(https://autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9396847)

oldskookposterpwned

(https://autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9399710)

what did he say that caused him to be sued?

(https://autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9396843)

Vallejo has the third highest percentage of Filipino Americans in the United States mainland, behind the nearby cities of Daly City and Hercules.

(https://autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9396868)

(https://autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9396863)

guess he wasn't a fan of the hyphy movement?

(https://autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9396867)

I kind of feel sorry for him. But his posts were ridiculously offensive.

(https://autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9396877)

IP address: 75.18.198.98

Location: Vallejo, CA, UNITED STATES

You can lookup any IP at this site: http://www.hostip.info

(https://autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9396884)

Google the IP and this pops up:

http://www.blackprof.com/archives/exports/072007.txt

(https://autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9397030)

EMAIL:

IP: 75.18.198.98

URL:

DATE: 07/20/2007 12:09:51 AM

falcons suck

Could be a dynamic IP though.

(https://autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9397038)

Google the IP and this pops up:

http://www.blackprof.com/archives/exports/072007.txt

(https://autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9397039)

Google the IP and this pops up:

http://www.blackprof.com/archives/exports/072007.txt

(https://autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9397049)

Considering the poster, I'm having a hard time imagining a context where that would be an innocent statement.

(https://autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9396991)

/thread.php?thread_id=646214&mc=2&forum_id=2

It's not even clear he was indicating either of the D's (only one of them is named in the subject line and her name is misspelled)

(https://autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9397045)

I'm not arguing that what he said is legally actionable. It is morally reprehensible though, and I have no sympathy for him.

(https://autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9397064)

i don't think you have a constitutional right to speak anonymously.

(https://autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9396880)

Here's a pretty good overview:

http://www.citmedialaw.org/legal-guide/legal-protections-anonymous-speech

(https://autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9396891)

I would assume that most people who submit briefs to the court at least spell "plaintiffs" right.

(https://autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9396881)

Can you paste it in.

(https://autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9396897)

Posted: 02/27/08 03:43 PM

Flag: Best-Of Helpful NSFW Spam TOS Violation

Main Document

"Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(c) and applicable local rules, John Doe 21 moves to quash Plaintiffs' third party subpoena to AT&T, Inc. for information pertaining to his identity. John Doe 21, referred to in the Amended Complaint as Internet pseudonym "AK47," asks this Court to quash Plaintiff's subpoena because the Subpoena violates his First Amendment right to speak anonymously."

Of note, he seeks to limit access to IP address 75.18.198.98.

Portions of it reads like, well, a first year brief? "urges this court to help Plainfitts trample upon John Doe's constitutionally protected right to speak anonymously."

"neither properly noticed of the suit nor have the resources or legal know-how to wade through the legal and procedural thicket presented by Plaintiffs, two Yale law students who have enlisted an elite law firm"

Arguments:

A. The First Amendment protects John Doe 21's right to speak anonymously.

B. To protect qualified privilege, the court should require notice to defendants, review of the complaint, and presentation of argument and evidence before issuing a subpoena to an anonymous defendant.

C. Plaintiffs cannot overcome John Doe 21's right to speak anonymously because plaintiffs cannot demonstrate they have viable claims against John Doe 21.

D. The court must review John Doe 21's statement to determine whether it actionable.

E. Plaintiffs are not able to succeed on their intentional or negligent infliction of emotional distress claims.

F. Plaintiff has not met the heightened standard required by the First Amendment.

G. The court must balance the harm of disclosure against its value.

H. Plaintiffs are using this subpoena, not for legitimate discovery purposes, but rather to intimidate John Doe 21 in the same manner that they intimidated other defendants in this case.

(https://autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9396907)

PLAINTIFF'S SUBPOENA

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(c) and applicable local rules, John Doe 21 moves to quash Plaintiffs' third party subpoena to AT&T, Inc. for information pertaining to his identity. John Doe 21, referred to in the Amended Complaint as Internet pseudonym "AK47," asks this Court to quash Plaintiffs' subpoena because the Subpoena violates his First Amendment right to speak anonymously.

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiffs Doe I's and Doe II's February 15,2008 Subpoena ordering AT&T Inc. ("AT&T") to produce information relating to the identity of John Doe 21, a.k.a AK47, urges this court to help Plaintiffs trample upon John Doe's constitutionally protected right to speak anonymously. This subpoena, Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint and Ex Parte Motion for Expedited Discovery have heretofore gone unopposed by Defendants, like John Doe, who were neither properly noticed of the suit nor have the resources or legal know-how to wade through the legal and procedural thicket

presented by Plaintiffs, two Yale law students who have enlisted an elite law firm to uncover the identities of certain persons who posted unsavory but legally innocuous comments concerning Plaintiffs on an Internet website. Although the Amended Complaint and Motion For Expedited

Discovery, as they relate to John Doe 21, would not withstand even the most cursory challenge, it is extremely important that this Court protect the First Amendment and Due Process rights of John Doe 21 and the other anonymous Defendants drawn into this litigation. Though silly, the statement at issue here, i.e., "Women named Jill and [Doe II's equally common first name] should be raped,"

constitutes constitutionally protected speech. The Subpoena should be quashed.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint, which includes allegations ranging from intentional infliction of emotional distress and false light, Amended Complaint ("Complaint") at ~~ 62-83, appears to center on claims of defamation and copyright infringement. Most of the named Defendants, including John Doe 21, are anonymous, appear to have no relationship to each other, do not appear to know Plaintiffs, and are identified only by their screen names. John Doe 21 has never met Plaintiffs, nor does he reside in Connecticut.

Plaintiffs filed the original Complaint on June 8, 2007, in front of the Honorable Judge Christopher Droney of the Connecticut District Court for the District of Connecticut, alleging that certain posters on Autoadmit.com, a discussion site known for its silly banter and near absolute unreliability as a source of useful information, had posted comments that caused Plaintiffs a smorgasbord of harms, including causing one plaintiff to fail to receive job offers from top-tier law firms. Complaint at 1. After numerous extension requests, see Motions for Extension of Time (totaling 4), Plaintiffs on November 8, 2007, filed an Amended Complaint, dropping several Defendants and naming others, including John Doe 21. Amended Complaint at 1. Plaintiffs continued to file various motions which went unopposed by apparently unaware Defendants (see First MOTION for Extension of Time until July 7, 2008 to Modify the Scheduling Order; Plaintiffs' Motion for Expedited Discovery, Memorandum in Support Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Expedited Discovery), and sought and were granted leave to issue subpoenas to Internet service providers in order to locate and identify the anonymous Defendants, presumably for the purposes of drawing the actual identities of Defendants into this litigation and attributing to Defendants comments posted anonymously on Autoadmit. One such subpoena reached John Doe 21. The Subpoena was addressed to AT&T, Inc., an Internet service provider, and demanded the identity of the person who posted comments presumably traceable to the IP address 75.18.198.98. See Exhibit 1.

The Subpoena, received by John Doe 21 on or around the 18 of February 2008, originally sought and granted in Connecticut District Court, was apparently filed and issued from the United States District Court for the Central District of California. Exhibit 1. The Subpoena states that John Doe 21 has 10 days in which to prepare a motion to quash, a protective order or other motion to prevent AT&T from divulging information pertaining to his identity to Plaintiffs. This 10 day period was negotiated by Plaintiffs attorneys and AT&T. See Exhibit 1, Subpoena to AT&T at 1. Apparently, 10 days is enough time for John Doe 21 to prepare a motion concerning an area of law with which he has never dealt and concerning a multitude of federal procedural issues that only experienced litigators such as Plaintiffs' attorneys are able to navigate. On the other hand, Plaintiffs, by seeking time extension after extension, have carefully planned their strategy over a period of nearly 10 months. It has therefore taken Plaintiffs, with the aid of a cadre of competent attorneys, 10 months to craft their case, yet Plaintiffs think it appropriate to give John Doe 21 ten days to craft his.

Furthermore, the Subpoena fails to mention John Doe 21's pseudonymous identity, "AK47," fails to identify the specific court division within the Central District of California (the Central District of California contains four separate court divisions) that issued the Subpoena, and fails to otherwise identify the purpose for its issuance. Nor, to John Doe 21's knowledge, do any of Plaintiffs' moving documents in the Connecticut litigation contain any evidence linking the IP address sought to any comment posted on Autoadmit. The only piece of information related to this case mentioned in the Subpoena is John Doe 21's IP address, an address presumably linked to a comment that Plaintiffs found objectionable. Yet, this bare bones document has the potential to eviscerate John Doe 21's constitutionally guaranteed right to speak anonymously.

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

This Motion presents the Court with the issue of what standard should be applied to determine whether, in this particular case, the right to obtain redress from a silly statement on Autoadmit.com outweighs John Doe 21's First Amendment right to make speak anonymously. Few courts have considered this question, but it is becoming a crucial one, particularly in light of the increasing number of cases where those who have been criticized on the Internet seek to use the machinery of the courts to unmask, intimidate and silence their online critics. Indeed, as a California District Court recently remarked, "[p]eople who have committed no wrong should be able to participate online without fear that someone who wishes to harass or embarrass them can file a frivolous lawsuit and thereby gain the power of the court's order to discover their identities." Columbia Ins. Co. v. seescandy.com, 185 F.R.D. 573,578 (N.D. Cal. 1999) (considering the discovery standards applicable to the unveiling of a defendant's identity in a domain name/trademark matter).

In light of the significant privacy and free speech issues involved in unveiling the identities of anonymous speakers, a balancing test has been developed to decide whether to require the identification of anonymous speakers in litigation. Under that test, the Court will balance the harm to John Doe 21 against the Plaintiffs' need for discovery to pursue their claim. On the facts of this case, there can be no doubt that John Doe 21's right to speak anonymously should prevail.

A. THE FIRST AMENDMENT PROTECTS JOHN DOE 21'S RIGHT TO SPEAK ANONYMOUSLY

It hardly bears mention that the First Amendment protects the right to speak anonymously. The Bill of Rights and the Constitution were designed by citizens who publicly debated these documents' virtues anonymously (or pseudonymously) in letters published later as the Federalist Papers. The First and Fourth Amendments are based "at least in part on the colonists' experience with the sedition laws of England which forbade anonymous writing and which allowed warrantless invasion of any home to root out the true identity of anonymous authors." Nelson B. Lasson, The History and Development of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, 37-50 (1937). The Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed this right. Buckley v. American Constitutional Law Found. Inc., 525 U.S. 182, 197-200 (1999); McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm'n., 514 U.S. 334 (1995); Talley v. California, 362 U.S. 60 (1960). These cases signify the important role of anonymous speech in the United States' history.

The Supreme Court unequivocally held in Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. at 870, that speech on the Internet is entitled to the full spectrum of First Amendment protections. Observing that the World Wide Web is a medium for public argument and discussion that reaches more people than any other known medium, the Court stated that "content on the Internet is as diverse as human thought." Reno, 521 U.S. at 870

In the online realm, numerous cases have upheld the constitutional right to speak anonymously on the Internet. ACLU v. Johnson, 4 F. Supp. 2d 1029, 1033 (D.N.M. 1998) aff'd, 194 F.3d 1149 (10th Cir. 1999); ACLU of Georgia, 977 F. Supp. at 1232-33; see also ApolloMEDIA Corp. v. Reno, 526 U.S. 1061 (1999), aff'g 19 F. Supp. 2d 1081 (N.D. Cal. 1998) (protecting anonymous speakers on web site at www.annoy.com, a site "created and designed to annoy" legislators through anonymous communications). The mechanics of the Internet, however, provides numerous ways to track the statements of anonymous speakers, prompting many commentators to argue that the law ought to provide special protections for Internet anonymity. See, e.g., David G. Post, Pooling Intellectual Capital: Thoughts of Anonymity, Pseudonymity, and Limited Liability in Cyberspace, 1996 U. Chi. Legal F. 139; Lee Tien, Innovation and the Information Environment: Who's Afraid of Anonymous Speech? McIntyre and the Internet, 75 Or. L. Rev. 117 (1996).

Because the First Amendment protects the right to speak anonymously, a subpoena for anonymous speakers' names and addresses is subject to a qualified privilege. And, as in other cases in which litigants seek privileged information, courts must consider the privilege before authorizing discovery. See Sony Music Entmn't v. Does, 326 F.Supp.2d 556,565 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) ("Against the backdrop of First Amendment protection for anonymous speech, courts have held that civil subpoenas seeking information regarding anonymous individuals raise First Amendment concerns.").

(https://autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9396914)

PLAINTIFF'S SUBPOENA

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(c) and applicable local rules, John Doe 21 moves to quash Plaintiffs' third party subpoena to AT&T, Inc. for information pertaining to his identity. John Doe 21, referred to in the Amended Complaint as Internet pseudonym "AK47," asks this Court to quash Plaintiffs' subpoena because the Subpoena violates his First Amendment right to speak anonymously.

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiffs Doe I's and Doe II's February 15,2008 Subpoena ordering AT&T Inc. ("AT&T") to produce information relating to the identity of John Doe 21, a.k.a AK47, urges this court to help Plaintiffs trample upon John Doe's constitutionally protected right to speak anonymously. This subpoena, Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint and Ex Parte Motion for Expedited Discovery have heretofore gone unopposed by Defendants, like John Doe, who were neither properly noticed of the suit nor have the resources or legal know-how to wade through the legal and procedural thicket

presented by Plaintiffs, two Yale law students who have enlisted an elite law firm to uncover the identities of certain persons who posted unsavory but legally innocuous comments concerning Plaintiffs on an Internet website. Although the Amended Complaint and Motion For Expedited

Discovery, as they relate to John Doe 21, would not withstand even the most cursory challenge, it is extremely important that this Court protect the First Amendment and Due Process rights of John Doe 21 and the other anonymous Defendants drawn into this litigation. Though silly, the statement at issue here, i.e., "Women named Jill and [Doe II's equally common first name] should be raped,"

constitutes constitutionally protected speech. The Subpoena should be quashed.

Link: http://www.biglawboard.com/blb/viewThread.jsp?threadId=11559#11568

Author: Daily Docket [107] ()

Posted: 02/27/08 04:04 PM

Flag: Best-Of Helpful NSFW Spam TOS Violation

BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint, which includes allegations ranging from intentional infliction of emotional distress and false light, Amended Complaint ("Complaint") at ~~ 62-83, appears to center on claims of defamation and copyright infringement. Most of the named Defendants, including John Doe 21, are anonymous, appear to have no relationship to each other, do not appear to know Plaintiffs, and are identified only by their screen names. John Doe 21 has never met Plaintiffs, nor does he reside in Connecticut.

Plaintiffs filed the original Complaint on June 8, 2007, in front of the Honorable Judge Christopher Droney of the Connecticut District Court for the District of Connecticut, alleging that certain posters on Autoadmit.com, a discussion site known for its silly banter and near absolute unreliability as a source of useful information, had posted comments that caused Plaintiffs a smorgasbord of harms, including causing one plaintiff to fail to receive job offers from top-tier law firms. Complaint at 1. After numerous extension requests, see Motions for Extension of Time (totaling 4), Plaintiffs on November 8, 2007, filed an Amended Complaint, dropping several Defendants and naming others, including John Doe 21. Amended Complaint at 1. Plaintiffs continued to file various motions which went unopposed by apparently unaware Defendants (see First MOTION for Extension of Time until July 7, 2008 to Modify the Scheduling Order; Plaintiffs' Motion for Expedited Discovery, Memorandum in Support Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Expedited Discovery), and sought and were granted leave to issue subpoenas to Internet service providers in order to locate and identify the anonymous Defendants, presumably for the purposes of drawing the actual identities of Defendants into this litigation and attributing to Defendants comments posted anonymously on Autoadmit. One such subpoena reached John Doe 21. The Subpoena was addressed to AT&T, Inc., an Internet service provider, and demanded the identity of the person who posted comments presumably traceable to the IP address 75.18.198.98. See Exhibit 1.

The Subpoena, received by John Doe 21 on or around the 18 of February 2008, originally sought and granted in Connecticut District Court, was apparently filed and issued from the United States District Court for the Central District of California. Exhibit 1. The Subpoena states that John Doe 21 has 10 days in which to prepare a motion to quash, a protective order or other motion to prevent AT&T from divulging information pertaining to his identity to Plaintiffs. This 10 day period was negotiated by Plaintiffs attorneys and AT&T. See Exhibit 1, Subpoena to AT&T at 1. Apparently, 10 days is enough time for John Doe 21 to prepare a motion concerning an area of law with which he has never dealt and concerning a multitude of federal procedural issues that only experienced litigators such as Plaintiffs' attorneys are able to navigate. On the other hand, Plaintiffs, by seeking time extension after extension, have carefully planned their strategy over a period of nearly 10 months. It has therefore taken Plaintiffs, with the aid of a cadre of competent attorneys, 10 months to craft their case, yet Plaintiffs think it appropriate to give John Doe 21 ten days to craft his.

Furthermore, the Subpoena fails to mention John Doe 21's pseudonymous identity, "AK47," fails to identify the specific court division within the Central District of California (the Central District of California contains four separate court divisions) that issued the Subpoena, and fails to otherwise identify the purpose for its issuance. Nor, to John Doe 21's knowledge, do any of Plaintiffs' moving documents in the Connecticut litigation contain any evidence linking the IP address sought to any comment posted on Autoadmit. The only piece of information related to this case mentioned in the Subpoena is John Doe 21's IP address, an address presumably linked to a comment that Plaintiffs found objectionable. Yet, this bare bones document has the potential to eviscerate John Doe 21's constitutionally guaranteed right to speak anonymously.

Link: http://www.biglawboard.com/blb/viewThread.jsp?threadId=11559#11569

Author: Daily Docket [107] ()

Posted: 02/27/08 04:07 PM

Flag: Best-Of Helpful NSFW Spam TOS Violation

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

This Motion presents the Court with the issue of what standard should be applied to determine whether, in this particular case, the right to obtain redress from a silly statement on Autoadmit.com outweighs John Doe 21's First Amendment right to make speak anonymously. Few courts have considered this question, but it is becoming a crucial one, particularly in light of the increasing number of cases where those who have been criticized on the Internet seek to use the machinery of the courts to unmask, intimidate and silence their online critics. Indeed, as a California District Court recently remarked, "[p]eople who have committed no wrong should be able to participate online without fear that someone who wishes to harass or embarrass them can file a frivolous lawsuit and thereby gain the power of the court's order to discover their identities." Columbia Ins. Co. v. seescandy.com, 185 F.R.D. 573,578 (N.D. Cal. 1999) (considering the discovery standards applicable to the unveiling of a defendant's identity in a domain name/trademark matter).

In light of the significant privacy and free speech issues involved in unveiling the identities of anonymous speakers, a balancing test has been developed to decide whether to require the identification of anonymous speakers in litigation. Under that test, the Court will balance the harm to John Doe 21 against the Plaintiffs' need for discovery to pursue their claim. On the facts of this case, there can be no doubt that John Doe 21's right to speak anonymously should prevail.

Link: http://www.biglawboard.com/blb/viewThread.jsp?threadId=11559#11570

Author: Daily Docket [107] ()

Posted: 02/27/08 04:10 PM

Flag: Best-Of Helpful NSFW Spam TOS Violation

A. THE FIRST AMENDMENT PROTECTS JOHN DOE 21'S RIGHT TO SPEAK ANONYMOUSLY

It hardly bears mention that the First Amendment protects the right to speak anonymously. The Bill of Rights and the Constitution were designed by citizens who publicly debated these documents' virtues anonymously (or pseudonymously) in letters published later as the Federalist Papers. The First and Fourth Amendments are based "at least in part on the colonists' experience with the sedition laws of England which forbade anonymous writing and which allowed warrantless invasion of any home to root out the true identity of anonymous authors." Nelson B. Lasson, The History and Development of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, 37-50 (1937). The Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed this right. Buckley v. American Constitutional Law Found. Inc., 525 U.S. 182, 197-200 (1999); McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm'n., 514 U.S. 334 (1995); Talley v. California, 362 U.S. 60 (1960). These cases signify the important role of anonymous speech in the United States' history.

The Supreme Court unequivocally held in Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. at 870, that speech on the Internet is entitled to the full spectrum of First Amendment protections. Observing that the World Wide Web is a medium for public argument and discussion that reaches more people than any other known medium, the Court stated that "content on the Internet is as diverse as human thought." Reno, 521 U.S. at 870

In the online realm, numerous cases have upheld the constitutional right to speak anonymously on the Internet. ACLU v. Johnson, 4 F. Supp. 2d 1029, 1033 (D.N.M. 1998) aff'd, 194 F.3d 1149 (10th Cir. 1999); ACLU of Georgia, 977 F. Supp. at 1232-33; see also ApolloMEDIA Corp. v. Reno, 526 U.S. 1061 (1999), aff'g 19 F. Supp. 2d 1081 (N.D. Cal. 1998) (protecting anonymous speakers on web site at www.annoy.com, a site "created and designed to annoy" legislators through anonymous communications). The mechanics of the Internet, however, provides numerous ways to track the statements of anonymous speakers, prompting many commentators to argue that the law ought to provide special protections for Internet anonymity. See, e.g., David G. Post, Pooling Intellectual Capital: Thoughts of Anonymity, Pseudonymity, and Limited Liability in Cyberspace, 1996 U. Chi. Legal F. 139; Lee Tien, Innovation and the Information Environment: Who's Afraid of Anonymous Speech? McIntyre and the Internet, 75 Or. L. Rev. 117 (1996).

Because the First Amendment protects the right to speak anonymously, a subpoena for anonymous speakers' names and addresses is subject to a qualified privilege. And, as in other cases in which litigants seek privileged information, courts must consider the privilege before authorizing discovery. See Sony Music Entmn't v. Does, 326 F.Supp.2d 556,565 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) ("Against the backdrop of First Amendment protection for anonymous speech, courts have held that civil subpoenas seeking information regarding anonymous individuals raise First Amendment concerns.").

(https://autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9396920)

Date: November 10th, 2007 12:59 AM

Author: AK47

it's actually an interesting case. if you actually understood the issues or were familiar with any of the legal issues presented in it, i'd discuss it with you. thank goodness people like you never become prestigious lawyers or judges.

(Dear AK47 - Was it worth it?

(https://autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9396924)

also, whokebe/AK47 went to NYU?

(https://autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9396905)

hth.

(https://autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9396906)

Possibly.

(https://autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9396917)

I wouldn't be surprised if 90% of the Does trace back to that one IP.

(https://autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9396926)

That makes it doubley lulz-worthy, if I remember the timeline correctly. Even sweeter is that after he was added he came to the board laughing off the lawsuit, saying he'd never be outted.

(https://autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9396969)

i guess he doesnt write memos/briefs too often. lol.

(https://autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=774741&forum_id=2#9396964)