The Zwebner default judgment is about as ludicrous as I've ever seen. The words "invalid service", "prior restraint", "lack of jurisdiction", and "unenforceable" all come to mind.
Common sense dictates you can't file a "secret" lawsuit in a random town against someone, and, as Zwebner apparently did, serve the Secretary of State, claiming you couldn't locate the alleged defendants. I say "alleged" because where's the proof you are serving the actual people that you claim defamed you?
In other words, according to Zwebner-logic (tm), I could claim that you, MacRandy, defamed me here on SI using the alias "SI Dave". I could then file a suit in CT, where I live, claim I can't find your actual address, and thus must substitute the CT Secretary of State for service. Then I could just sit and wait for enough time to pass so that you, oblivious to the suit, default, get a nice large judgment against you, and write a PR claiming that anyone that knows you can't write so much as my name on the net. Sound like sound legal reasoning? (g)
Here's more on substituted service of process:
sunbiz.org
leg.state.fl.us
As for prior restraint, except in rare circumstances, you can't take away someone's right to free speech ( see:
dictionary.law.com ). To go one step further and claim you have a court order to abridge the free speech of others you didn't sue, well, that's loony-bin material.
Lastly, if you really want to have a laugh, go check out the court cases Zwebner cites in his alleged default judgment. Talk about the very definition of out-of-context, let alone the inapplicability... wow. I'd be shocked if a lawyer were even consulted on this case.
- Jeff |
