IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FIlE0 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

.1111 1? ?OO6 

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

Snodgrass Publishing Group, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Learn The Skills Corp., et al. 

Defendants. 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

· · 

· · 

: 

· · 

: 

: 

MIC~NZI Clerk 

By Dep. Clerk 

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 

Relief From Judgment 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 FI. Attorney For Paul Ross Defendant 

Philadelphia PA 19109 Regular Mail Regular Mail 

Hand Delivery 

Formhandle@fastseduction.com (Pro Se) 

Thorn E. Geiger (Pro Se) Learn The Skills Corp. 

817 North McCrary Road 955 Massachusetts Ave, #350 

Columbus, MS 39702-4320 Cambridge, MA 02139 

Regular Mail Regular Mail 

This the 12th day of July, 2006. 

Gordon Roy Parker, Plaintiff, Pro Se 

4247 Locust Street, #806 

Philadelphia, PA 19104 

(215) 386-7366 

GordonRoyParker@aol.com 

Case 2:05-cv-02752-HB Document 53 Filed 07/12/06 Page 1 of 11
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. 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

JUL 122006 

. i(UNZ, Clerk 

Dep.C/elk 

CASE NO.: OS-cv-27S2 

Hon. Harvey Bartle 

PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO VACATE JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF
 

DEFENDANTS LEARN THE SKILLS CORP. AND FORMHANDLE,
 

FOR COSTS, AND TO SUPPLEMENT THE RECORD
 

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

Federal Rule 60, to set aside the civil judgment in this case in favor of Defendants Learn The 

Skills Corp. ("LTSC") and Formhandle, and in support thereof, for other relief as set forth, and 

in support thereof, sets forth and avers the following: 

1. New evidence has come to light which unquestionably confers jurisdiction 

ofthis court over Defendant LTSC. Specifically, Defendant LTSC now produces and sells its 

own seduction information product, a DVD set called The Art ofThe Pickup ("AOTP"), which 

is advertised on the LTSC website (http://www.fastseduction.com). and which is sold through 

the website located at http://www.artofthepickup.com. which is owned and operated by 

Defendant LTSC. 

2. The new evidence was only discovered recently (July 2,2006), and could 

not have been uncovered through regular due diligence, as AOTP's web presence (and LTSC's 

operations regarding AOTP) were not publicized until recently being added to the LTSC website 

as a "sponsor." 

Case 2:05-cv-02752-HB Document 53 Filed 07/12/06 Page 2 of 11
3. This new evidence does more than affect jurisdiction. It also reveals a 

completely different role of Defendant LTSC in this controversy as painted by its counsel (and 

by Plaintiff) in its previous pleadings. Whereas previously, LTSC was thought to be a webbased message-board and informational website that was free to users and merely accepted 

advertising from its sponsors, including Defendant Ross, it is now the case (and has been for 

some time now) that LTSC is also a producer of a seduction-advice product which is in direct 

competition with Plaintiffs e-books. 

4. The "whois" registration data for the AOTP website shows that the domain 

was registered on May 24,2005, a point in time in controversy in this action. The following 

screenshot, taken by Plaintiff on his personal computer at 5:15 a.m. EST on July 12,2006, 

confirms this: 

pist'1tjMy§bIQ com 01-15·2006 .. 

.R.eqi8t.l:lStlC;: 

Learn Tht SkUll Cocp 8uurapickyp,C51m 

9SS xaaeecbweeu Aye '350 

Cubrtdoe. JluaachWietu 02139 EzPlcklJpGame cam 

Un1t.ed Stau" prtCluningypitYyp.cQm 

Reqi.:tteud throuOh; CoOadljy. coa, Inc. (http;l/wv.goda.ddy.co-.) Trei!P;e;ksJP&OOO 

Dou,n B...: ART1JI'TIlI:PICJaJP.COII E!ckllP~Cb1x CQm 

Cteeud on: :4~1tay~05

.E.X'P1t.ee on: 24-Kay-07 

Leat Upd'ted. on: OS-Jlay-06 

A.da1nllet.Uve ConUtt: 

..dIl1l113U.etO!, Ve:baa8:ur. ..... ....11I) '" "." ....·.." .. ~-"'.1 )..... ~'.. 

LeaUi The SkUl. Cor.p
 

9SS Kaesachu8etU AVe '350
 

CGbddlile" JlassachueetU 02.139
 

Un1 ee:d Staeas
 617S36Z760 r",,-­

Technical Conte.ct: 

Adain1Jer:etor, Vebautt! . ...,~_-.-'1~ "~~""",,,,,~~~' I . ......"''iLearn The !iilU COtp
 

955 X6eseehwsetU AVIr '3500
 

Cutu::tdoe, !le.nac~etu OZ139
 

United State:e
 

~~999~9~~9 r",,-­

07··16-2006 

CI7-11<W06 

07,17,,2006 

08-0.3·2006 

08·04·~006

5. As a co-producer of AOTP, Defendant Formhandle (a.k.a. Jay Valens) is 

subject to the same jurisdiction as LTSC as it relates to the sale of that product in Pennsylvania 

conferring jurisdiction upon either entity. 

2
 

Case 2:05-cv-02752-HB Document 53 Filed 07/12/06 Page 3 of 11
6. On the AOTP website is its privacy policy, located at the URL of 

http://www.artofthepickup.com/privacy.htrnl. and that page ends with a claim that the privacy 

policy was last updated on February 10, 2006, as demonstrated by the following screenshot, 

taken by Plaintiff through his computer on July 6,2006 at 4:32 a.m. EST: 

Ifyou have any questions or conc"rns regarding our privacy p;>lioy pleas" 

direct them to Sllpporl@irtofthepjpkup.pom. You may also sand a letter to: 

The Art of the Pickup 

of0 Learn The Skill. Corp 

955 Massachusetts Ave # 350 

Cambridge, MA 02139 

All of the n.wsletten that are sent to you by AotP indud. an ttrulubs¢ribe link in 

thom. You can r.mov. yournelfat any time from our n....l.tt"'" by c1idcing on 

the unsubscribe link. You Can also contact us at suWOrt@irtoftbeoipkup porn 

to change your information at any tim.e. 

This p;>licy may be changed at any tim. at AotP's dls<:r<tion. Ifwe should 

update this p;>lioy, ..e ..ill post the updat"" to this page on our Site. This p;>licy 

....revised February 10, 2006. 

http://lwIw.orto/thopcto.o.COOl/orlvOCY.~ v C1 Go 

order to d.liver e-"",it to thooe ..ho ..ould like to ~veAotP n...sl.tters. 

Flo Edt ...... Favorites rods Help 

4.
 

7. The antitrust questions raised in this action are also changed by the new 

evidence, because LTSC's actions now affect the market and price for its own products instead 

ofthose ofjust its sponsors. Whereas previously, LTSC's sponsors benefited from its exclusion 

policies for advertisers (and restraint oftrade of Plaintiff), LTSC itself now profits in exactly the 

same fashion, as it is a producer of commercial products as well as an advertiser of same. 

8. In addition to selling AOTP, Defendant LTSC has also accumulated a 

network of affiliates to market the product for him. It is not known when this process began, or 

where the affiliates conduct business. Absent the affidavits that this court should have required 

of LTSC to support its claim for lack ofjurisdiction, Defendant has been allowed to omit any 

evidentiary mention of this product or aspect of its business, which it knew full well would quite 

3
 

Case 2:05-cv-02752-HB Document 53 Filed 07/12/06 Page 4 of 11
likely have subjected it to the jurisdiction of this Court in the past, and which definitely subjects 

it to jurisdiction in the present and future. 

9. The release of AOTP, and its temporal proximity to this case, establishes 

jurisdiction in Pennsylvania regardless of when the first product was actually sold, as AOTP also 

reveals that LTSC is not merely a passive website or a hosted message board not targeted at 

Pennsylvania residents on an ongoing basis or for further commerce, but instead as an ongoing 

entity whose goal is to cultivate customer relationships through ongoing communication and the 

repeated sending of computer files - including but not limited to the AOTP newsletter - to 

residents of the Commonwealth, for the purpose of pitching AOTP to them. 

10. Given that this case involved allegations of ongoing conduct, present 

jurisdiction should have been sufficient to confer jurisdiction over the entire controversy. 

WHEREFORE, for the grounds of fraud upon the court, misconduct via omission of 

key infonnation, and new evidence, Plaintiff seeks an order: 

1. Removing the stay from this case; 

2. Setting aside the civil judgment in this case and reopening the case; 

3. Awarding costs to Plaintiff in the amount of FIVE HUNDRED AND 

TWENTY DOLLARS ($520.00) to cover his appeal ($255.00), which would not yet have been 

filed had Defendant LTSC not been dismissed, the refiled case in Delaware ($350.00, and which 

also would not have been filed), and $15.00 in printing and postage costs for service of 

Defendants LTSC and Formhandle (who now uses the name "Jay Valens"). 

4. Granting leave of fourteen (14) days for Defendant LTSC to submit any 

additional evidence or infonnation, or to withdraw any jurisdictional defenses to the Amended 

Complaint. 

Attempt To Seek Concurrence Pursuant To Rule 7.l(a) 

4 

Case 2:05-cv-02752-HB Document 53 Filed 07/12/06 Page 5 of 11
On July 9,2006, at or around 11 :58 a.m., Plaintiff telephoned David L. Finger, 

attorney for Defendant LTSC (on the appeal; attorney Wolf reported that he is currently stationed 

in Iraq). Plaintiff informed attorney Finger of the circumstances surrounding this motion 

(including AOTP being released, and this court now having jurisdiction, as well as the new light 

shed on past events), and he stated that he does not concur. He made this statement immediately, 

without conferring with his client after having been notified of Plaintiffs position. 

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

forth verbatim. 

This the 12th day of July, 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 of the 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 (Le., the screenshots which appear in this pleading), 

were downloaded by me, on my personal computer (PC), at the 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. 

BY: 

Date	 Gordon Roy Parker, Plaintiff, Pro Se 

4247 Locust Street, #806 

Philadelphia, PA 19104 

(215) 386-7366 

GordonRoyParker@aol.com 

5 

Case 2:05-cv-02752-HB Document 53 Filed 07/12/06 Page 6 of 11
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. 

JUL 12 2006 

MlatiAEU!. KUNZ, Clerk 

BvJv 11L­ Dep. Clerk 

CASE-NO.: 05-cv-2752 

Hon. Harvey Bartle 

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO VACATE
 

JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANTS LEARN THE SKILLS CORP. AND
 

FORMHANDLE, FOR COSTS, AND TO SUPPLEMENT THE RECORD
 

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

motion: 

I. BACKGROUND 

On March 23, 2006, this Court dismissed the case against all Defendants. Defendants 

LTSC and Formhandle (a/k/a Jay Valens) were dismissed for lack ofjurisdiction. Civil 

judgment was entered on March 30, 2006. A Motion for Reconsideration ofthe dismissal was 

filed on April 3, 2006, and is still pending. A Notice of Appeal was filed on April 7, 2006, and a 

stay ofthat appeal pending resolution in this court was granted on April 21, 2006. New evidence 

has come to light which should reverse judgment against Defendants LTSC and Formhandle in 

this case, which in tum would toll any appeal against the other defendants until resolution of the 

case against Formhandle/LTSC. 

Defendants will not likely dispute that this court now has jurisdiction over LTSC and 

Formhandle, due to the release ofArt ofthe Pickup (AOTP). Through this product offering, its 

first proprietary material sold through its website, Defendants LTSClFormhandle now regularly 

Case 2:05-cv-02752-HB Document 53 Filed 07/12/06 Page 7 of 11
conduct business with and market to residents of the Commonwealth. This dispute will thus 

center around a) whether or not "delayed jurisdiction" warrants vacation of the judgment; and b) 

whether or not the new evidence reveals a fraud upon this court, or alternatively, that jurisdiction 

in Pennsylvania over these two defendants was proper ever since the AOTP website was 

registered in May 2005. 

II. LEGAL STANDARD 

A.	 Legal Standard For A Motion For Relief From Judgment. 

Federal Rule 60(b) states the following: 

On motion and upon such terms as are just, the court may relieve a party or a 

party's legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the 

following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) 

newly discovered evidence which by due diligence could not have been discovered 

in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b); (3) fraud (whether heretofore 

denominated intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an 

adverse party; 

Federal Rule 60(b)(6) also allows for vacating a judgment for "any other reason 

justifying relief from the operation of the judgment." 

III. ARGUMENT 

A.	 Present Jurisdiction Over Defendants LTSClFormhandle Warrants 

Vacating The Judgment. 

Even if this court recognizes jurisdiction over Defendants LTSC/Formhandle as 

of the date of the first sale to a Pennsylvania resident, and even if that date was after the entry of 

judgment, this present jurisdiction is still sufficient to justify this Court using its discretion, as a 

matter of law and in the interest ofjustice, to vacate the judgment against these two defendants. 

Case law in this situation is sparse, and Plaintiffs diligence could not locate any 

precedent in the Third Circuit or Supreme Court. General principles ofjurisprudence, however, 

2
 

Case 2:05-cv-02752-HB Document 53 Filed 07/12/06 Page 8 of 11
support vacating the judgment due to lack of prejudice, as I) the appeal is currently stayed; and 

2) the Motion For Reconsideration is still pending. 

B.	 The New Evidence Reveals Jurisdiction Was Conferred During The Time In 

Controversy. 

Defendants LTSC/Formhandle registered the AOTP website domain in May 

2005, prior to the filing ofthis lawsuit. Beginning in May 2005, LTSC intended to cultivate 

ongoing customer relationships with residents of the Commonwealth, and to enter its 

marketplace. 

It should be noted that this Court's unusual step of not requiring an affidavit from 

LTSC in support ofits motion to dismiss for lack ofjurisdiction, which is contrary to precedent 

in this circuit, has left Plaintiff without specific knowledge regarding when AOTP was first 

marketed and sold. At the very least, this court should require Defendant to submit evidence of 

exactly when it began production and marketing of AOTP, and cultivating business partnerships 

with affiliates who sell the product for a commission. 

Once AOTP was created, or intended to be created, LTSC crossed the line from 

being a passive website that does not meet the "minimum contacts" test in Pennsylvania, to a 

business which actively participates in discourse and commercial exchange with its residents. 

This is also sufficient to confer jurisdiction during the time period in this lawsuit, and since the 

new evidence could not have been discovered previously, vacating the judgment is further 

warranted. 

C. Judgment Should Be Vacated Based On Fraud Upon The Court. 

In its opposition to Plaintiffs Motion To Conduct Jurisdictional Discovery, 

counsel for LTSC argued that Plaintiff should not be given access to the information required to 

complete an affidavit in support ofLTSC's claim oflack ofjurisdiction, citing privacy concerns. 

3
 

Case 2:05-cv-02752-HB Document 53 Filed 07/12/06 Page 9 of 11
As history has revealed, however, LTSC's true motive is now clear: it did not want to reveal the 

existence of the AOTP website or product line because it would have rendered moot the 

jurisdictional dispute. 

This conduct constitutes a fraud upon the court, or alternatively, misconduct, and 

further justifies vacating the judgment. 

IV. CONCLUSION 

For the reasons set forth herein, the instant motion should be granted, and Plaintiff should 

be entitled to his costs as set forth in the motion.	 An appropriate form of order is attached. 

This the 12th day of July, 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 53 Filed 07/12/06 Page 10 of 11
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 Relief From Judgment and all responses thereto, the motion is granted, 

as follows: 

1. The civil judgment in this case against Defendants LTSC/Formhandle is 

now vacated. 

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

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

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

which necessitated this motion. 

SO ORDERED. 

1. 

Case 2:05-cv-02752-HB Document 53 Filed 07/12/06 Page 11 of 11