Ban LoCAtek

[Lord Jim]

One, because I think her statement is unclear and ambiguous at best, and B, because I cannot fathom any basis for an actual claim in an actual lawsuit. (I have a little bit of expertise in the area, and I can't imagine where to even start drafting a pleading based on anything related to this BBS.)

Well, Sue, we know for a fact that she's not just "blowing smoke"....

A complaint to his employer, (she claims it's a lawsuit, maybe it's a formal complaint to the department he works for, maybe it's both) she has to have filed something otherwise Strop's employer would not have been notified....

Whatever she did, it obviously involved having his employer contacted, when Strop had never done anything to her, except end an off board relationship.

The clear intent here, was to take an action intended to fuck up his life to punish him, (and Hen) for no longer wanting to be on friendly terms with her.

She's tried for two years to punish them for that on this board, and now apparently she decided that wasn't good enough.

[oldr_n_wsr]

I just have to wonder what kind of obsession one has to track down someone half a world away, find out their employer and actually make the call to either the employers or some council to get to make that call? Even the people I am close to from the forums, I wouldn't know the first step to track them down.

[Lord Jim]

Yes oldr, it's really quite creepy when you think about it...

[Joe Guy]

This case is absolutely nothing like quad's case. quad was not banned from this BBS. He can post here if he wants to but his real supervisor (not Tim Geithner) told him to quit posting here and to quit threatening others while representing himself as a U.S. Treasury worker.

LoCA has attempted to have Gob fired or disciplined based on her completely wrong idea that he was acting unprofessional.

I'm wondering how someone who can hardly pay her rent is able to hire a lawyer from half way across the earth to help her stalk Gob & Hen.

Again, as I've already stated a vote is not necessary.

Ban her forever and never look back.

The only way to rid yourself of an obsessed nutcase is to shut off all communication with her.

[Jarlaxle]

I was pretty much in the same position as BigRR when I initially voted No...and I have now, ten minutes later, changed my vote to Yes. I'm very sad to have to do it, but now there is no choice.

And please, loCA, listen to oldr_n_wsr's advice and get help before you ruin any more of your life.

Or just eat a shotgun.

[Sean]

There's absolutely no need to be a prick Jarl...

[MajGenl.Meade]

I think my vote was #9 or 10. I hated having to say "yes" but when I read these continuations of petty bickering I can only believe that having the identified poison cut out will benefit everyone

I regret it took so long to see that Scooter had a more accurate expectation than did I

Meade

[Big RR]

OK, after looking at the posts on this thread and the one previously cited I find that I only have support for the following:

1. Some sort of uncomplimentary (to say the least) communication was directed to gob's employer. Gob contends it was sent by locatec.

2. Lo admits to having contacted Australian attorneys and makes some ambiguous statement of the difference between a "complaint" and the filing of a lawsuit.

Because this is an extraordinary sanction being contemplated, I do have a couple of questions that I would appreciate having answered:

1. To Gob--you state Lo sent this communication to your employer; my question is how you know this to be true. Was it signed by her? Or contained information only known to her? Or stylistically resembled her posts? Any information you could give to shed light on this would be appreciated.

2. Lo--did you send something to Gob's employer (or made some accusation that wound up there) and, if yes, why did you do it? What did you hope to accomplish and why did you feel this sort of communication was appropriate?

If neither of these is answered I will have to make my decision based on what I have read, but I would find these answers helpful, and imagine others would as well. I will cast my vote before the expiry of the voting period, but ask that my No vote be changed to an abstention in the meantime.

[MajGenl.Meade]

This from my friend who argued that the existence of the Christian God could not even be argued because we could not arrive at even a hypothetical Christian definition of "God". Since neither of us knew what we were talking about we gave up. Mind you, I did send a report to his employer (signed "hidden status") but nothing came of it. I think.

Meade

[The Hen]

1. To Gob--you state Lo sent this communication to your employer; my question is how you know this to be true. Was it signed by her? Or contained information only known to her? Or stylistically resembled her posts? Any information you could give to shed light on this would be appreciated.

As Gob is walking the Old Blind Dog, I will pop in and answer on his behalf. The complaint form has been provided to Gob. She waived anonyminity. It cites her full name, address and phone number. It provides her claim and quotes posts from this Board.

It was the poster known as Lo who lodged the egregious complaint.

[Gob]

What Hen said.

[The Hen]

I just have to wonder what kind of obsession one has to track down someone half a world away, find out their employer and actually make the call to either the employers or some council to get to make that call? Even the people I am close to from the forums, I wouldn't know the first step to track them down.

It took her a while to get there, but the following is the post she used to start the process off, I believe.

Ok, just to shut the stupid fucking bitch up.

I am senior psychotherapist, and team leader, of a clinical team who treat young people aged 16-25 years of age who are experiencing first episode psychosis/schizophrenia, in the community, with the object of minimising the need to hospitalise them. I am qualified, registered and licensed to practice in the UK and Australia. I am also a licensed “Mental Health Officer” which gives me certain legal rights and responsibilities when dealing with mentally ill people in crisis. I have two degrees, and several post graduate diplomas and certifications. I have 28 years experience in a wide range of mental health fields.

[Sean]

Well, seeing as she is online right now...

Lo, do you wish to explain your actions? Would you be so kind as to inform the board as to what you have done and your reasons for doing so?

[Guinevere]

I am, sadly, seriously considering a vote of *yes* on a ban. But I have not voted yet, because while I am disgusted and perturbed by what Loca has done, and even though I think it is beyond the pale, I would like to hear -- in a cogent and concise manner, without her taking pot shots at anyone -- what Loca has to say for herself.

BigRR's questions are similar to the ones I have: (1) what exactly did you communicate to Gob's place of work; (2) how did you communicate it; (3) what did you hope/intend to accomplish by involving his employer; (4) what was your basis for involving his employer.

Loca, please answer the questions, here in the open forum (not via PM), as soon as possible, and prior to the close of voting.

[loCAtek]

OK, after looking at the posts on this thread and the one previously cited I find that I only have support for the following:

1. Some sort of uncomplimentary (to say the least) communication was directed to gob's employer. Gob contends it was sent by locatec.

2. Lo admits to having contacted Australian attorneys and makes some ambiguous statement of the difference between a "complaint" and the filing of a lawsuit.

Because this is an extraordinary sanction being contemplated, I do have a couple of questions that I would appreciate having answered:

1. To Gob--you state Lo sent this communication to your employer; my question is how you know this to be true. Was it signed by her? Or contained information only known to her? Or stylistically resembled her posts? Any information you could give to shed light on this would be appreciated.

2. Lo--did you send something to Gob's employer (or made some accusation that wound up there) and, if yes, why did you do it? What did you hope to accomplish and why did you feel this sort of communication was appropriate?

If neither of these is answered I will have to make my decision based on what I have read, but I would find these answers helpful, and imagine others would as well. I will cast my vote before the expiry of the voting period, but ask that my No vote be changed to an abstention in the meantime.

Thank you for your fair questions without wildly speculating, BigRR.

I am indeed trying to get in contact with my Australian firm; Maurice Blackburn Lawyers about what I may disclose at this time.
I will have to email them as I do not have the international service connection active on my phone service at this moment. When my phone payments need to be paid again in a few days, I can re-open this option.

I can speak about the procedure; as to whom I contacted. As stated, I first contacted Maurice Blackburn Pty Limited, in the spring for legal advice regarding a complaint. There were emails and phone interviews, whereupon the firm agreed that my complaint was valid enough to be forwarded to the HCCC - NSW Health Care Complaints Commission. A few months ago, I received a letter from the HCCC stating that they would look into this matter.
At no time, have I directly contacted Mr. Gob's employer; these actions were done the by HCCC, and deemed appropriate by them.

I can say, the matter is not regarding internet stalking in any form, nor can result in Mr. Gob's hardship to the extent which he has stated.

[The Hen]

You have forgotten we have the complaint Lo.


The Internet stalking was not your complaint against Gob, it is our complaint against you.

If you want duelling law suits, have at you.

You will not win.

Karma, baby.

[Lord Jim]

Strop or Hen: Since you have the complaint, is there anything procedurally that requires you not to make it public?

[loCAtek]

May I ask you to wait for the response from my lawyers? That would also be in your best interests.

[The Hen]

Nothing whatsoever. The only thing stopping her is her own ego, as she should realize by now that she has fucked it majorly. (It was her own ego that decided to waive anonyminity. Good for you, Lo. I never thought you had THAT much backbone.)

The fact that we have come out to advise all on what has happened MUST indicate to her she is a fool.

[Guinevere]

No Lo, its your complaint, you made it, you supposedly had some basis for it, now stand behind it and explain yourself.