ATTN: Joshua Connor Moon and the "board of directors" of LOLCOW, LLC

[Miss Tommie Jayne Wasserberg]

Pfff, don't lie. You spend hours and hours each day here arguing with everyone. You WILL argue with me and everyone else because you are constitutionally incapable of ignoring anything. Hopefully one day you will provide a clear line of reasoning why I need to pay money in order to talk about videos you've posted to the public and actions you commit on public forums. That, or you could just explain why anyone would pay money to use your horrendously ugly "image." By all means, prove me wrong and ignore this message. You won't, because you can't shrug anything off and shouting doesn't work on us and neither does your threat to sick immigration lawyers on us.

lol. delude yourself some more, dweeb.

 

[The Southwest Strangla]

lol. delude yourself some more, dweeb.

you're a sad old man fighting one a website that hates you. think about that.

 

[Anonymus Fluhre]

you're a sad old man fighting one a website that hates you. think about that.

On Christmas no less.

 

[The Southwest Strangla]

On Christmas no less.

no loving family. sad, really......not really, it's tommy. he should be alone for the rest of his life.

 

[Easy J]

lol. delude yourself some more, dweeb.

Tom, how many posts did you make on this forum on Christmas Eve?

You could've just made one post saying " I have no family or friends to spend Christmas with" and saved everyone's time and effort.

 

[Anonymus Fluhre]

no loving family. sad, really......not really, it's tommy. he should be alone for the rest of his life.

For those who believe in a deity, pray that he doesn't have to deal with that for very long. His remaining relatives would be happy if he was gone.

 

[The Southwest Strangla]

For those who believe in a deity, pray that he doesn't have to deal with that for very long. His remaining relatives would be happy if he was gone.

tommy is proof that there is no god...

 

[GenociderSyo]

Think no one noticed his comment that he wants to sue for "commercial use" as well. Not sure how the lawyer would do that considering there is no commercial use of his stuff.

 

[Anonymus Fluhre]

tommy is proof that there is no god...

There probably is, and Thomas is his way of joking with us.

 

[The Southwest Strangla]

There probably is, and Thomas is his way of joking with us.

a joke can go too far.

 

[Anonymus Fluhre]

a joke can go too far.

What are you? A Twitter user? There is no such thing.

 

[The Southwest Strangla]

What are you? A Twitter user? There is no such thing.

tommy is a joke too far.

 

[RedRocket69]

tommy is proof that there is no god...

Retards are nature's jesters. This one even comes with makeup.

 

[Anonymus Fluhre]

Retards are nature's jesters. This one even comes with makeup.

He also plays double duty as the village idiot.

Think no one noticed his comment that he wants to sue for "commercial use" as well. Not sure how the lawyer would do that considering there is no commercial use of his stuff.

There's a Russian site selling images of him for $24.

 

[IKOL]

There is a group of people who are going to demonstrate to the court that this site is a threat to public safety

lol, many have tried already, we are still up and kicking hard, with the charming passion.

As the injured party the burden is on you or your attorney to prove the damages......

That would least to tommy's sex tapes capturing his confession in dog fucking and that he groomed a minor into raping said minor.

 

[BigTodd]

The best part of this is that Tom repeatedly takes the "throw shit at the wall and hope something sticks" legalistic threat approach. What he doesn't grasp is that these impotent threats are mutually exclusive and damage the respective claims.

Courts have held that people who bring Copyright claims that admit their reasoning is objecting to the commentary lose on both counts. Be objecting to the commentary, he proves fair use. By making a Copyright claim and proving fair use, he proves it isn't defamation.

WAFM

 

[Useful_Mistake]

my attorney isn't going to waste much time or money litigating anything. josh is going to get a letter with our demands and if he refuses to license it properly, the subforum is getting hit with a DMCA takedown demand.

And he will refuse. You will then either have to sue (which you both promised to sue and not, weirdly enough) or surrender on the issue.

tl;dr that's not how it works and i have no idea what those people have going. i am a professional artist and my name and image are being misappropriated without license. period. intent is moot. he needs to license this forum or remove it.

That's incorrect. We do not need a license if our usage falls under Fair Use, which it does. See, broadly, the Copyright act of 1976 or just section 107. In regards to your "name an image" none of it can be copyrighted. See 102 of the above mentioned act. Likewise DMCA is not appropriate here, as it is for copyrighted materials only

well, you really do need a license to use my images and writing the way your do. those compilations are completely in violation of civil law and aren't going to last very long once i set my attorney lose on this shit. out of context quotes are libelous, son.

Read up on Fair Use for your first point. As for your second point, out of context quotes can be libelous, but only when putting them in context would reveal that out of context meaning was falsely represented. You, masturbate to little girls and dogs in and out of context. It's not libelous. Out of context statements are more often not libelous than they are (otherwise reporting could never be done). See Van Buskirk v. Cable News Network, Inc., 284 F.3d 977 (9th Cir. 2002)

go study the law, fool. touching a well developed teenager does not constitute pedophilia.

By "well-developed" you mean 18 and over, right? 'Cause I've seen some veeeeeeery well-developed teens and I'd still go to prison if I tried anything with them.

he needs to license commercial use of my intellectual properties.

Nope. Fair Use.

you need permission to use my image the way

Nope, not true.

judgement for invasion of privacy by misappropriation

You must be famous for that, though, and we must have used your name in a similar way to: "Mr. Tom Wasserberg approves of this product and wants you to buy it" where you have in actuallity not approved. That is not the case here.

the whole thing is moot. it will never be prosecuted and it does not give you the authority to incite violence against me.

We do not incite violence against you as per Brandenburg Test.

it's what you're doing with them that's actiopnable.

Nope

 

[Dyn]

Just a two things to mention.

1. The statute of limitations on sexual offences in Arizona starts from when police become aware of the identity of the offender
2. You have no privileges against self-incrimination in a civil deposition

I would really, really want to avoid suing people if they knew I lived in Arizona and raped a minor 15 years ago.

 

[I like things]

Chairman of the bored eh? Bored? Really? My god I knew you were an incredibly retarded sack of shit but this sets the bar even higher. I didn't think it was possible .. but here we are. Well done @Miss Tommie Jayne Wasserberg - well done.

I hope someone brutally murders you. Nigger.

 

[Smicneibn]

Just a two things to mention.

1. The statute of limitations on sexual offences in Arizona starts from when police become aware of the identity of the offender
2. You have no privileges against self-incrimination in a civil deposition

I would really, really want to avoid suing people if they knew I lived in Arizona and raped a minor 15 years ago.

The statue of limitations to file a lawsuit for childhood sexual abuse against a minor used to be 2 years after the person's 18th birthday. Now it has been extended up to 12 years.: https://www.knappandroberts.com/arizonas-new-law-statute-of-limitations-for-childhood-sexual-abuse/