IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

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

Snodgrass Publishing Group, 

Learn The Skills Corp., et a1. 

Defendants. 

JAN 032006 

MIC~ KUNZ, Clerk 

CAll ~-u,~§'e,*

Hon. Harvey J. Bartle, ill 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I, Gordon Roy Parker, hereby certify that I have served the foregoing Brief In Opposition 

To Defendant Thorn E. Geiger's Motion To Dismiss, Brief in Opposition To Defendant 

LTSC's Second Motion To Dismiss, and Brief in Opposition To Defendant WoWs Second 

Motion To Dismiss, on the following Defendants, by the following means: 

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

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

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

Walker & Rhoads Philadelphia, PA 19103 Attorney For LTSC And 

123 South Broad Street, 28th Fl. Hand Delivery Defendant 

Philadelphia PA 19109 Regular Mail 

Hand Delivery 

Formhandle@fastseduction.com 

Thorn E. Geiger 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 3rd day ofJanuary, 2006. 

Gordon Roy Parker 

4247 Locust Street, #806 

Philadelphia, PA 19104 

(215) 386-7366 

GordonRoyParker@ao1.com 

Plaintiff, Pro Se 

Case 2:05-cv-02752-HB Document 37 Filed 01/03/06 Page 1 of 26
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURJ;;.
 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANLt- I LED
 

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

Snodgrass Publishing Group, 

4247 Locust Street, #806 

Philadelphia, PA 19104 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Learn The Skills Corp. et al. 

Defendants. 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

JAN 032006 

MICHA42:E. KUNZ, Clerk 

By, M Pep. Clerk 

CASE NO.: 05-cv-2752 

Hon. Harvey J. Bartle, III 

PLAINTIFF'S BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO 

DEFENDANT THOM E. GEIGER'S MOTIONS TO DISMISS 

Plaintiff Gordon Roy Parker, in the above-styled action, submits this response to 

Defendant Geiger's Motions To Dismiss and Memorandum in support thereto. 

I. INTRODUCTION 

Defendant Geiger has not followed generally acceptable form for filing motions, thus 

burdening Plaintiff to sort through his paperwork and figure out what he is trying to say. 

Specifically, the motions are jumbled together, not dated, not organized properly, and in many 

cases, without citations to supporting or relevant case law. Plaintiff has experience in the legal 

profession, and understands that Defendant Geiger is proceeding pro se, but is nonetheless 

burdened. 

In his "motions to dismiss," Defendant Geiger states that he denies "each and every 

allegation in the instant complaint.'d Assuming that he is referring only to those allegations and 

averments specific to himself, as he claims no knowledge of his co-conspirators, that would 

include the following: 

1 Defendant Geiger's presentation of his motions make it impossible to cite page numbers or documents, as there are 

no page numbers on them and the documents were not filed separately. 

1 

Case 2:05-cv-02752-HB Document 37 Filed 01/03/06 Page 2 of 26
1. The averment that "Defendant Geiger resides in Columbus, Mississippi and 

has been served.,,2 

2. The averment that Defendant Geiger had registered a website concerning 

Plaintiff in 2000 with Kracked.com. 3 

3. The averment that Defendant Geiger was also "SubzerO" and posted 

messages to USENET through Altopia Corporation concerning Plaintiff.4 

4. The averment that Defendant Geiger is the owner ofthe internet domain 

located at http://www.ray-gordon.com. 5 despite his name being returned to Plaintiff in discovery 

in Parker v. Wintermute as the sole owner and administrative contact for the name, and despite 

his name being listed, at all relevant times in this action, in the "whois" database that contains 

contact information for those who register domains. 

5. The averment that Defendant Geiger does not have a DMCA agent listed 

with the Library of Congress (necessary to invoke immunity under the DMCA),6 

even though no 

such agent is listed. 

6. That as the domain owner, Defendant Geiger has exclusive control over 

what is published on any web page in that domain. 7 This would be like claiming that if Your 

Honor registered the domain http://www.harveyjbartle.com, that he would have no control over 

pages that appeared on that site, e.g., http://www.harveyjbartle.com/decisions.html.Itis also 

akin to claiming that the owner of a car does not have exclusive control over who gets the keys, 

or that the owner of a home does not have exclusive control over who may stay there. This 

2 Amended Complaint, p. 1, 3.
 

3 Id, p. 12, 43. Plaintiff was given Defendant Geiger's name specifically by Kracked.com when he asked for the
 

information on who had put up a site allegedly from a "Ray Gordon" who was supposedly angry at Plaintiffs
 

"tarnishing" of his name.
 

4 Id, p. 27, 72.
 

5 Id., p. 28, 75.
 

6 Id., p. 28, 77.
 

7 ld., p. 29, 79.
 

2
 

Case 2:05-cv-02752-HB Document 37 Filed 01/03/06 Page 3 of 26
argument, upon which much ofDefendant Geiger's defense rests, is incredulous on its face. Any 

pages that were published on the http://www.ray-gordon.com domain were most definitely under 

his control, as he and he alone controlled FTP access to the domain name. 

7. That he did not post to USENET under his own name, despite the messages 

being signed with his name and his not claiming they were authored by anyone else (message 

IDs have been provided in the Amended Complaint), and did not make the statements attributed 

to him in the Amended Complaint, in the messages posted to USENET which were cited thereto, 

including the following: 

a. A claim that Plaintiff had been notified ofRule 11 violations. 8 

b. A claim that Plaintiff had accused Defendant Geiger of using 

unauthorized software on his government workstation, and stating that he was getting the Office 

of Special Investigation involved. 9 

c. Claims that he had "in fact, forwarded two messages, about children 

whose mothers allegedly "pimp" their underaged daughters to internet hypnofetishists, to the 

Federal Bureau ofInvestigation since 711012003," and that he had involved the US Defense 

Intelligence Agency in the allegations made in the original Complaint. 10 

d. A claim that Plaintiff's allegations in his complaint have sparked a 

"federal investigation" and that "Federal court is the least of the processes involved now."ll 

e.	 A claim that "[Plaintifl] and I will be meeting one another in the 

l2 Northern District ofMississippi Court when this current action of his is dispensed with. 

8 Id., p. 29, 80(b). 

9 Id., p. 30, 80(c). 

10 Id., p. 30, 80(d) 

11 Id., p. 30, 80(e) 

12 Id., p. 30, 80(t) 

3 

Case 2:05-cv-02752-HB Document 37 Filed 01/03/06 Page 4 of 26
f A post advising Defendant Trustees of the University ofPennsylvania 

to seek sanctions against Plaintiff and to consider a Dragonetti lawsuit against Plaintiff 13 

8. That Defendant Geiger has not offered any evidence to support his claims 

ofthird-party publication ofthe website. 14 He has not. 

9. That Defendant Geiger, through his stated claim that he does not know who 

the author ofthe RayFAQ website is, has made it impossible to subpoena their identity, since the 

only way to find out who is publishing a website is to find out who owns the domain, and to find 

out from the domain owner who has permission to upload files to it via FTP. 15 

While Defendant Geiger can be expected to deny the allegations regarding collusion 

and conspiracy, here he has denied facts which are either self-evident, have been produced 

through discovery, are clearly likely to be true (without offering any refutation), and which can 

be resolved through discovery. Defendant Geiger, by denying "each and every allegation," even 

denied that he resides in Mississippi or was served with this action. 

Defendant Geiger's motions, and the posturing which accompany them, are borne 

from the notion that "the best defense is a good offense." He wants this Court to short-circuit the 

litigation process and declare him the winner without affording Plaintiff the benefit of discovery. 

Previously, Defendant Geiger served upon Plaintiff a previous "motions to dismiss" with several 

hundred pages of exhibits, including highly inflammatory material concerning Plaintiff which 

was irrelevant to this action, yet did not file it with the Court. As also noted in the Amended 

Complaint, Defendant Geiger is now posturing as if he was previously neutral, disinterested, 

uninvolved, and unbiased, but "in the course ofresearch" for his defense, has come across 

information which puts him on the same page as his co-defendants. Currently, his websites 

13 Id., p. 3 I, 80(g) 

14 Id., p. 32, 82. 

15 Id., p. 57, 157. 

4
 

Case 2:05-cv-02752-HB Document 37 Filed 01/03/06 Page 5 of 26
contain many derogatory and some defamatory statements concerning Plaintiff, and the 

USENET postings cited above further underscore this posture, which Plaintiff holds is untrue 

and not at all reflective ofDefendant Geiger's involvement in the Seduction Mafia. 

II. STATEMENT OF ISSUESIBACKGROUND FACTS 

Defendant Geiger sets forth his framing ofthe issues in this action and "background 

facts." Plaintiff responds as follows: 

1-7. No paragraphs 6-7 are listed, and paragraphs 1-5 list his statement of issues. The 

issue of convenience for witnesses is irrelevant, since they can be deposed in their home 

jurisdictions. Far more compelling in the "interests ofjustice" cited by Defendant Geiger, 

however, is the burden on the Plaintiff offirst having to endure a nationwide conspiracy targeted 

at him from the pseudonymity of internet aliases, and then having to drain his already-limited 

resources to "globetrot" and defend his rights, to the point where part ofthe strategy of the 

conspiracy is to spread Plaintiff so thin that he couldn't properly litigate. 

8. While no responsive statement is required, Defendant Geiger is assuming that 

Plaintiff authored all USENET messages attributed to himself, despite Plaintiff having been 

impersonated repeatedly on USENET. Further, any facts he wishes to use to support his defense 

are beyond the scope of a motion to dismiss. Further, Defendant Geiger does not reference his 

declarations in his memorandum. 

9. Defendant Geiger admits he resides in Mississippi, despite his having denied 

"each and every allegation" in the Amended Complaint. 

10. Whether or not Defendant Geiger's claims about not having a "presence" in 

Pennsylvania are true, they are irrelevant to the extent that Plaintiff is claiming jurisdiction based 

on RICO's national service of process (18 USC §1965(b)), Pennsylvania's long-arm statute, the 

5
 

Case 2:05-cv-02752-HB Document 37 Filed 01/03/06 Page 6 of 26
presence ofseveral co-conspirators in this district, and because the damage from Defendant 

Geiger's actions (and those ofhis co-conspirators) either occurred in Pennsylvania, were targeted 

at Pennsylvania residents, or caused their primary damage in Pennsylvania. 

11. Defendant states that "no events or circumstances are alleged to have occurred in 

any Philadelphia locations.,,16 This is false, since all conduct of Defendant Trustees ofthe 

University ofPennsylvania's ("Penn's") conduct occurred exclusively in Pennsylvania. 

Defendant's claim that venue is based solely on allegations of defamation is also disingenuous, 

as this action includes claims for invasion of privacy, tortious interference, civil conspiracy, and 

RICO, among others. 

12. Defendant states that "there have been no activities by Defendant in 

Pennsylvania to distinguish Pennsylvania from any other location in the United States," and 

claims that Mississippi is where "any evidence is located." He further claims that defending 

himself in this venue would be burdensome, yet he should have considered this when allegedly 

allowing an unknown third party, who could reside anywhere, to use his domain to publish the 

RayFAQ website, and he was fully aware ofthe locations ofthe other Defendants, over whom 

this court definitely has jurisdiction. 

ill. LEGAL ARGUMENT 

13. Denied. Defendant Geiger again attempts to mischaracterize his involvement in 

the RayFAQ website. He states that: 

The basis ofthe complaint against Defendant Geiger is that "Defendant registered 

a domain name, and at some time, redirected (hereafter referred to as "pointed") 

that domain name to a web site on a computer server on the internet. Plaintiff 

Parker (hereafter referred to as Plaintiff) alleges Defendant's lawful registration 

and lawful domain pointing harmed plaintiff in some vague and unspecific way, 

and said lawful registration and lawful domain pointing constitute participation by 

16 Memorandum, p. 3, ,-r 11. 

6 

Case 2:05-cv-02752-HB Document 37 Filed 01/03/06 Page 7 of 26
Defendant in a criminal conspiracy aimed at harming Plaintiff and/or Plaintiff s 

business. 17 

This is not what Plaintiff is basing his complaint on. Defendant Geiger states that the raygordon. com domain merely "pointed" to another website by "redirecting" it to "a computer 

server on the internet." Even ifthat were true, this would be the same as publishing the content 

on Defendant Geiger's domain, but in this case, the RayFAQ pages were located on the raygordon. com domain itself. A case of "redirection" of a domain might occur ifthe hypothetical 

domain ofwww.harveyjbartle.com were to redirect users to a page on www.cybersheet.com, but 

as of October 24, 2002, no secondary domains were involved in publication or transmission of 

the RayFAQ website. Rather, Defendant Geiger's domain made him the sole contact related to 

the content of the RayFAQ website, and only he had the ability to stop its publication by refusing 

to allow the pages to be posted to his site, whether or not by him or a third party. Further, 

Defendant Geiger has not established that any third party actually published the site. 

14. Denied. This statement contains conclusions oflaw regarding previous 

incarnations ofthis case, to which no responsive statement is required. To the extent that one is 

required, it is denied. 

15. Denied. Defendant Geiger refutes his own blanket denial of "each and every 

allegation" in the Amended Complaint by acknowledging his communication with the FBI and 

child protection agencies, and goes on to claim that they "have no bearing on the case at issue 

and have been included solely to prejudice Defendant in his attempt to mount an adequate 

defense in this case." 18 Plaintiff finds this sequence of events incredulous, since it was in the 

course of commenting on this case on USENET that Defendant mentioned these 

communications, and that they were the result ofPlaintiff having filed this action. For him to 

17 Id., p. 4, 13.
 

18 Id., p. 4, 15.
 

7
 

Case 2:05-cv-02752-HB Document 37 Filed 01/03/06 Page 8 of 26
now say that they are irrelevant would be tantamount to an admission that Defendant Geiger was 

attempting to intimidate Plaintiff into withdrawing this case or not serving him with it. Further, 

this information is highly relevant to the action at hand, as it is relevant to malice, motive, and 

extortion through the threat of using federal and legal process maliciously in an attempt to extort 

Plaintiff under color of law. 

16. Admitted. Defendant Geiger is merely restating a paragraph from the Amended 

Complaint. 

17. Plaintiff is without sufficient information to form a response to this averment. 

18. Denied. Plaintiff never stated with absolute certainty that Defendant Geiger was 

posting as "Editorial Staff." Rather, he alleged that the "Editorial Staff' claimed to be the 

publisher of the RayFAQ, and that discovery ofthe domain records, as well as Defendant 

Geiger's refusal to name any third-party publisher, indicated that they were one and the same. 

However, Plaintiff also pled in the alternative that it did not matter if they were in fact the same 

party, and even if they were not, that Defendant Geiger was still legally liable as the domain 

owner and/or publisher of the site. Never was he accused of abusing government resources, and 

never was he required to initiate any type of investigation, assuming that in fact he has. 

19. Denied. Since Plaintiff never accused Defendant Geiger of abusing government 

resources, his factual basis is flawed, and he offers no legal argument to support the striking of 

any averments related to Defendant Geiger's own statements (generally admissible) concerning 

any investigations he launched of his own volition, and which he made of his own volition. It 

would appear that Defendant Geiger did not like the consequences of his actions, and upon 

further reflection, wants to take a "Mulligan" and pretend he never took them. Plaintiff can find 

no other explanation for this sudden desire to strike these references from the record other than 

8
 

Case 2:05-cv-02752-HB Document 37 Filed 01/03/06 Page 9 of 26
someone not wanting it discussed in this case. Defendant Geiger has also ceased posting to 

USENET for several months, at least under his own name. Since the single mothers in question 

also read USENET, Plaintiff finds this perplexing at the very least. 

20. Admitted. Defendant Geiger is merely restating an averment from the Amended 

Complaint, which is not in dispute. 

21. Admitted in part. denied in part. Plaintiff admits that he has publicly accused 

single mothers of endangering their children by placing them in proximity to men they meet in 

"fetish" chats, but denies any characterizations of his "detailed and intimate knowledge" of 

same. 

22. Denied. Defendant Geiger, in his pleadings and on USENET, has repeatedly 

made sure to remind his audience that he came across these USENET messages solely as a 

consequence ofthis lawsuit. Plaintiff would obviously require the benefit of discovery to 

support this denial, and under the most-favorable-light standard for a motion to dismiss, 

Defendant's argument is misplaced, since Plaintiff has alleged that Defendant Geiger has been 

aware ofhim and his USENET postings since 1998, and that Defendant Geiger registered a "hate 

site" concerning Plaintiff in 2000 with Kracked.com. The purpose of this posturing is for 

Defendant Geiger to appear "converted" by neutral investigation rather than what he is, which is 

a Seduction Mafia Principal who has "had it in" for Plaintiff ever since he blew the whistle on 

child abuse in gymnastics in 1998. 

23. Plaintiff is without sufficient information to admit or deny this averment, but by 

way of further answer, adds that Defendant Geiger's reporting of these allegations would have 

satisfied his role as a "concerned citizen," without his broadcasting ofsame to USENET during 

discussions ofthis lawsuit. 

9 

Case 2:05-cv-02752-HB Document 37 Filed 01/03/06 Page 10 of 26
24. Plaintiff is without sufficient information to admit or deny this averment, but it is 

consistent with what Defendant Geiger has stated in the past. 

25. Denied. Defendant Geiger is having difficulty keeping his story straight. Here 

he says that he only contacted the FBI and CMEC because ofthe children that were involved, yet 

earlier he has stated that he contacted the Office of Special Investigation regarding what Plaintiff 

had stated in his lawsuit. Plaintiff further avers, now as then, that Defendant Geiger's motives 

were to involve criminal investigations as a tactic for defending a civil lawsuit. 

26-27. Plaintiff is without sufficient information to admit or deny these averments. 

28. Denied. Plaintiff notes that despite Defendant Geiger's desire to strike the childabuse material from the record, he is asking the court to "take note" ofPlaintiff continuing to 

publish what he claims is irrelevant material to USENET. Defendant would seem to like to have 

it both ways here. Plaintiff further denies any averment that he "ignored all admonishments" to 

report said crimes, while noting that most states require such reporting to come from a witness, a 

family member, or someone operating on more than internet knowledge. This is not to say that 

Plaintiff s evidence is nonexistent, for it is not, only that our government refuses to consider it as 

it is currently structured. To the extent that Plaintiff could report child abuse, he does. For 

example, in 1994-1997, when Plaintiff learned through internet communication that Dominique 

Moceanu (olympic gymnast) was being abused, he attempted to report this abuse to the FBI and 

was told to "let it go," and then tried to report it to the state of Texas, but was told that since he 

wasn't a family member or witness he could not file a report. This is too bad for Ms. Moceanu, 

who had to endure another eighteen months of abuse before fleeing her home in October, 1998. 

29. Admitted. Plaintiff did in fact introduce the subject matter ofthe investigations 

into the pleadings in this case, but that is as it should be, since it is central to motive, malice, and 

10
 

Case 2:05-cv-02752-HB Document 37 Filed 01/03/06 Page 11 of 26
attempted extortion and intimidation by Defendant Geiger. The information is relevant and by 

all means should have been included. Defendant Geiger, however, is the one who introduced the 

matter to USENET when discussing this lawsuit. 

30. Denied. Defendant Geiger is making conclusions of law which do not require a 

response, but to the extent they do, his averments are denied. He avers that it is not illegal to 

report child abuse, yet ignores that Plaintiffs averments relate to his statements to USENET, and 

not his actual reports, and are relevant to malice, motive, and conduct. 

31. Denied. Defendant Geiger again mischaracterizes Plaintiffs claims against him, 

averring that they are based solely on the "position that Defendant Geiger must be the author and 

copyright owner of intellectual content" that appeared on the domain he owned. This is not the 

case at all: Plaintiff is arguing that Defendant Geiger controlled publication of the website, not 

necessarily as the author of the site itself, and that he registered the domain to cloak any thirdparty authors while attempting to claim immunity for himself. That act was taken in furtherance 

of a conspiracy and central to the RICO enterprise, because it enabled USENET posters to 

simply link to his website rather than repost the defamation themselves, allowing the coconspirators and operatives to duck individual liability. Despite his repeated claims that he is not 

the author of the site or the user who uploaded the files, Defendant Geiger never states who is. 

32. Admitted. Defendant Geiger is quoting the Amended Complaint. 

33. Denied. Defendant Geiger states that "if a domain name does not allow the 

person registering it to control the content on any website the domain name is pointed to, then all 

claims, averments and allegations based on Plaintiffs premise are false." Defendant Geiger's 

premise is what is false here: for example, Plaintiff is the owner of the www.cybersheet.com 

domain. As such, he and he alone controls the content that appears on any website with that 

11
 

Case 2:05-cv-02752-HB Document 37 Filed 01/03/06 Page 12 of 26
domain. Even if Plaintiff gave that control to a third party, he ultimately can revoke it just as the 

owner of a car can revoke the keys from a third-party driver, or the owner of a home can evict a 

trespasser. Defendant Geiger is like the owner of a car claiming he had no knowledge ofwho 

was driving when an accident occurred, and who refuses to state who he may have given the 

keys to, and that assumes that he isn't in fact the publisher ofthe site himself, something he has 

not offered any evidence to refute. 

34-35. Admitted. Defendant Geiger is merely quoting the Amended Complaint. 

36. Denied. Defendant Geiger again is trying to claim that Plaintiffs action against 

him is based solely on his being the actual author and publisher ofthe RayFAQ. He has pled in 

the alternative, as is his right: first, the existing evidence shows that Defendant Geiger, and only 

Defendant Geiger, is involved in the publication ofthe RayFAQ and anything else on the raygordon. com domain, and alternatively, that even if Defendant Geiger is not the actual publisher 

ofthe site (according to his claim that some anonymous third party is "driving his car" or using 

his domain), that he is still liable for what appears on a domain that he ultimately controls. 

Should Defendant Geiger prove third-party authorship, the alternatively pled claims would 

survIve. 

37. Denied. Defendant Geiger makes a conclusion of law here, and states that 

liability should extend to a third-party individual rather than him if in fact he is not the author of 

the site. By omitting any reference to such a third-party, however, Defendant Geiger supports 

Plaintiffs claim that there is no third party, that he is refusing to name any third party, or that he 

deliberately made it impossible for himself to name the party as a means of aiding and abetting 

the RICO enterprise, for which he would be liable. Further, Plaintiff has argued that Defendant 

Geiger is liable regardless ofthird-party authorship, as he is the domain owner. 

12 

Case 2:05-cv-02752-HB Document 37 Filed 01/03/06 Page 13 of 26
38. Denied. Defendant is hair-splitting: a domain name is what people type into a 

computer, to get to a website. The domain name is merely a verbal representation ofthe 

website's IP address. The domain owner controls which IP the website is located at, and who 

may upload files to that domain. Any citations to previous evidence should also be pinpoint, but 

are not here. 

39. Denied or irrelevant, as follows: 

a. The claim in 39(a) (p. 9) is hair-splitting, as outlined above. 

b. The claim in 39(b) - that "The registration of an internet domain name 

does not allow any type of control over creative intellectual property on any web site that domain 

name points to anywhere on the internet" - is patently false, and would be like claiming that 

Plaintiff had no control over the www.cybersheet.com website, or even that this Court has no 

control over what appears on the website located at http://paed.us.courts.gov, its website. 

c. Defendant states that "No permission or communication between the 

registrant of a domain name and the author/copyright holder of any intellectual property, at any 

publicly accessible web site, is needed or necessary in order to point i domain name at said 

content." This is also false, because it would be like saying that no permission or 

communication would be required for someone to upload files to this Court's website. Simply 

put, a domain owner has absolute control over what appears on websites with that domain name. 

d. Defendant states that "Intellectual content posted to a web site, anywhere on 

the internet, can be accessed by the Internet Protocol (IP) numbering system underlying the data 

network that comprises the World Wide Web, without being pointed to by a domain name." 

This is irrelevant, as Defendant knowingly allowed his domain name to be associated with the 

RayFAQ website, whether or not he is the actual author. 

13 

Case 2:05-cv-02752-HB Document 37 Filed 01/03/06 Page 14 of 26
40. Denied/irrelevant. Defendant is attempting to liken the publication ofthe 

RayFAQ to the simple redirecting ofinternet users to a second domain. Even then, however, he 

would be liable, as it would still count as publication ofthe site. However, the RayFAQ website 

was located on the ray-gordon. com domain itself, not another domain. The pages were prefixed 

as such, and this has been alleged in the Amended Complaint. Further, since this is a motion to 

dismiss, where the most-favorable-light standard applies, Defendant Geiger's factual defenses 

are inappropriate, as Plaintiff has not been afforded discovery. 

41. Plaintiff is without sufficient information to respond to this averment, but by way 

of further answer states that it is irrelevant, as Defendant Geiger states merely that he does not 

know who controls the PACER website, which is not at issue, although he does state that he 

"assumes" Plaintiff is responsible for the content of his own domain's website, which is the same 

assumption upon which Plaintiff's averments were based. Despite repeated opportunities to step 

forward with the name of any third-party publisher, or why he would not know the name, 

Defendant Geiger has conveniently demurred. 

42. Denied. Defendant Geiger yet again attempts to claim he had no control over the 

publication ofthe RayFAQ as alleged in the Amended Complaint (assuming it was a third-party 

publisher, which has not been proven). For this to be true, it would have to have been possible 

for anyone to upload files to the www.ray-gordon.com domain, rather than permission being 

required from the domain owner. Had this been possible, Plaintiff himself would have been able 

to delete the files from the domain. Defendant's claim is false on its face. 

43. Admitted/irrelevant. Defendant Geiger is now stating that anyone can access 

Google's website by typing in its IP address. This does not address, however, that Defendant 

Geiger allowed his ray-gordon. com domain to be associated with this website, or that the IP 

14
 

Case 2:05-cv-02752-HB Document 37 Filed 01/03/06 Page 15 of 26
address of a site can change if it is taken down by a host (which this one was several times). His 

statement does nothing to address the issue of liability or third-party authorship. 

44. Denied/irrelevant. Defendant Geiger states that the domain owner doesn't 

necessarily own the intellectual property that appears on that domain's website), which is 

completely irrelevant, as Defendant Geiger did have control over who could upload files, 

including the RayFAQ, to the ray-gordon. com domain, which he owns. Further, his claim that a 

domain owner has no control over publication offiles on that domain is false on its face, as 

shown previously. 

45. Admitted/irrelevant. Defendant Geiger makes another meaningless "true" 

statement that a website can be accessed through its IP address in addition to its domain name. 

46. Denied. Defendant Geiger has made several false statements that Plaintiff can 

refute, and this does not address the issue ofhis "facts" being irrelevant to this motion, and to 

this action. 

47. Denied, and irrelevant (as they relate to factual defenses), as follows: 

a. The evidence Plaintiff uncovered in previous discovery pointed exclusively 

to Defendant Geiger as the publisher ofthe RayFAQ. 

b. Plaintiff had not been allowed discovery that would have taken place, and 

such discovery still would not have refuted the basis for his claims against Defendant Geiger. 

c. Plaintiff amended this action not to remove anything from this Court's 

view, but to demonstrate the irrelevance ofDefendant Geiger's claims by showing how he is 

liable regardless, even ifwhat he says is true, although Defendant has offered no evidentiary 

support for his claims. 

15
 

Case 2:05-cv-02752-HB Document 37 Filed 01/03/06 Page 16 of 26
48. Denied. This is a conclusory allegation to which no response is required. To the 

extent a response is required, it is denied. 

49. AdmittedlIrrelevant. Doe #6, a/k/a rayinfo@email.com. posted a message to 

USENET claiming to be the author ofthe RayFAQ. However, anyone can claim anything on 

USENET, and that in no way proves that he was in fact the author, or that Defendant Geiger was 

not using his account. It is possible to log onto an internet connection from a secondary point, 

even if one is not the direct accountholder. Rather, the way to uncover the name of a website 

publisher is through the domain holder and/or webhost. Discovery ofthe domainholder 

(NamesDirect) revealed Defendant Geiger as the sole contact for the domain, which in the 

absence of evidence to the contrary, indicates that he is the publisher. 

50. AdmittedlIrrelevant. Defendant Geiger quotes a previous pleading by Plaintiff, 

which is again irrelevant, since Plaintiffs discovery ofthe domain holder for the ray-gordon.com 

domain was the most desirable means for establishing authorship ofthe website. Anyone can 

claim anything on USENET. That Plaintiff chose to take a claim at face value pending discovery 

hardly proves the statement. 

51. AdmittedlIrrelevant. Plaintiff's averment that Doe #6 was the actual publisher 

ofthe RayFAQ is not relevant to this action. By the time Parker v. LTSC (I) was filed, the IP 

information surrounding the Comcast user would have been long gone (they retain newsgroup 

postings and IP histories for a short period oftime). Instead, Plaintiff has hard evidence that 

Defendant Geiger is the domain owner, and as such, has control over publication to the site or 

who is pub lishing to it. 

52. Denied. Nothing has been proven about Doe #6, since no discovery was 

undertaken (the cases never reached that point), but in the course ofidentifying the domain 

16
 

Case 2:05-cv-02752-HB Document 37 Filed 01/03/06 Page 17 of 26
owner (who was not known to be Geiger at the time), Defendant Geiger was uncovered as the 

individual with exclusive control over the ray-gordon. com domain and its RayFAQ website. 

53-55. Plaintiff is without sufficient information to respond to these averments, but 

they are irrelevant to a motion to dismiss, given the most-favorable-light standard, or just plain 

irrelevant. 

56. Admitted/irrelevant. Plaintiffs knowledge of how to decipher USENET 

headers is not germane to this action and does not change Defendant Geiger's involvement in the 

conduct in controversy as alleged herein. Further, it is a factual argument which is irrelevant to a 

motion to dismiss. 

57-59. Admitted in part, denied in part, Irrelevant. Plaintiffs knowledge of how 

to determine the ISP from which a USENET posting originated is not relevant to Defendant 

Geiger owning the ray-gordon. com domain, or publishing (or causing to be published) the 

RayFAQ website. Plaintiff could post to USENET that he is the President of the United States, 

but discovery of the White House records would be a far more reliable indicator, just as 

discovery of domain records is a more reliable indicator ofwho publishes a website. Plaintiff 

denies the parts of these averments which relate to it having been possible for him to engage in 

discovery through Comcast, due to evidence spoilage and the uncovering of subsequent 

evidence. 

60. Denied. Plaintiff has not knowingly made any false claims. He claimed that 

Defendant Geiger was the sole owner and administrative contact listed for the ray-gordon.com 

domain, and that anyone claiming to be the author ofthe RayFAQ, including "Editorial Staff," 

would therefore likely be Defendant Geiger. IP records are not maintained for sufficient length 

17
 

Case 2:05-cv-02752-HB Document 37 Filed 01/03/06 Page 18 of 26
to make discovery ofDoe #6's identity possible, and further, alternate discovery yielded the 

domain owner's name regardless. 

61. Plaintiff is without sufficient information to respond to this averment. 

62. Denied. Plaintiff denies, to the extent he has to, the implied conclusory 

allegation that Defendant proved beyond any doubt that he could not access Comcast through 

another account from another user. Where an ISP is located does not restrict where it may be 

accessed from. Even if Defendant's statement is true, it is still not relevant, and not germane to 

this motion or this case. 

63. Denied. All of Plaintiff s claims have not been proven to be untrue, and for the 

purposes ofthis motion, must be treated as true by this court under the most-favorable-light 

standard. Defendant repeatedly ignores his role in all ofthis as the sole owner ofthe domain on 

which the RayFAQ website was published, claiming it was by a third party he does not know, 

and refusing to explain a) why he does not know; or b) how he came to give publishing rights via 

FTP to this allegedly anonymous party. Defendant's employment had nothing to do with this 

case, except to the extent that Defendant himself injected them into it via investigations triggered 

by allegations that he claims which Plaintiff never in fact made. 

IV. MOTION TO STRIKE 

64. No response to this averment is required. 

65. Defendant now wants to strike references to his own statements which he posted 

publicly posted to USENET about reporting alleged criminal activity, despite their being relevant 

to malice, motive, and conduct. Plaintiff digresses. 

66. Defendant Geiger has presented no evidence to support his claims, or at least 

none which would subject him to things like discovery and cross-examination, and is seeking a 

18
 

Case 2:05-cv-02752-HB Document 37 Filed 01/03/06 Page 19 of 26
"free ride" that stops just short ofthe point where Plaintiffs rights would begin to refute his 

position. Plaintiff again digresses. Due process alone requires more. Further, even the facts as 

Defendant Geiger sets them forth would still incur liability based on the allegations and claims. 

V. MOTION TO DISMISSfLACK OF JURISDICTION. 

A Motion For Jurisdictional Discovery by Plaintiff is pending in this court. This 

Court should not entertain a dismissal for lack ofjurisdiction in this case without fIrst allowing 

the discovery sought in this motion. In Toys "R" US, Inc.. v. Step Two, S.A., 318 F.3d 446 (3d 

Cir. 2003), the Third Circuit remanded the case back to the District Court to allow for exactly 

this type of discovery when jurisdiction was in controversy, refusing to allow a motion to dismiss 

for lack ofjurisdiction without the Plaintiff having the benefIt ofsuch discovery. 

67. Defendant Geiger cites Catalina Mktg. Int'l, Inc. v. Coolsavins.Com Inc., #00­

2447, 2003 (N.D. Ill. July 3,2003), and states that "A court may consider the allegations in the 

complaint to be true "unless controverted by the defendant['s] affidavits." Despite this, 

Defendant Geiger does not reference any such affidavit, and Plaintiff could not fInd one in his 

disorganized "paper blitz" response. Regardless, Plaintiff is entitled to jurisdictional discovery 

to defend his position, and has argued additionally for jurisdiction that makes Defendant 

Geiger's assertions irrelevant. 

68. Defendant cites FRCP 4(a) regarding the PA long-arm statute (which is quite 

generous in its own right), but neglects to address RICO's nationwide service of process 

provision in 18 USC §1965(b), or that his actions caused harm to Plaintiff in Pennsylvania, 

including with potential employers. 

69. Defendant restates the Pennsylvania Long-Arm Statute. No response is required. 

19
 

Case 2:05-cv-02752-HB Document 37 Filed 01/03/06 Page 20 of 26
70. Denied. Defendant has in no way established that he is "not the individual 

Plaintiff has alleged him to be." Further, Plaintiff s allegations must be considered true for this 

motion under the most-favorable light standard. 

VI. MOTION TO DISMISSIFAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM 

71. Defendant Geiger makes a garden-variety citation ofthe legal standard for a 

motion to dismiss, which appears to approximate the reality. 

72. Defendant cites Brandenburg by saying that "only predicate acts ofracketeering 

activity provide a basis for recovery under RICO §1964(c). This statement, by itself, is 

meaningless, as Plaintiff has alleged predicate acts by Defendant Geiger relating directly to the 

RayFAQ (Sarbanes-Oxley and Hobbs Act violations), and has alleged that Defendant Geiger 

aided and abetted the RICO enterprise in violation of 18 USC §1962(d) through his ownership of 

the ray-gordon. com domain. Under 18 USC §1962(d), no predicate acts are required for a court 

to find liability. In this case, the use ofthe ray-gordon. com domain, which Defendant Geiger 

owns, was central to the RICO enterprise. See, e.g., Beck v. Prupis, 529 US 494 (2000), where 

the United States Supreme Court held: 

"Under our interpretation, a plaintiff could, through a §1964(c) suit for a violation 

of §1962(d), sue co-conspirators who might not themselves have violated one of 

the substantive provisions of§1962." (Emphasis Added). 

73. Defendant cites regarding apportionment of damages, which is not relevant to 

liability. Defendant is either liable or he is not. 

74. Defendant cites the need for Plaintiffto establish proximate cause, and this 

requirement has been met. 19 Further, the underlying facts clearly support this allegation. 

19 See, e.g., Amended Complaint, p. 63, 189, where he overtly alleged proximate causation. 

20 

Case 2:05-cv-02752-HB Document 37 Filed 01/03/06 Page 21 of 26
75. Denied. Defendant Geiger has offered no evidence in support of his averment 

that he is not who Plaintiff has alleged him to be, which is the owner ofthe ray-gordon. com 

domain and, by preponderance ofthe evidence, the sole publisher ofthe website. 

76. Defendant Geiger states that: 

Defendant, not being the author and creator ofthe intellectual web content 

Plaintiff's averments against Defendant are based upon, cannot have committed 

any predicate act to justify any RICO conspiracy claim, or any other state or 

federal civil, criminal or tort claims against Defendant for which relief can be 

granted. 20 

Aside from Defendant Geiger not supporting his factual assertion (which is not relevant to this 

motion) that he is not the author and creator ofthe content in controversy, that does not exclude 

him from being the one responsible for it being published on the web, especially on a domain 

which he owns. Further, as Plaintiff has alleged that Defendant Geiger's entire posture (that he 

had no prior knowledge ofPlaintiff) is fraudulent, those allegations must be treated as true for 

this motion. 

VII. MOTION TO DISMISSfIMPROPER VENUE 

77. Denied. Defendant Geiger has, for the umpteenth time, claimed that he is "not 

the individual that Plaintiff alleges him to be," and this is patently false. It is also not the 

slightest bit refuted by Defendant, nor is it relevant to the instant motion. The issue is not a 

simple one of domain registration, but the publication ofthe website, Defendant Geiger's role in 

its publication, and his role in allowing the use of his domain for a nationwide RICO conspiracy. 

78. Defendant cites a trademark case, Woodke v. Dahm, 70 F.3d 983,985 (8th Cir. 

1995), as being somehow relevant to this action by saying that "in that case, the court held that 

an acceptance of plaintiff s argument that venue was proper in his home district because that 

was 'the location ofthe ultimate effect' would 'work a transformation ofthe venue statute that 

20 Defendant's Memorandum, 76, p. 21. 

21 

Case 2:05-cv-02752-HB Document 37 Filed 01/03/06 Page 22 of 26
Congress could not have intended. ,,, Plaintiff responds that a) that decision is from the Eighth 

Circuit; b) in a trademark case; c) that RICO has statutory nationwide service of process; d) there 

is no "venue statute" at issue here; and e) that the Pennsylvania long-arm statute further confers 

jurisdiction due to the very "ultimate effect" doctrine cited by Defendant Geiger. 

79. Defendant makes an irrelevant citation regarding domain registration and 

copyrights. Plaintiff instead is suing over what appeared on the domain, and Defendant Geiger's 

use ofthe domain in furthering a RICO enterprise. He has never argued that Defendant Geiger 

did not have the right to register the ray-gordon. com domain, and has only asked for transference 

of the domain to offset the damage caused by its prior use, which included calling the website 

which appeared on it "The Official Ray Gordon FAQ." 

80. No response to this averment is required. 

vm. CHANGE OF VENUE 

81. Defendant's argument for a change of venue to Mississippi ignores the reality of 

this case: most of the evidence, witnesses, and parties are more conveniently situated to this 

Court than the Mississippi court, and to the extent any witnesses or evidence in Mississippi are 

relevant, they can be deposed by written questions and/or in that jurisdiction, and in fact cannot 

be compelled to travel to this district regardless. Defendant's argument is therefore a "red 

herring" reflective of his urgent desire to get this case dismissed before discovery unravels his 

position. 

82. Denied. Unless Defendant Geiger wishes to pay for Plaintiffs expenses and 

travel, including his witnesses, and to conduct as much ofthe case as possible by teleconference, 

a change of venue would put a severe burden on his already-limited resources. It is not Plaintiff 

who invo lved himself in Defendant's life by allowing an "Official Thorn Geiger FAQ" to be 

22
 

Case 2:05-cv-02752-HB Document 37 Filed 01/03/06 Page 23 of 26
published on his domain. Had Plaintiff done anything similar to what he has alleged Defendant 

Geiger did here, he certainly would have expected to be "haled into court" in Mississippi. 

Defendant Geiger seems to want the luxury of acting in concert with individuals all over the 

country, including Plaintiffs hometown, without availing himself ofthe accompanying legal 

responsibilities. It is bad enough that Plaintiff has been ambushed from such a distance in 

cyberspace; unfortunately, the damages he suffered and continues to suffer hit far closer to home. 

83. No response is required. To the extent one is required, the motion should be 

denied as the statutory requirements of 28 USC §1404 have not been met. 

CONCLUSION 

84. Plaintiff is without sufficient information to respond to this averment; to the 

extent a response is required, he stands on his Amended Complaint as filed. 

85. Defendant Geiger is arguing factually, which is inappropriate for this motion, in 

an attempt to have his motion to dismiss (which courts rarely grant for good reason) substitute 

for a trial, with the "slight" difference being that Plaintiff has not been allowed discovery, 

witnesses, or cross-examination. Nothing has been proven, no evidence has been entered into 

the record, and this case has not yet begun. It is not the place ofthis court to engage in 

factfinding; that is for a jury. 

86. Defendant's statement of intent to pursue a motion for sanctions is not only 

premature and irrelevant, but should also be filed separately. 

87. Defendant seems to base his "rule II" statements on the notion that a USENET 

posting somehow trumps actual domain records from a website regarding who the publisher is. 

This is not the case at all. Subsequent to the USENET posting in question, Plaintiff uncovered 

Defendant Geiger's name through discovery ofNamesDirect (the registrar), and only then did 

23
 

Case 2:05-cv-02752-HB Document 37 Filed 01/03/06 Page 24 of 26
Defendant Geiger make public that the domain was his. Nowhere in his Amended Complaint 

does he claim factual knowledge that Doe #6 was the RayFAQ author, and that he pled in the 

alternative only further underscores his acknowledgement that the facts are uncertain. To 

sanction any Plaintiff for correctly pleading based on information discovered through subpoena 

such as the one to NamesDirect would be unjust and chilling. 

88-89. Regarding the distinction between domain names and websites, Defendant has 

engaged in repeated hair-splitting that amounts to a claim that a domain owner has little or no 

control over what appears on that domain's website. This is false on its face. Defendant seems 

to think that by repeating his bogus distinction often enough, that he will obfuscate the issue of 

publication, but the truth is the same as Plaintiff stated several times earlier: 

a. A domain owner controls who can upload files to any website attached to 

that domain. Plaintiff, for example, controls who may upload files to the www.cybersheet.com 

domain which he owns. This is similar to a car owner controlling who may drive his car, or a 

homeowner controlling who may remain in his home. 

b. A "physical website" refers to the actual files that are under the umbrella of 

the domain name. The purpose of a domain name is to control which IP address destination is 

reached when the domain is entered, and only the domain owner can determine this. Ifthe IP 

address is changed (such as with a new host), then the public does not have to learn a new set of 

numbers, as the domain will not change even if the underlying IP does. 

24
 

Case 2:05-cv-02752-HB Document 37 Filed 01/03/06 Page 25 of 26
For the reasons averred herein, the instant motion should be denied. An appropriate 

form of order is attached. 

This the 3rd day of January, 2006. 

Gordon Roy Parker
 

Plaintiff, Pro Se
 

4247 Locust Street, #806
 

Philadelphia, PA 19104
 

(215) 386-7366
 

GordonRoyParker@ao1.com
 

25
 

Case 2:05-cv-02752-HB Document 37 Filed 01/03/06 Page 26 of 26