph that Om suposedly "said". Now you want to say that it's no big deal for her to lie under oath because its "protected by a defense of privilege"? Sure it is. I hope the children in the district don't find out about how untruthful she is.
More, but from her lawyer's affidavit:
The within application seeks identifying information to allow a suit for defamation
and slander against an anonymous intemnet "blogger" (columnist), who has in the past and who
continues to publish and disseminate defamatory and untrue statements calling the Petitioner,
PAMELA GREENBAUM a "BIGOT" and "ANTI-SEMITE".
Pretty clearly says OM called Pam a anti-semite. Couldn't be clearer. This is really a fraudulent filing.
More, where Pam says that OM and her readers call her an ANTI-SEMITE:
In commenting on local issues, "ORTHOMOM" and her readers
in the comments
section have posted false, slanderous and defamatory statements about
me alleging among other
things, that I am a "BIGOT" and an "ANTI-SEMITE" for my positions
advocating against the use
of public school district funds for private school interests and other
outside interests beyond what
is allowed by law. The most recent of these postings was written by "ORTHOMOM"
and posted on
January II, 2007; the commenters' posts are undated (Exhibit "A").
Iwanted to ssk if andbody had a spare anerican girl doll. My little girls 6 and 7 really want and i cannnot possibly afford to buy it. They are truly good girls who if not for their steep prices i would buy. ihope I am in the rigth place I am so not computer savvy. jill roth
registry winner download -
reverse mobile -
reverse phone detective -
richard mackenzie direct -
rocket spanish -
rss power plus -
sem business blueprint -
silent sales machine -
spam bully -
sports betting champ -
spyware cease -
spyware nuker -
spyware remover -
starting a day care center -
the bad breath report -
the cb code -
thedietsolutionprogram -
the diet solution program -
the super mind evolution system -
traffic travis -
truth about abs -
turbulencetraining -
turbulence training -
twitter affiliate cash -
twitter decoded -
video piggy -
video web wizard -
vincedelmontefitness -
vince del monte fitness -
warp speed fat loss -
wedding speech 4u -
windo fix -
your bill killer -
Post a Comment
<< Home