Rumer v. Doe et al (2020) - Whoever loses, we win

[Useful_Mistake]

Dropping docs that I don't see posted

 

[UncleTusky]

Okay, so is this case still set to go to trial, even though the amended complaint had the wrong website listed on it?

Yes. Piecing together the whole story is difficult because so many of the filings are not accessible to the public but the trial is slated to begin in around June of 2022 assuming Rumer and Miller do not settle. See the below explanation for more details but I suspect her second amended complaint fixed the typo.

Dropping docs that I don't see posted

Thank you for that, let me try and lawsperg them in the order they were posted on Electronic Court Filing (ECF). Some of the documents are missing because they were filed under seal.

ECF 42: It looks like Jamie Miller sent the judge another letter asking him to dismiss the case .Miller's letter is not on ECF so I suspect it was either emailed or sent via regular US mail. I have never seen an attempt to file two motions to dismiss against the same complaint and don't even know if it's allowed but the judge rejected it without even holding a hearing or asking Rumer's attorneys to respond.

ECF 45: The judge granted permission for Rumer to file a second amended complaint under seal. This is not all that interesting or unusual, filing a second (or third, fourth, etc.) amended complaint requires permission from the judge and Rumer was already ordered to amend her complaint to either identify John Doe 2 or drop him from the suit. The second amended complaint was filed under seal as ECF 46 so we don't get to see it but apparently she did identify John Doe 2 in there.

ECF 49 and 51: I'm sure there is a very funny story behind these orders that we didn't get to see, but the judge ordered Jamie Miller to cooperate with Rumer's attorneys during his deposition and to not bring every little thing to the court's attention.

ECF 52: Jamie Miller emailed the judge asking for free legal advice Between this and ECF 49 and 51 I suspect the judge was just sick of Miller contacting him, so he issued an order to all parties to not email him except as specially allowed in his courtroom procedures. He's named Judge Chad for a reason.

ECF 54 and 55: John Doe 2 evaded traditional service from Rumer's attorneys, they requested permission to serve via email, and the judge granted it. ECF 53 is sealed and apparently contains more details on what exactly happened but the synopsis in ECF 54 is still amusing: At a minimum John Doe 2 moved to avoid service and Rumer's attorneys hired a PI to track him down. This bitch is crazy and I hope she realizes the average troon with a blogspot account does not have any money let alone the kind of damages she is probably after.

 

[Useful_Mistake]

Yes. Piecing together the whole story is difficult because so many of the filings are not accessible to the public but the trial is slated to begin in around June of 2022 assuming Rumer and Miller do not settle. See the below explanation for more details but I suspect her second amended complaint fixed the typo.

Thank you for that, let me try and lawsperg them in the order they were posted on Electronic Court Filing (ECF). Some of the documents are missing because they were filed under seal.

ECF 42: It looks like Jamie Miller sent the judge another letter asking him to dismiss the case .Miller's letter is not on ECF so I suspect it was either emailed or sent via regular US mail. I have never seen an attempt to file two motions to dismiss against the same complaint and don't even know if it's allowed but the judge rejected it without even holding a hearing or asking Rumer's attorneys to respond.

ECF 45: The judge granted permission for Rumer to file a second amended complaint under seal. This is not all that interesting or unusual, filing a second (or third, fourth, etc.) amended complaint requires permission from the judge and Rumer was already ordered to amend her complaint to either identify John Doe 2 or drop him from the suit. The second amended complaint was filed under seal as ECF 46 so we don't get to see it but apparently she did identify John Doe 2 in there.

ECF 49 and 51: I'm sure there is a very funny story behind these orders that we didn't get to see, but the judge ordered Jamie Miller to cooperate with Rumer's attorneys during his deposition and to not bring every little thing to the court's attention.

ECF 52: Jamie Miller emailed the judge asking for free legal advice Between this and ECF 49 and 51 I suspect the judge was just sick of Miller contacting him, so he issued an order to all parties to not email him except as specially allowed in his courtroom procedures. He's named Judge Chad for a reason.

ECF 54 and 55: John Doe 2 evaded traditional service from Rumer's attorneys, they requested permission to serve via email, and the judge granted it. ECF 53 is sealed and apparently contains more details on what exactly happened but the synopsis in ECF 54 is still amusing: At a minimum John Doe 2 moved to avoid service and Rumer's attorneys hired a PI to track him down. This bitch is crazy and I hope she realizes the average troon with a blogspot account does not have any money let alone the kind of damages she is probably after.

Docket 56 shows service was made successfully, so we'll see what comes of that

 

[Useful_Mistake]

I'm interested to see how this court handles the alleged defamation in the context that it occured in an anonymous blog. Other states such as the states in 2nd (Sandals Resorts v. Google, Inc., (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)), 4th (Rollins Ranches, LLC v. Watson, (D.S.C. Nov. 17, 2021)), and 9th (Obsidian Finance Group, LLC v. Cox, (D. Or. 2011) ) circuits have recognised that people tend to think of online posts in general, and especially anonymous blogs, as less factual than other forms of media, or in other contexts. If this court also recognises a similar thing, it could be pretty good for the defense.

Edit: Supreme Court of New Jersey in Too Much Media, LLC v. Hale, (N.J. 2011) also expressed similar thoughts about internet culture, but ultimately did not make a definite ruling on the issue. Given that this case happens in the same circuit, there is certainly a possibility that this court will draw inspiration from the New Jersey ruling, and mayhaps rulings of other nearby states. Such practices are not uncommon.

 

[Shaka Brah]

I'm interested to see how this court handles the alleged defamation in the context that it occured in an anonymous blog. Other states such as the states in 2nd (Sandals Resorts v. Google, Inc., (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)), 4th (Rollins Ranches, LLC v. Watson, (D.S.C. Nov. 17, 2021)), and 9th (Obsidian Finance Group, LLC v. Cox, (D. Or. 2011) ) circuits have recognised that people tend to think of online posts in general, and especially anonymous blogs, as less factual than other forms of media, or in other contexts. If this court also recognises a similar thing, it could be pretty good for the defense.

I'm curious how she proves she even found the right guy. You can't pick someone you hate and sue them in lieu of an anonymous person, and you definitely can't use your medical records as a rolodex for potential lawsuit victims. Even without getting into the argument over whether an anonymous post is defamation per se, there are going to be some great filings in this case I feel.

 

[Useful_Mistake]

there are going to be some great filings in this case I feel

Certainly. It's a shame that so many docs in this case are sealed. Oh, well, what isn't should prove quite a spectacle as well

Edit: new doc. Sadly under seal

 

[AnOminous]

This suit really pisses me off. The idea of some mentally ill dude getting his cock chopped off by some quack, who utterly botches it even by the standards of cock-chop quackery, then he dares to complain about the permanent mutilation of his body by some fucking quack, and then the quack sues him for complaining.

God I hope this quack butcher cunt gets cancer and dies in the most horrific manner imaginable.

 

[UncleTusky]

I'm interested to see how this court handles the alleged defamation in the context that it occured in an anonymous blog. Other states such as the states in 2nd (Sandals Resorts v. Google, Inc., (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)), 4th (Rollins Ranches, LLC v. Watson, (D.S.C. Nov. 17, 2021)), and 9th (Obsidian Finance Group, LLC v. Cox, (D. Or. 2011) ) circuits have recognised that people tend to think of online posts in general, and especially anonymous blogs, as less factual than other forms of media, or in other contexts. If this court also recognises a similar thing, it could be pretty good for the defense.

That cuts both ways here: "Rumers Anonymous" is an anonymous online blog but so are all the Reddit posts the author used as sources. If Miller tries to argue the posts are not defamatory because a typical reader would not treat them is fact that ruins his argument in court filings that they are not defamatory because they are true. Both are valid defenses but they can't be used at the same time, truth and shitposting are mutually exclusive.

I'm curious how she proves she even found the right guy. You can't pick someone you hate and sue them in lieu of an anonymous person, and you definitely can't use your medical records as a rolodex for potential lawsuit victims. Even without getting into the argument over whether an anonymous post is defamation per se, there are going to be some great filings in this case I feel.

The idea of her picking a patient/defendant at random from her records is funny but not true, in one of the filings she claims to have gotten it through the domain registry for "Rumers Anonymous". I'm inclined to believe her because the blog went down after she served Miller but before she served John Doe 2.

@AnOminous this is labeled as a request for default. I've only ever seen defaults granted when the judge ruled the entire case in the plaintiff's favor due to the defendant no-showing or misbehaving, is that what Rumer is asking for here or could it mean something else?

 

[AnOminous]

That cuts both ways here: "Rumers Anonymous" is an anonymous online blog but so are all the Reddit posts the author used as sources. If Miller tries to argue the posts are not defamatory because a typical reader would not treat them is fact that ruins his argument in court filings that they are not defamatory because they are true. Both are valid defenses but they can't be used at the same time, truth and shitposting are mutually exclusive.

The idea of her picking a patient/defendant at random from her records is funny but not true, in one of the filings she claims to have gotten it through the domain registry for "Rumers Anonymous". I'm inclined to believe her because the blog went down after she served Miller but before she served John Doe 2.

@AnOminous this is labeled as a request for default. I've only ever seen defaults granted when the judge ruled the entire case in the plaintiff's favor due to the defendant no-showing or misbehaving, is that what Rumer is asking for here or could it mean something else?

It's hard to know. It's under seal, thanks to some special favor this particular judge seems to have for cock chopping quacks. Usually default is because a party failed to respond to something. But it can also be granted for failure to comply with discovery or as an extreme penalty for other misconduct.

That's pretty rare, though.

The treatment this obvious quack guilty of mutilating people has gotten from this court is increasingly suspicious to me.

 

[UncleTusky]

It's hard to know. It's under seal, thanks to some special favor this particular judge seems to have for cock chopping quacks. Usually default is because a party failed to respond to something. But it can also be granted for failure to comply with discovery or as an extreme penalty for other misconduct.

Thanks, and can the judge use less extreme punishments in a default judgment than deciding the entire case in Rumer's favor?

For example since this looks like it came out of Miller not complying with Rumer's discovery, could the judge keep the trial going but limit Miller's ability to perform his own discovery?

 

[AnOminous]

Thanks, and can the judge use less extreme punishments in a default judgment than deciding the entire case in Rumer's favor?

For example since this looks like it came out of Miller not complying with Rumer's discovery, could the judge keep the trial going but limit Miller's ability to perform his own discovery?

Judges generally do whatever they feel like. Maybe it gets reversed on appeal in a year or so. This case has appeared to me to be going into a world of shit. A mutilated victim of a quack is getting fucked over by a woke judge.

Tell me I'm wrong.

 

[Least Concern]

It's hard to know. It's under seal, thanks to some special favor this particular judge seems to have for cock chopping quacks. Usually default is because a party failed to respond to something. But it can also be granted for failure to comply with discovery or as an extreme penalty for other misconduct.

Maybe the case is being thrown out because 41% of the defendants and witnesses couldn't be summoned.

 

[RodgerDodger]

Well it's hard to get past "the defedant asked to have his dick chopped off. Paid the plaintiff to chop his dick off. And the plaintiff did then chop his dick off". It's hard to complain about a negative outcome when by any rational evaluation the entire elective procedure IS a negative outcome.

 

[Shaka Brah]

Well it's hard to get past "the defedant asked to have his dick chopped off. Paid the plaintiff to chop his dick off. And the plaintiff did then chop his dick off". It's hard to complain about a negative outcome when by any rational evaluation the entire elective procedure IS a negative outcome.

If that's the gist of the ruling then godspeed, but a PC judge would have to navigate this without implying that GRS is a kind of consensual body mutilation.

 

[KifflomKween]

Bit off topic, but how did Rumer get a job as a space engineer? Her Bsc is in Applied Mathematics, her Msc is Industrial Engineering, how on earth did she end up working on spy satellites? And then she somehow went on to work on designing and maintaining databases (what are her credentials for working on this sort of thing?), and later went on to butcher trannies? Like how. I can see how the applied maths plays a part in the engineering, or how industrial engineering relates to company databases and satellite production (maybe?), but even so it seems a bit odd.
It wouldn't be the first time I find someone with a fancy sounding degree working in something entirely unrelated they have no qualifications for, because they have the right connections, is this what is going on here?

 

[AnOminous]

Well it's hard to get past "the defedant asked to have his dick chopped off. Paid the plaintiff to chop his dick off. And the plaintiff did then chop his dick off". It's hard to complain about a negative outcome when by any rational evaluation the entire elective procedure IS a negative outcome.

Medical doctors are supposedly held to a professional standard, where they are obligated to act according to certain standards. Absolute quackery generally is not considered to live up to that standard.

Bit off topic, but how did Rumer get a job as a space engineer?

Have you noticed that we are living in Clown World?

 

[RodgerDodger]

Bit off topic, but how did Rumer get a job as a space engineer? Her Bsc is in Applied Mathematics, her Msc is Industrial Engineering, how on earth did she end up working on spy satellites? And then she somehow went on to work on designing and maintaining databases (what are her credentials for working on this sort of thing?), and later went on to butcher trannies? Like how. I can see how the applied maths plays a part in the engineering, or how industrial engineering relates to company databases and satellite production (maybe?), but even so it seems a bit odd.
It wouldn't be the first time I find someone with a fancy sounding degree working in something entirely unrelated they have no qualifications for, because they have the right connections, is this what is going on here?

Actually Mathematics and Industrial Engineering seems an ideal resume for working with satellites. Math is a great starting point for anything engineering or code related. It’s the jump to castrating the mentally ill that seems an odd career move.

 

[UncleTusky]

Mid-sized update: It looks like the default was granted but only against John Doe. This means John Doe has no right to raise defenses or dispute liability, only the amount of damages (which I think have to exceed $75,000 under Federal judicial rules unless Rumer wants to have this case transferred back to Pennsylvania state court). Considering he didn't even try to communicate with the judge I'm more than a little skeptical that Rumer's attorneys even properly served him, this judge either doesn't understand what is going on or is playing favorites.

This does not mean Jamie Miller was subject to the default but it does undercut the CDA230 part of his defense - he was going to argue that he is immune from defamation suits because he is only the webmaster but that argument becomes less tenable when the poster of those claims (John Doe 1) is not available to testify. Combine that with Miller's decision to self-represent and he seems really, truly screwed.

Edit: To mention that as of today (Jan. 14 2022) there is not a document associated with this, not even one under seal.

 

[Useful_Mistake]

Well, if the John Doe was never properly served, he can still ask for the default to be overturned.

 

[UncleTusky]

Well, if the John Doe was never properly served, he can still ask for the default to be overturned.

I hear you but arguing improper service is a real stretch when Rumer's attorneys got an email address for him from messages he sent directly to them:

Throughout this time, John Doe 1 was aware of this litigation and emailed Plaintiffs’ attorney, stating that Plaintiffs would “NEVER find [John Doe 1’s] identity” but were welcome to “continue this fool’s errand.” Pl. Mem. Ex. 1 & 2, ECF No. 53
[...]
Plaintiffs seek leave to serve John Doe 1 by email. The Court finds that this method is reasonably calculated to provide notice for two reasons. First, John Doe 1 has previously used the proposed email address to communicate with Plaintiffs’ counsel

And may have been inadvertently confirmed by Jamie Miller in materials found during discovery:

According to communications between Jane Doe and John Doe 1, the address Plaintiffs identified is no longer John Doe 1’s mailing address. Pl. Mem. at 4; Pl. Mem. Ex. 4 at 1-4.

So the email address he was served at was recently used specifically to communicate with Rumer; if the communications with Miller were via email and used the same address then it is borderline impossible that the email service was sent to the wrong person or an impersonator unless the attorneys typed it in wrong.