Number37
Anyhow, have a Winfield 25.
- Oct 5, 2013
- 22,222
- 24,270
- AFL Club
- Sydney
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Thanks for that, I was wondering about that.Avi releasing PRGuys email address publicly would be a criminal act.
My understanding is any information provided to a litigant by a third party under court order (avi requesting info from twitter in this case) that information is protected by the court.
If Avi found out their name was Bob Dobelina from Twitter then he couldn't share that publicly
If he found it out some other way, I don't know
I'm not going to pretend I'm a lawyer, my post was just based on what I'd gleaned from reading about this particular case.I'm not sure that's quite right.
The purpose of the Court Order is to identify a Defendant to a defamation action.
The Court would need to require that the information be suppressed.
That would be why PRGuy is reporting getting Philsing type emails. Can't identify him or her from the email address.I'm not going to pretend I'm a lawyer, my post was just based on what I'd gleaned from reading about this particular case.
It's moot anyway because the only info twitter could give is the email address that the account was set up with, which unless its first.last@name.com doesn't give Avi anything to go off.
Hypothetically,
If the defendant was identified to the litigant and the defendant has cause to want to remain anonymous to the general public, let's say because the litigant is known to be a aggressive pest who associates with neo-nazis, it would be a no brainer for the Court to order that info be suppressed?
I'm not going to pretend I'm a lawyer, my post was just based on what I'd gleaned from reading about this particular case.
It's moot anyway because the only info twitter could give is the email address that the account was set up with, which unless its first.last@name.com doesn't give Avi anything to go off.
Hypothetically,
If the defendant was identified to the litigant and the defendant has cause to want to remain anonymous to the general public, let's say because the litigant is known to be a aggressive pest who associates with neo-nazis, it would be a no brainer for the Court to order that info be suppressed?
What things did they say about Avi weren't verifiable facts?I don't think these 2 blokes understand what defamation is, which is very strange for FJ.
Because they are taking the piss out of Avi and it's also factual.Why is there a watermark over his face? Seems weird.
Means Avi, the Murdoch media and all the other conspiracy BS clowns can only use the image/video of Jeremy outing himself if they post the watermark with it. It's very clever!Why is there a watermark over his face? Seems weird.
Why is there a watermark over his face? Seems weird.
Must say it was a good troll on your part .MSM have been covering this story, but now can't show his face without telling everyone that Avi threw a chopping board at his ex wife.
Avi wont post the picture either.
Extremely good trolling.
Hilarious that he's suss that his name doesn't show up on a google search, I personally don't show up on a google search Avi. But then again I don't have a conviction for throwing a chopping board at my ex-wife.