wrong turn okay dumb but it could happen. going 50 running over a 65 year old from the rear - priceless. sending families with young children diving into the poison ivy sublime.

http://www.wusa9.com/news/article/261837/158/Mehak-Chopra-was-driving-while-intoxicated-and-hit-a-65-year-old-man-on-a-bicycle-

I'm not convinced it's not her, but not sure either.

Chopra is a pretty common Indian name, someone running for Lt Gov is named Jugdish Chopra or something.

If it's not the same person, than prove it to us by posting a picture of "your" Mehak Chopra in your office with today's date. Then people will remove all pictures of the wrong Mehak Chopra. This would take 5 seconds to stop people from posting the wrong person, just show us through a picture that its the wrong person.
The more people use her name in these posting and post the wrong picture, the more Search Engine Optimization (SEO) is going to grab these posting and next thing ya know she will show up in all Google type searches related to this incident. If it's truly not her, you can end this with one simply posting of her, at the office, today, and not in jail. :)

I believe the Studio picture was taken when she was 26,(Younger pic) and mugshot taken when she was 28 and drunk, but DEFINITELY the same girl !! Already searched Fairfax County records, same girl !

eesh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> LOL!
>
>
>
>
> src="http://www.fairfaxunderground.com/forum/file.
> php?40,file=94636,filename=Clipboard01.jpg">


Why wouldn't this "Bikram" guy use his full name in his email? Odd and suspicious.

Sammy
Maybe because he thought he was emailing a professional troll? It doesn't look like it was over email but the PM system here.
ProveIt
Its pretty counter intuitive to go and post your picture to get your picture removed and its not like you would have authority to remove it anyways.

Well, today's article in the Washington Post addresses my prior point about why the little pylons aren't at all the crossings:

"'This is a really unusual circumstance that we don’t see often,' said Chris Pauley, director of park operations for the Northern Virginia Regional Park Authority.

"Pauley said that the W&OD once had iron gates at its 70 grade crossings that prevented cars from accessing the trail, but the gates were removed in the 1980s because cyclists sometimes ran into them and were injured. At some crossings, there are signs or flexible poles that alert drivers to the trail."

Full article at http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/driver-accused-of-hitting-bicyclist-refused-breath-test-police-say/2013/06/03/15a73bd6-cc85-11e2-8f6b-67f40e176f03_story.html?tid=pm_local_pop

how drunk to you have to be -- "why are there all these pedestrians and bikes on this narrow road -- maybe I need to drive even faster?"

I think we can all agree that a picture of the face is not enough to determine identifying features. Please post full nude pics of "both" Mekah Chopra's so we can determine if ALL features match.

411.com Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If you search her name in 411.com in shows an
> address in Fairfax [not McLean] it's not her.


This

blanche Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> how drunk to you have to be -- "why are there all
> these pedestrians and bikes on this narrow road --
> maybe I need to drive even faster?"

By the time see realized her mistake she was probably saying "oh fuck I'm buzzed and I need to get the hell off this pathway quickly before the cops find me on here."

It does say she exited the path at Maple Ave which I find very odd. She would driven over two intersection with traffic where she clearly could of exited?

Ottis from Mayberry Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> blanche Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > how drunk to you have to be -- "why are there
> all
> > these pedestrians and bikes on this narrow road
> --
> > maybe I need to drive even faster?"
>
> By the time see realized her mistake she was
> probably saying "oh fuck I'm buzzed and I need to
> get the hell off this pathway quickly before the
> cops find me on here."
>
> It does say she exited the path at Maple Ave which
> I find very odd. She would driven over two
> intersection with traffic where she clearly could
> of exited?

Not to mention that the Maple Avenue crossing has a small pylon at the end of the yellow line separating the trail's two lanes. The Church Street crossing a block to the west doesn't (I don't know about the next crossing to the west and don't feel like looking it up on Street View).

Bik Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "mclean's finest" took a picture of -----
> who works for us and is not the person who was
> involved in this accident.
>
> We request you to please remove her picture.
>
> Mehak Chopra you are looking for lives in mclean
> and is 28 years old (according to the news
> report). ---- who works for us is -- years
> old and lives in ---- and most importantly she
> has never been involved in any accident in her
> entire life.
>
>
> Thank You


Bik,

Falsely associating a photo of your employee with the person involved in the accident constitutes defamation.

In fact, it is "defamation per se," because it falsely charges your employee with a crime and/or prejudices her in her profession or trade.


Here is how you should proceed:


Step 1: Email the proprietor of Fairfax Underground, Cary, at: cary@fairfaxunderground.com

Ask him to take down the pictures of your employee that are posted on this thread.


Step 2: If Cary refuses to remove the images, hire a lawyer and bring a defamation suit.

Because this is defamation per se, and your employee is a private rather than a public figure, this is a relatively easy case for an attorney (assuming the factual assertions you made in your post are accurate).

The lawyer will be able to force the removal of the defamatory images from both registered and unregistered posts.

Here are some law firms to consider contacting:

http://www.leiserlaw.com/areas-of-practice/defamation/

http://www.berliklaw.com/lawyer-attorney-1425658.html

http://www.weislaw.com/Library/Personal-Injury-and-Automobile-Accidents-2/The-Basics-of-Defamation-In-Virginia.shtml

http://www.jeremiahdenton.com/practice-areas/libel-slander-defamation/defamation/internet-and-social-media-defamation/

edit by Cary: Removed an unprovoked personal attack outting of user 'eesh'.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/04/2013 06:03PM by Cary.

1995hoo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ottis from Mayberry Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > blanche Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > how drunk to you have to be -- "why are there
> > all
> > > these pedestrians and bikes on this narrow
> road
> > --
> > > maybe I need to drive even faster?"
> >
> > By the time see realized her mistake she was
> > probably saying "oh fuck I'm buzzed and I need
> to
> > get the hell off this pathway quickly before
> the
> > cops find me on here."
> >
> > It does say she exited the path at Maple Ave
> which
> > I find very odd. She would driven over two
> > intersection with traffic where she clearly
> could
> > of exited?
>
> Not to mention that the Maple Avenue crossing has
> a small pylon at the end of the yellow line
> separating the trail's two lanes. The Church
> Street crossing a block to the west doesn't (I
> don't know about the next crossing to the west and
> don't feel like looking it up on Street View).


Then she must of exited on Church street and not Maple Ave.

1995hoo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> "Pauley said that the W&OD once had iron gates at
> its 70 grade crossings that prevented cars from
> accessing the trail, but the gates were removed in
> the 1980s because cyclists sometimes ran into them
> and were injured. At some crossings, there are
> signs or flexible poles that alert drivers to the
> trail."

Why do I find that hilarious!

eesh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> LOL!
>
>
>
>
> src="http://www.fairfaxunderground.com/forum/file.
> php?40,file=94636,filename=Clipboard01.jpg">


Lol, ginder is pissed

@ Bik Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Blah blah blah, I don't know what the fuck I'm talking about.

Sorry to burst your bubble, Matlock, but eesh is not the person who wrongly identified the CPA chick as the drunk driver. It was an anonymous poster. Eesh only quoted the other poster and added the picture that was publicly available on their website.

I know you probably got a chub thinking that this might be the day that you can finally get proxy revenge on eesh for whatever you think he did to you, but he's not the culprit. If that was the case, then everyone else who quoted that anonymous user's post is also guilty of "defamation per se" or whatever new legal phrase you learned on Wikipedia this morning.

You are a douchebag for trying to help someone take legal action against the wrong person, and this is why everyone hates you.

--------------------------------------------------------------
13 4826 0948 82695 25847. Yes.

MrMephisto Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> @ Bik Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Blah blah blah, I don't know what the fuck I'm
> talking about.
>
> Sorry to burst your bubble, Matlock, but eesh is
> not the person who wrongly identified the CPA
> chick as the drunk driver. It was an anonymous
> poster. Eesh only quoted the other poster and
> added the picture that was publicly available on
> their website.
>
> I know you probably got a chub thinking that this
> might be the day that you can finally get proxy
> revenge on eesh for whatever you think he did to
> you, but he's not the culprit. If that was the
> case, then everyone else who quoted that anonymous
> user's post is also guilty of "defamation per se"
> or whatever new legal phrase you learned on
> Wikipedia this morning.
>
> You are a douchebag for trying to help someone
> take legal action against the wrong person, and
> this is why everyone hates you.


That's stupid.

MrMephisto Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Eesh only quoted the other poster and
> added the picture that was publicly available on
> their website.


It doesn't matter that the picture is publicly available. The defamation lies in falsely associating it with the criminal/criminal acts.

The picture is new defamatory content Basl added to the thread.


What if I republish another person's statement? (i.e. someone comments on your posts)
"Generally, anyone who repeats someone else's statements is just as responsible for their defamatory content as the original speaker—if they knew, or had reason to know, of the defamation."


At this point, Basl has "reason to know" of the defamation, and the means to remove his republication of it.

His failure to remove his republication as well as the new defamatory material he added to this thread will ensure his liability.

He should be thanking me for this heads-up, rather than siccing his attack poodle on me.


"and this is why everyone hates you."

vienna's finest Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> She apparently drove at least three miles, from
> Hunter Mill to 123, hitting a cyclist along the
> way.
>
> http://vienna.patch.com/articles/car-hits-bicyclis
> t-on-w-od-trail-in-vienna

LOL.

She just did what we were all thinking. I mean who hasn't thought about driving their car down the WOD trail?

She's going to post 10k bond. What judge set it for so low.

http://vienna.patch.com/articles/bond-set-for-woman-accused-in-w-od-hit-and-run

http://court-record-management.com/record/3387247/GT12191547-00

clue. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Despite what my name implies, I have no idea what I'm talking about.

Maybe you should have read a little further down into the link you posted.

Generally, anyone who repeats someone else's statements is just as responsible for their defamatory content as the original speaker—if they knew, or had reason to know, of the defamation.

At the time he reposted, he did not know it was the wrong person. He has not continued the claim that they are the same person after receiving that message from Sangha CPA. He also removed the publicly-available picture from his post. Good luck trying to prove that eesh, with malice aforethought, intentionally spread false information about someone he knew was innocent.

Idiot.

--------------------------------------------------------------
13 4826 0948 82695 25847. Yes.

I quoted that passage, and explained its applicability here.

Specifically:

At this point, Basl has "reason to know" of the defamation, and the means to remove his republication of it.

His failure to remove his republication as well as the new defamatory material he added to this thread will ensure his liability.

To clarify: leaving the post(s) up after being asked to remove them (indeed, after someone pleaded with him to remove them) ensures his liability.

By leaving the posts up, he is intentionally spreading false, defamatory information about someone he knows, or has reason to know, is innocent.

Also, "malice aforethought" is not a relevant standard in the context of a defamation claim by private figure.

Will all you assholes stop bitching about defamation and other assorted legal BS. No one gives a shit.

Stay the fuck on topic.

This thread is about running over dbag bikers and laughing at their pain.

defamation is hard to prove. You may even be covered under homeowners ins. for it. If guilty how was the victim 'harmed?'

clue. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I quoted that passage, and explained its
> applicability here.
>
> Specifically:
>
> At this point, Basl has "reason to know" of the
> defamation, and the means to remove his
> republication of it.
>
> His failure to remove his republication as well as
> the new defamatory material he added to this
> thread will ensure his liability.
>
> To clarify: leaving the post(s) up after being
> asked to remove them (indeed, after someone
> pleaded with him to remove them) ensures his
> liability.
>
> By leaving the posts up, he is intentionally
> spreading false, defamatory information about
> someone he knows, or has reason to know, is
> innocent.

By that logic, the three other posters who quoted the wrong information are also "liable," but you seem to be focused on eesh. Probably because you don't know what you're talking about and are only throwing these bullshit suggestions up because you think eesh is a big ol' meanie-pants.

Even in an alternate reality where any part of what you've written is true, there's still the whole "the CPA firm has to have an official court order to get the server logs from Cary and start the process of proving that eesh is who you say he is and that his IP address can be directly linked to him as a person instead of just an end-point" thing. See also: every other legal threat ever made in the entire history of this website.

> Also, "malice aforethought" is not a relevant
> standard in the context of a defamation claim by
> private figure.

It looked fun when you started throwing around legal jargon that had nothing to do with anything, so I figured I'd give it a try. It was pretty sweet. Good call.

--------------------------------------------------------------
13 4826 0948 82695 25847. Yes.

LoLz
Attachments:

MrMephisto Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> clue. Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I quoted that passage, and explained its
> > applicability here.
> >
> > Specifically:
> >
> > At this point, Basl has "reason to know" of
> the
> > defamation, and the means to remove his
> > republication of it.
> >
> > His failure to remove his republication as well
> as
> > the new defamatory material he added to this
> > thread will ensure his liability.
> >
> > To clarify: leaving the post(s) up after being
> > asked to remove them (indeed, after someone
> > pleaded with him to remove them) ensures his
> > liability.
> >
> > By leaving the posts up, he is intentionally
> > spreading false, defamatory information about
> > someone he knows, or has reason to know, is
> > innocent.
>
> By that logic, the three other posters who quoted
> the wrong information are also "liable," but you
> seem to be focused on eesh. Probably because you
> don't know what you're talking about and are only
> throwing these bullshit suggestions up because you
> think eesh is a big ol' meanie-pants.
>
> Even in an alternate reality where any part of
> what you've written is true, there's still the
> whole "the CPA firm has to have an official court
> order to get the server logs from Cary and start
> the process of proving that eesh is who you say he
> is and that his IP address can be directly linked
> to him as a person instead of just an end-point"
> thing. See also: every other legal threat ever
> made in the entire history of this website.
>
> > Also, "malice aforethought" is not a relevant
> > standard in the context of a defamation claim
> by
> > private figure.
>
> It looked fun when you started throwing around
> legal jargon that had nothing to do with anything,
> so I figured I'd give it a try. It was pretty
> sweet. Good call.



While there probably isn't any defamation case here, you sure do like to enable and defend a guy who makes it his hobby to use this website to shit all over many innocent people's reputations.

Gordon Blvd Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> LoLz
Attachments:

STOP HIJACKING THE THREAD! Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Will all you assholes stop bitching about
> defamation and other assorted legal BS. No one
> gives a shit.
>
> Stay the fuck on topic.
>
> This thread is about running over dbag bikers and
> laughing at their pain.


I'm sure the falsely accused Mehak gives a shit

MrMephisto Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> By that logic, the three other posters who quoted
> the wrong information are also "liable,"

Yes, they are.

> but you seem to be focused on eesh.

I focused on him because his publication of the pm, combined with the "LOL" and the refusal to remove the (obvious by this point) defamatory material struck me as especially obnoxious.

> Probably because you
> don't know what you're talking about and are only
> throwing these bullshit suggestions up because you
> think eesh is a big ol' meanie-pants.

Maybe I don't know what I'm talking about, and maybe eesh shouldn't dish it out if he can't take it.

What goes around comes around, karma is a bitch, etc, etc.

That said, let me further emphasize that you have failed to demonstrate that any of the legal or factual points that I've made are inaccurate, and in fact I do not believe anything I've said is inaccurate.

> Even in an alternate reality where any part of
> what you've written is true, there's still the
> whole "the CPA firm has to have an official court
> order to get the server logs from Cary and start
> the process of proving that eesh is who you say he
> is and that his IP address can be directly linked
> to him as a person instead of just an end-point"
> thing. See also: every other legal threat ever
> made in the entire history of this website.*

Yeah, there is that. It's relatively rare that a potential defamation claim arises at all on this blog, because you can't defame an anonymous handle.

And often, when an actual or potential such claim does arise, the potentially defamed person lacks the resources to pursue a claim (eg, someone who wantonly tosses an unlit (?) cigarette at the head of an otherwise estimable citizen typically lacks the resources to pursue a defamation claim).

In this case, however, it appears the potential plaintiff, being a CPA firm, does have the resources.

Also, if you read the pm by "jwood," he seems pretty hip to the liability issues that are presented here.

> It looked fun when you started throwing around
> legal jargon that had nothing to do with anything,
> so I figured I'd give it a try. It was pretty
> sweet. Good call.

Ditto my use of "blog."

That said, we are reasonable men. Just for kicks, let's look at the elements of a potential claim, shall we?

How to prove libel
There are several ways a person must go about proving that libel has taken place. For example, in the United States, first, the person must prove that the statement was false. Second, the person must prove that the statement caused harm. Third, the person must prove that the statement was made without adequate research into the truthfulness of the statement. These steps are for an ordinary citizen.

For a celebrity or a public official, the person must prove the first three steps and that the statement was made with the intent to do harm or with reckless disregard for the truth. Usually specifically referred to as "proving malice".

Restatement (Second) of Torts**

Analysis:
(1) The employee is a private not a public figure, so there is a lower burden of proof.

(2) The first element depends on whether the assertions of "Bik" and "jwood" are true.

At a minimum, however, those statements place Basl in the position of having "reason to know" his association of the employee with the criminal driver is false.

Thus the first element appears to be satisfied.

(3) In a defamation per se claim, no proof of harm is required.

Thus the second element is satisfied.

(4) Clearly, Basl did not do adequate research into the truthfulness of his claims associating the employee with the criminal driver.

If a claim is indeed brought against him, good luck proving otherwise.

(5) As discussed in my prior posts, there are two potential claims against Basl, republication of defamatory material, and first publication of new defamatory material.

Basl's intent is not particularly relevant to the second of these claims, but it may be relevant to the first.

As discussed above, his refusal to remove his republication of defamatory material after being advised of its defamatory nature evidences his intent to spread defamatory information about someone he knows, or has reason to know, is innocent.

Thus all the elements of a potential defamation claim are satisfied.

Whether an actual claim will be brought remains to be seen. Regardless, it would be prudent for eesh to remove the potentially defamatory material as soon as possible.

I don't expect him to take this advice - although it actually is good advice - any more than I expected PL to take eesh's advice when eesh warned him about recklessly posting defamatory material about Christopher A. W. and William Z.


*Notably, one such claim that did succeed, at least in part, arose from a thread begun by eesh.
**That's a joke. The quote is from Wikipedia, my primary legal resource.

Well put chuck. Btw, what claim against eesh are you referring to at the end of your post?

Gosh Mephisto Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Well put chuck. Btw, what claim against eesh are
> you referring to at the end of your post?


Chuck.... as in Hoffmann?

Not much of case here. You have to prove damages. How is that going to be done?

And the judge is going to say, "Did you really come into my court with a case about one post that was made on web board?"

Reality Check 4 U Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> And the judge is going to say, "Did you really
> come into my court with a case about one post that
> was made on web board?"


Perhaps, but people have a right to seek redress in situations like this, a woman's professional career could potentially suffer. And frankly you probably aren't a judge, so what do you know?




Damages? Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Not much of case here. You have to prove damages.
> How is that going to be done?


Have you been reading the posts?

No damages have to be proven in a defamation case.

Gosh Mephisto Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Well put chuck. Btw, what claim against eesh are
> you referring to at the end of your post?


http://www.fairfaxunderground.com/forum/read.php?40,532295,532304,quote=1

"No damages have to be proven in a defamation case."

For clarification, damages need not be proved in a special kind of defamation claim called "defamation per se."

This is fairfax county, and the victim was a cyclist, so the answer is yes, the victim was a low class untouchable. The perp was high caste - IE a motorist.

You should understand our local caste system by now.

Hear that sound?
















It's Mephisto being pwned hard.

The intersections look totally different at ground level. There's turning lanes and traffic lights at the intersection of Hunter Mill and Lawyers. There are street signs. It's very plainly an intersection of streets meant for cars.

How drunk was she that she thought her car was 3 feet wide and would fit on the right side of the yellow line? How did she manage to cross the bridges and overpasses? Did she really think the port-a-john by the road was a rest stop? Did she miss seeing the signs on Hunter Mill indicating that there's a trail crossing, plus the zebra crossing? Answer: drunk enough that at age 28 she should have known not to walk anywhere, let alone drive.

Her license needs to be pulled for drunken stupid irresponsible driving.

The county needs to call out the consulting engineers to assess damage to the trail infrastructure. Send her a bill for repairs. That could be a very large chunk of change.

She (or her insurance) will need to pay for rehabilitation for the cyclist who she injured, plus probably a new bicycle.

I actually feel sorry for her. She did many stupid things in a short period of time. She's going to have to make it up, and it's going to cost her a lot. I'm really glad nobody died. Sure hope the cyclist recovers completely.

What are the odds that two women with very distinctive names, both living in the same county, both similar ages.....

another cyclist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> She (or her insurance) will need to pay for
> rehabilitation for the cyclist who she injured,
> plus probably a new bicycle.
>
> I actually feel sorry for her. She did many stupid
> things in a short period of time. She's going to
> have to make it up, and it's going to cost her a
> lot. I'm really glad nobody died. Sure hope the
> cyclist recovers completely.

Insurance will have to pay for a lot more than just rehab and a bike - im guessing he will get the maximum of her coverage and could easily win millions more in damages from a civil suit. She hit him from behind, with a car on a bike trail while drunk!!! Honestly negligence doesnt come more 'gross' than that...

All,

I just redacted information from several messages in this thread. Please do not make any further untowards references to the innocent Mehak Chopra. She has provided evidence to me that she was born in 1986 and is NOT the individual born on 8/19/1984 currently charged with Felony Failure to Stop for an accident.

Thank you.

- Cary (the admin)

Well you can't get more than she is insured for. She most likely lives in an apartment. I don't see her having an umbrella policy.

Civil suit will be filed but what is the injured going to get? She will be in jail for the next ten years.

Cary Wrote:

> charged with Felony Failure to
> Stop for an accident.
>
> Thank you.
>
> - Cary (the admin)


I think you mean drunk driving/hit and run

Gosh Mephisto Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> STOP HIJACKING THE THREAD! Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Will all you assholes stop bitching about
> > defamation and other assorted legal BS. No one
> > gives a shit.
> >
> > Stay the fuck on topic.
> >
> > This thread is about running over dbag bikers
> and
> > laughing at their pain.
>
>
> I'm sure the falsely accused Mehak gives a shit


whelp, apparently she did LoLz

Cary Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> All,
>
> I just redacted information from several messages
> in this thread. Please do not make any further
> untowards references to the innocent Mehak Chopra.
> She has provided evidence to me that she was born
> in 1986 and is NOT the individual born on
> 8/19/1984 currently charged with Felony Failure to
> Stop for an accident.
>
> Thank you.
>
> - Cary (the admin)


Nice of you to clarify, albeit in a half-assed sort of way (there is still quite a bit of information you left on this thread that could confuse someone who didn't read through all the posts carefully -- say, someone who stumbles on it a month or a year from now).

Cary is like someone who manages a tow truck company, whose driver illegally tows someone's car.

After considerable hassle, Cary finally agrees to return the car to the owner -- but battered and in need of repairs.

For the record Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Cary Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > All,
> >
> > I just redacted information from several
> messages
> > in this thread. Please do not make any further
> > untowards references to the innocent Mehak
> Chopra.
> > She has provided evidence to me that she was
> born
> > in 1986 and is NOT the individual born on
> > 8/19/1984 currently charged with Felony Failure
> to
> > Stop for an accident.
> >
> > Thank you.
> >
> > - Cary (the admin)
>
>
> Nice of you to clarify, albeit in a half-assed
> sort of way (there is still quite a bit of
> information you left on this thread that could
> confuse someone who didn't read through all the
> posts carefully -- say, someone who stumbles on it
> a month or a year from now).
>
> Cary is like someone who manages a tow truck
> company, whose driver illegally tows someone's
> car.
>
> After considerable hassle, Cary finally agrees to
> return the car to the owner -- but battered and in
> need of repairs.

is this patrick or The bitch, katiesmith? All bets are welcome



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/04/2013 07:02PM by Priapus.

Cary knows who it is.

And if he takes a step back and looks at the thread objectively, he's intelligent enough to know I'm right.

I do not get it - if I type.......

Donald Trump was drunk driving. Or, if I say he (insert real crime here).

How is that illegal?

(And attach a pic of him to the post)

In this case, the very real reputational interest of the innocent Mehak Chopra should absolutely and completely trump any bullshit "free speech" concerns of the world champion niggard of redactions,* Mr. Wiedemann.

If I were Ms. Chopra, I would not be happy with this thread as it presently stands.

But it's her life and her reputation, and if she's content, fine. (Although I will note, for the record, that Cary's redactions certainly do not obviate the defamation claims that arise from remarks made on this thread.)


*In other contexts, such as exaggerated DMCA takedown claims, I might admire that niggardliness, but in this context, that of preserving an individual's reputation, it is entirely out of place.

I will try again...

If I say susie chopkra molested a young boy yesterday and included a pic - what can happen?

i would be wrong and misinformed, but so what?


good use of the word "niggard", you may catch 1 person who takes it as racist

NmuF3 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I will try again...
>
> If I say susie chopkra molested a young boy
> yesterday and included a pic - what can happen?
>
> i would be wrong and misinformed, but so what?
>
>
> good use of the word "niggard", you may catch 1
> person who takes it as racist

How about you quit beating a dead horse and drink a cup of warm STFU, hhhmmm?

Because i want my question answered.

FEtbu Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Because i want my question answered.
Attachments:

FEtbu Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Because i want my question answered.


Read the Wikipedia article on defamation. That will answer your questions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation

See, in particular, "mere vulgar abuse," and "public figure doctrine" (which would apply to Trump).

The second example you gave is a dangerous example. You didn't cross the line, because you used the conditional "if," but you're edging up mighty close to it (a court might determine that a conditional statement, or a supposed "joke," is merely a pretext for substantive defamation).

Gordon Blvd Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
[pic]


Lol...

Re: Drunk driver on W&OD trail
Posted by: eesh 
()Date: June 02, 2013 04:11PM
mclean's finest Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "Mehak Chopra is a lead Financial Analyst at
> [redacted] She provides her expertise in
> preparation & analysis of financial reports. She
> has hands-on experience in financial research and
> analysis, budgeting, ad hoc analysis and tax
> compliance.
> 
> Mehak graduated with Bachelor’s degree in
> Business Finance from Carroll University, WI. She
> is currently attending George Washington
> University for Master’s degree in Organizational
> Sciences"
> 
> [link redacted]

How could someone this smart and successful do something so stupid?

edit by Cary (the admin): The "Mehak Chopra" identified here is NOT the same Mehak Chopra involved in the W&OD Trail incident on June 1, 2013. The innocent Mehak Chopra has provided evidence to the Administrators that she was born in 1986 and is NOT the individual born on 8/19/1984 currently charged with Felony Failure to Stop for an accident. Information pertaining to the misidentified Mehak Chopra has been removed from this post.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/04/2013 05:57PM by Cary.
Options: Reply Quote





Looks like eesh was wrong, but what does he care, he got his daily rush of shitting on someone's reputation.

When does it end?

First, I do not know how someone can use an editable source to cite anything.

Second, could a person just add "I think" before any statement and be free of any legal problems?

Oh come, who hasn't shaved a couple of minutes off their commute by using the WO&D. We've all done it.

Cars on Trail for Bikes, Pedestrians May be More Serious than Reported
An alleged drunk driver who barreled down the trail and struck a bicyclist was not the first person to drive down the "no-vehicles-allowed" path.

http://vienna.patch.com/articles/cars-on-trail-for-bikes-pedestrians-may-be-more-serious-than-reported

Teri Johnson and her daughter were sipping smoothies on a hot summer stroll along the W&OD Trail in Vienna when the 16-year-old looked up and asked, "Why is there a car on the trail?"

Johnson first thought it might be a park authority vehicle, but as it came closer, the car began moving erratically, gaining speed as it barreled toward the center of town on the popular pedestrian and bike path.

By the time the driver reached them, the car's tire was flat and missing a hub cap. And like so many others that saw the alleged drunk driver — who traveled five miles at speeds as high as 50 miles per hour on one of the region's largest recreational paths — Johnson, for a moment, thought she and her daughter would surely be hit; the car came within a foot of the pair before swerving and continuing down the trail, she said.

By now, dozens of similar stories from witnesses have been shared about the "horrifying" incident Saturday on one of the region's largest recreational trails.

But the real question, witnesses, police and those in the bike community say, is what happens next?

The driver, Mehak Chopra, 28, of Mclean, who allegedly hit and seriously injured a 65-year-old bicyclist on her trip down the trail, faces a number of charges after the incident, including driving while intoxicated, failure to stop and felony hit and run, a charge that carries up to 10 years in prison and up to a $2,500 fine.

The problem of motorists on the trail is extremely rare, said Bruce Wright, the president of Fairfax Advocates for Better Bicycling (FABB), who has used the trail nearly every day for 30 years and can recall only a handful of encounters with vehicles.

While there have been a number of cars spotted on the trail over the years — including this March in Vienna — many are never officially reported, because drivers quickly realize their mistake and turn around, Vienna Police Department spokesman Officer Gary Lose.

While police say the only vehicle officially logged this year for an extended trip was for a moped using the trail several weeks ago, anecdotally, some residents say, the problem is larger.

Last year in Vienna, a man apparently tried to cut through to Cedar Lane using the trail, one user wrote to Patch. Cars are occasionally spotted by the entrance to the trail near the Vienna Whole Foods.

Others reported seeing cars on the W&OD just west of Route 28 in Ashburn, and along various other entrances to that trail and the Capital Crescent Trail, too. One reader encountered a black Jetta while running on the trail in Arlington.

Some residents have called for better blocks or barricades at the entrances to the 45-mile mult-use trail. The Northern Virginia Regional Park Authority used to place movable fences or bollards at trail and street intersections, Wright said. But they were dangerous for cyclists, especially at night, and "most local cyclists advocated against their use," Wright said.

Fionnuala Quinn, an engineer on the board of FABB, said the AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities is among the resources that recommend against bollards, which can "cause serious injury to bicyclists," she said.

"Even a bollard that has reflective materials can be shielded from the view of a following bicyclist until they lack sufficient time to react," Quinn said.

Better options, she said, including design elements that make the path entry point look less like a vehicle access point and make intentional access by unauthorized users more difficult.

Some cyclists say they aren't likely to change their behavior based on Saturday's accident.

"If I decided not to do something every time I encountered reckless or careless drivers I would probably be staying inside all day," one commenter on Patch wrote.

On the road, these types of encounters between cars and bicyclists or pedestrians happen all the time, cyclists say.

"If this happened on the road would it be equally outrageous?" Vienna bicycling advocate Jeff Anderson said, noting there were "so many things wrong" with a case like Saturday's accident. "For a bike to go out and hit people — and hit people on the bike path— is bad, but I hope people are equally as outraged and concerned that this kind of stuff is something that any of the bicyclists or pedestrians on the road could face."

"When it's a car against a bicyclist or pedestrian, bicyclists and pedestrians will always lose," Anderson said.

Quinn, who had been on the trail with her daughter about an hour and a half before Saturday's crash, said the accident is a costly reminder about the personal responsibility that comes with using the area's shared spaces. Wright said FABB will likely discuss the issue at the group's next meeting.

"I was shocked and am very thankful that this driver didn't manage to do worse than she did," Quinn said. "This scary incident is probably as much about the wider point that we are all sharing public space and with that sharing comes personal responsibility for how we conduct ourselves as we move in that space. As this incident illustrated ... that responsibility needs to be taken very seriously."

Does the county really need TWO Mehak Chopras?

Ain't that a bitch.

idontlikebeingrightaboutshitlikethisbutiam



Edited 21 time(s). Last edit at 5/31/1967 05:57AM by WingNut.

Last edit at 11/30/2015 01:37PM Last edit at 5/14/2015 03:52PM Last edit at 1/28/2014 05:57AM Last edit at 11/29/2015 01:10PM Last edit at 3/14/2011 11:52PM Last edit at 7/20/2012 04:07AM
Last edit at 6/29/2013 11:18PM Last edit at 3/19/2011 01:02PM Last edit at 3/26/2012 09:07PM

WingNut Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Does the county really need TWO Mehak Chopras?



Really, the same age none the less.

I wonder if she was still coming off the buzz she got at the Punjab Fest?

idontlikebeingrightaboutshitlikethisbutiam



Edited 21 time(s). Last edit at 5/31/1967 05:57AM by WingNut.

Last edit at 11/30/2015 01:37PM Last edit at 5/14/2015 03:52PM Last edit at 1/28/2014 05:57AM Last edit at 11/29/2015 01:10PM Last edit at 3/14/2011 11:52PM Last edit at 7/20/2012 04:07AM
Last edit at 6/29/2013 11:18PM Last edit at 3/19/2011 01:02PM Last edit at 3/26/2012 09:07PM

Neighborhood Watch Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Cars on Trail for Bikes, Pedestrians May be More
> Serious than Reported
> An alleged drunk driver who barreled down the
> trail and struck a bicyclist was not the first
> person to drive down the "no-vehicles-allowed"
> path.

So what's the problem. Share the road!

Great news.

I biked the Cross County Trail today from Occoquan Regional park to Lake Accotink.

THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO CHANCE a car could make that run, no matter how drunk the driver.

Maybe a super skinny Humvee, but not a car.

Suck it Chopra !

Why not have a Smart Car rental concession stand at major points on the trail? Those cute little cars would even fit nicely on the trails--then use some of the proceeds for trail upkeep and improvements! This could be a nice little franchise business as a service for those who need to get to work using "alternative routes" and methods when the roads get choked up completely! Then, When the drunks show up to enter the trails systems, the franchisee can call to report them in to the cops and maybe even collect a portion of their resultant fines!

hahahahahahahaha!!!!!


Did you respond eesh?

eeeshperennialstalker Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> hahahahahahahaha!!!!!
>
>
> Did you respond eesh?


respond to what?

I regularly walk on the trails between Centreville and Chantilly and a couple of years ago on two occasions I encountered a car driving on the bicyle/foot path that parallels Braddock Road between the Chantilly Golf Course and the NOVEC substation in the late afternoon. Fortunately the trail is quite narrow and winding and badly in need of repair in the low wet spots so that cars cannot go too fast. I believe these assholes were taking a shortcut to Braddock Road from work in the Westfield's business park to avoid the traffic bottleneck in this area during the afternoon rush hour. Fortunately, I've not seen any of these assholes since.

from the mistaken perp's boss!



Anymore intel on the real aknad?

Car Travels the W&OD Trail — Again
Less than a week after an alleged drunk driver hit a bicyclist and caused others to dive out of her path, another vehicle makes a turn on the multi-use trail.
http://vienna.patch.com/articles/car-travels-the-w-od-trail-again#photo-14739066

Just after noon Thursday, John Kelly wrapped up his lunch break and hopped on the W&OD Trail to return by bike to his Arlington office.

Where the trail meets Maple Avenue, Kelly had to stop to wait for the light. But his timing turned out to be just right — had he tried to cross during a break in traffic he might have wound up in the path of a minivan trying to drive down the trail.

As Kelly waited for a chance to cross, he saw a blue-green van turn right onto the entrance of the multi-use trail near Whole Foods from Maple Avenue.

A jogger ran over and yelled at her to stop, Kelly said, and the driver turned around and exited the trail.

The sighting comes less than a week after an alleged drunk driver hit a bicyclist during a 5-mile trek down the W&OD Trail, causing dozens of residents to jump out of her path before she exited the trail onto Maple Avenue.

•See: Bicyclist Recovering from Serious Injuries After Hit and Run on W&OD Trail
The driver, Mehak Chopra, 28, of Mclean, who allegedly hit and seriously injured a 65-year-old bicyclist on her trip down the trail, faces a number of charges after the incident, including driving while intoxicated, failure to stop and felony hit and run, a charge that carries up to 10 years in prison and up to a $2,500 fine.

•See: W&OD Hit and Run: Driver Could be Released
While bikers have said the circumstances of Chopra's alleged trip down the trail are extreme, it's made local users of the 45-mile recreational trail wonder how often cars accidentally use the path, and what more could be done to stop cars from mistaking it for a roadway.

•See: Cars on Trail for Bikes, Pedestrians May be More Serious than Reported
There have been a number of cars spotted on the trail over the years — including this March in Vienna — but many are never officially reported, because drivers quickly realize their mistake and turn around, Vienna Police Department spokesman Officer Gary Lose said this week.

But users have reported seeing vehicles from Ashburn to Arlington. Thursday's sighting is only the most recent in a handful of reported sightings this spring.

How to stop them remains the question.

Using bollards — short vertical posts — may deter vehicles, but are dangerous for cyclists, many local advocates have said.

Fionnuala Quinn, an engineer on the board of Fairfax Advocates for Better Bicycling, said better options are design elements that make the path entry point look less like a vehicle access point and make intentional access by unauthorized users more difficult.

Vienna police could not be reached Friday to confirm whether Thursday's incident was officially reported.

"So are the officials going to have a open meeting and address the issue of cars on the trails? We can't just let this go on unaddressed," one Patch reader wrote in the comments section earlier this week.

FABB president Bruce Wright said they'll likely address the issue at their next meeting, but at the moment it's not clear whether police, officials or advocates will have more formal discussions in the coming months.

Do you think better signage would help, or would barricades be better to prevent cars and other unauthorized vehicles from using the trail?
Attachments:

HMMMM HOW DO WE STOP THEM!?!??!?! GEEZ THATS A FUCKING TOUGH ONE. WTF?!?!? JUST PUT A GODDAMN LITTLE POLE IN THE CENTER AND THEY WONT BE ABLE TO GET ON THE TRAIL. CHEAP AND EASY.

rocket scientist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> HMMMM HOW DO WE STOP THEM!?!??!?! GEEZ THATS A
> FUCKING TOUGH ONE. WTF?!?!? JUST PUT A GODDAMN
> LITTLE POLE IN THE CENTER AND THEY WONT BE ABLE TO
> GET ON THE TRAIL. CHEAP AND EASY.

1. Check you CAPS key it seems to be locked.
2. These trails are heavily traveled and those 'little poles' can cause grievous injury to cyclists. Signs and paint would be a cheap and effective way to eliminate the rare auto on the trail

The little poles are not dangerous for bikers. They should be stopping at roads anyway. There is always a stop sign where the trail meets the road.

Cars repeatedly turn off of Maple Avenue onto the Bike trail going East. I've seen it happen 4 times now. The Town of Vienna and the W&OD Trail need to do a better job of putting up the poles to keep the cars off the trail.

Cars on your bike trail?
Here is the Washington DC solution.
Put a camera on every trail intersection in the County.
Take an automated picture of every car on the trail and send a 500 dollar ticket to the registered owner in the mail.

Problem solved.

Roughbook Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Cars on your bike trail?
> Here is the Washington DC solution.
> Put a camera on every trail intersection in the
> County.
> Take an automated picture of every car on the
> trail and send a 500 dollar ticket to the
> registered owner in the mail.
>
> Problem solved.
Attachments:

How delightful...GordonBlvd emerges from menopause to post one of her trademark non-relevant "butthurt" photos.


Thread closed...

Another one! Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Car Travels the W&OD Trail — Again
> Less than a week after an alleged drunk driver hit
> a bicyclist and caused others to dive out of her
> path, another vehicle makes a turn on the
> multi-use trail.
> http://vienna.patch.com/articles/car-travels-the-w
> -od-trail-again#photo-14739066
>
> Just after noon Thursday, John Kelly wrapped up
> his lunch break and hopped on the W&OD Trail to
> return by bike to his Arlington office.
>
> Where the trail meets Maple Avenue, Kelly had to
> stop to wait for the light. But his timing turned
> out to be just right — had he tried to cross
> during a break in traffic he might have wound up
> in the path of a minivan trying to drive down the
> trail.
>
> As Kelly waited for a chance to cross, he saw a
> blue-green van turn right onto the entrance of the
> multi-use trail near Whole Foods from Maple
> Avenue.
>
> A jogger ran over and yelled at her to stop, Kelly
> said, and the driver turned around and exited the
> trail.
>
> The sighting comes less than a week after an
> alleged drunk driver hit a bicyclist during a
> 5-mile trek down the W&OD Trail, causing dozens of
> residents to jump out of her path before she
> exited the trail onto Maple Avenue.
>
> •See: Bicyclist Recovering from Serious Injuries
> After Hit and Run on W&OD Trail
> The driver, Mehak Chopra, 28, of Mclean, who
> allegedly hit and seriously injured a 65-year-old
> bicyclist on her trip down the trail, faces a
> number of charges after the incident, including
> driving while intoxicated, failure to stop and
> felony hit and run, a charge that carries up to 10
> years in prison and up to a $2,500 fine.
>
> •See: W&OD Hit and Run: Driver Could be
> Released
> While bikers have said the circumstances of
> Chopra's alleged trip down the trail are extreme,
> it's made local users of the 45-mile recreational
> trail wonder how often cars accidentally use the
> path, and what more could be done to stop cars
> from mistaking it for a roadway.



So which of the Mehak Chopra's was it this time? Did Mehak #1 get out of jail and go for another joyride, or did Mehak #2 feel left out and decide to take a spin for herself?

Based on the photos I'm not convinced they are not the same person. (Same appearance on top of having the same name, age, and location.)

Anyone know the outcome of this case? Court records state it was transfered to Circuit Court - which you can't lookup online for fairfax.

GoodOmens Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Anyone know the outcome of this case? Court
> records state it was transfered to Circuit Court -
> which you can't lookup online for fairfax.

I don't think it's come up for trial yet, because if she had and been found guilty the arrest/ticket search would reflect it.