Professional Documents
Culture Documents
David W Nail
View photos: 1 Last known address:
IN 00000Age: 57 Gender: M
Height: 5 ft. 8 in.
Weight: 155
Build: Average
Race/Ethnicity: White
Eye Color: Hazel
FEDERAL COURT JUDGE BLAST FRIVOLOUS LAWSUIT IN MICHIGAN ALL
CLAIMS ARE DISMISSED!
http://www.sexoffenderrecord.com/offender/view/670329
A RIGHTEOUS VICTORY IS SECURED
A victory for Freedom of Speech and the Peoples Right to Know is secured in Federal Court to
start off the new year of 2016. There are a few more to come in the very near future. Fighting off
yet another frivolous lawsuit, this one in the United States District Court Western District of
Michigan Southern Division, the allegations against Defendants associated with the websites
server, including specifically a service or system that provides access to the Internet and such
systems operated or services offered by libraries or educational institutions. 47 U.S.C.
230(f)(2). This definition encompasses broadband providers, hosting companies, and website
operators. Jones v. Dirty World Entertainment Recordings, LLC, 775 F.3d 398, 406 n.2 (6th
Cir. 2014) (emphasis added).
Simply stated, 230 of the CDA bars lawsuits seeking to hold a service provider liable for its
exercise of a publishers traditional editorial functions such as deciding whether to publish,
withdraw, postpone or alter content. Id. at 407. It has been recognized that the immunity
afforded by 230 of the CDA marks a departure from the common-law rule that allocates
liability to publishers or distributors of tortious material written or prepared by others. Id. As
courts also recognize, Congress, however, decided to treat the Internet differently. Id. Courts
are instructed to interpret broadly the immunity afforded by 230 and close cases. . .must be
resolved in favor of immunity. Id. at 408. Moreover, the immunity afforded by 230 extends to
state law claims as well. See 47 U.S.C. 230(e)(3) ([n]o cause of action may be brought and no
liability may be imposed under any State or local law that is inconsistent with this section).
The immunity afforded by 230, however, is not without limits. While a provider of
an interactive computer service is generally entitled to immunity, as noted above, such is not
the case where the provider of an interactive computer service is also deemed to be an
information content provider vis-a-vis the content in question. Id. An information content
provider is defined as any person or entity that is responsible, in whole or in part, for the
creation or development of information provided through the Internet or any other interactive
computer service. 47 U.S.C. 230(f)(3). Stated differently, immunity under the CDA depends
on the pedigree of the content at issue.Jones, 775 F.3d at 409. Accordingly, if a website
operator is merely displaying or allowing access to information or content from a separate
and distinct information content provider, the website operator enjoys immunity. Id.
Thus, the question becomes whether Defendants can be said to have developed the objectionable
information. In this context, development considers what, if anything, the website provider did
with or to information created by or obtained from a third party. Id. at 409-11. To constitute
development, the website provider must do more than display or allow access to content created
by a third party. Id. at 410. Even augmenting the content in question does not constitute
development. Id. To constitute development, the website provider must take action which
contributes materially to the alleged illegality of the conduct or content. Id. As the Sixth
Circuit has held:
A material contribution to the alleged illegality of the content does not mean merely taking
action that is necessary to the display of allegedly illegal content. Rather, it means being
responsible for what makes the displayed content allegedly unlawful. Id.
Plaintiff merely alleges that Defendants operated a website which posted, or directed individuals
to, information created by a third party. Plaintiff alleges that this conduct constitutes various torts
under state law. As discussed above, however, Defendants enjoy immunity from such
claims.
THE CLAIMS OF DAVID NAIL DO NOT EVEN MERIT REVIEW IN APPEAL
In a rare preempted notice of just how frivolous and transparent the efforts of David Nails to
abuse the judicial process were, the Judge expresses the strong convictions of how asinine the
lawsuit really was and not worthy of serious consideration when closing the Order by conveying:
The undersigned further recommends that appeal of this matter would not be taken in good
faith. See McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 611 (6th Cir. 1997); 28 U.S.C. 1915(a)(3).
ELLEN S. CARMODY, United States Magistrate Judge.
Thank you Judge Ellen E. Carmody for your diligent efforts in administering justice and
exposing such frivolous litigation as that initiated by David Nail for the charade it was.
UPDATE:
The final ruling of Judge Neff did not require the extensive breakdown of all the relevant legal
analysis as that put forth by Judge Carmody. What is worth noting in Judge Neffs final ruling is:
The Court determines that the Magistrate Judge properly conducted the review of
Plaintiffs Complaint required by 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2) and properly concluded that Plaintiffs
allegations fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Plaintiffs objections are
therefore denied.
Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, and this Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
1915(a)(3), that an appeal of the Judgment would not be taken in good faith. See McGore v.
Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 610 (6th Cir. 1997), overruled on other grounds by Jones v. Bock,
549 U.S. 199, 206, 211-12 (2007).
This is not just a GREAT victory for the SOR websites, but a victory for Freedom of Speech 1st
Amendment considerations and the Peoples Right to Know. Thank you Judge Neff for
defending the U.S. Constitution and the overwhelming legal precedents found throughout the
justice system from the U.S. District Court level to all eleven (11) U.S. courts of appeal (or
circuit courts) and finally the U.S. Supreme Court. The next step will be to implement the proper
legal response to address the lies and false claims brought forward by perjurers such as David
Nail and all others so that they are held accountable for their atrocious Abuse of Process and
Malicious Prosecution. The new year of 2016 has started in triumph, and more are to come in the
U.S. District Courts of Arizona and Nevada. You will be appropriately updated upon
confirmation of the victories coming forthwith. Until then.