By the way, that was addressed in my response (one of the few things I actually wrote myself (g)):
As regards the fabricated evidence, Defendant finds Plaintiff's assertion that "they are in possession of the Internet posts as originally made" to be laughable. Plaintiff's original rendition of the message in question was a) a textual representation of a message, not a screen print of the actual message itself, allowing Plaintiff to modify said message at will, and b) no URL was provided so that the court may verify for itself the message as it exists now, and has always existed, on the Internet. For reference, said URL is Message 8020831. Had Plaintiff truly been in possession of a version of said message as represented to the Court, Plaintiff would surely have attached it in their Opposition. Plaintiff can not and Plaintiff will not because said message never ever existed as represented to the Court. It is obvious that Council for Plaintiff was negligent for not verifying said evidence actually ever existed and is further negligent for alleging "Defendant possibly in conjunction with an agent of one or more of the Defendant bulletin boards [sic; as of the date of this filing, neither of the named bulletin boards, Silicon Investor nor Raging Bull, had been served and thus are not Defendants]" changed said message without, again, verifying the message as represented to court ever existed in the first place.
Message 13895799
- Jeff |
