On 21 July 2010 14:35, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Court: "go away." https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2010cv0609-3 (PDF)
- d.
On 21 July 2010 14:35, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
That's great fun! If I had more faith in humanity, I'd assume it was somebody's idea of a joke... (a joke which wastes the court's time, at that).
On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 4:50 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
That's great fun! If I had more faith in humanity, I'd assume it was somebody's idea of a joke... (a joke which wastes the court's time, at that).
The petition states that the Foundation cannot be traced to a physical address. That can't be right, can it? And then he signs at the bottom which warns that - if he knowingly states a falsehood - he commits perjury; so if he *is* aware that the Foundation has an address he has perjured himself.
Googling "Wikimedia Foundation" gives you as top hit the site you would expect and as soon as you click "contact us" you are given the Foundation's address.
Sigh.
On 21 July 2010 20:01, Bod Notbod bodnotbod@gmail.com wrote:
The petition states that the Foundation cannot be traced to a physical address. That can't be right, can it? And then he signs at the bottom which warns that - if he knowingly states a falsehood - he commits perjury; so if he *is* aware that the Foundation has an address he has perjured himself.
Googling "Wikimedia Foundation" gives you as top hit the site you would expect and as soon as you click "contact us" you are given the Foundation's address.
Indeed. The address of the old office was kept quiet for security reasons, but the address of the new office has always been publicly available. To give him the benefit of the tiniest bit of doubt, he might have written it while the WMF was in the old office and just taken a long time to submit it to the court and not thought to check it was still true. There has been a phone number available for years, though.
It's merely a response to him being blocked from editing for legal threats. He tried to make good on them and failed.[1]
According to the article on him he is "a former U.S. federal prison inmate"[2]. If the article is accurate, I feel a little bit bad for him... Also looks like he's written a book called "Extraterrestrials And Sex"[3]. I can only wonder why.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Russelldansmith
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell_Smith_(prisoner_activist)
[3] http://www2.xlibris.com/bookstore/bookdisplay.aspx?bookid=45930
On 7/21/10, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On 21 July 2010 20:01, Bod Notbod bodnotbod@gmail.com wrote:
The petition states that the Foundation cannot be traced to a physical address. That can't be right, can it? And then he signs at the bottom which warns that - if he knowingly states a falsehood - he commits perjury; so if he *is* aware that the Foundation has an address he has perjured himself.
Googling "Wikimedia Foundation" gives you as top hit the site you would expect and as soon as you click "contact us" you are given the Foundation's address.
Indeed. The address of the old office was kept quiet for security reasons, but the address of the new office has always been publicly available. To give him the benefit of the tiniest bit of doubt, he might have written it while the WMF was in the old office and just taken a long time to submit it to the court and not thought to check it was still true. There has been a phone number available for years, though.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 11:07 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
he might have written it while the WMF was in the old office
He was blocked in February 2010.
--vvv
So what is the back story to all of this? and can someone do a tldr version of the first link? -Peachey
On 22 July 2010 10:59, K. Peachey p858snake@yahoo.com.au wrote:
So what is the back story to all of this? and can someone do a tldr version of the first link?
You have the read the original to truly appreciate it.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 07/21/2010 12:07 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
Indeed. The address of the old office was kept quiet for security reasons, but the address of the new office has always been publicly available. To give him the benefit of the tiniest bit of doubt, he might have written it while the WMF was in the old office and just taken a long time to submit it to the court and not thought to check it was still true. There has been a phone number available for years, though.
Might I also offer that "kept quiet" does not negate "offered up to anyone who phoned up and asked for it." In reality, it was simply not publicized; but it was generally fairly easy to get.
- -- Cary Bass Volunteer Coordinator, Wikimedia Foundation
Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
On 22 July 2010 16:43, Cary Bass cary@wikimedia.org wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 07/21/2010 12:07 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
Indeed. The address of the old office was kept quiet for security reasons, but the address of the new office has always been publicly available. To give him the benefit of the tiniest bit of doubt, he might have written it while the WMF was in the old office and just taken a long time to submit it to the court and not thought to check it was still true. There has been a phone number available for years, though.
Might I also offer that "kept quiet" does not negate "offered up to anyone who phoned up and asked for it." In reality, it was simply not publicized; but it was generally fairly easy to get.
Indeed, that's why I said "quiet" rather than "private" or "secret".
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 9:15 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On 22 July 2010 16:43, Cary Bass cary@wikimedia.org wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 07/21/2010 12:07 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
Indeed. The address of the old office was kept quiet for security reasons, but the address of the new office has always been publicly available. To give him the benefit of the tiniest bit of doubt, he might have written it while the WMF was in the old office and just taken a long time to submit it to the court and not thought to check it was still true. There has been a phone number available for years, though.
Might I also offer that "kept quiet" does not negate "offered up to anyone who phoned up and asked for it." In reality, it was simply not publicized; but it was generally fairly easy to get.
Indeed, that's why I said "quiet" rather than "private" or "secret".
...And there was always a legal service address for DMCA takedown notices, through which agents can serve even if the organization itself is not available. And a published phone number.
However, from: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/w/index.php?title=Contact_...
...This guy filed the complaint at a time (Feb 28, 2010) after the last update to the WMF "Contact us" page was made (Nov 3, 2009), and the page contained the street address for the office.
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 4:28 PM, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
However, from: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/w/index.php?title=Contact_...
...This guy filed the complaint at a time (Feb 28, 2010) after the last update to the WMF "Contact us" page was made (Nov 3, 2009), and the page contained the street address for the office.
The address is actually on a template that's transcluded in multiple pages on foundationwiki: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/w/index.php?title=Template:Foundation_address&action=history.
However, you're correct that that's still before Feb 28, 2010. :-)
Bod Notbod wrote:
On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 4:50 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
That's great fun! If I had more faith in humanity, I'd assume it was somebody's idea of a joke... (a joke which wastes the court's time, at that).
The petition states that the Foundation cannot be traced to a physical address. That can't be right, can it? And then he signs at the bottom which warns that - if he knowingly states a falsehood - he commits perjury; so if he *is* aware that the Foundation has an address he has perjured himself.
Googling "Wikimedia Foundation" gives you as top hit the site you would expect and as soon as you click "contact us" you are given the Foundation's address.
Is idiocy a defence to perjury? If one assumes good faith one is left with the conclusion that he did not have enough lights on to look and see the address.
In any event, the action is against Homeland Security, and WMF is specifically excluded as a defendant. I think that it is reasonable to speculate the Homeland Security (and other departments like the FBI) has considerable experience in dealing with such extraterrestrials.
Ray
On 22 July 2010 23:19, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Is idiocy a defence to perjury?
Yes, regrettably it is.