Main
Date: 03 Feb 2008 18:20:52
From: Sam Sloan
Subject: Global Ministries vs. Cablevision Lightpath
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
_________________________________X

GENERAL BOARD OF GLOBAL MINISTRIES
OF THE UNITED METHODIST CHURCH

Petitioner,
MEMORANDUM
OPINION
AND ORDER
-against-
CV 06-3669
(DRH) (ETB)
CABLEVISION LIGHTPATH, INC., et al.

Respondents.
_________________________________X

Before the court is a motion to preclude respondent
Cablevision from disclosing any records in its possession which relate
to Ms. Lavonne Brown, and a Letter in Response to Petitioner's
Memorandum in Support of Application for Disclosure Pursuant to FRCP
Rule 27, filed by Ms. Lavonne Brown. Ms. Brown argues that it is a
violation of her constitutional rights, including her right to
privacy, for her internet service provider, Cablevision, to disclose
any information pertaining to her Internet service account. She also
argues that petitioner "has no case." (Letter in Resp., dated Oct. 30,
2006.)

BACKGROUND

Petitioner filed a Petition to Perpetuate Testimony on July 26, 2006.
The petition alleges that an unknown individual accessed the e-mail
accounts of seven of petitioner's employees. (Petition 9, 12.) One
of the employees whose e-mail account was accessed was Jan Love, the
chief executive of petitioner's Women's Division. (Petition 9.) The
petition alleges that the unknown individual accessed Ms. Love's
e-mail account and sent - in Ms. Love's name - an e-mail to three
other employees, implying that the employees were going to be
terminated. (Petition 9.) On June 8, 2006, an e-mail was sent that
said "Ha, Ha, Ha - Guess who's positions will be eliminated on Monday,
June 12th. Sorry for this. But you all should have done better work
and had better attitudes! Good luck elsewhere!" (See Petition Exh. A.)

Once petitioner learned that Ms. Love's e-mail account had been
accessed, petitioner's network administrator attempted to determine
the identity of the person who sent the unauthorized e-mail message.
(Petition 10.) The network administrator discovered that an unknown
individual had, without authorization, accessed the e-mail accounts of
seven employees between June 4 and June 8, 2006. (Petition 10.) The
network administrator located the internet protocol ("IP") address of
the unknown individual and reviewed records to determine whether
accounts had been previously accessed through that IP address.
(Petition 10, 12.) The network administrator determined that from
April 21 through April 27, 2006, the individual with that IP address
had accessed seven employee accounts on eleven occasions. (Petition
12.) The network administrator used an internet website to find the
internet service provider ("ISP") for the IP address in question.
Optimum Online of Cablevision Systems was identified as the internet
service provider. (Petition 13.)

Petitioner contacted Cablevision and requested that Cablevision
disclose the identity of the user with the IP address in question.
Cablevision replied that it would not do so unless required to by
court order. (Petition 14.) In addition, Cablevision told petitioner
that it had a practice of deleting electronic records which would
permit Cablevision to identify the person with the IP address in
question, within 90 days of the e-mail transaction. (Petition 15.)

On August 7, 2006, the undersigned entered an order directing
Cablevision to preserve the information sought in the petition,
pending further order of the court. (See Order of Judge E. Thomas
Boyle, dated August 7, 2006.)

On September 5, 2006, the undersigned entered an order granting the
petition to perpetuate testimony. On September 15, 2006 - but before
any disclosure pursuant to the September 5, 2006 order - Ms. Lavonne
Brown, acting pro se, came before the court with an Order to Show
Cause, moving for an order enjoining petitioner from all attempts to
perpetuate testimony from Cablevision and preventing Cablevision from
disclosing records relating to her. (Mem. In Supp. Of Order to Show
Cause.) Ms. Brown had received notification from Cablevision stating
that it was going to disclose documents relating to Ms. Brown, in
accordance with a court order. In a letter dated September 8, 2006,
Cablevision said the information would be disclosed if the company did
not receive a court order from Ms. Brown or her attorney. (See Letter
from Cablevision to Ms. Brown, dated September 8, 2006.) On September
15, 2006, Judge Hurley entered an order preventing Cablevision from
producing any records that relate to Ms. Brown until the undersigned
had an opportunity to further address the matter. (Order of Judge
Hurley, dated September 15, 2006.)

A conference was held before the undersigned on October 18, 2006. Ms.
Brown did not appear, although notified. On October 25, 2006,
petitioner filed a Memorandum in Support of Application for Disclosure
Pursuant to FRCP Rule 27, arguing that petitioner is entitled to
relief pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 2701, the Stored Communications Act, and
18 U.S.C. 2707, which provides for a civil cause of action for
violation of the Act. (See Mem. In Supp. of App. for Disci. at 2.)
Petitioner argues that the petition has been plead in accordance with
Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 27. (Mem. In Support of App. for Disci. At 4.)

In a Letter in Response to Petitioner's Memorandum in Support of
Application for Disclosure Pursuant to FRCP Rule 27, filed on November
2, 2006, Ms. Brown argues that the disclosure of her personal
information by Cablevision will violate her right to privacy and her
constitutional rights. (Letter in Response, dated October 30, 2006.)
In its Reply, petitioner argues that Ms. Brown has not stated a
constitutional basis for denying the requested relief. Also,
petitioner argues that although Ms. Brown argues that she has not
committed any wrongdoing, the purpose of the petition is simply to
obtain discovery in order to identify the unknown individual as a
party defendant in this action. (age_ Petitioner's Reply Mem. At 3-4.)

DISCUSSION

Stored Communications Act

The first issue is whether petitioner is bringing this claim under the
proper statute. Petitioner claims relief pursuant to the Stored
Communications Act ("SCA), 18 U.S.C. Section 2701. See Kaufman v. Nest
Seekers. LLC, 2006 WL 2807177, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 26, 2006). 18
U.S.C. Section 2707 provides for a civil cause of action for violation
of Section 2701.

Section 2701(a) provides, in relevant part:

(a) Offense - ... [W]hoever -

(1) intentionally accesses without authorization a facility
through which an electronic communication service is provided; or
(2) intentionally exceeds an authorization to access that
facility; and thereby obtains, alters, or prevents authorized access
to a wire or electronic communication while it is in electronic
storage in such system shall be punished as provided in subsection (b)
of this section.

Section 2707(a) provides, in relevant part:

(a) Cause of action. ... [A]ny provider of electronic communication
service, subscriber, or other person aggrieved by any violation of
this chapter in which the conduct constituting the violation is
engaged in with a knowing or intentional state of mind may, in a civil
action, recover from the person or entity, other than the United
States, which engaged in that violation such relief as may be
appropriate.

An "electronic communications service" is "any service which provides
to users thereof the ability to send or receive wire or electronic
communications." 18 U.S.C. 2510(15). In re DoubleClick, Inc. Privacy
Litigation, 154 F.Supp.2d 497, 508 (S.D.N.Y.2001). An electronic mail
company is an electronic communications service. See State Wide
Photocopy, Corp. V. Tokai Financial Service, Inc., 909 F.Supp.l37, 145
(S.D.N.Y.1995). Communications in "electronic storage" are those
temporarily stored by electronic communications services incident to
their transmission - "for example, when an e-mail service stores a
message until the addressee downloads it." In re DoubleClick, 154
F.Supp.2d at 512.

The purpose of the SCA was, in part, to protect privacy interests in
personal and proprietary information and to address "the growing
problem of unauthorized persons deliberately gaining access to, and
sometimes tampering with, electronic or wire communications that are
not intended to be available to the public." Kaufman v. Nest Seekers,
LLC, 2006 WL 280?1?7, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 26, 2006). SCA was
designed to create a cause of action against computer hackers. See
Kaufman, 2006 WL 2807177 at 4; State Wide Photocopy, 909 F.Supp. at
145. Computer hackers are defined as electronic trespassers. See State
Wide Photocopy, 909 F.Supp. At 145.

Petitioner has a computerized facility that provides an electronic
communications service. Petitioner provided its employees with e-mail
accounts for work purposes. (Petition 6, 7.) Petitioner alleges that
communications in electronic storage were accessed. Petitioner
maintains that an unknown defendant entered into the e-mail accounts
of seven employees and gained access to "stored electronic
communications" within those accounts. (Petition 9.) Petitioner
alleges that the unknown defendant used such access to send a-mails in
Ms. Love's name, purporting to terminate employees. (Memo. in Supp. Of
App. For Discl. At 4.)

Petitioner asserts that the unknown individual was an electronic
trespasser i.e., that such person entered into petitioner's e-mail
accounts without authorization. (See Petition 10.)

For the foregoing reasons, petitioner's claim is properly brought
under the Stored Communication Act.

II. Rule 27

The court must consider whether petitioner is entitled to perpetuate
testimony under Fed. R. Civ. P. 27. Petitioner must show: (1) that it
expects to be a party to an action that may be cognizable in a court
of the United States but the action is unable to be brought presently;
(2) the subject matter of the expected action and the petitioner's
interest in such an action; (3) facts which the petitioner seeks to
establish through the proposed testimony and the reasons for desiring
to perpetuate that testimony at this time; (4) the names or
description of the expected adverse parties and (5) the names and
addresses of the witnesses to be examined and the substance of the
testimony petitioner expects to obtain from those witnesses.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 27(a)(1).

It is within the court's discretion to grant discovery pursuant to
Rule 27. In Re Campania Chilena De Navegacion, 2004 WL 1084243, at *2
(E.D.N.Y. Feb. 6, 2006). A court may grant a Rule 27 petition "if it
is satisfied that a failure or delay of justice may thereby be
prevented." Messeller v. United States, 158 F.2d 380, 382 (2d
Cir.1946).

Here, petitioner has demonstrated all the factors for Rule 27 except
the fourth and fifth. At this time however, petitioner is unable to
ascertain the names of adverse parties. This is the reason for the
petition. Also, petitioner is not able to name witnesses. A petition
may be granted in the absence of 'such information. See In Re Alpha
Industries, Inc. 159 F.R.D. 456 (S.D.N.Y.1995) (granting rule 27
petition and discovery to allow petitioner to determine defendant in
an action).

The identity of the unknown party defendant may be obtained through
Cablevision, which is able to match the IP address to its subscriber.
Furthermore, without court intervention, the information would be
lost, since Cablevision routinely destroys such data in the ordinary
course of its business after 90 days. See In Re: Town of Amenia, 200
FRD 200 (S.D.N.Y.2001) (granting Rule 27 petition and noting "[t]here
is a significant risk that Mr. Selfridge's testimony will be lost if
not perpetuated at this time.... [Such] expected testimony is highly
valuable and no substitute source of the information which he may
provide has beer. identified.").

III.Ms. Brown's Constitutional Rights

The court must consider whether granting the petition will violate Ms.
Brown's constitutional rights. The unknown defendant is alleged to
have used Cablevision's services to access the stored electronic
communications of petitioner, without authorization. In addition, the
unknown defendant logged into the e-mail account of an employee of
petitioner and used that person's e-mail to send fictitious messages
of termination to other employees. Such a person has a "minimal
expectation of privacy," if any, in using an Internet service provider
to engage in such tortious conduct. See Sony Music Entertainment, Inc.
V. Does 1-40, 326 F.Supp. 2d 556 (S.AN.Y.2004) ("defendants have
little expectation of privacy in downloading and distributing
copyrighted songs without permission.

Courts evaluating requests to identify information from ISPs regarding
subscribers have considered a variety of factors to weigh the need for
disclosure against First Amendment interests, See Sony Entertainment.
326 F.Supp.2d at 564-65. These factors include: (1) a concrete showing
of a prima facie claim of actionable harm (2) specificity of the
discovery request (3) the absence of alternative means to obtain the
subpoenaed information (4) a central need for the subpoenaed
information to advance the claim, and (5) the party's expectation of
privacy. Id.

A prima facie claim under SCA is established, discussed supra. The
discovery request was made with specificity - petitioner is asking to
perpetuate testimony to gain the identity of the holder of an IP
address. (See Petition 16.) There are no other available means to
obtain the information. Cablevision is the ISP and the only known
entity with knowledge of the 1P address that accessed petitioner's
e-mail. ( Petition 13 Adequate need has been demonstrated. Lastly, as
noted earlier. there is a minimal expectation of privacy Id. Thus,
disclosure of information pertaining to IP addresses does not violate
the First Amendmant.

For the foregoing reasons, I deny Ms. Brown's motion for a protective
order and grant petitioner's application to perpetuate testimony.
Cablevision is directed to disclose information pertaining to the IP
address requested in the Petition with ten days.

SO ORDERED

November 30, 2006

___________________
E. Thomas Boyle
United States
Magistrate Judge





 
Date: 03 Feb 2008 19:26:32
From: Rob
Subject: Sloan Soup; The Musical
Mohammed Sloan has lost his mind
Who- Ha, Who-Ha
Look as he may he just cant find
Reason nor a rhyme

The greatest of his time?
The greatest in his mind!

Mohammed Sloan has lost his mind
But it ain't worth a dime.

Mohammed Sloan he breaks the law
Who-ha, who -ha
Files lawsuit like you you never saw
Annoying like a caw

Greatest of all time?
Only in his mind

Mohammed Sloan has lost his mind
But it ain't worth a dime.

(sung to the tune of "Camptown Racers"


  
Date: 04 Feb 2008 16:53:25
From: Rob
Subject: Re: Sloan Soup; The Musical
On Feb 4, 8:42=A0am, ttk5...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Feb 3, 10:26=A0pm, Rob <robmt...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Mohammed Sloan has lost his mind
> > Who- Ha, Who-Ha
> > Look as he may he just cant find
> > Reason nor a rhyme
>
> > The greatest of his time?
> > The greatest in his mind!
>
> > Mohammed Sloan has lost his mind
> > But it ain't worth a dime.
>
> > Mohammed Sloan he breaks the law
> > Who-ha, who -ha
> > Files lawsuit like you you never saw
> > Annoying like a caw
>
> > Greatest of all time?
> > Only in his mind
>
> > Mohammed Sloan has lost his mind
> > But it ain't worth a dime.
>
> > (sung to the tune of "Camptown Racers"
>
> =A0 That's "Camptown Ladies," Rob.
>
> =A0http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3D9gj9uEeuDtQ- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

cool,
thanks


  
Date: 04 Feb 2008 08:16:43
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Sloan Soup; The Musical
On Feb 4, 9:42 am, ttk5...@gmail.com wrote:

> > (sung to the tune of "Camptown Racers"
>
> That's "Camptown Ladies," Rob.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gj9uEeuDtQ

Nice catch. And for his next trick, he's going to write lyrics for "Oh
Zsuzsanna!"

Oh Zsuzsanna!
Don't you cry for me,
For I've come to shill and post for you
From Nashville, Tennessee!



  
Date: 04 Feb 2008 08:09:13
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Sloan Soup; The Musical
On Feb 3, 10:26 pm, Rob <robmt...@gmail.com > wrote:
> Mohammed Sloan

Do you address Grandmaster Polgar and "Dr." Truong by the names on
their birth certificates, or the names they themselves use
professionally?



  
Date: 04 Feb 2008 06:42:48
From:
Subject: Re: Sloan Soup; The Musical
On Feb 3, 10:26=A0pm, Rob <robmt...@gmail.com > wrote:
> Mohammed Sloan has lost his mind
> Who- Ha, Who-Ha
> Look as he may he just cant find
> Reason nor a rhyme
>
> The greatest of his time?
> The greatest in his mind!
>
> Mohammed Sloan has lost his mind
> But it ain't worth a dime.
>
> Mohammed Sloan he breaks the law
> Who-ha, who -ha
> Files lawsuit like you you never saw
> Annoying like a caw
>
> Greatest of all time?
> Only in his mind
>
> Mohammed Sloan has lost his mind
> But it ain't worth a dime.
>
> (sung to the tune of "Camptown Racers"

That's "Camptown Ladies," Rob.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3D9gj9uEeuDtQ


 
Date: 03 Feb 2008 19:22:46
From: Sam Sloan
Subject: Re: Global Ministries vs. Cablevision Lightpath
In case you are wondering why I posted this, I am using it in the
brief I am writing today to be filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York in Sloan vs. Truong,
Polgar, USCF et al, Civil 07-CV-8537 (DC) (FM)

Sam Sloan


  
Date: 05 Feb 2008 11:03:26
From: Guy Macon
Subject: Re: Global Ministries vs. Cablevision Lightpath



Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/ > wrote:
>
>samsloan wrote:
>
>>Have you read the decision?
>>
>>The answer is obvious.
>>
>>Sam Sloan
>
>This is the first time you have ever replied to a criticism
>of your crossposting. Dare I hope that you are now willing
>to have a calm and rational discussion about your crossposting?

As I expected, no reply. Sam Sloan will not discuss this
with me because he knows that he is in the wrong.

>As it turns out, I *did* read the UNITED METHODIST CHURCH
>V. CABLEVISION LIGHTPATH decision. It contains two references
>to "computer hackers", one reference to "a computerized
>facility that provides an electronic communications service"
>(what we non-lawyers would call an email server) and zero
>references to chess or any other game.
>
>Please explain to me what you believe to be obvious; what
>does any of this have to do with computers playing chess?

As I expected, no reply. Sam Sloan will not answer my question
because he can't answer my question. He was hoping that just
saying "the answer is obvious" would fool everyone into not
noticing that he has no reason for posting legal briefs having
nothing to do with chess into it to a newsgroup dedicated to
computer chess.

Once again for the record, I have expressed no opinion
about guilt or innocence in the underlying case.


--
Guy Macon
<http://www.guymacon.com/ >



   
Date: 05 Feb 2008 03:56:56
From: J.D. Walker
Subject: Re: Global Ministries vs. Cablevision Lightpath
Guy Macon wrote:
> Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/> wrote:
>> samsloan wrote:
>>
>>> Have you read the decision?
>>>
>>> The answer is obvious.
>>>
>>> Sam Sloan
>> This is the first time you have ever replied to a criticism
>> of your crossposting. Dare I hope that you are now willing
>> to have a calm and rational discussion about your crossposting?
>
> As I expected, no reply. Sam Sloan will not discuss this
> with me because he knows that he is in the wrong.
>
>> As it turns out, I *did* read the UNITED METHODIST CHURCH
>> V. CABLEVISION LIGHTPATH decision. It contains two references
>> to "computer hackers", one reference to "a computerized
>> facility that provides an electronic communications service"
>> (what we non-lawyers would call an email server) and zero
>> references to chess or any other game.
>>
>> Please explain to me what you believe to be obvious; what
>> does any of this have to do with computers playing chess?
>
> As I expected, no reply. Sam Sloan will not answer my question
> because he can't answer my question. He was hoping that just
> saying "the answer is obvious" would fool everyone into not
> noticing that he has no reason for posting legal briefs having
> nothing to do with chess into it to a newsgroup dedicated to
> computer chess.
>
> Once again for the record, I have expressed no opinion
> about guilt or innocence in the underlying case.
>

Mr. Macon,

I do not know if the rec.games.chess.computer newsgroup has a strict
charter or not, or how it reads. Do you know? Could you post it?

On the other side, like it or not, Sam is involved in a lawsuit that
certainly involves computers, system administrators, the Internet,
Internet security experts, Internet impersonation and defamation as well
as many chess and chess politics aspects. His use of a particular legal
citation, while not directly related, bears on his case.

If one were to estimate the difference between Sam's case being
dismissed with prejudice with the alternative that he wins in every
respect there are undoubtedly many aspects of interest related to chess
and computers.

However, if you can produce the newsgroup's charter, and it is explicit
in which ways chess and computers are to be discussed, you may have a
point. Personally, I would be happy if the lawsuit topic were confined
to the politics group, but I see Sam's point.
--

Cordially,
Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.


    
Date: 05 Feb 2008 12:26:24
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Global Ministries vs. Cablevision Lightpath
J.D. Walker <j.d.walker@comcast.net > wrote:
> I do not know if the rec.games.chess.computer newsgroup has a strict
> charter or not, or how it reads.

Well, why didn't you spend five seconds with a search engine to find
out, instead of displaying your ignorance for all to see?

http://www.justfuckinggoogleit.com/?q=rec.games.chess.computer+charter

First hit:

http://www.faqs.org/faqs/games/chess/computer/part1/preamble.html

To save you the extreme effort of actually loading it in your web
browser, the relevant section is

``CHARTER: The rec.games.chess.computer newsgroup will provide a
place to disseminate reports, discussions and analysis of game
servers, where chess games can be played in real time, similar to
playing games of chess via telephone; information and discussion
about databases, games collections, chess-playing software, and
other computer programs of a similar nature, either offered for
sale, or in the state of development.''

> On the other side, like it or not, Sam is involved in a lawsuit that
> certainly involves computers, system administrators, the Internet,
> Internet security experts, Internet impersonation and defamation as well
> as many chess and chess politics aspects.

None of this makes it on-topic in rec.games.chess.computer, since it
has nothing to do with computer chess, i.e., chess played by, against
or via computers and other computer chess software. If the mere
involvement of a computer were sufficient to justify posting on
rgc.computer, any post about chess would be on-topic there, since
every single post is made using computers.


Dave.

--
David Richerby Carnivorous Pointy-Haired.com (TM):
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ it's like an E-commerce portal that's
completely clueless but it's full
of teeth!


     
Date: 05 Feb 2008 09:02:16
From: Kenneth Sloan
Subject: Re: Global Ministries vs. Cablevision Lightpath
Please don't crosspost.

David Richerby wrote:
> J.D. Walker <j.d.walker@comcast.net> wrote:
>> I do not know if the rec.games.chess.computer newsgroup has a strict
>> charter or not, or how it reads.
>
> Well, why didn't you spend five seconds with a search engine to find
> out, instead of displaying your ignorance for all to see?
>
> http://www.justfuckinggoogleit.com/?q=rec.games.chess.computer+charter
>
> First hit:
>
> http://www.faqs.org/faqs/games/chess/computer/part1/preamble.html
>
> To save you the extreme effort of actually loading it in your web
> browser, the relevant section is
>
> ``CHARTER: The rec.games.chess.computer newsgroup will provide a
> place to disseminate reports, discussions and analysis of game
> servers, where chess games can be played in real time, similar to
> playing games of chess via telephone; information and discussion
> about databases, games collections, chess-playing software, and
> other computer programs of a similar nature, either offered for
> sale, or in the state of development.''
>
>> On the other side, like it or not, Sam is involved in a lawsuit that
>> certainly involves computers, system administrators, the Internet,
>> Internet security experts, Internet impersonation and defamation as well
>> as many chess and chess politics aspects.
>
> None of this makes it on-topic in rec.games.chess.computer, since it
> has nothing to do with computer chess, i.e., chess played by, against
> or via computers and other computer chess software. If the mere
> involvement of a computer were sufficient to justify posting on
> rgc.computer, any post about chess would be on-topic there, since
> every single post is made using computers.
>
>
> Dave.
>


--
Kenneth Sloan KennethRSloan@gmail.com
Computer and Information Sciences +1-205-932-2213
University of Alabama at Birmingham FAX +1-205-934-5473
Birmingham, AL 35294-1170 http://KennethRSloan.com/


      
Date: 08 Feb 2008 16:49:18
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Global Ministries vs. Cablevision Lightpath
Kenneth Sloan <KennethRSloan@gmail.com > wrote:
> Please don't crosspost.

Please don't crosspost your criticisms about crossposting more widely
than the original post. It demonstrates quite clearly that you are
not acting out of any desire to make Usenet a better place.


Dave.



--
David Richerby Crystal Robot (TM): it's like a
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ high-tech robot but it's completely
transparent!


     
Date: 05 Feb 2008 04:51:34
From: J.D. Walker
Subject: Re: Global Ministries vs. Cablevision Lightpath
David Richerby wrote:
> J.D. Walker <j.d.walker@comcast.net> wrote:
>> I do not know if the rec.games.chess.computer newsgroup has a strict
>> charter or not, or how it reads.
>
> Well, why didn't you spend five seconds with a search engine to find
> out, instead of displaying your ignorance for all to see?
>

Why so hostile? Relax Dave. It has already been handled.


    
Date: 05 Feb 2008 04:15:17
From: J.D. Walker
Subject: Re: Global Ministries vs. Cablevision Lightpath
J.D. Walker wrote:
> Guy Macon wrote:
>> Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/> wrote:
>>> samsloan wrote:
>>>
>>>> Have you read the decision?
>>>>
>>>> The answer is obvious.
>>>>
>>>> Sam Sloan
>>> This is the first time you have ever replied to a criticism of your
>>> crossposting. Dare I hope that you are now willing to have a calm
>>> and rational discussion about your crossposting?
>>
>> As I expected, no reply. Sam Sloan will not discuss this with me
>> because he knows that he is in the wrong.
>>
>>> As it turns out, I *did* read the UNITED METHODIST CHURCH
>>> V. CABLEVISION LIGHTPATH decision. It contains two references to
>>> "computer hackers", one reference to "a computerized facility that
>>> provides an electronic communications service" (what we non-lawyers
>>> would call an email server) and zero references to chess or any other
>>> game.
>>>
>>> Please explain to me what you believe to be obvious; what does any of
>>> this have to do with computers playing chess?
>>
>> As I expected, no reply. Sam Sloan will not answer my question
>> because he can't answer my question. He was hoping that just
>> saying "the answer is obvious" would fool everyone into not noticing
>> that he has no reason for posting legal briefs having nothing to do
>> with chess into it to a newsgroup dedicated to
>> computer chess.
>> Once again for the record, I have expressed no opinion about guilt or
>> innocence in the underlying case.
>>
>
> Mr. Macon,
>
> I do not know if the rec.games.chess.computer newsgroup has a strict
> charter or not, or how it reads. Do you know? Could you post it?
>
> On the other side, like it or not, Sam is involved in a lawsuit that
> certainly involves computers, system administrators, the Internet,
> Internet security experts, Internet impersonation and defamation as well
> as many chess and chess politics aspects. His use of a particular legal
> citation, while not directly related, bears on his case.
>
> If one were to estimate the difference between Sam's case being
> dismissed with prejudice with the alternative that he wins in every
> respect there are undoubtedly many aspects of interest related to chess
> and computers.
>
> However, if you can produce the newsgroup's charter, and it is explicit
> in which ways chess and computers are to be discussed, you may have a
> point. Personally, I would be happy if the lawsuit topic were confined
> to the politics group, but I see Sam's point.

To follow up, I found this in the newsgroup faq:

"CHARTER:

The rec.games.chess.computer newsgroup will provide a place to
disseminate reports, discussions and analysis of game servers, where
chess games can be played in real time, similar to playing games of
chess via telephone; information and discussion about databases, games
collections, chess-playing software, and other computer programs of a
similar nature, either offered for sale, or in the state of development."

Point taken...
--

Cordially,
Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.


     
Date: 05 Feb 2008 09:00:43
From: Kenneth Sloan
Subject: Re: Global Ministries vs. Cablevision Lightpath

Please don't crosspost.

J.D. Walker wrote:
> J.D. Walker wrote:
>> Guy Macon wrote:
>>> Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/> wrote:
>>>> samsloan wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Have you read the decision?
>>>>>
>>>>> The answer is obvious.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sam Sloan
>>>> This is the first time you have ever replied to a criticism of your
>>>> crossposting. Dare I hope that you are now willing to have a calm
>>>> and rational discussion about your crossposting?
>>>
>>> As I expected, no reply. Sam Sloan will not discuss this with me
>>> because he knows that he is in the wrong.
>>>
>>>> As it turns out, I *did* read the UNITED METHODIST CHURCH
>>>> V. CABLEVISION LIGHTPATH decision. It contains two references to
>>>> "computer hackers", one reference to "a computerized facility that
>>>> provides an electronic communications service" (what we non-lawyers
>>>> would call an email server) and zero references to chess or any
>>>> other game.
>>>>
>>>> Please explain to me what you believe to be obvious; what does any
>>>> of this have to do with computers playing chess?
>>>
>>> As I expected, no reply. Sam Sloan will not answer my question
>>> because he can't answer my question. He was hoping that just
>>> saying "the answer is obvious" would fool everyone into not noticing
>>> that he has no reason for posting legal briefs having nothing to do
>>> with chess into it to a newsgroup dedicated to
>>> computer chess.
>>> Once again for the record, I have expressed no opinion about guilt or
>>> innocence in the underlying case.
>>>
>>
>> Mr. Macon,
>>
>> I do not know if the rec.games.chess.computer newsgroup has a strict
>> charter or not, or how it reads. Do you know? Could you post it?
>>
>> On the other side, like it or not, Sam is involved in a lawsuit that
>> certainly involves computers, system administrators, the Internet,
>> Internet security experts, Internet impersonation and defamation as
>> well as many chess and chess politics aspects. His use of a
>> particular legal citation, while not directly related, bears on his case.
>>
>> If one were to estimate the difference between Sam's case being
>> dismissed with prejudice with the alternative that he wins in every
>> respect there are undoubtedly many aspects of interest related to
>> chess and computers.
>>
>> However, if you can produce the newsgroup's charter, and it is
>> explicit in which ways chess and computers are to be discussed, you
>> may have a point. Personally, I would be happy if the lawsuit topic
>> were confined to the politics group, but I see Sam's point.
>
> To follow up, I found this in the newsgroup faq:
>
> "CHARTER:
>
> The rec.games.chess.computer newsgroup will provide a place to
> disseminate reports, discussions and analysis of game servers, where
> chess games can be played in real time, similar to playing games of
> chess via telephone; information and discussion about databases, games
> collections, chess-playing software, and other computer programs of a
> similar nature, either offered for sale, or in the state of development."
>
> Point taken...


--
Kenneth Sloan KennethRSloan@gmail.com
Computer and Information Sciences +1-205-932-2213
University of Alabama at Birmingham FAX +1-205-934-5473
Birmingham, AL 35294-1170 http://KennethRSloan.com/


  
Date: 04 Feb 2008 18:20:56
From: Guy Macon
Subject: Re: Global Ministries vs. Cablevision Lightpath



samsloan wrote:
>
>Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/> wrote:
>
>> Sam Sloan wrote:
>>
>> >In case you are wondering why I posted this, I am using it in the
>> >brief I am writing today to be filed in the United States District
>> >Court for the Southern District of New York in Sloan vs. Truong,
>> >Polgar, USCF et al, Civil 07-CV-8537 (DC) (FM)
>>
>> >Sam Sloan
>>
>> ...and your reason for posting it to a newsgroup dedicated to
>> computer chess was?
>>
>> --
>> Guy Macon
>> <http://www.guymacon.com/>
>
>Have you read the decision?
>
>The answer is obvious.
>
>Sam Sloan

This is the first time you have ever replied to a criticism
of your crossposting. Dare I hope that you are now willing
to have a calm and rational discussion about your crossposting?

As it turns out, I *did* read the UNITED METHODIST CHURCH
V. CABLEVISION LIGHTPATH decision. It contains two references
to "computer hackers", one reference to "a computerized
facility that provides an electronic communications service"
(what we non-lawyers would call an email server) and zero
references to chess or any other game.

Please explain to me what you believe to be obvious; what
does any of this have to do with computers playing chess?

Once again for the record, I have expressed no opinion
about guilt or innocence in this or any related matter.


--
Guy Macon
<http://www.guymacon.com/ >



  
Date: 03 Feb 2008 14:48:44
From:
Subject: Re: Global Ministries vs. Cablevision Lightpath
On Feb 3, 2:22=A0pm, sl...@ishipress.com (Sam Sloan) wrote:
> In case you are wondering why I posted this, I am using it in the
> brief I am writing today to be filed in the United States District
> Court for the Southern District of New York in Sloan vs. Truong,
> Polgar, USCF et al, Civil 07-CV-8537 (DC) (FM)
>
> Sam Sloan

Here is a video of the judge reading Sam's brief:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3D-ltd1L-gi0g


  
Date: 03 Feb 2008 14:47:05
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Global Ministries vs. Cablevision Lightpath
On Feb 3, 5:35 pm, Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/ > wrote:
> Sam Sloan wrote:
> >In case you are wondering why I posted this, I am using it in the
> >brief I am writing today to be filed in the United States District
> >Court for the Southern District of New York in Sloan vs. Truong,
> >Polgar, USCF et al, Civil 07-CV-8537 (DC) (FM)
>
> >Sam Sloan
>
> ...and your reason for posting it to a newsgroup dedicated to
> computer chess was?
>
> --
> Guy Macon
> <http://www.guymacon.com/>

Have you read the decision?

The answer is obvious.

Sam Sloan


  
Date: 03 Feb 2008 22:35:51
From: Guy Macon
Subject: Re: Global Ministries vs. Cablevision Lightpath



Sam Sloan wrote:

>In case you are wondering why I posted this, I am using it in the
>brief I am writing today to be filed in the United States District
>Court for the Southern District of New York in Sloan vs. Truong,
>Polgar, USCF et al, Civil 07-CV-8537 (DC) (FM)
>
>Sam Sloan

...and your reason for posting it to a newsgroup dedicated to
computer chess was?

--
Guy Macon
<http://www.guymacon.com/ >