can 'theniceguyisdead' be prosecuted for what he did to Andy?

[mopaul]

i'd call it pretty close to attempted murder.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

1. Sued perhaps.

Defamation of character?

[supernova]

2. That's what I was thinking

and they mentioned libel in Andy's thread, since this is a written medium.

[bryant69]

3. I doubt even that

For one thing, it's kind of a tough precedent.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[HEIL PRESIDENT GOD]

5. How about libel?

Or whatever recourse Wendy's has to the finger lady.

[bryant69]

12. I don't know what you are referring to

With the Wendy's bit.

But, and I may not know all the facts, what would be the result of that precedent?

[ProfessorGAC]

24. Almost Impossible

Remember that libel requires the information to be untrue, the person to KNOW that is was untrue, and that they wrote what they did with malice.

Proving it untrue is easy enough. It's either the truth or it isn't. Proving another person knew something wasn't true and proving malice is pretty darned hard. This would be especially true if this person made a token donation (say $5) and then could claim that they thought they were being defrauded. All of those could be lies, but impossible to prove. So, the malice and willful publishing of a lie is unprovable.
The Professor

[BeHereNow]

28. I think the "malice" aspect

is what has hurt us all.
It is CLEAR that the troll acted
with malice towards Andy.

But I get what you are saying about
proving it legally.
BHN

[ProfessorGAC]

36. Believing It And Proving It Are, Alas, 2 VERY Different Things

And, then it still needs to be proven that the troll KNEW what they were writing was untrue. That's even harder to prove.
The Professor

[Walt Starr]

38. The only thing that could lead to legal issues

was the cancellation of the PayPal donation. And that one is pretty flimsy.

[ProfessorGAC]

42. Actually, That Bolsters The Defense

The cancellation could be used as evidence that the person "thought" they were being defrauded. That could be used as defense for their writing on DU that it was all a fraud, since they "honestly" believed it was a hoax. That cancellation makes proving the "Knowingly False" aspect almost impossible.
The Professor

[Walt Starr]

63. Which is why it's pretty flimsy

When coupled with the posting here, it could demonstrate premeditation to defraud Andy out of the donations he thought he had, but it's still damned iffy at best.

[ProfessorGAC]

66. Very Iffy!

The Professor

[mopaul]

31. i compare it to calling in a bomb threat, malicious falsehoods

delaying a desperate man's surgery for even one minute is at least a sin, if i believed in such concepts. someday the jerkoff will get sick and desperate too, something he's obviously never been through in his short, fortunate,and pointless life.

[ProfessorGAC]

40. I'm Not Defending Anyone Mo.

Just stating that the way the libel/slander laws are constructed, it would be nearly impossible to sue and win under these circumstances.

If indeed, someone did slime Andy for malicious reasons, they are lower than low. But, that doesn't make the legal side of it any simpler.
The Professor

[mopaul]

44. i hear ya. this is what i'm asking about.

it doesn't look too likely that we could do shit about it. a real shame that a jerkoff can get away with something like this.

[ProfessorGAC]

48. We Agree Entirely

I realize the libel and slander laws need a heavy burden of proof or everyone would sue for this every time they were insulted. But, this is one time where the burden of proof may let the bad guy get away with it.

Of course, i'm not exactly a rampant "law & order" guy, so better to let one guilty man go free . . .

The Professor

[BeHereNow]

50. "Get away with something like this..."

I don't think he will "get away" with it.
What goes around comes around, eventually.
Would be nice to think Andy could take
legal action, but if not- the person who
did it will reap what he has sown.
I really believe that.
BHN

[ProfessorGAC]

56. Different Topic

Don't disagree, but i was commenting on the legal ramifications. I always have my law books right here by the desk. (I'm not a lawyer, but have taken some courses in it.) I checked on the statutes and principles before i posted, so i was just trying to keep folks informed.

But, i sure can't object to your sentiment. We were just talking about two different things.
The Professor

[alcibiades_mystery]

74. Maybe I'm unclear on the facts here

How did the troll's acts "delay the surgery."

Maybe that's what I'm not following. Is there a direct causal link between the trolls act and the delay of the surgery? From Andy's post, I took it that the surgery was delayed because there was some bureaucratic snafu having to do with the certified checks. I don't see how you're getting to a delay in the surgery based on a DU post?

[uncle ray]

104. well how about if the troll DID contact JH

and expressed concern that andy was a fraud, they, in the interest of not putting undue stress on the patient, give andy the runaround while they investigate the liklihood of his being a scammer of some sort. someone could point to his past involvement with that particular vile woman. i'm having a tough time figuring what to think of JH during all of this, becasue i sure as hell wouldn't trust paypal to follow thru, so why should they?

we also do not know what the mods here do, what was posted by his/her other 6 or so banned usernames.

[s-cubed]

105. But the token donation was part of the malice

to allow the creep to get PayPal to hold the money on the critical day. I think this was carefully planned.

[DirtyHippie]

107. what about intentional infliction of emotional distress?

it might be easier to make a case for and the standard of proof is lower - preponderance of the evidence vs. clear & convincing for libel/slander I believe(though I could be wrong). Don't know the facts but from what I've managed to gather IIED could possibly be an alternative.
Also isn't the standard for libel/slander lower for private individuals and therefore easier to prove?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

14. Yeah, I know.

I haven't said this, but to be honest, what can you really expect when you're dealing with the Internet? Sure, a few of us here know Andy, but not all that many. And few of us here even know people who know the people that know Andy. It'd be nice to think that everyone here is on the up-and-up, but that's not the real world, you know? So if someone suspects something, troll or not, how do you go about disputing it?

It's a shitty situation all around. Unfortunately, the next guy who genuinely needs help from DU might not find the community so outgoing. But I suppose that's where the real world and the Internet collide. Hate to be so cynical...

[fighttotheend]

81. Also Slander..

[BeHereNow]

4. I would think so-

Is there any documentation of what "it"
posted?
What happens to deleted posts?
I think there are plenty of witnesses that
would be more than willing to support
legal action against MrNiceGuyisDead.

What a hideous person-
BHN

[Catherine Vincent]

8. I'm sure Skinner et al still has the posts.

But before they were deleted, I printed a copy of the thread. :-)

[BeHereNow]

17. You Rock.

In print, it is libel.
BHN

[Burma Jones]

6. Can't we find out his identity

and just privitize our response.......

[DS1]

7. What a blindingly idiotic precendence that would set

Have you actually thought this through?

[mopaul]

9. i've been called worse and lived

no, i don't really think things through, i just post without thinking

[DS1]

11. I've gathered that

[Walt Starr]

19. No worse than propping up the validity of the troll's lying posts

as certain DUers did.

:eyes:

[DS1]

20. Yep, certain DUers, meaning me

I know what you're getting at.

When did it suddenly become verboten to ask questions on DU? If someone can provide an coherent answer to that, without the typical appeals to emotion, I'd love to hear it.

[Walt Starr]

22. Some people should look at the walls

to make certain there's no glass before they cast their stones.

The time to have asked for proof would have been BEFORE DONATING!

The time for the doubters to ask for proof passed as soon as they clicked the send button on their donation. Asking after only contributed to a potentially bad outcome and furthered the aims of a troll out to get a DUer.

[DS1]

25. Whatever the hell that means.

The guy showed up making a claim, I asked him to prove it. Those are the facts.

Deal with it.

[Walt Starr]

27. Read it again

:eyes:

[DS1]

29. I'll take that as your leaving this discussion.

:hi:

[Walt Starr]

32. Take it how you will

I've laid it out pretty damned plain for the DU world to see.

All one must do is go back to the original threads to see which DUers stood by Andy and which DUers stood by the troll.

[merh]

71. Not only were certain folks supporting the troll and defending

his existence (not a violation of the rules, per se), but they were mocking DUers that were defending Andy and trying to stop the train wreck.

As I posted yesterday, little did the nasty, evil troll realize, he helped Andy, the jokes on him/her. If it had not been for his attack and the baseless lies, folks would not have called the hospital. The hospital perceived the inquiries as attacks on Andy and immediately took Andy's side and gathered him close to their hearts. Thanks to the evil troll, Andy will be scheduled for surgery as soon as possible, rather than ignored.

Not only did evil troll actually end up helping Andy, he/she helped out others that took advantage of the evil troll's vile lies and jumped on the band wagon and defended the troll. So the evil troll caused the hospital to take better care of Andy and troll's associates became obvious! Not bad for a day's work. So thank you evil troll as you read this from your lurking, banished place

(Edited to add: first chicken to cackle . . .)

[DS1]

75. That's a distortion and you know it.

[liberalnurse]

114. The shoe fits......

and your wearing the pair......:eyes:

[Modem Butterfly]

118. I think people have lost their perspective, and maybe their minds...

...on this issue.

[salin]

139. nah

I just think that folks are really wierded out by the whole thing... a person trying to rally an effort to prevent another person (one who is greatly supported, btw) from receiving a potentially life-saving procedure... just kicks in the gut that some folks are that sick. After losing THREE long time duers, each a surprise (and one loss not known until months after the fact), I think folks are very protective. So what perhaps you are witnessing is an emotional back lash to those factors rather than a collective loss of sanity.

[Modem Butterfly]

142. It's the way people are turning on anyone who expresses any skepticism

that disturbs me. We seem to have drawn a line in the sand with each other over this issue, with anyone who isn't 100% completely convinced to be the enemy.

Very disturbing, IMHO.

[salin]

148. at times at DU... there almost needs to be a period

of cooling off - as emotions run high in the heat of the moment. I would guess that in this case the heat will last awhile. Generally after a little time, when revisiting issues - a whole lot more civility, and common ground is often found.

[Modem Butterfly]

116. Fuck you.

[Thtwudbeme]

23. I KNEW it!!!! Why just the other day, I was thinking

"You know, I just BET Mopaul posts without thinking first!" In fact, I told my husband, JanMichael, "have you seen any of MoPaul's posts lately?? Now there's a man/woman who seems to just post willy nilly with no thought whatsoever!"

But, we still love you because you don't seem to be an insensitive jerk--like some other posters.

Stephanie

[DS1]

26. --like some other posters

You people are too funny.

I feel like I've walked through a portal and landed in bizarro Free Republic.

QUESTIONS ARE FORBIDDEN!

:eyes:

[Walt Starr]

33. Who's the "you people", pilgrim?

Inquiring minds want to know.

[Thtwudbeme]

37. *sigh* He probably means me

I don't think DS1 EVER thought I was funny.

Usually I am funnier when I am into the liquor cabinet...but, I thought since I have had three cups of coffee, I might be kind of humorous.

I guess not.

[DS1]

53. Where does "funny" apply to this?

I'm simply pointing out where DU has silenced question.

[DS1]

43. It's "Certain DUers" kemosabe

[Walt Starr]

51. Ahhhhh

Certain DUers who stood by Andy while other DUers stood by a troll.

I get it now.

[DS1]

54. I'm wondering if you'll ever have the courage to name them

:eyes:

[Walt Starr]

57. I don't need to name the DUers who stood with the troll

They outted themselves publically in the threads for all to see.

[DS1]

64. Whatever. My point on the matter is that lawsuits against

posts on public messageboards is asinine. If you have an argument against that I'd love to hear it.

[Walt Starr]

69. Absolutely there is an argument against that!

I was the target of members of the Phineas Priesthood on a message board about 8 years ago resulting in arrests by the FBI.

Think there is no cause for a lawsuit when somebody posts crap on a message board that could get you killed? Think again.

[DS1]

83. Now you're vaguely arguing targeted physical action against

someone vs. suggesting a fund raiser that has yet to be publicly proven aside from irrelevant 'vouching' of other posters on same messageboard is a scam. As ProfessorGAC pointed out, what if the guy had called JH, but got the wrong doctor. Lawsuit goes nowhere.

I've donated towards this, twice now. Yet, I've still to see any hard evidence that Andy is sick. I'm not saying I don't believe it, but the fact remains that the evidence has never been presented.

[Walt Starr]

90. The time to ask for evidence passed

the moment you hit send on the first donation.

And anybody can file a lawsuit for any perceived wrongdoing. The irrelevent stuff gets burned away in the crucible of the court until we are left with the truth and a decision.

So yes, anybody can file a lawsuit over any posting on any message board at any time. That's how our adverserial court system works.

[DS1]

92. I'm not asking for evidence after the fact, I've sent my money

and I'm happy I did. Still, that doesn't change the fact that evidence hasn't been provided. Skinner has yet to deliver, also.

Frankly I don't care either way. If Andy is sick, then I hope he gets better. If Andy isn't sick, then I've bought a 30 dollar lesson about life and the internet. All I'm trying to do is point out where emotions have made this place go completely irrational towards asking questions.

The troll, as we've all come to know him, showed up with a statement. I asked him to put up or shut up, but apparently that was FAR too near "supporting" him for some people to handle. In essence, it was ask a question and face the wrath. Very disturbing for a messageboard that prides itself on being progressive and open to debate - "Question Authority" and all that.

[Walt Starr]

101. Again, the DUers who stood with the troll

did so openly and publically for all to read.

[DS1]

103. Your definition of 'standing by' someone is clouded by your emotions.

I suspect. I hope so, anyway.

[Walt Starr]

106. All anybody has to do

is read the threads.

[liberalnurse]

113. I provided the "patient teaching"

personally to him regarding the pre-operative bowel program and post-op surgical care. I validate his condition and state my professional license to that fact.

[s-cubed]

108. I don't suppose you'd take my word that I have seen him

and he is sick and terribly afraid.

[DS1]

112. I've already donated. I took his word at face value. But to answer

your question, no, your word is irrelevant to me and doesn't prove a thing.

[alcibiades_mystery]

84. DS1

I tend to agree with your position here in large part, and I agree absolutely with reference to this specific case.

However, you could conceive of a situation where a posting on a public messageboard would be tortious, can you not? A public message board is a means of publication like any other for the purposes of civil law. So, for example, a malicious charge of child molestation against a teacher on, say, a community message board, which subsequently forces that teacher to resign his or her post would constitute a tort as surely as if that charge were made in a magazine. I'm not sure how the medium provides a shield to libel in and of itself.

[DS1]

88. Yes, if I were to post the address of someone that posted

here, as well as windage charts from prime sniping positions with the intent to have them shot, then yes that would be worthy of a lawsuit. That's a direct threat of harm.

The troll in question was 'being an asshole' if he knew what he was saying was true. Maybe someone else told him so and he ran with it. We don't know that. This is where the lawsuit falls apart. It's especially iffy on a moderated board.

[alcibiades_mystery]

91. As I said

I agree totally with respect to this specific case.

It did appear that you were arguing elsewhere (post #18 in particular) that messageboards should be immune to civil action because of a slippery slope. That's the point I was addressing, primarily because I think it's wrong.

But with respect to this case, you're right on.

[Modem Butterfly]

120. "You're either with us, or against us,"

:scared:

[BeHereNow]

16. Why idiotic?

I don't think it is idiotic at all-
What that person attempted to do
could have endangered Andy's chance
to have surgery at Hopkins.
Should they be allowed not to face any
consequence for such a malicious act?

Those of us who love Andy are probably
more emotional in our response, but
even if it happened to someone I did
not know on DU or anywhere else, I
think it is fairly normal to want some
sort of justice other than getting banned from DU.

BHN

[DS1]

18. The moment you start bringing lawsuits towards messageboards

you turn it into a complete mess.

Suppose someone posted "I'm having chest pains" in The Lounge, and it was locked. The person dies. The family sues DU for locking the thread before someone could "remind" them to call 911 and pop an aspirin. Or what if someone takes some non-medical advice posted on here and ends up blowing their arms off, and then sues the poster.

It's an incredibly slippery slope. The manner in which the troll brought up his accusations has obviously hurt a lot of feelings. I think the questions they raised were perfectly legitimate, which resulted in about 4000 people wanting my head but tough shit. Should I also get sued in a class action lawsuit as well?

Where does it end?

[mourningdove92]

10. I'm sorry, but I guess I missed something. What did the troll

do to Andy?

[warrens]

13. He fraudulently canceled the Paypal transaction

Not sure if that's a criminal act, but I would consider it fraud in itself, claiming that the money was fraudulently obtained to tie up his paypal account.

[peacetalksforall]

61. Are you saying this person interfered with the transfer of funds?

Or attempted it? Could you fill in the missing pieces as I was one of those otherwise occupied yesterday. I scanned/read the thread, but didn't read anything about contacting PayPal? If true, this IS quite serious.

[warrens]

87. The troll donated $10, then challenged the transaction

Leading to an investigation.

[SGBL]

100. Are you truly that naive?

Do you REALLY believe the troll donated ANYTHING? Please, get real. I'm sure the troll was oh so interested in helping Andy. :eyes:

[warrens]

111. This is a common tactic

Donate a token amount, then say that you were ripped off or it's fraud or whatever, and have the entire account investigated and its funds frozen. Which is what happened.

[salin]

119. It sounds as if the original donation and cancellation

only resulted in freezing that particular transaction - and yes, I think it is likely that was the point.

The problem was a whole bunch of donations then cancellations occured the next day. With that many "Challenges" it seems that Paypal felt compelled to "investigate" - and sort through things - and that resulted, if I understand this, in a freezing of the bigger account (of funds not yet withdrawn).

So the question is whether round two of donations/cancellations was a a) coordinated effort (by who?) or the result of these ongoing discussions and growing 'trepidation' which, again, one would have to wonder if that was the intent all along.

In the former scenario (a coordinated effort) - if a trail could be found, I believe a case could be made. In the latter case - no way to prove intent - nor that the result was directly related to the initial troll claims and/or the initial donation/withdrawal (of $10).

[DTinAZ]

65. I don't think the Troll was the one...

...who disputed the PayPal transaction. Some people are reading that into Andy's post, but I think that's incorrect. Andy posted that "Disputed Transaction" message as an example, but didn't claim that it came from the Troll. Here's what Andy wrote:

"So here is the result of MrNiceGuyIsDead's post and there are many others that I need to deal with now. This one was just the first one in the inbox."

In other words, some people were quick to believe the f***ing Troll and filed transaction disputes. I don't think we'll ever get the real identity of the Troll, BTW.

[alcibiades_mystery]

15. That's doubtful

The troll's postings here did not delay the surgery. They simply sowed doubt among this community. They had no direct connection to any processes at Johns Hopkins.

[sweetheart]

21. seeds of doubt

There is no case for liabel, and let us not externalize the threat.
The real threat is our culture of distrust and doubt. Here in a
place of goodwill, i KNOW andy is on the up and up, as are us all, in
all honesty, as who bothers to run up 1000's of posts getting on
secret service and FBI lists for opposing the king, without having
deliberately made the decision to put the goodwill of all humanity
above one's own.

Yet the MSM culture sells every single moment, that there is no such
thing as goodwill, just self interest and greed... as anything more is
"socialism" to them. And here, as much as we are "healing" from that
toxic soup of ill-will, there are so many traces of that hatred and
stuff, that so many harbour without realizing it... and then all it
takes is a dark-hearted fool to crystallize what is already here,
but unspoken.

So the question, for the more self effacing, is why were you fooled by
a lie in to breaking your trust with those here, for even a moment?
That trust is the basis of our well being, and better to be a fool
and lose some money than to sew distrust with your community of
brothers and sisters. There is nothing foolish about being trusting,
rather it is the sign of power and intelligence... as it is easy
and expected that we behave like toxic trailer trash.

[HEIL PRESIDENT GOD]

I wasn't fooled

Still, there must be a law against what TNGID did, and he should be punished for breaking it.

[alcibiades_mystery]

49. there isn't

and he or she won't

[HEIL PRESIDENT GOD]

55. even if not

Why not take the opportunity to scare the living shit out of him, who is probably lurking?

[alcibiades_mystery]

62. He or she wouldn't be scared

If he or she knew anything about American criminal law. Seems like a silly operation.

[sweetheart]

67. Fear is no weapon for decent people

This small person had no power if some of this community did not
have doubts. He exacerbated what was already here, and you can
blame him to externalize it, or ignore him, and move on to bless
and offer goodwill with your energy. Between the two, the latter
is such a far more fulfilling investment.

That little person lives in small states anyways, and desperately
wants attention.... to be ignored is the best medicine.

[HEIL PRESIDENT GOD]

72. This is religion, not politics

Politics means hitting back hard with whatever rock or stick is within reach. It's a huge luxury to trust people and most of us would be dead by now if we did.

[sweetheart]

97. the fighter's mantra

Do not mistake not slapping people back as revelling in luxury.

I do not let people drive my actions through reaction. It fits when a
parent wants to correct a child's poor ettiquette, but in war, which is
what this is, to be frank, strike energy towards the heart of the
beast.

The heart wants us to become violent, to sell out our foundations for
their ethics... and they have no power. Politics is winning, not
figthing.... but it seems rather you're right about what people are
coming to believe politics is, for democrats... fighting a rear
gard battle of reaction without any strategy or control of energy
to achieve any aim except fighting back with the nearest rock,
the lastest LTTE to stop the blitzkreig, the filibuster to slap
back a punch.

Mob politics indeed... it is unbecoming. Dignity will get us
somewhere. The warrior does not strike unless killing is necessary,
and there is no need to kill, our lives are not in danger, andy
WILL SURVIVE, and let thy enemy steel thy purpose and intent to
defeat hatred and violence.

[HEIL PRESIDENT GOD]

109. Please check out

My argument here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=3636219&mesg_id=3636219

and tell me what you think

[FlaGranny]

80. There may be no law, but

I belive she/he was, is, and will be punished. A person who would do such a thing has NO REAL FRIENDS OR ALLIES. No one at all to really depend on if they need help, no one who would ever consider going out of his way to help him UNLESS it suited their own purposes. This person is without character, without friends, and really without hope. This person will never have the respect of others and will experience only personal pain. A person who would do such a thing will never feel true happiness. Pity the bastard.

We all have known this kind of person sometime in our lives and all we have ever felt for any of them has been contempt.

[alcibiades_mystery]

85. Metaphysical comeuppance

We can hope, I suppose....

I was referring mainly to concrete civil or criminal recourse.

[s-cubed]

110. No - they did delay the surgery.

Without the funds in hand, the surgery was canceled. Part of the problem was that the certified checks were sitting in the mail room, but if Andy could have accessed PayPal, JH might have gone ahead with a partial payment.

[mtnester]

30. If anyone is interested...

I noticed a certain Mailbag is down/has been disabled right now.

Wonder why?

:shrug:

[BeHereNow]

34. Huh? What are you saying?

What mailbag?
DU?
BHN

[mtnester]

39. No, not DU

[BeHereNow]

45. PM me?

I get the distinct feeling you don't
want to say on the thread, but you
have aroused my curiosity, so do tell!
BHN

[mtnester]

52. Hopefully, you will understand my PM

[BeHereNow]

96. LOUD and CLEAR!

When I first heard about this situation,
my first thought was,
"What psycho bitch or bastard would
do such a thing? Maybe one or several who have
a record of trying to hurt Andy?"
But then again, maybe it was a random
and unrelated act of malice?
Right...
BHN

[BeHereNow]

46. PM me?

I get the distinct feeling you don't
want to say on the thread, but you
have aroused my curiosity, so do tell!
BHN

[mondo joe]

35. Um, what did he do?

Guess I missed it.

[amazona]

41. anybody can be sued for anything

...and any judge can just as well decide to throw it out as a waste of time. I've been a victim of libel/slander. You have almost zero chance of getting a libel/slander case in front of an American courtroom. This is the price we pay for free speech.

As far as a criminal "prosecution," it is not yet a crime to spread internet rumors. What a waste of a D.A.'s time! Unfortunately, you can prosecute a person for fraud or illegal fund-raising. We need to be concerned about protecting Andy now. There should not even be the appearance of a fraud. My partner had a customer accused of fraud who had to spend $6 million on his defense. Six. Million. Dollars. Just to finally have a jury tell him what he already knew, that he was innocent. Think about it. And it all started because a bitter terminated employee made up lies to the FBI about the customer. We have been very naive about our need to protect Andy and other people who have raised funds here.

We failed as a board. We should have been more cautious about obtaining documentation and having it on file before the fund-raising began. Trolls happen, and it is predictable that trolls happen when someone has an irrational enemy. We should have had the legal ducks in a row such that we could have easily laughed off the troll.

The conservation movement is a breeding ground of communists
and other subversives. We intend to clean them out,
even if it means rounding up every birdwatcher in the country.
--John Mitchell, US Attorney General 1969-72

[mopaul]

47. i don't want to sue him, i want to arrest him

life in MOtopia

[Catherine Vincent]

59. I don't want him arrested either, I just want Skittles to kick his ass!

:-)

[amazona]

77. well you can't arrest someone who has committed no crime

Spreading gossip and internet rumors is not a crime just yet. Such a law would be used to crush anyone who ever said anything the least bit unpopular to authorities -- in other words, the most powerless and the most progressive. It would quickly be used to shut down this board, among others.

Like another poster said, if you don't like the troll, privatize your actions against the troll and take responsibility for dealing with her.

However, we need to also take responsibility for our poor planning that allowed this situation to happen. We have put Andy at risk here by not getting our ducks in a row. We are on a political board. Some of our views are unpopular with some very mentally diseased people. We need to be pro-active in avoiding even the smallest appearance of fraud. Defending oneself against criminal prosecution for fraud is expensive. We did Andy no favors by not doing things in proper order.

We should have had the proper proof in Skinner's hand such that any trolls and cries of "fraud" could have been easily laughed off as obviously false.

The conservation movement is a breeding ground of communists
and other subversives. We intend to clean them out,
even if it means rounding up every birdwatcher in the country.
--John Mitchell, US Attorney General 1969-72

[grasswire]

93. one of the most surprising aspects to me...

...has been the wish expressed by some DU-ers to do bodily violence against the troll. I honestly thought Dems and progressives were a bit more evolved than that. Sure, the guy was deliberately out to make some trouble of the worst kind. But beating him up? I don't see how that scenario honors Andy.

Unfortunately, as is the case in most Internet trouble, there is no remedy. Some good suggestions are being made here, though, and I hope they will be implemented in any future occasion. Asking the fundraisers to make a web page is excellent in that it takes DU a step away from the fray.

Honestly, I haven't ever seen an Internet fundraising activity that didn't have a fuss. Whether it's Bartcop raising money for Julie Hiatt Steele, or people on Table Talk trying to send flowers, or even the Freepers raising money to pay for an advertisement -- there's always some misunderstandings and anger.

[Catherine Vincent]

95. Grasswire, surely you know it was sarcasm?

Skittles kicking someone's ass is a well known comeback at DU.

[grasswire]

98. it wasn't just one DU-er

In yesterday's threads, there were multiple calls for bodily harm. We're better than that, I hope.

[Malva Zebrina]

58. I wouldn't go that far

Andy will have his surgery.

I thought someone paid 50 thousand on loan until the PayPal money was realised but that check did not reach the proper place at the hospital so the surgery was cancelled. That is what someone said on one of the threads.

That an enormous amount of funds were raised to help a friend is astounding.

What the troll did was unconscionable but I don't think it was criminal.

What a mess.

But I also think this on a more practical note: Perhaps in the future, fund raising events like this need to have their own web site. People who are asking reasonable questions are being attacked for even daring to do so and the implication is that they are not wishing Andy well. They are being blamed for not asking those questions before they donated. That is not right either.

No doubt many of the not regular posters had questions also but avoided asking for fear they would be blamed or flamed or accused of being cruel. Even Skinner had doubts when the goal was raised suddenly from 25 to 50 thousand dollars and tried to verify. Think about it. Yes, it was wonderful to achieve success, but we were told that 25 thousand was needed by Monday and the messenger said JH demanded that right up front. With a flurry of tireless activity, DU raised that amount and was triumphant.

Suddenly, that was changed--I saw someone say it was because at first the surgery was scheduled for June, but was moved up to May, so the hospital wanted the entire 50 thousand up front now and with a cut off date of three or so days. Some people became a little doubtful. It is understandable I think.

In the end, Andy will be operated on and I wish him well and a speedy recovery. I wish for him that the surgery will eliminate this cancer from his pancreas and his recovery complete and he lives many more happy years. He has many loyal friends to help him afterwards also and that is good.

[comsymp]

79. Very nicely stated

On all points.

[amazona]

82. the story that keeps changing...

...is the very hallmark of the con artist. That's why some people started to get a sick "oh no" feeling.

Of course, real life brings changes too. This is why we should have had proper documentation of diagnosis and treatment plan in advance of the fund-raising effort. Even if it changed, as it always does in matters dental or medical, you have a starting point and you are more confident of the general territory.

I wish Andy well also. I think he would have been better served if we had been more careful about correct documentation. Any time you try to take shortcuts with money, you leave yourself open to accusations and, worst case, criminal investigation. A lot of hoo-ha could have been avoided if we had just gotten proper proof upfront instead of relying on "vouches." We are all human, and anyone with a heart can be scammed, so "vouches" do not count for much when it comes to cold cash.

The conservation movement is a breeding ground of communists
and other subversives. We intend to clean them out,
even if it means rounding up every birdwatcher in the country.
--John Mitchell, US Attorney General 1969-72

[Cleita]

60. There used to be laws on the books for slander or

ruining the reputation of someone with 'vicious lies and slander'. It seems this would apply here.

[ProfessorGAC]

68. See Above

The laws still exist, in pretty much the same form they always did. Proving slander or libel is VERY difficult. It should be. Sometimes the bad guys get away, so the good guys don't get falsely judged. There's a subthread above about why the law works this way.
The Professor

[alcibiades_mystery]

70. I think you'd have a tough case even there

Since there has been no financial harm or material loss to Andy Stephenson or anyone else. Moreover, the fact that the community which Andy Stephenson and his supporters would be able to claim the most harm to reputation (to wit, DU) clearly rejected the charges by an overwhelming majority makes the case even more difficult. This is a nasty job by MrNiceGuyDied (who appears for all thew world to be a supreme asshole, for sure), but it is not tortious.

[ProfessorGAC]

73. Thanks a_m

See my references above regarding the difficulty in proving such a case. I think you'll agree.
The Professor

[alcibiades_mystery]

78. Yup

We're coming at it from two different angles (you from an argument from principle, me from an argument from consequence), and I think they're both right, and they both come to the same conclusion. Thanks for the analysis above.

[LifeDuringWartime]

76. what happened?

n/t

[Catherine Vincent]

94. Read this thread linked below.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x3629008

But the posts in question are deleted. A troll by the name of 'mrniceguydied' accused Andy and other DUers of scamming everyone for the money he needs for his surgery. The troll even included the name and phone number of some doctor at John Hopkins to call. Here is a part of one of his many posts:

<<post #77 - scam scam scam 100% confirmed...It's over

I have just received a phone call from a lawyer at Johns Hopkins. This is all a scam!!!!! I have much more information that I am writing as we speak in a Diary to be posted on Kos.>>

[Lerkfish]

86. unfortunately, as I understand it, you have to prove actual damages.

in other words, merely the intent is not enough, because intent is arguable in general. You'd have to demonstrate a causal link between the rumor/slander and whatever negative event occurred.
As others have already mentioned, you need to show malice, but if I understand correctly, to only way to succeed is to document and demonstrate actual damage that is verifiably caused by the slander in the first place.

As I read this thread and the other original one, Andy's delay was due to a clerical error rather than an accusation.

I'm not defending the jerk, by any means, but I am just saying this would be a very hard one to prosecute without a little more evidence of a causal link.

[alcibiades_mystery]

89. Correct

See my posts 70 and 74.

[flvegan]

99. Good luck PROVING specifically WHO was on the specific computer

at each and every one of the specific times of the posts made. Maybe you can track it to a private address where only 1 person has access to it. Maybe it's a public computer with some sort of sign-up sheet or charge receipt.

Then, prove the thug has anything to take via said lawsuit, IF victorious.

If asshat poster violated ANY of PayPal's protocols, I'd talk to them about any legal measure they could take against him. I'd urge their prosecution based on 65k DUers, a message board that gets millions of views and the chaos that could ensue if they are found fallible in urgency of transferring funds. It's in their best interest to make an example out of him/her.

[efhmc]

102. Good point.

[entanglement]

115. Prosecuted no, persecuted yes n/t

[Modem Butterfly]

117. Well technically, he didn't do anything to Andy

Mrniceguydied just encouraged skepticism of his situation. It's going pretty far afield, even beyond the land of Kafka, to equate that with attempted murder.

[Susang]

121. Actually, he did quite a bit more than that

If you've been following the threads, MrNiceGuyDied held up the PayPal donations by filing a complaint with PayPal against Andy for fraud over a $10 donation, which in turn resulted in a delay in his surgery.

I agree that they could not file any charges against this person, if they ever find out who it is, but "encouraging skepticism" is a very mild way of putting the malicious damage he inflicted on a very desperate situation.

[Modem Butterfly]

122. I read that bit

And I still don't believe that constitutes attempted murder. After all, the hospital allegedly gave a different reason, a disconnect between the AP department and interoffice mail. But even if the dispute did delay the surgery AND someone can prove malicious intent, the most you could get him on would be an attempt to interfere with interstate commerce.

[salin]

126. please see post #111

it wasn't the single transaction. It was a later "flood" of donations and requests for cancellations. Either a flood of concern resulted from said troll (possible, and hard to demonstrate any cause and effect)... OR round two was a coordinated event with the intent to freeze what was in the account (not just the disputed donations) - in which case malicious intent could be demonstrated... but getting the evidence to demonstrate the effort - I would think would be next to impossible.

[Modem Butterfly]

128. To be perfectly frank, we don't know what has, and what hasn't, happened

Even assuming your post is accurate, the most you could get him on would be interfering with interstate commerce, and maybe wire fraud. Maybe. While those are serious charges, they don't even begin to compare with attempted murder.

[salin]

133. I would agree

both that I am speculating - per either creating a "stampede" effect (in which case I don't think anything could be proven), or a coordinated effort (hard to find evidence). Also agree that attempted murder would be impossible to prove. Wire fraud, yep. Interstate commerce inteference, possible. And those charges might make way for the grounds for a civil suit - then one would be able to enter in the damage per delaying the surgery... which it appears that the last delay was directly related to this (though I could be wrong - there is confusion on that point.)

[Modem Butterfly]

137. If Andy really is as sick as has been reported...

...I doubt he has the time, energy, or inclination to pursue such a lawsuit. Those things are draining to healthy people. But the wirefraud and interstate commerce charges are criminal in nature and wouldn't require Andy to be a witness.

[salin]

143. agreed.... and very sadly

even after the surgery, this virulent type of cancer would not likely let him rebound to the level and prolonged state of energy required for a civil suit.

Any idea what constitutes a RICO suit - does the intent to extract money have to be a part of it? If so, never mind.

The whole broader effort wouldn't have crossed my mind, until last night's flicker of activity, that if true - suggests multiple parties.

[Susang]

127. I think you missed my point

I agreed with you regarding charges being filed against this person. I realize that what he did is not actionable and never suggested that it was.

However, you cannot dismiss the fact that this person intentionally tried to inflict damage. I find what he did reprehensible and just don't think it's fair to categorize it as not really having done anything other than ask questions or be skeptical.

[Modem Butterfly]

130. We don't know exactly what he did, or didn't do, WRT PayPal

We do know, however, what he did on DU. And questioning Andy's motives and situations is pretty much about it.

[Susang]

132. Why are you defending this person?

I'm not attacking you, I'm just curious. This person has been repeatedly banned from DU as troll, but you don't think he's done much that's wrong here. I'm interested in knowing why.

[Modem Butterfly]

136. I'm not defending this person

What makes you say that I am?

[Susang]

146. This post

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=3636030&mesg_id=3644066&page=

I apologize if I read it wrong, it just seemed like you didn't feel that he really did that much other than question Andy, when actually he had done quite a lot more. Skinner had even posted that he was a repeatedly banned troll. So I was a little confused by the tone of that post, that's all. :shrug:

[salin]

134. I believe there was also a bit of harrassment involved

of one of Andy's conduits here, of Andy, and I am less clear but also repeated calls to the alleged doctor (who turned out not to be the doctor in question.)

[Modem Butterfly]

140. I hadn't read that...

Those would be serious charges, but again, aren't equatble with attempted murder.

BTW, I called the Doctor.

[salin]

144. Again, I agree

not attempted murder.

Going to guess that your call, however, was not to allege fraud - but to ask questions. Big difference.

[Moosepoop]

145. A qualified psychiatrist, I hope? n/t

[Modem Butterfly]

151. No, I called your pediatrician

He says your Ritalin is ready.

What the fuck kind of school yard shit is this?

[Moosepoop]

152. I dunno......

Why don't you tell us? :eyes:

[Modem Butterfly]

155. I know you are but what am I?

I'm rubber and you're glue...

Nanny-nanny boo boo.

:P

[Moosepoop]

160. You shouldn't mix booze with your medication

It causes bad Pee-Wee Herman impersonations. Check the label.

[greatauntoftriplets]

147. LMAO.

Cameron is not Andy's doctor.

[Susang]

149. He is a very good doctor though

;-)

I spoke to my brother last night and he told me that John Hopkins is the absolute best place to have a Whipple in the country. Since he's actually done Whipples a few times, I figured I would ask him a few questions about it. Even he asked me if Cameron was Andy's doctor. When I told him that he wasn't, he said that all the surgeons there were excellent, so his chances are pretty much as good as they can be. :-)

[Modem Butterfly]

150. Maybe you're not familiar with medical receptionists

They answer for a group of physicians.

[salin]

154. Curious though...

you were moved enough by the skepticism of the troll - to call JH and the reported doctor, correct?

were you equally skeptical of the troll's motivations/intentions?

Given how this has played out... it seems that few who were ready to join in on the skepticism and potential that this was "fraud" as claimed by troll... were also skeptical of the person making the claims.

The BIG exception to this, and it is to his credit, was DS1 - who was skeptical of all parties (donated anyhow) and remained willing to call out the troll (per requesting documentation) as well as calling out to the community per the issue of the ability to 'raise questions'.

Since you were so moved to call... I am going to classify you as one who is more prone to skepticism (thus wanting the verification once questions are raised). Did you have equal skepticism per the troll?

[Modem Butterfly]

156. By the time I talked to the legal department...

...the troll was gone and further posts on Andy were locked. So it's really a moot point. But during my initial call, I did make sure of exactly to whom I was talking to before I went any further to ensure I hadn't been duped into calling someone totally different.

[salin]

157. That isn't the question

the question is one of skepticism. You were so moved by yours to call the hospital - and go to the legal department of the hospital (that is a big heaping dose of skepticism, in my book - but I also find that skepticism can be very healthy - at times).

The question is were you simultaneously (not after the calls but before being spurred to make the calls) skeptical of the motivation of the person screaming fraud? That is, were you - in this case - and "equal opportunity skeptic"?

[Modem Butterfly]

158. To clarify, I was routed to the legal department

I actually asked for someone else.

And yes, I was skeptical of the person making the initial accusation, which is why I verified to whom I was talking.

Beyond that, I'm not sure what you're getting at, or, more to the point, what you're trying to get me to say.

[salin]

123. that is what I originally thought

but based on additional info from andy I conclude it is a little more complicated - and coordinated. See my post #111 (too lazy to retype it).

I think the troll was doing more than expressing skepticism. And i think the end desire was to tie things up and delay the surgery. Regardless of how it occured (single bad person, or a coordinated effort) - sadly what I infer to be the original motive (delay) has indeed occurred.

Proving it - in terms of legally - pretty hard to do - unless it was coordinated and someone can find proof of it.

[LiberallyInclined]

124. he has a right to file a complaint with PayPal if he wants...

if PayPal holds up other donations because of it, the beef should be with PayPal, or with the person whose idea it was to use PayPal.

i don't see how anything that happened could be considered actionable.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

125. Not true..he contacted Pay pal and there are internet stalking codes

that would apply to this person on a federal level since he contacted Beth, DU, Paypal AND the hospital according to ALL sources.

At a minimum, Beth should take the addresses she has and turn them over to his ISP.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

129. Here is a set of laws that could be applied to this situation....

Electronic Stalking, Cyberstalking And Harassment Legal Issues Checklist - US Federal Statutes
<http://www.safetyed.org/help/stalking/stalkusa.html>

IMHO, if the comments made by one or more posters from the other day could be seen as falling into the categories of "harassment, threats or stalking", there may possibly be grounds for pursuing a legal case.

QUOTE:

Central to all Federal crimes of harassment is the fact that the crime must be committed in "interstate commerce". Basically if the harassment, threats or stalking are being conducted via the internet, they fall into the category of "interstate commerce", because the internet has been recognized as an instrument of interstate commerce. What this also means is that internet related crimes of all descriptions are going to fall under the jurisdiction of the FBI.

[sendero]

131. It's sad isn't it...

... I missed those threads, and would probably not put much stock in them anyways.

Why? Well I only gave a small donation. If it had been done under false pretenses, I'd have worried more about the soul of the trickster than I would $15.

As for libel, I think the consensus here is probably right. As for filing a complaint with PayPal, well, I think if you do something like that without being able to PROVE you had some legit basis for your claim, then you might be open for some sort of civil action.

I doubt I'd bother tho.

[Zorra]

135. You want I should maybe call Uncle Vito aboud dis? n/t

[Moosepoop]

141. No, call Elisi.

It's time to pick some nits and light some lamps.}(

[izzybeans]

138. Some one should be archiving the crazy fucks at loony-bin #1 and #2

twisting this into something for their amusement. That person is bound to be in one of those threads driving the discussion. You know the usual suspects. Free republic is one. The other goes by the name of Valdemort around here, or ye who can't be named. I'm sure their are others. One board has their entire thread page full of threads devoted to this (save one or two). this one in included. If you haven't visited them. It's probably one of the saddest rabbit holes anyone could be led down. I'm absolutely beside myself that people can be so hatefull that they let some conspiracy theorist allow them to contribute to undermining what was a bipartisan humantarian effort to get Andy that appointment.

So in the spirit of the spoiled faith of this matter I offer this to the lurking trolls:


(I wouldn't normall do this. But the past two days make it necessary. You can erase this at liesure, mods. Here are some comments directed towards the dodo birds watching from their respective wards in the right wing loony-bin).
Hi freaks! My how fucked up you are! Bloodthristy simpletons. I'd say get a life but you probably have little to respond with other than to say, "You too fucker." or "I KNOW the truth." ...and we all know that would be unoriginal and tragically wrong, respectively. So in advance, good one. oh, and You eat pieces of shit for breakfast? You shouldn't admit so much in public. Now go fuck yourselves and give your mule a smooch for John Bolton. I here he's looking for a swinging good time.

[Bethany Rockafella]

153. Christ!

I missed all the tripping around here.

[Moderator]

159. Locking....

This discussion has run its course.



DU Moderator