Cartman, you've got it backwards.
I never called him any name. I responded only to the information he posted. I pointed out where he was incorrect. I did it directly. I was neither passive nor aggressive. I have nothing to do with how he looks, except that I corrected his information. He's the one that had the aggressive reaction.
Please stop Trolling by taunting people about what they are going to do. Frank has nothing to do with this, except that he has banned you once already for this kind of stirring the pot and trying to cast people against each other.
You are trying to be a bully, and what is uniquely degrading about it is that you do it from the sidelines. Maybe first check your own pant size before projecting on others.
And I have never asked Frank to delete anything. Ever. Kindly stop spreading lies and rumors, it's not productive to the well being of this Site.
AMF original post
I didn't really look at the complaint, but it's unlikely that the Arizona court has jurisdiction over Hammonds. He could have it removed to his state of residence unless he has some ties to Arizona.
Grahams Response
Wrong on all counts. Maybe you should look at the complaint.
Can anyone find an allegation that the plaintiff has suffered seventy-five thousand dollars in damages? < That's a hint.
AMF Reply
Graham - What am I wrong about? I'm not talking about diversity jurisdiction. I am speaking of personal jurisdiction. If you don't understand the difference, I am happy to explain it. "Intentionally placing defamatory information on the internet is not, by itself, sufficient to subject the author or the owner of the website to personal jurisdiction in the state where the defamed party resides." Perhaps you know something that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals doesn't.
Grahams Response
OK, AMF, I'll play: Go ahead and explain personal jurisdiction to me, and I don't mean cut and paste from Wikipedia.
BTW, it's not a defamation suit. You are wrong about that as well.
Graham’s Response to a post from the original poster on the current thread
Not to mention the minimum amount of damages for a suit based on diversity in federal court.
OK, saw the complaint now. Even if it is a federal question there remain potentially fatal factual issues and jurisdictional issues... [Wait, did Graham post before reading the complaint? Isn’t that what he chastises others for doing?]
Grahams subsequent post.
You nailed it: Personal jurisdiction.
The defendant's only contact with Arizona, the venue state, appears to have been the purchase of a receiver from a third party. Hmmm......... [Wait a second? Isn’t that what AMF said originally?]
And it’s not just AMF. How does Graham speak to other posters?
Maybe consider reading the Thread before posting: That question has been answered.
Why do people insist on posting out of their backsides?!
That's not how the system works.
That's still not correct. In fact, all of it is incorrect.
Please, if you haven't a clue, kindly stop posting garbage.
You might want to reconsider giving that unpolished nugget of legal advice.
A teaching moment relevant to defamation claims: You can't first represent something as fact, then turn around and claim that it was only opinion because you chose to retroactively label it as such.
This is why it pays not to be lazy and to read the Thread: It's a Lanham Act claim.
You might want to read the very first post on this Thread.
Please think about what you posted, maybe for just a few seconds:
In the end the question is how can you demand civility when you treat others with nothing but disrespect, contempt and disdain?