niggar Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
http://www.fairfaxtimes.com/article/20150116/NEWS/
> 150119570/fairfax-attorney-claims-she-was-defamed-
> anonymously-by-fellow&template=fairfaxTimes
>
>
> Two years ago, Fairfax County-based attorney Andi
> Geloo was contacted by one of her clients, asking
> her about disparaging comments she saw about Geloo
> on an online blog. The comments had been posted
> anonymously on the website
> www.FairfaxUnderground.com and attacked Geloo both
> personally with racial and sexual language, and
> professionally by derisively denouncing her as an
> attorney. Through correspondence with
> FairfaxUnderground administrator Cary Wiedemann,
> email carriers and exhaustive research of Internet
> Protocol (IP) addresses that took more than a
> year, she said she found out that two individuals
> who posted at least some of the comments were
> fellow Fairfax County attorneys.
>
> She has named them in a defamation lawsuit she
> filed in Fairfax County Circuit Court in September
> 2014.
>
> But because Virginia law has a one-year statute of
> limitations on defamation, her suit will likely go
> nowhere.
>
> It is for this reason that she has helped to draft
> House Bill 1635, which has as its goal to extend
> the statute of limitations on defamation in
> Virginia. The bill is being patroned by Del. David
> B. Albo (R-Dist. 42) and is currently before the
> Virginia General Assembly.
>
> “She came to me with this and I agreed that
> something needed to be done,” said Albo.
> “Everyone deserves their day in court and
> because of this loophole in the [Virginia law]
> code, it is nearly impossible for defamation
> victims to get justice.”
>
> Geloo, a first-generation American, grew up in
> Fairfax the daughter of Indian immigrants and
> attended Fairfax High School. In 2003, she
> graduated in the top 10 percent of her law school
> class at George Washington University and later
> opened her own legal practice.
>
> “I worked hard at building my reputation as a
> competent attorney,” she said. “As a woman I
> had to build respect, and I did that by trying
> cases and not being intimidated. It was a lot of
> work to build that reputation and I wasn’t about
> to have some anonymous cyber-bullies tear that
> down by posting defamatory lies about me. A lot of
> people told me there’s nothing you can do, let
> it go, get a tougher skin, but I said ‘would you
> tell your wife that if they said both
> sexually-based and professionally damaging things
> about her?’ You can imagine my shock when I
> found out they were attorneys that I know.”
>
> Cyberbullying, often thought to be solely a teen
> issue, has actually become an issue around the
> country, regardless of one’s age. While it’s
> true that teens are being cyberbullied at
> alarming, almost epidemic rates, so too are
> adults. It is a problem that is even affecting
> professionals in the workplace, as Geloo
> unfortunately found out.
>
> Although she took all the appropriate steps for
> legal action against those who cyberbullied her,
> she said the court system didn’t work in her
> favor. Before learning of her cyber-bulliers
> identities, she originally filed a lawsuit against
> eight “John Doe” defendants, listing the eight
> fictitious account names on FairfaxUnderground
> affiliated with the negative comments. She then
> subpoenaed Verizon, Cox and Time Warner, the
> carriers of the email IP addresses of the posters,
> to have them reveal the posters’ names. The
> carriers then contacted the posters, two of whom
> then anonymously hired attorneys, without publicly
> revealing their identities.
>
> “The John Does’ attorney’s then filed
> motions to quash my efforts to have their
> client’s names revealed,” said Geloo.
> “Through delays and stalling that took months,
> they effectively pushed my suit past the statute
> of limitations.”
>
> Although the suit had been filed within the
> statute of limitations, because the case was
> against “John Does” the elapsed time that the
> defending attorneys took to defend their clients
> was not “tolled.” This is a legal term meaning
> that the ticking deadline on the statute of
> limitations was not temporarily halted as the
> defending attorneys took their time to respond to
> Geloo’s attorneys. And because she had not yet
> garnered enough information to discern the
> identity of the posters, Geloo’s case based
> against “John Does” was ultimately weak.
>
> On June 23, 2014, Fairfax County Circuit Court
> Judge Robert J. Smith ruled on the defending
> attorney’s motion to quash Geloo’s subpoena
> asking the internet companies to reveal the
> poster’s names.
>
> Smith ruled that Geloo had not proven to his
> satisfaction that the identities of the posters
> should be revealed. “There is strong First
> Amendment protection if you want to speak
> anonymously and you should be able to do so,”
> said Fairfax County attorney Steve Bancroft, who
> represented Cox Cable and made an appearance in
> the case.
>
> Since then, through other means, Geloo says she
> was able to conclusively discern the identities of
> the posters, at least two of whom turned out to be
> attorneys themselves.
>
> But because the statute of limitations has
> elapsed, there is now little she can do.
>
> “You have to understand that Judge Smith’s
> ruling was not a decision on the merits of my
> case,” she said. “It was simply one judge’s
> opinion on a motion to quash a subpoena. I was
> free to refile my case, and I did, with the real
> names of the parties. But now I am outside the
> one-year statute of limitations.”
>
> Geloo added that the filing of the original case
> against John Does did not toll or preserve the
> statute of limitations on defamation.
>
> “There is case law that specifically says John
> Doe lawsuits do not toll the statute,” she said.
> “That is why in Delegate Albo’s bill I am
> seeking to double the statute of limitations in
> defamation cases to two years, as well as adding a
> specific clause about internet defamation and the
> ability to have those cases qualify to be tolled.
> Something needs to be done so that this never
> happens to anyone else.”
This sort of shit is a waste of time and expense. Even if the defamed party files on time with evidence conclusive of confirmed I.P. Addresses, the defamed party would be burdened with proving the owner of the I.P. address, actually did, in fact, post the defaming remarks.
This entire ordeal just proves that this attorney, Geloo, is the real bully. And that she knows nothing of her proclaimed profession as an attorney.
Besides, while your I.P. address server being able to be 'piggy backed' by another user with the simplest of devices, if simply in close range of the server, this attorney Geloo could and can not prove a damn thing in any court of law. Even in a Kangaroo court!
And, again, besides, if the so called defaming remarks were and are not true, then what, exactly, is this or any person obsessed with it about!
Attachments: