However, I don’t see a huge problem with others using their full names. After all, they are both named defendants in a PA lawsuit that, on its face, appears to have merit.

I have thought this out:

When I refer to both of them collectively, I refer to them as either Plaintiffs, Does, or if I need to differentiate which “plaintiffs” I am talking about, I use the term Hellervani, which wont show up on google for a search for either individual.

When I must refer to one or the other, without creating confusion, then (and only then) I use their names. Like I said above, I do respect their desire for privacy.

I guess I try and use the rules I would have used as a journalist regarding a crime victim. If there is a need and a reason to use the name, do so. If the story can be told without it, then don’t.

As far as “shaming” them goes, would you care to cite examples of how I have “shamed” them or examples of when I could have “chilled” a bit? Publicly or in a confidential private email, either way. I’m extremely open minded on this subject, would truly appreciate feedback, and would even take remedial measures if I’ve done something to increase anyone’s pain.

To discuss specific individuals, we have to call them something. “Plaintiffs” is imprecise here, because there are now two AutoAdmit suits, and Heller and Iravani are defendants in one. And you can’t call them “Does” without implying that you buy into their entitlement to anonymity.

The best way to refer to them is the same way you refer to anyone else–by name.

And anon is right… I *am* a little biased. My bias does come from personally observing the evidence and facts, but it is true that the Ciolli case in E.D. Pa. is just an unanswered complaint at this time.

Nevertheless, there has not been “court ordered anonymity.” The “two does” filed as “Doe I” and “Doe II.” Droney had no part in that, and as of yet, no defendant has challenged it.

My guess is that Droney would remove the anonymity if asked to. All a defendant would need to do is use the memorandum of law that defeated AK47′s request and add in a little discussion of how even the Does attorneys didn’t know which Doe was which through two revisions of their complaint.

And finally, nobody has “outed” the Does. Everyone knew who they were. Their quest for “privacy” is belied by their rush to the spotlight. Just as the pseudonymous defendants in their action should be identified and forced to answer for their words, the Does should be required to answer for their bad faith litigation.

“You break it, you buy it” applies to everyone.

We’re not his groupies. We are a mix of Lawyers, law students, future law students, and others (I fall into a mix of categories). I think it’s fair to say that most of us on BigLawBoard.com are fairly young though.

We enjoy the fact that we can have serious to semi-serious conversation with him. He’s willing to discuss a breadth of current legal issues issues with us and is accessible. Instead of criticizing us as his groupies, you are more than welcome to join us in debate over at BigLawBoard. If you don’t like some of the more asinine and sophomoric things that many of our posters, myself included, like to debate, you can simply block them. We’ll usually have them tagged as NSFW.

When we invited Mr. Randazza back in the day to join our group, he didn’t even think twice about it, seeing it as an opportunity to reach out. We also appreciate his input greatly in many of our discussions there, but to say that we are his groupies is more than a bit misleading.

zbk

I think your suggestion that Ciolli (or anyone else) is currently “outing” the “Does” is a little off.

The “Does” had already been Google-bombed, which is largely the basis for their lawsuit. Their names are widely known. And they have publicized their case through interviews with major newspapers. It’s a stretch to suggest that anyone is currently “outing” them.

What happened to them was terrible–they were maliciously Google-bombed and had their reputations smeared. But that doesn’t give them license to do the same thing to other innocent people. Ciolli did nothing tortious, and went out of his way to help Iravani and Heller. Nonetheless, they frivolously named him as a defendant, along with several other AutoAdmit posters who did nothing tortious.

It was obvious that Ciolli and several others had committed no tort, but the “Does” dragged their names through the mud in an act of revenge. In so doing, they lowered themselves to the level of their harassers, and abused the justice system to do it.

Like AK47, pauliewalnuts, and the other truly culpable defendants, the “Does” and their attorneys are a disgrace.

Until Ciolli wins anything, I think there’s no justification in “outting” the Does. You may think that Ciolli has a good suit, but you’re not an unbiased individual.

I’m not sure what “line,” you think I crossed. I’m willing to listen to any discussion of it though.

With respect to Ciolli’s E.D. Pa. suit being a SLAPP suit, I fail to see the logic in such a claim. A SLAPP is an unjustified suit filed in order to punish someone for exercising their First Amendment rights (to speech or petition).

But, if there is a justification for the suit, by definition, it can not be a SLAPP. If you read Mr. Ciolli’s complaint, and you find charges in there that are unjustified, please discuss.

http://www.biglawboard.com/blb/viewThread.jsp?threadId=21413&x=3

I think you misconstrue Mr. Randazza’s comments. I don’t think he is fully advocating that we go out and do anything we can to publicly shame the girls.

However, he is implying that this type of shaming is a comeuppance that they should’ve expected when filing lawsuits against one of the original D’s in teh Autoadmit litigation (namely the one they summarily dropped after publicly shaming him).

As I’ve noted before, I don’t have a dog in this fight anymore. And, as I noted above, if the blog publisher has any reason to think that the names should be removed, I have no problem with that.

However, using this Doe I and Doe II nomenclature has already confused their very own attorneys. T,.hey’ve been named in another action. They willingly, voluntarily, and joyfully engaged the press. I feel no obligation to cloud a discussion of the case with more of this Doe I and Doe II nonsense.

I’m certainly not doing *everything possible* to name or shame them. I’ve not pulled a Leiter, making sure that I use their names in post titles. I’ve only used their names when it was instrumental to a point I was making. At all other times, I respect their desire for anonymity by referring to them as “the Plaintiffs” or “the Does.”

Nobody is trying to “shepherd more abuse their way”. Nor to “shame them”. They are being made to account for their actions in the E.D. Pennsylvania, and Mr. Ciolli’s case has merit — which is far more than can be said for their case against him.

They are worthy of being shamed. They filed a patently frivolous lawsuit against Mr. Ciolli and Mrr. Mariner (pseudonym, “a horse walks into a bar association”). They comported themselves in a shameful manner.

Naturally, I am certain you’ll respond with a “well what about (insert name of defendant here)”. I don’t care about the other defendants. If someone crashes into me with a car, I don’t sue everyone in a three mile radius.

With respect to their anonymity, Droney has not yet been asked if they can continue anonymously. I think that if a defendant requested that anonymity be stripped away — using nothing but the arguments that they presented to challenge AK47′s request, Droney would likely grant it. As they close in on other defendants, at least one of them will think of it.

Copyrighted material owned (perhaps) by Iravani appears on T10 website – posted by some unknown defendant.

Other unknown defendants say defamatory things about Heller on another website.

I guess they are “related” the same way all vertebrates are related, but I believe that “same case or controversy” should be a little closely related than that.

(BTW – I see nothing wrong with using the IRL names, since they are named defendants in the E.D. Pennsylvania now, but if you feel a desire to edit them out, I’ll not be offended)