| View previous topic :: View next topic | | Author | Message |
|---|
f_b
Guest
|  Posted: Sat Sep 30, 2006 3:40 pm Post subject: Hey Alcibiades |
| You and scofacts.org have been conspicuously absent during these
interesting times. Does this have anything to do with litigious netkooks? |
| | Back to top | |  | Almudtay Petrofsky
Guest
| | Posted: Sun Oct 01, 2006 4:33 pm Post subject: Re: Hey Alcibiades |
| f_b <fanciful_blocker@y!.com> writes:
| Quote: | You and scofacts.org have been conspicuously absent during these
interesting times. Does this have anything to do with litigious
netkooks?
|
The scofacts.org website went down on Friday because of server
problems. Most of the html pages are back now, on a new server, but I
won't get a chance to restore the rest of the site for a couple more
days. When things are back to normal, I'll add some new content.
I'm afraid I haven't had a chance yet to read most of the dispositive
motion briefs that were entered this week.
As for litigious netkooks, below is the latest update to the Merkey
page.
-al
http://scofacts.org/merkey.html#i2006-09-25
Jeff Merkey, Litigious Lunatic
...
2006-09-25 UPDATE:
A few weeks after he dismissed his own complaint, Merkey moved to
reopen the case "for the purpose of enforcing the Courts [sic] orders
sealing the Novell/TRG settlement agreement" ([19]Dkt No. 32). Merkey
had filed the old Novell Settlement Agreement as an exhibit to his
original complaint. The clerk had then provided copies of it to me and
other non-parties, and the Court had then ordered the clerk to seal
the item and remove it from the court's public docket (see [20]Dkt.
No. 2). (This all happened a month before I was named as a defendant
in a subsequent amended complaint.)
Judge Kimball declined to reopen the case for "enforcement" of the
sealing order, which was directed only at the clerk, but Kimball did
reopen the case to determine whether that order "should also apply" to
anybody else ([21]Dkt. No. 34, October 27, 2005). Eleven months later,
he determined that it should, and he wrote on September 21, 2006 that
"[t]he court, therefore, orders Petrofsky to cease dissemination
and/or publication of the confidential settlement agreement on
scofacts.org and any other website he owns or with which he
affiliates. ... The purpose for reopening this case has been addressed
and there is no further need for the case to remain open. Therefore,
the court closes the case." ([22]Dkt. No. 46). I then removed the
Novell Settlement Agreement from the otherwise-complete [23]collection
of case filings below.
I filed a total of three items in this case: my [24]August 2005 brief
during the first go-round, and my [25]July 2006 brief and [26]August
2006 brief during the reopened proceeding. For my additional comments
after reading Judge Kimball's final order, see [27]this page.
Although having a copy of the Novell Settlement Agreement is useful
for checking Merkey's mischaracterizations of it, there are other
documents that are much more useful if you're simply looking for
confirmation that Merkey is indeed a total nutjob. For one, there's
[28]his delusional complaint in this case, in which he describes a
broad and murderous conspiracy against him involving "Linux Members",
Al-Qaeda beheadings, and weapons of mass destruction. There's also
[29]Judge Schofield's ruling in 1998, which included these findings of
fact:
123. Major testified that even though he has such a close business
relationship with Merkey, he has to filter what Merkey says to find
the truth, he is unable to control Merkey, Merkey is able to create
his own reality which may have no basis in fact, and Merkey is
prone to exaggeration.
124. In fact, however, Merkey is not just prone to exaggeration, he
also is and can be deceptive, not only to his adversaries, but also
to his own partners, his business associates and to the court. He
deliberately describes his own, separate reality.
...
131. While it is human nature for each of us to put our own spin on
events which we observe -- indeed the heart of most auto accident
cases is the different perceptions of eye-witnesses -- Merkey
nonetheless regularly exaggerates or lies in his comments to others
about events happening around him. It is as though he is creating
his own separate reality.
([30]Novell v. Timpanogos Research Group, 46 USPQ.2d 1197, [31]1204
(Utah 1998))
At various times, Merkey has attempted to intimidate people into not
publishing that ruling, by falsely claiming that it was sealed by the
court. See, for example, his emails to Pamela Jones dated [32]October
28, 2004 (12:49 pm) and [33]January 25, 2005. He filed those emails in
this case himself: they're in Exhibit 1 to [34]his August 23, 2005
affidavit, in which he swears that he in fact wrote the emails (see
paragraph 4 on page 2). (The January email also includes fabrications
about Novell: cf. Response #3 in [35]the September 23, 2005 letter
from one of Novell's lawyers in response to [36]my September 16
letter.)
In truth (as Merkey well knows, during his lucid moments), Judge
Schofield's ruling was never sealed, and it is therefore publicly
available from the court in Utah County (see [37]these images of a
paper copy that the court provided in August 2005). Furthermore, the
ruling was published in the United States Patents Quarterly, and thus
it is also available from [38]The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc.
(the publisher of U.S.P.Q.), as well as from [39]Westlaw and from
[40]LexisNexis, and it can be found in hardcopy on the shelves of
numerous public law libraries throughout the country.
As I discussed in the previous update above, Merkey - despite his
frequent insane outbursts - is actually capable of temporarily
appearing normal, and this can lead to real harm when people
unfamiliar with him fail to realize that they shouldn't believe a word
he says. If you think I'm just picking on a harmless nut, please
consider that his utterly unreliable testimony was actually used as
part of the evidentiary record that a court was relying on last year
when it imprisoned James Mooney for two weeks. (All of the charges
against Mooney were eventually dismissed; see my notes below on
[41]U.S. v. Mooney et al..)
I continue to hope that by leaving the information on this page
available here, where it might be found by someone who is considering
trusting Merkey in any way (including, God forbid, by any other
prosecutors who might be considering using Merkey as a witness for the
state), that I might help someone to avoid making a serious mistake.
...
References
19. http://scofacts.org/Merkey-Perens-32.pdf
20. http://scofacts.org/Merkey-Perens-2.html
21. http://scofacts.org/Merkey-Perens-34.pdf
22. http://scofacts.org/Merkey-Perens-46.pdf
23. http://scofacts.org/merkey.html#docket
24. http://scofacts.org/Merkey-Perens-10.html
25. http://scofacts.org/Merkey-Perens-43.pdf
26. http://scofacts.org/Merkey-Perens-45.pdf
27. http://scofacts.org/Merkey-Perens-comments.html
28. http://scofacts.org/Merkey-Perens-1.pdf
29. http://scofacts.org/Novell-TRG-1998-01-30-ruling.html
30. http://scofacts.org/merkey.html#trg
31. http://scofacts.org/Novell-TRG-1998-01-30-ruling.html#p19
32. http://scofacts.org/Merkey-Perens-25-1.pdf#page=8
33. http://scofacts.org/Merkey-Perens-25-1.pdf#page=9
34. http://scofacts.org/Merkey-Perens-25-1.pdf
35. http://scofacts.org/Merkey-other-2005-09-23-letter.pdf
36. http://scofacts.org/Merkey-other-2005-09-16-letter.html
37. http://scofacts.org/Novell-TRG-1998-01-30-ruling.pdf
38. http://www.bna.com/
39. http://www.westlaw.com/
40. http://www.lexisnexis.com/
41. http://scofacts.org/merkey.html#mooney |
| | Back to top | | | |
|
