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

[Useful_Mistake]

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:

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

So the email address he was served at was recently used; if the communications with Miller were via email 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.

You do make a good point, but overturning a default is not super difficult cause courts (usually) prefer that controversies are solved on their merit. Sometimes emails don't deliver the email. It's rare, but it happens. Unless the Judge hates the defendant, a declaration that the defendant did not receive the email (of service), but upon finding that a default was entered against him, promptly joined the litigation with the hopes of resolving it, should be enough to overturn the default. Depends on the judge really (and what John Doe does in the next few days)

 

[mindlessobserver]

Default judgement is just used as a cudgel to get recalcitrant defendants to actually engage with the suit. They are almost never eneforced once a defendant actually presents themselves.

 

[DragoonSierra]

Default judgement is just used as a cudgel to get recalcitrant defendants to actually engage with the suit. They are almost never eneforced once a defendant actually presents themselves.

Ive said this before in this thread but this truly is a lolsuit. The "youll never catch me" line from John Doe was funny. I really wish we knew who this was so we could see their social media presence. Im willing to bet its significant.

 

[Marvin]

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.

Why would that undercut the CDA angle?

 

[UncleTusky]

Why would that undercut the CDA angle?

Because it is an affirmative defense. If Miller wants to claim immunity under CDA 230 the burden of proof shifts to him and he needs to prove he was not the author; he can't just deny writing the posts then move to dismiss on the basis that he can't be held liable. This is where John Doe 1's testimony would have been mattered - without it the question of who wrote those posts is just a he said/she said between Miller and Rumer. That's not enough to convict Miller of libel but it also eliminates his easiest way of dismissing the case outright or getting acquitted.

 

[AnOminous]

Because it is an affirmative defense. If Miller wants to claim immunity under CDA 230 the burden of proof shifts to him and he needs to prove he was not the author; he can't just deny writing the posts then move to dismiss on the basis that he can't be held liable. This is where John Doe 1's testimony would have been mattered - without it the question of who wrote those posts is just a he said/she said between Miller and Rumer. That's not enough to convict Miller of libel but it also eliminates his easiest way of dismissing the case outright or getting acquitted.

His own testimony that he wasn't the author is evidence, the naked claim of the plaintiff that he is requires evidence to outweigh that. Considering that unlike the defendant, he has no personal knowledge as to the identity of Doe 1, specifically the fact that he isn't Doe 1, where's the evidence?

He'd probably have to argue that the circumstances make it more likely than not that Doe 1 was, in fact, actually the named defendant.

But he'd also have requested any records of that account in discovery, and if the defendant had solid forensic evidence that proved Doe 1 wasn't him, he'd obviously have been willing and eager to turn that over in discovery. "Oh you want the proof that your case is total bullshit? Yeah I guess we can work with that, we'll send it right over."

And yes I know some cunt can and will at this point try to make baseless claims that the evidence is fabricated, because, of course, the defendant was the only one to have access to that evidence.

 

[Scarlett Johansson]

So default judgement essentially means that the guy lost? He has to pay her? Even though you can't really sue someone for anonymous postings....

 

[Useful_Mistake]

So default judgement essentially means that the guy lost?

Unless he gets it overturned.

He has to pay her?

If the court decides so, yes. They'll probably have a hearing over fees.

Even though you can't really sue someone for anonymous postings....

Why wouldn't you be able to? If you have a name to put the post to, you can sue. There is no magical protection against laws just because you made an anon post. Some courts give those posts some more protection, but there isn't an immunity.

 

[KiwiFarmerSimulator2021]

This thread is very interesting.

I dont know how much role policy considerations play in US judicial decision making, but id have through that a case such as this would draw out issues around doctors suing people like this.

Agree with the treatment as a concept or not, people are being left with horrific complications and the system isnt taking notice.

So patients being free to detail the horrors of their treatment on blogs etc is about the only method left to campaign for improvements.

A default judgment like this doesnt seem to be in the public interest. However like i said, i dont know if US judges have the same ability to consider policy implications as UK judges do.

 

[Useful_Mistake]

A default judgment like this doesnt seem to be in the public interest. However like i said, i dont know if US judges have the same ability to consider policy implications as UK judges do.

When US judges consider policy implications what happens is then the Supreme Court starts writing laws. Happens once in a while despite them constantly saying that they totally can't do that. But, yes, other courts sometimes do it too (called legislating from the bench).

 

[The Littlest Shitlord]

This thread is very interesting.

I dont know how much role policy considerations play in US judicial decision making, but id have through that a case such as this would draw out issues around doctors suing people like this.

Agree with the treatment as a concept or not, people are being left with horrific complications and the system isnt taking notice.

So patients being free to detail the horrors of their treatment on blogs etc is about the only method left to campaign for improvements.

A default judgment like this doesnt seem to be in the public interest. However like i said, i dont know if US judges have the same ability to consider policy implications as UK judges do.

Judges do have the ability to consider "the public interest" in ruling on contract disputes, which this isn't. It's a defamation case. I'm not sure if there is a comparable concept in defamation law or not, since I am not a lawyer. But the concept isn't wholly foreign to US jurisprudence.

 

[KiwiFarmerSimulator2021]

When US judges consider policy implications what happens is then the Supreme Court starts writing laws. Happens once in a while despite them constantly saying that they totally can't do that. But, yes, other courts sometimes do it too (called legislating from the bench).

What im referring to i think is less judicial activism and more specific to common law jurisdictions like England and Wales where some areas of law are still largly judge made rather than legislated.

Its interesting that theyre the same thing, but given how the two systems of law have developed they are viewed differently.

E&W has been converting common law into legislation but areas like privacy get a lot of heat because if someone has enough money they can essentially end up creating new law for themselves.

I have a lot of affection for our common law, but often observe how neatly the US has solved some problems we labour over.

Judges do have the ability to consider "the public interest" in ruling on contract disputes, which this isn't. It's a defamation case. I'm not sure if there is a comparable concept in defamation law or not, since I am not a lawyer. But the concept isn't wholly foreign to US jurisprudence.

This was more the sort of thing i was referring to. Policy considerations im thinking of are things like floodgates, residental security (land law), and when otherwise logical application of law risk creating perverse outcomes. The latter is in the realms of statutory interpretation, something i have never had the patience to understand properly.

 

[Marvin]

What im referring to i think is less judicial activism and more specific to common law jurisdictions like England and Wales where some areas of law are still largly judge made rather than legislated.

Its interesting that theyre the same thing, but given how the two systems of law have developed they are viewed differently.

E&W has been converting common law into legislation but areas like privacy get a lot of heat because if someone has enough money they can essentially end up creating new law for themselves.

I have a lot of affection for our common law, but often observe how neatly the US has solved some problems we labour over.

This isn't exactly what you're talking about, but I think it's similar: there's a concept in US constitutional law called the "vagueness doctrine". The general idea is that a law has to specifically lay out what is being regulated and under what circumstances. If not, the law is void for vagueness.

This also applies to regulatory agencies.

Congress (and state governments) can't just write a law regulating a topic (say fishing rights or medicine), and establish an agency to regulate said topic, and then just hand the agency a blank check to regulate it as they see fit.

There needs to be some hard rules about what's going on and a process by which a normal person can figure out how not to get into trouble.

Of course, this is all super subjective, and I would imagine that there are / has been trends back and forth over the years about how strongly they enforce this concept, but it does exist.

 

[UncleTusky]

Judges do have the ability to consider "the public interest" in ruling on contract disputes, which this isn't. It's a defamation case. I'm not sure if there is a comparable concept in defamation law or not, since I am not a lawyer. But the concept isn't wholly foreign to US jurisprudence.

The leeway judges in defamation suits have is fairly small: The standard for defamation in the US was designed by our Supreme Court to be plaintiff unfriendly specifically to protect public debate to the greatest extent possible, so any judge would have a hard time arguing a defamation case should be tossed in the interest of free speech without violating the precedent set by the Supreme Court.

Like @Useful_Mistake pointed out there are different rules for anonymous blogs but those are more focused on whether the anonymity + posting on social media makes the claims not credible to the point nobody would take them seriously as fact, not whether convicting for libel over anonymous posts could chill free speech.

Edit: I just realized that anonymity cuts both ways here regardless of Rumer's position: If she wants to argue that quoting anonymous Reddit posts verbatim shows actual malice because they are not credible, it raises the question of how that can be true while simultaneously claiming the anonymous blog copy pasting those posts is credible enough to be libelous. Conversely if she argues that Rumers Anonymous is credible enough to be libelous Miller could respond by claiming that also makes the Reddit posts credible which undercuts any actual malice claim. I am not saying Rumer cannot win, just that she has to be careful not to overstep here.

 

[Dyn]

So default judgement essentially means that the guy lost?

Yes.

He has to pay her?

Only if she can figure out who he is in real life and not online.

Even though you can't really sue someone for anonymous postings....

Yes you absolutely can why on earth wouldn't you be able to do that?

 

[Thomas Talus]

Minor procedural thing, and maybe it works differently in fed than in state (and I'm not going looking tonight), but the request for default would probably result in an order finding that the defendant is in default, and then they still have to move for a judgment on the default in favor of plaintiff in order to conclude the matter with that defendant.

 

[UncleTusky]

Minor procedural thing, and maybe it works differently in fed than in state (and I'm not going looking tonight), but the request for default would probably result in an order finding that the defendant is in default, and then they still have to move for a judgment on the default in favor of plaintiff in order to conclude the matter with that defendant

I am not sure whether Pennsylvania or federal rules apply since this is a state-law claim which was moved to federal district court on diversity grounds but I think she does not need to move for judgment either way.

Based on my reading of this section of Pennsylvania law there is no requirement to move for judgment but the defendant is entitled to a hearing on damages. The exception which allows the hearing to be waived if the amount can be clearly and objectively calculated does not apply because Rumer has not specified a dollar amount in damages.

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are vaguer and more plaintiff friendly: I do not see a requirement to file a second motion for default and whether to hold a hearing on damages at all is at the judge's discretion.

Edit: I am fairly confident that federal rules apply here based on the judge citing them instead of Pennsylvania law in his orders but it is a moot point when John Doe 1 has consistently no-showed and the judge has been absurdly deferential to Rumer. I don't think he's woke since he was a Donald Trump appointee but he seems to either not understand or not care how ridiculous this whole suit is.

 

[UncleTusky]

Mini update: The deadlines to complete discovery and move for summary judgment have passed with nothing new on the docket so the next major deadline barring a last-minute settlement or attempt to exclude evidence is the beginning of the trial.... which just got moved from 13 June to 15 August at Miller's request. Based on the wording in the judge's order it sounds like he did not reach out to the butcher's attorneys before agreeing to the delay.

Now for a question for legal eagle Kiwis: All publicly available documents make no mention of Jamie Miller's name and the ones which had to include it were all sealed. How will this work once the trial begins? Will it all be off-limits from the general public? Will Miller appear in court as "Jane Doe 1"? And when he inevitably loses because the quack judge denied him the right to a lawyer, will there be any way to trace the verdict to him when all the publicly available documents just read "Jane Doe 1"?

 

[UncleTusky]

Well Kiwis it looks like this thread has probably come to an abrupt and unfunny end: The woke judge has ordered the entire case limited to the parties and Court (see the attached screencap of the docket, item number 59 is the one imposing the restrictions); it looks like the limitation is already in effect on PACER based on my attempts to access a previously public document. I'm going to download what I can from CourtListener and would ask others to see if there is anything I missed but this thread is probably dead.

If my coverage of this case is what ruined the fun, I'm sorry. I didn't realize the judge would be this eager to keep the public from realizing he's depriving a defendant of basic rights to make sure a quack butcher can keep mutilating her patients.

In closing, Sic Semper Trannies!!!

 

[TheGoodNamesHaveBeenTaken]

I am surprised that no lawyer is willing to represent the tranny Pro Bono.
I think that is why he/she/it is going to loose.
The butcher will have some high dollar lawyers and the other side will be a guy that thought chopping off his balls and turning his dick inside out was a good idea.

Also the idea of being able to serve people via email terrifies me.
If I got somthing that claimed to be a subpoena or a warrant via email I would delete it becase I would assume it as a scam.
The potential for fraud is huge.
What's next? Service via text or voice mail?
If you can't be bothered to have a PI find the person and put papers in their hand you should not get to sue them IMHO.

This case is messed up.
I guess that should be expected considering it involves people who pay to get castrated and have their dicks turned inside out by someone who took an oath to "Do No Harm".

Things like this are why any time I hear of a giant meteor headed to Earth I cheer for the meteor.