oHj i/),t!-(/et-k .. .~

(~s0

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

GORDON ROY PARKER, a.k.a. Ray Gordon, d/b/a 

Snodgrass Publishing Group, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Learn The Skills Corp., et al. 

Defendants. 

: 

· · 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

· · 

CASE NO.: 05-cv-2752 

Hon. Harvey Bartle, III 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I, Gordon Roy Parker, hereby certify that I have served the foregoing Motion For 

Reconsideration on the following Defendants, by the following means: 

Trustees of the Univ. ofPA Mary Kay Brown Matthew S. Wolf, Esq. 

Dennis G. Young (Counsel) Buchanan Ingersoll, PC 241 Kings Highway East 

Montgomery, McCracken, 1835 Market Street, 14th Floor Haddonfield, NJ 08033 

Walker & Rhoads Philadelphia, PA 19103 Attorney For LTSC & 

123 South Broad Street, 28th Fl. Attorney For Paul Ross Defendant 

Philadelphia PA 19109 Regul,ar Mail Regular Mail 

Regular Mail 

Fonnhandle@fastseduction.com William R Firth, III, Esq. 

Thorn E. Geiger (Pro Se) Learn The Skills Corp. Marks & Sokolov, PC 

817 North McCrary Road 955 Massachusetts Ave, #350 1835 Market St, 6th Floor 

Columbus, MS 39702-4320 Cambridge, MA 02139 Philadelphia, PA 19103 

Regular Mail Regular Mail Regular Mail 

This the 14th day ofAugust, 2006. 

Gordon Roy Parker, Plaintiff, Pro Se 

4247 Locust Street, #806 IIUG 14 Z003 Philadelphia, PA 19104 

(215) 386-7366 

GordonRoyParker@aol.com 

Case 2:05-cv-02752-HB Document 59 Filed 08/14/06 Page 1 of 15
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
 

GORDON ROY PARKER, a.k.a. Ray Gordon, d/b/a 

Snodgrass Publishing Group, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Learn The Skills Corp., et al. 

Defendants. 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

CASE NO.: 05-cv-2752 

Hon. Harvey Bartle, III 

ORDER 

AND NOW, this __ day of , 2006, in consideration of 

Plaintiff's Motion For Reconsideration, and all responses thereto, the motion is granted, as 

follows: 

1. The civil judgment in this case is now vacated. 

2. The case against all other defendants in this case is now stayed. 

3. Defendant LTSC shall reimburse Plaintiff the sum of FIVE HUNDRED 

AND TWENTY DOLLARS ($520.00) for his costs caused by the conduct ofthe two Defendants 

which necessitated this motion: $255.00 for the appeal in this case, $250.00 for the Delaware 

filing fee, and $15.00 in postage and sundry costs. 

SO ORDERED. 

J. 

Case 2:05-cv-02752-HB Document 59 Filed 08/14/06 Page 2 of 15
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
 

GORDON ROY PARKER, a.k.a. Ray Gordon, d/b/a 

Snodgrass Publishing Group, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Learn The Skills Corp., et al. 

Defendants. Hon. Harvey Bartle 

tJp; 

PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ORDERAv"ACATING 

JUDGMENT, AND TO SUPPLEMENT THE RECORD 

Plaintiff Gordon Roy Parker, in the above-styled action, moves this court for 

reconsideration of its order of August 2, 2006 which denied his Motion To Set Aside Judgment 

Against Defendants Learn The Skills Corp. ("LTSC") and Formhandle, and in support thereof, 

submits the following: 

Grounds For Reconsideration 

1. Plaintiff seeks reconsideration on the grounds of a) new evidence, b) fraud or 

deceit upon the Court, and c) manifest injustice to both parties if this motion is not granted. 

Relevant Factual Averments 

2. On July 12,2006, Plaintiff moved this Court to set aside Judgment in favor of 

Defendant LTSC, which was given on the grounds oflack ofjurisdiction. 

3. In the original Order dismissing this case, Plaintiffhad not (and still has not) 

been afforded the opportunity to conduct jurisdictional discovery, which is generally contrary to 

Third Circuit precedent. 

4. To justify dismissal without the benefit ofjurisdictional discovery, this Court, in 

its order, characterized Plaintiffs jurisdictional claims against LTSC (and Formhandle) as 

Case 2:05-cv-02752-HB Document 59 Filed 08/14/06 Page 3 of 15
"frivolous," and was equally intransigent in characterized Plaintiffs attempted jurisdictional 

discovery as a "fishing expedition." 

5. The order denying the setting aside ofjudgment in this action was swift, a mere 

nine days after the responsive pleading was filed. 

6. Plaintiff would have been content to rely on appeal in this case, but the 

description of the motion to set aside as "frivolous" alarmed him, as it is often a precursor to 

sanctions. Additionally, Plaintiff had been overwhelmed with paperwork related to his lawsuits 

against Google and the Delaware case which involves Defendant LTSC, a case which had to be 

filed as a direct consequence of the dismissal order. 

7. The record shows no affidavits or other accountable presentation of LTSC's 

position that it does not sell or market to Pennsylvania residents, but instead relied on exhibits 

which were submitted, namely the sites Terms and Conditions policy (Document 55-3), and a 

screenshot of the order form for "Art of the Pickup" ("AOTP") (Document 55-2), which showed 

that Pennsylvania was missing from the list of states from which users could order the product 

from LTSC. 

8. Because Plaintiff was "threatened" with potential sanctions, and because of an 

"eighth-inning celebration" which began on USENET immediately after reconsideration and the 

set-aside were denied, he decided to engage in a little "fishing" of his own, with startling results 

that cast a new light on this case. 

9. On Friday morning, August 11,2006, Plaintiff created a screen name on AOL of 

RBrunson82184 (@aol.com), and visited the LTSC website to investigate its claim that it did not 

avail itself of the Pennsylvania market, and the jurisdiction of courts in the Commonwealth. He 

used this name to visit the AOTP website, which it should be noted does not ban Pennsylvania 

2
 

Case 2:05-cv-02752-HB Document 59 Filed 08/14/06 Page 4 of 15
residents from visiting. RBrunson82184' s AOL profile listed "Ron" as a freelance writer from
 

Bensalem, Pennsylvania. Following is a screenshot of the profile:
 

America Online r;; ,
 

,. v 

10. It should further be noted by this Court that the AOIP website includes a 

"newsletter" which provides free information and pitches the AOTP product to internet users 

without requiring that they disclaim residence in Pennsylvania. Indeed, "Ron" has received 

three installments of the "AOTP newsletter." 

11. Following is the first installment ofthe AOTP newsletter, which "Ron" received 

on August 11, 2006. This letter was sent automatically, however, before LISC became aware 

that "Ron" was in Pennsylvania. Following is a screenshot ofthe relevant parts ofthe letter: 

3
 

Case 2:05-cv-02752-HB Document 59 Filed 08/14/06 Page 5 of 15
===""""""""=::=,, Subscription Note ==""======"""",,,,= 

You are receiving this message. because you subscribed 

to the "Pickup Ms" Email NewsleUer ' 

@? 

Reply 

=® 

F_>fd 

Subj: 

Date: 

From: To: ~::~m;~L:;""" A 

Sent from the lrilemet, 

To ensure you keep receiving emaits from us. and avoid 

your mail plO'lider mis-categorizing our emails. please 

add "newslellel@artofthepickup,com" into your address 

book promptly and. if necessary. to your "wMe list" 

=====~==========;:=~======~======:==================

Hello Ron. 

Welcome to the "PickUp Ms" Email Newslellerl 

<JPteY 

ReplyAIt 

([1.--.- " : """,:.' 

Add Address: 

12. Also on August 11, 2006, Plaintiff sent the following e-mail from "Ron" to 

LTSC in which he inquired about not being able to order its products from Pennsylvania: 

Amenca Online l]!!~IIJ

I Aim Phoneline v 

>­

[I, 

•.. ~-­.•.....•......•.",. '.:..­

Add 

Address 

1 0( 1 

1....= I Del/Home De" 

Can't urder frum Pennsylvania 

an 1!2Ol3 4'35:21 AM Easlern Standard Time 

Jj RBrunson82164 

l'ullll!l!1@artoftMllic;kull,cQm 

Your product looks great but rt says I can\ order it from where I live. 

Guys. 

Ron 

Please helpl 

4
 

Case 2:05-cv-02752-HB Document 59 Filed 08/14/06 Page 6 of 15
13. At this point, LTSC was made completely and very unquestionably aware that 

"Ron" was in Pennsylvania. 

14. As fully expected by Plaintiff, Defendant LTSC replied promptly to "Ron" to 

further apprise him oftheir policy, as the following screenshot shows: 

America OnHne - [Re: Clln't order from Pennsylvania] ;.. " 

Hi Ron, 

We are sorry to have to tell you that we can not get around the sales 

issue to PA for the forseeable future. would be a hastie, but at this 

point your only recourse if you really want the DVOs would be to have a 

friend or relative from outside of PA get the product for you. 

·~prev 20(2 

Reply 

""7':,.­

""';;"­

"'1'­

Add 

Address 

We are sorry that we cannot help you in this malter, but we hope you can
 

continue to enjoy and learn from our newslelters in the meantime.
 

Best,
 

Jay & Ray
 

RBrunson82184@aoLcom wrote:
 ... 1".......
 

15. Nowhere in its responsive pleading to Plaintiffs motion to set aside the judgment 

did LTSC ever show it had made similar statements to those in the e-mail on its website, and for 

good reason: had they done so, it is not likely the motion would have been denied. Here we see a 

totally deliberate attempt to market its products to a Pennsylvania residents, yet its wording to 

"Ron" shows a clear availing of itself to the market of the Commonwealth. The following quote 

stands out like a sore thumb attached to the same hand with which Defendant LTSC, through its 

very appropriately named attorney, used to give "the (David L) Finger" to this Court: "It 

5
 

Case 2:05-cv-02752-HB Document 59 Filed 08/14/06 Page 7 of 15
would be a hastle [sic], but at this point your only recourse ifyou really want the DVDs would 

be to have afriend or relative from outside ofPA get the productfor you." (Emphasis Added). 

16. That this "policy" of "indirect" selling to Pennsylvania is not on the LTSC 

website reflects consciousness of guilt, and an awareness ofthe consequences that making these 

words available to the public would have on the instant litigation. 

17. On Sunday, August 13,2006, after Defendant LTSC had been made aware that 

"Ron" was from Pennsylvania (which he is, since Plaintifflives here), it continued to market to 

him by sending another edition ofthe AOTP newsletter, entitled "turning fear into courage" as 

the following screenshot demonstrates: 

Arnerictl Online - [[Pickup Arts} Ron: Confidence Turning reM into Courage -Sunday Aug. 13, 2006] ~lIJrIl

F'e Edt Print Window SigI Off Help /:'.,~~~.~_.,,~-'~=~"-_. ,,--_.._­

®' 

Reply 

-

Confidence = Turning Fear into Courage
 

Welcome to another "Pickup Arts" Newslelter!
 

Brought to you by "The Art of the Pickup"(TM):
 

http://artoflhepickup.com/bct.cgi?
 

t=dFKSdcCp5CCbkUMpY&b=OO2&u=1 &r-/promo/dFKSdcCp5CCbkUMpYJdvd1. html
 

'Scarface" had it all wrong. Well, not all, but at least this line
 

from AI Pacino's character. Tony Montana:
 

'In dis cOIJntry, jau gotta make da money first Den when jau get da
 

money, jau get da power. Den when jau get da power. den jau get da
 

u./'n~"H"'" " 

-~:

-.-., .-.. ............•.
 

Forward 

RllplyAiI 

Add
 

Address
 

6
 

Case 2:05-cv-02752-HB Document 59 Filed 08/14/06 Page 8 of 15
18. The title of the newsletter is apropos, as LTSCfeared publication of its "indirect 

marketing" on its website, and lacked the courage to fully disclose these facts (as it relates to 

other PA residents) to this Court. 

19. On August 14,2006, Defendant LTSC sent yet another AOTP newsletter to 

Plaintiff, thus satisfying the "repeated sending of computer files" requirement, this time with a 

newsletter entitled "Why Don't Women Just Tell Men What They Want": 

10ff 

®' RePly 

==® 

forw";d 

lB 

bl'lyAII 

@I 

Add Address 

20. Plaintiff avers that the omission of these facts, as they relate to any other contacts 

with residents of the Commonwealth, constitute fraud by omission, or deceit upon this Court. 

21. Alternative to paragraph 19 above, Plaintiff avers that if this is the first time such 

contact has been made, that this Court now has jurisdiction over Defendant LTSC under the 

"minimum contacts" doctrine. 

22. This new evidence was not available to Plaintiff prior to last Friday. 

7
 

Case 2:05-cv-02752-HB Document 59 Filed 08/14/06 Page 9 of 15
WHEREAS. for the reasons set forth herein, the instant motion should be granted. As 

per the original instant motion, Judgment should be set aside, and Plaintiff should recover his 

costs related to this appeal and to the Delaware case. Alternatively, the record should be 

supplemented in the event this Court denies the set-aside as a matter oflaw, so that the Third 

Circuit can rule along with the appeal in this case, avoid the need for a separate lawsuit, and to 

cut costs for both parties.. 

Attempt To Seek Concurrence Pursuant To Rule 7.1(a) 

Plaintiff sought concurrence twice on Friday, August 11, 2006, by calling attorney 

David L. Finger's office and cell phone, and was again given "the Finger" inasmuch as neither 

call was returned in a timely manner, despite claims on defense (of) counsel's voicemail that he 

returns calls promptly. Plaintiff presumes that he checks in regularly with his office, and was not 

informed of any particular delay. 

A Memorandum in Support is attached and incorporated by reference as if fully set 

forth verbatim. 

This the 14th day of August, 2006. 

Gordon Roy Parker 

Plaintiff, Pro Se 

4247 Locust Street, #806 

Philadelphia, PA 19104 

(215) 386-7366 

GordonRoyParker@aol.com 

VERIFICATION 

I, Gordon Roy Parker, an adult male resident ofthe Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 

hereby attest and swear, under penalty of perjury and any other statutes relating to false sworn or 

unsworn statements, including but not limited to 28 USC §1746, that all evidence relating to the 

http://www.artofthepickup.com website (i.e., the screenshots which appear in this pleading), and 

the e-mails cited in this motion, were downloaded by me, on my personal computer (PC), at the 

8
 

Case 2:05-cv-02752-HB Document 59 Filed 08/14/06 Page 10 of 15
times specified, and are true and correct copies of what I witnessed at these sites when I visited 

them. The photos have not been doctored or otherwise altered, and appear in their original form. 

I further attest and swear that all factual averments in this motion are true and correct to the best 

of my knowledge on this, the Fourteenth day of August, in the year of Our Lord, Two-Thousand 

and Six. 

BY: 

Date	 Gordon Roy Parker, Plaintiff, Pro Se 

4247 Locust Street, #806 

Philadelphia, PA 19104 

(215) 386-7366 

GordonRoyParker@aol.com 

9
 

Case 2:05-cv-02752-HB Document 59 Filed 08/14/06 Page 11 of 15
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA f\UG 14ZUOG 

GORDON ROY PARKER, a.k.a. Ray Gordon, d/b/a : ~111,C~~U;:, t/h" 1 GIG

By __ ep. ClEF Snodgrass Publishing Group, : 

: 

Plaintiff, : 

v. : 

: CASE NO.: OS-cv-27S2 

Learn The Skills Corp., et al. : 

: 

Defendants. : Hon. Harvey Bartle 

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR 

RECONSIDERATION AND TO SUPPLEMENT THE RECORD 

Plaintiff in the above-styled action submits this Memorandum in support of the instant 

motion: 

I. BACKGROUND 

After being "called on the carpet" by this Court for proffering that Defendant LTSC is 

marketing its "pickup" products to Pennsylvania residents, and being informed that his motions 

for jurisdictional discovery were "frivolous" and a "fishing expedition," the truth comes out: 

Defendant LTSC wants the benefit of marketing its wares to Pennsylvania residents, without the 

accompanying legal responsibility of subjecting itself to the jurisdiction ofthis Court. 

II. LEGAL STANDARD 

In the interest of economy, Plaintiff restates, as if fully stated verbatim herein, all 

relevant legal standards from the Motion For Reconsideration (Docket #44) relating to 

jurisdiction, jurisdictional discovery, minimum contacts, and selling products to the 

Commonwealth. This includes, but is not limited to, the grounds for reinstating a case with a 

motion such as this: 1) new evidence; 2) fraud upon the court; and c) manifest injustice to both 

parties. 

Case 2:05-cv-02752-HB Document 59 Filed 08/14/06 Page 12 of 15
III. ARGUMENT 

A.	 LTSC Committed A Direct Fraud Upon The Court. Alternatively, Its 

Conduct Was Deceitful. 

The issue here is clear: does LTSC's conduct constitute a fraud upon this Court 

or deceit, the absence of which would have caused a different result? Plaintiff says yes, it does. 

If LTSC thought nothing were wrong with what it told "Ron," it would certainly have told the 

world the same thing on its website. That it did not evidences it consciousness of guilt. 

Regarding LTSC's conduct, a rather simple (albeit juvenile) commentary should 

suffice: Liar. Liar. Pants on fire. LTSC simply lied directly and by omission to this Court. 

It took an active step to sell its products to Pennsylvania residents. 

In the event this Court requires a more "adult" demonstration of fraud, it need only 

refer to paragraph 6 (page 2) ofLTSC's Memorandum in Support of its Response In Opposition 

to the Motion, in which it stated that: 

"There is no allegation or evidence of any sales to Pennsylvania. The 

uncontradicted evidence us that there could not be any sales to Pennsylvania. 

There is no evidence of any other contacts between LTSC and Pennsylvania. 

There is no allegation of any other sufficient jurisdictional contact with 

Pennsylvania. 

The evidence should now consider itself contradicted, as should this Court. Asking a 

Pennsylvania resident to assist LTSC in circumventing jurisdiction by purchasing the product 

through an out-of-state third party, at the urging ofLTSC, is all the contradiction any reasonable 

citizen, attorney or judge should need. Jurisdiction in this district over LTSC is now 

unquestionable. 

Plaintiff further restates his arguments for vacating judgment as set forth in the 

Motion To Set Aside Judgment from July 12,2006 (Docket #53), and any relevant arguments 

from the Motion For Reconsideration. 

2
 

Case 2:05-cv-02752-HB Document 59 Filed 08/14/06 Page 13 of 15
B.	 Knowingly Shipping Computer Files (The AOTP Newsletter) To A 

Pennsylvania Residents Meets The Minimum Contacts Standard For 

Jurisdiction. 

The case Zippo Mfg. Co. v. Zippo Dot Com, Inc., 952 F .Supp. 1119, 1124 

(W.D.Pa.1997) shows why the facts in this motion ignite jurisdiction. That court Held: 

Ifthe defendant enters into contracts with residents ofaforeign 

jurisdiction that involve the knowing and repeated transmission of 

computerfiles over the Internet, personaljurisdiction is proper. E.g. 

Compuserve, Inc. v. Patterson, 89 F.3d 1257 (6th Cir.1996). (Emphasis 

Added). 

Each AOTP newsletter (of which Plaintiff has been sent three as ofthis writing, 

two "knowingly") is a computer file which is transmitted over the internet. The two newsletters 

sent to "Ron" are multiple files, and the second one was sent with full knowledge that "Ron" 

resided in Bensalem, Pennsylvania. The "express targeting" doctrine is also met, as the message 

was expressly targeted to a Pennsylvania resident. Finally, the "contract" requirement is met 

because users must agree to a "terms of service" in order to receive the Newsletter. 

c.	 Alternative to Paragraph (A) Above, The Record Should Be Supplemented. 

Should this Court deny this motion as a matter of law, it is in the interest of 

justice to supplement the record in order to consolidate the appeal, let the Third Circuit have its 

say, and avoid the need for a separate lawsuit based on new and ongoing conduct that would 

serve only to waste judicial resources and increase costs for all parties. 

3
 

Case 2:05-cv-02752-HB Document 59 Filed 08/14/06 Page 14 of 15
IV. CONCLUSION
 

For the reasons set forth herein, the relief sought in the original motion should be granted. 

An appropriate form of order is attached. 

This the 14th day ofAugust, 2006. 

Gordon Roy Parker, Plaintiff, Pro Se 

4247 Locust Street, #806 

Philadelphia, PA 19104
 

(215) 386-7366
 

GordonRoyParker@aol.com
 

4
 

Case 2:05-cv-02752-HB Document 59 Filed 08/14/06 Page 15 of 15