PRGuy to be unmasked

Remove this Banner Ad

Log in to remove this ad.

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 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.
 
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.
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?
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?

No I think you're probably right on the email address part of it.

Your second hypothetical is doubtful. Certainly not a no-brainer. Courts usually need pretty good reasons to suppress the name of a Defendant.

Look at Lawyer X for instance. The cops did everything they could to suppress Nicola Gobbo's name. And the consequences were/are potentially dire. She sold out murderous clients to the cops. Ultimately no identity suppression.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

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!

FV_tW18aMAETE3v
 
Why is there a watermark over his face? Seems weird.

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.
 
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.
Must say it was a good troll on your part ;).
 

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.
 
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.

The midget wife basher will just double down and ask his cooker followers to donate $$$$ to find the real PRGuy.
 


Pretty sure Avi only has an IP and e-mail address at the moment and is in the process of going back to court to get some more info from Telstra, so how can he categorically say he hasn't got an issue with a Jeremy Maluta?
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top