JoshuaZ looks at Section 230, and gives me an idea... Options

From WikiEN-l:

> "Had the Foundation formally notified a stalker that he or she was
> denied permission to access Wikipedia, the Foundation could then press
> charges for computer trespass against the stalker when he or she
> subsequently accessed the site. Such charges would give the
> authorities leverage to put the perp away; proving that case is far
> easier than proving the much harder stalking or harassment case --
> especially when the victim refuses to personally identify himself or
> herself to authorities."
>
> (The rest of the post is definitely worth reading. It can be found at
> http://nonbovine-ruminations.blogspot.com/...a-al-qaeda.html
> It is, of course, in Ms. Martin's inimitable style; but she's not
> wrong on this.)

Well, I'm not generally a fan of Kelly but this makes an excellent point. My only concern is that having the Foundation get that involved could intertwine the Foundation with the individual projects more than we want. The Foundation is more important than any one editor and we must make sure that it is not liable. That said, this might work. Has anyone discussed it with Foundation higher ups.

The top of this quotation is someone quoting Kelly Martin. The last paragraph is from JoshuaZ commenting on Kelly's words.

At the same time that JoshuaZ is making this astute legal observation, he is also attempting to restore the redirect on Daniel_Brandt to reverse Doc's deletion of same. JoshuaZ is working at cross-purposes here. If that redirect gets restored I intend to try harder to isolate Wikipedia in the court of public opinion.

Why would I want to do this? Because if I try harder, Slim and others will interpret this as "stalking," and then maybe they will convince the Foundation to send me a cease and desist. Already Jimbo is on record as generally sympathetic with the "cyberstalking" point of view. At that point I'll have a piece of paper from the Foundation that pretty much signs away their presumed Section 230 immunity in my case, and I'll be ready to go to court.

Right now my feeling is that I don't have a case because:
1. my Wikipedia presence in the search engines has been greatly diminished since the redirect was deleted on December 1, and
2. the 2,600 history versions of Daniel_Brandt are difficult to find, thanks to Doc's more recent maneuver that nuked JoshuaZ's GFDL silliness.

If the redirect is restored, I believe that I have a case once again. Also, I sense that the statute of limitations is reset for defamation and invasion of privacy under Florida law. My next step will be to work harder to enlighten the public about the true nature of Wikipedia, and hope that someday the Foundation will see fit to send me a cease and desist. Then I'll sue them.

My instincts tell me that their presumed Section 230 immunity will be much weaker once I receive a cease and desist from the Foundation. The only boring part is that I'll have to create a bunch of socks and try to edit Wikipedia directly, so that I'm worthy of a C&D of this nature. Fortunately, I think there are enough mentions of me on various Talk pages that are sock-accessible, which means all I have to do is go in and delete them every place they're found. That's just to earn the C&D. The more effective part will be my escalating efforts to interest mainstream media in exposing the true nature of Wikipedia. As effective as that may be, it's not C&D-worthy, unless and until Mike Godwin loses his judgement.

I could sue JoshuaZ for stalking me on Wikipedia, I suppose, but that's useless. There are dozens of wikifascist stalkers ready and willing to take his place.

Perhaps Greg Kohs is right — you have to get them on tax evasion if you're going to get their attention at all. That's how they got Al Capone.

But anyways, the post box should work all the same.

Work for what? I started this discussion by talking about a Florida attorney who sent a process server to serve the Foundation. This attorney complained to me that the address was a UPS drop box. You cannot serve a drop box. (This case had nothing to do with me. This attorney contacted me because he thought I may have tried to serve the Foundation at some point in the the recent past, and he wanted to know how I pulled it off. I've never tried to serve the Foundation, and I couldn't help him other than to find that extra address (Jimbo's registered agent address), and refer him to pictures of the staff on the Wikimedia Foundation website, and give him what was Jimbo's residence, which itself may have been out of date.)

Don't you watch gangster movies? The process server has to get real clever to get close enough to serve the bad guy without getting shot by bodyguards, and he also has his buddy close by to witness that the bad guy is actually getting served.

(This case had nothing to do with me. This attorney contacted me because he thought I may have tried to serve the Foundation at some point in the the recent past, and he wanted to know how I pulled it off. I've never tried to serve the Foundation, and I couldn't help him other than to find that extra address (Jimbo's registered agent address), and refer him to pictures of the staff on the Wikimedia Foundation website, and give him what was Jimbo's residence, which itself may have been out of date.)

Why can't you serve a postal address? Just send it with a signature by USPS, or signature FEDEX, and then you have proof they got it. Done. What about the 2nd Avenue North Address? I recall someone salying their po box was around their office, so that sounds ok.

(This case had nothing to do with me. This attorney contacted me because he thought I may have tried to serve the Foundation at some point in the the recent past, and he wanted to know how I pulled it off. I've never tried to serve the Foundation, and I couldn't help him other than to find that extra address (Jimbo's registered agent address), and refer him to pictures of the staff on the Wikimedia Foundation website, and give him what was Jimbo's residence, which itself may have been out of date.)

Why can't you serve a postal address? Just send it with a signature by USPS, or signature FEDEX, and then you have proof they got it. Done. What about the 2nd Avenue North Address? I recall someone salying their po box was around their office, so that sounds ok.

See Florida statues on what consistues lawful service of a summons

"(b) If the address provided for the registered agent, officer, director, or principal place of business is a residence or private mailbox, service on the corporation may be made by serving the registered agent, officer or director in accordance with s. 48.031."

S. 48.031 saids this...

48.031 Service of process generally; service of witness subpoenas.--

(1)(a) Service of original process is made by delivering a copy of it to the person to be served with a copy of the complaint, petition, or other initial pleading or paper or by leaving the copies at his or her usual place of abode with any person residing therein who is 15 years of age or older and informing the person of their contents. Minors who are or have been married shall be served as provided in this section.

(b) Employers, when contacted by an individual authorized to make service of process, shall permit the authorized individual to make service on employees in a private area designated by the employer.

(2)(a) Substitute service may be made on the spouse of the person to be served at any place in the county, if the cause of action is not an adversary proceeding between the spouse and the person to be served, if the spouse requests such service, and if the spouse and person to be served are residing together in the same dwelling.

(b) Substitute service may be made on an individual doing business as a sole proprietorship at his or her place of business, during regular business hours, by serving the person in charge of the business at the time of service if two or more attempts to serve the owner have been made at the place of business.

(3)(a) The service of process of witness subpoenas, whether in criminal cases or civil actions, shall be made as provided in subsection (1). However, service of a third degree felony may be made by United States mail directed to the witness at the last known address, and the service must be mailed at least 7 days prior to the date of the witness's required appearance. Failure of a witness to appear in response to a subpoena served by United States mail that is not certified may not be grounds for finding the witness in contempt of court.

(b) A criminal witness subpoena may be posted by a person authorized to serve process at the witness's residence if three attempts to serve the subpoena, made at different times of the day or night on different dates, have failed. The subpoena must be posted at least 5 days prior to the date of the witness's required appearance.

(4)(a) Service of a criminal witness subpoena upon a law enforcement officer or upon any federal, state, or municipal employee called to testify in an official capacity in a criminal case may be made as provided in subsection (1) or by delivery to a designated supervisory or administrative employee at the witness's place of employment if the agency head or highest ranking official at the witness's place of employment has designated such employee to accept such service. However, no such designated employee is required to accept service:

1. For a witness who is no longer employed by the agency at that place of employment;

2. If the witness is not scheduled to work prior to the date the witness is required to appear; or

3. If the appearance date is less than 5 days from the date of service.

The agency head or highest ranking official at the witness's place of employment may determine the days of the week and the hours that service may be made at the witness's place of employment.

(b) Service may also be made in accordance with subsection (3) provided that the person who requests the issuance of the criminal witness subpoena shall be responsible for mailing the subpoena in accordance with that subsection and for making the proper return of service to the court.

(5) A person serving process shall place, on the copy served, the date and time of service and his or her identification number and initials for all service of process.

(6) If the only address for a person to be served, which is discoverable through public records, is a private mailbox, substitute service may be made by leaving a copy of the process with the person in charge of the private mailbox, but only if the process server determines that the person to be served maintains a mailbox at that location.

History.--s. 5, Nov. 23, 1828; RS 1015; GS 1402; RGS 2599; CGL 4246; s. 6, ch. 29737, 1955; s. 4, ch. 67-254; s. 1, ch. 75-34; s. 3, ch. 79-396; s. 3, ch. 82-118; s. 1, ch. 84-339; s. 7, ch. 85-80; s. 2, ch. 87-405; s. 6, ch. 93-208; s. 269, ch. 95-147; s. 1, ch. 95-172; s. 1, ch. 98-410; s. 1, ch. 2004-273.
Note.--Former s. 47.13.

It would appear the simple answer is a summons can be lawfully served, by registered and certified mail to the right person in the corporation in question.