Now Gordon Roy Parker wants me arrested; I am not kidding

Tdarcos · Post by **Tdarcos** » Tue Oct 11, 2011 7:38 pm

Gordon Roy Parker, a sociopath from Philadelphia who infests the alt.seduction.fast newsgroup on Usenet news, and uses the nickname of Ray Gordon, has apparently finally gotten around to having a police officer come visit me over his dislike of something I've said on that newsgroup regarding him.

According to the police officer who visited me, Gordo claimed that (1) I was harassing him; (2) I was threatening him; and (3) I was stalking him. Please note that Gordon Roy Parker, alias Ray Gordon, lives in Philadelphia, which is what, about 150 miles from here?

Ray got mad when I said something about him publicly in April, and claimed he was going to come after me by filing a complaint about it. Basically when I heard him say that I guessed that he'd bluster for a while then nothing more would happen and a month would go by. When nothing did happen for a solid month I figured he was just doing the same thing he's done in the past, when he got mad, he made all sorts of threats, then just more-or-less ran off with his tail between his legs.

So anyway, a nice police officer from the University Park, MD Police Department comes to see me about Gordon Roy Parker. So I tell him that the guy is a nutcase. I pointed out to the officer that Ray posted a message saying how the people who died in the towers, the World Trade Center, deserved what happened to him.

Yes, he has every right to say that if he wants, but he said it on September 11, 2001. I pointed out to the officer while these people were being crushed to death he claimed that they deserved it.

I said that I've called the guy a sociopath because of the things he's said, and that this incident is over something from six months ago.

I pointed out that it would be extremely unlikely that I would be stalking the guy, as (the officer could see) I'm in a wheelchair, what am I gonna do, roll all the way to Pennsylvania? The officer pointed out that doesn't mean I couldn't get someone to do something.

I pointed out that I don't know anybody. I also said that I know what the law is, I've never sent Ray any e-mails. In order to commit harassment you have to send something to a specific person (which I did know) and it has to be for no legitimate purpose. Public postings fail to represent harassment. It has to be specifically addressed to someone to even be classified as harassment.

Even if I had broken the law (which I know I haven't) all that the law imposes is at most a $500 fine.

That's part of the reason Ray had to lie in the police report: unless I send a message to him personally, that is upsetting and has no legitimate purpose, it's not harassment. As I stated, messages sent to a group are not individually addressed and don't constitute harassment under the law, even if the public message was upsetting and had no purpose.

I had actually looked this up more than a year ago because Ray was in the habit of declaring any criticism of him or his kookscreeds constituted electronic harassment. So I went and looked up the law in a few places including Pennsylvania where he lives and Florida, to show examples where my conduct doesn't even reach their requirements to constitute harassment (I also specifically looked up Maryland's statute on the subject) and found out that in my own behavior talking about him on the newsgroup had been more restrictive and less open than what is permitted under cyber harassment laws, I was actually more careful than what the law allowed.

I don't know about whether talking to the police officer was the right idea. Normally the best advice is not to say anything to the police, but you also have to know when you should say something. I figured by telling the truth about Ray and his September 11, 2001, rant, I'm thus poisoning the well and the officer would see Ray for what he is, a crackpot. And that the cop would be more likely to leave and report it as what it is, a crackpot trying to silence criticism of himself.

Besides, the things I've said about and to Ray can be easily found on Google Groups, I always stick to what's legal by not exaggerating anything about him - that's hard to do with a whackjob like Ray Gordon, his own conduct is so rancid it requires no embellishment - so I figure showing what this guy is like would let it be understood to others what he is. I also said the authorities where he lives know all about him.

I pointed out that I have no ill will toward him, my basic intent is to warn others on the newsgroup not to deal with him because he has the habit of attacking people who disagree with him or suing people in Federal court because he didn't like what they said. He's filed 7 cases in Federal court and lost every one.

I also said I wasn't bothered if Ray did try to have me prosecuted, I haven't violated the law and if it happened, after I win I will sue him and take everything he owns. And that he's libeled me more than once in the newsgroup.

I just remembered something else: I also pointed out (despite his claims to the contrary) he's never said one word to me complaining about what I wrote or ever asked me to stop saying anything.

I'm guessing the police officer got the point I was making, because he was courteous and left.

What surprised me was something I've mentioned publicly and to Ray over many years. It doesn't matter what he says or does on that newsgroup, since he's done nothing directly to me, I lack standing to do anything to him in court. If he doesn't do anything to me to give me standing, I am absolutely powerless to do anything to him in a court.

"Standing" is an important point in legal circles. You have to have a legitimate reason to sue someone. You have to have something to lose as a result of an action or event that grants you the privilege of suing them. Since nothing Ray has done really rises to the level of anything serious enough to give me standing, I have no grounds to sue him. "Plaintiff lacks standing to sue" is the court saying "don't let the screen door hit you on your way out."

But if Gordon Roy Parker sued me or if he filed a criminal complaint against me, and I end up being arrested over something meritless, then he grants me standing to come after him in court and sue him.

That it took six months for this to even come around tells me that this ain't a huge issue.

So we'll see what happens.

A federal judge said this about him, * "... upon consideration of Plaintiff Gordon Roy Parker's... continued and inexcusable failure..." Gordon Roy Parker v. "Wintermute" et. al. 02-CV-7215 (Feb. 25, 2003, Federal District Court, Eastern District, Pennsylvania)

When the judge said this, the only other reference on the Internet to "continued and inexcusable failure" was the UN clusterfuck in Kosovo that got people killed.

He also made it into the law books with another one of his cases, when the judge in that case said, "Plaintiff is... completely incomprehensible..." Gordon Roy Parker v. Google, Inc. 422 F. Supp 2d 492 (2006, E.D. PA) (He tried to sue Google for indexing his website, because he was too stupid to know about using "ROBOTS.TXT".)

Here's one of his really juicy comments he made once (not to me, though):

"[Y]ou can again go fuck yourself. I am too polite to get into detail about what I think is wrong with someone like you." - Ray Gordon, March 16, 2003
http://groups.google.com/groups?&selm=2 ... bj.aol.com
http://tinyurl.com/nhof

pinback · Post by **pinback** » Tue Oct 11, 2011 8:02 pm

That.

Is.

AWESOME!

pinback · Post by **pinback** » Tue Oct 11, 2011 8:07 pm

Wait a minute. He's a CHESS-PLAYER? He plays THE CHESS??

Why didn't you just say that right at the beginning? As we all learned from the HBO documentary "Bobby Fischer Against The World", all chess players are notorious lunatics.

Bobby Fischer also ranted on 9/11/2001 that the people in the buildings deserved it, which makes me think that Ray Gordon either just stole or quoted Fischer, or you got him and Fischer confused.

Tdarcos · Post by **Tdarcos** » Tue Oct 11, 2011 11:46 pm

pinback wrote:Wait a minute. He's a CHESS-PLAYER? He plays THE CHESS??

If you want to say that; Ray claims to have a rating of something over 2000. Despite the stunning errors and mistakes he's made over the years.

* Claims to be able to type over 100 words per minute without error, and routinely makes spelling errors.

* Claims he knows about legal issues, and I myself have caught him saying things that are provably incorrect. Every time he files a Federal lawsuit over some alleged slight against him, he ends up getting his ass handed to him, then complains that the judge didn't know what (s)he is doing and he'll win on appeal.

* Supposedly knows about business issues, and even I didn't even notice when he wrote a posting back in 2006 about the Sarbanes-Oxley act, that he titled it "Sarbanes-Oxely Retaliation Statute (18 USC §1513)", and that "I will soon be filing Sarbanes-Oxley complaints against ANYONE who tries to retaliate against me for my whistleblowing by attempting to interfere with my employment or livelihood. " Meaning he would file complaints against anyone saying anything about him in that newsgroup that disagreed with him.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sedu ... 804649f065

He also claimed that because he admitted that he has a mental illness, that those people on the newsgroup who mocked him or criticized him as a result were in violation of the patient protection provisions of HIPPA, a law that applies to medical providers handling confidential patient information, and that he could take action against anyone on the newsgroup who repeated anything he said there.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sedu ... a01fe37ea1

The point is, you can't make stuff up about this guy, he's so hilarious just from his own raw remarks.

pinback wrote:Why didn't you just say that right at the beginning? As we all learned from the HBO documentary "Bobby Fischer Against The World", all chess players are notorious lunatics.

Bobby Fischer also ranted on 9/11/2001 that the people in the buildings deserved it, which makes me think that Ray Gordon either just stole or quoted Fischer, or you got him and Fischer confused.

Oh no. Here's a message with a posting date of November 16, 2001 by someone else. I'm only including the three quotes about Ray, you can read the guy's original message here:

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sedu ... 8a5f674512

"There was no significant loss of life in those towers. Not a one." -- Sept. 11, 2001 Gordon Roy Parker (aka Ray Gordon), GENIUS

"This attack happened in my HOMETOWN, a hometown I do not live in or work in because of illegal behavior. I hope those who swiped my ability to live there enjoy the message they got from GOD today..." -- Sept. 11, 2001 Gordon Roy Parker (aka Ray Gordon), GENIUS

"In that building existed little more than a bunch of companies which hire 'office whores' and the like. I have no sympathy for employment discriminators, and if someone had to die in this attack, I couldn't think of a better group of people for the terrorists to pick." -- Sept. 11, 2001 Gordon Roy Parker (aka Ray Gordon), GENIUS

RetroRomper · Post by **RetroRomper** » Tue Oct 11, 2011 11:54 pm

Tdarcos wrote:He also claimed that because he admitted that he has a mental illness, that those people on the newsgroup who mocked him or criticized him as a result were in violation of the patient protection provisions of HIPPA (...)

Haven't we learned to not feed the trolls...[/quote]

Tdarcos · Post by **Tdarcos** » Wed Oct 12, 2011 7:43 am

RetroRomper wrote:
Tdarcos wrote:He also claimed that because he admitted that he has a mental illness, that those people on the newsgroup who mocked him or criticized him as a result were in violation of the patient protection provisions of HIPPA (...)
Haven't we learned to not feed the trolls...

Ray is just so much fun to fuck with, though. Like this message from 2004:

"Formhandle" wrote

> Hey GORK, got any more bogus paperwork to
> file with the court? I'm running out of toilet paper.
> Those with PACER access should find the opposition
> and proposed order soon.

> In the meantime, here's a nicely-worded excerpt
> from section 4 of the opposition (referenced from
> Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. at 550):

> "Not all unfavorable disposition towards an
> individual (or his case) is properly described
> [as bias or prejudice]. One would not say,
> for example, that world opinion is biased or
> prejudiced against Adolf Hitler."

You missed an even better quote:

"The judge who presides at a trial may, upon completion of the evidence, be exceedingly ill-disposed towards the defendant, who has been shown to be a thoroughly reprehensible person. But the judge is not thereby recusable for bias or prejudice, since his knowledge and the opinion it produced were properly and necessarily acquired in the course of the proceedings, and are indeed sometimes (as in a bench trial) necessary to completion of the judge's task. As Judge Jerome Frank pithily put it: 'Impartiality is not gullibility. Disinterestedness does not mean child-like innocence. If the judge did not form judgments of the actors in those courthouse dramas called trials, he could never render decisions.' - In re J. P. Linahan, Inc., 138 F.2d 650, 654 (CA2 1943)."
- Liteky v. United States, 510 US 550 at 561

I kind of like that line, "who has been shown to be a thoroughly reprehensible person."

I should include that in my notary jurats in case I have someone like Ray:
"Acknowledged before me by _____, who is known to me personally, or proven on the basis of satisfactory evidence, to be a thoroughly reprehensible person."

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sedu ... d193b9b8e/

realitycheck · Post by **realitycheck** » Wed Oct 12, 2011 9:03 am

Now I finally feel sorry for a police officer, he probably went home and shot himself or beat his wife after spending an afternoon at your desk in your hovel actually having to listen to 12 pages of drivel about online bullshit.

pinback · Post by **pinback** » Wed Oct 12, 2011 9:05 am

realitycheck wrote:Now I finally feel sorry for a police officer, he probably went home and shot himself or beat his wife after spending an afternoon at your desk in your hovel actually having to listen to 12 pages of drivel about online bullshit.

You are a very NASTY person, RC. I don't know who you are, but you are BRINGING US DOWN with your bad attitude.

Shape up, I say! Or the bans will start COMIN' DOWN.

Flack · Post by **Flack** » Wed Oct 12, 2011 9:47 am

I would have to question the fact that harassment can only take place in person to person communications. It seems like if I stood outside someone's home with a megaphone and shouted at them 24/7 that it might constitute harassment.

I'm pretty sure people have been sued for harassing people on Facebook. I could be wrong though.

Tdarcos · Post by **Tdarcos** » Wed Oct 12, 2011 1:07 pm

Flack wrote:I would have to question the fact that harassment can only take place in person to person communications. It seems like if I stood outside someone's home with a megaphone and shouted at them 24/7 that it might constitute harassment.

I'm pretty sure people have been sued for harassing people on Facebook. I could be wrong though.

If it ever came down to it that was one of the things I was considering arguing, that even though the law doesn't precisely apply to me - it only applies to someone sending harassing e-mails - that the law is essentially criminalizing a form of communication that is done electronically, at a distance, that would be perfectly legal - and could not be banned due to the First Amendment - if done in person.

I might therefore argue the statute which criminalizes cyberharassment is unconstitutional.

Tdarcos · Post by **Tdarcos** » Wed Oct 12, 2011 1:12 pm

realitycheck wrote:Now I finally feel sorry for a police officer, he probably went home and shot himself or beat his wife after spending an afternoon at your desk in your hovel actually having to listen to 12 pages of drivel about online bullshit.

(1) I wasn't reading from anything, I was telling him from memory what had happened. All I did was write down what happened here.
(2) He wasn't in my room, he was in the dining room outside my room (this house is a licensed rooming house, is clean, and not a 'hovel'). I just wonder how the hell he got in the place, the front door has a lock on it, and the only time I heard him was when he was knocking on the door to my room.
(3) Having problems at work is neither a legitimate reason to, nor an excuse for, engaging in domestic violence. Nor is having a disagreement with someone. Please let my have your address so I can give you personal instruction with my fists and an aluminum tripod for your disagreeable comments. :)

Tdarcos · Post by **Tdarcos** » Wed Oct 12, 2011 1:17 pm

Ignore the last sentence of my previous message, you might take it seriously and call the cops.

JONSEY! WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO RESTORE THE FUCKING POST EDITING CAPABILITY HERE?

Ice Cream Jonsey · Post by **Ice Cream Jonsey** » Wed Oct 12, 2011 7:17 pm

When you guys agree to STOP DELETING YOUR FUCKING POSTS.

Tdarcos · Post by **Tdarcos** » Wed Oct 12, 2011 10:34 pm

Ice Cream Jonsey wrote:When you guys agree to STOP DELETING YOUR FUCKING POSTS.

I told you in a private message how to turn post editing on for an hour or so, why didn't you do so?

Ice Cream Jonsey · Post by **Ice Cream Jonsey** » Thu Oct 13, 2011 9:26 pm

Tdarcos wrote:
Ice Cream Jonsey wrote:When you guys agree to STOP DELETING YOUR FUCKING POSTS.
I told you in a private message how to turn post editing on for an hour or so, why didn't you do so?

Paul. You asked a few weeks ago and I told you that I couldn't find a post edit mod that worked on phpBB 2.0. You then found one for phpBB 3.0. You then got mad that I didn't install it.

Tdarcos · Post by **Tdarcos** » Fri Oct 14, 2011 12:45 am

Ice Cream Jonsey wrote:
Tdarcos wrote:
Ice Cream Jonsey wrote:When you guys agree to STOP DELETING YOUR FUCKING POSTS.
I told you in a private message how to turn post editing on for an hour or so, why didn't you do so?
Paul. You asked a few weeks ago and I told you that I couldn't find a post edit mod that worked on phpBB 2.0. You then found one for phpBB 3.0. You then got mad that I didn't install it.

Yeah, but you didn't tell me that; you just ignored my response. I sent you another PM in response about how to fix that situation.