Well…this is getting more bizarre by the minute. It seems that the owner of StoopidHousewives tried to remain anonymous while fighting a copyright lawsuit regarding some photos of the RHONJ. Again the RHONJ are NOT plaintiffs and were not even aware of the case until today. Trust me I have good RHONJ sources. In the case of North Jersey Media Group against Stoopidhousewives the defendant (SH) attempted to claim that her safety would be violated by remaining anonymous for the trial. Click through for an excerpt from the case. I have tons of docs to read through… but this is of particular interest to our circle.
From the public record of the legal proceedings where SH tries to remain anonymous:
It appears, from the reader’s comments in the defendant’s Exhibit A,
and from the plaintiff’s explanation in its opposition to the motion, that the
August 27, 2012 reader’s comment is related “to a rivalry between Stoopidhousewives.com and another blogger, who is now deceased.” It also
appears that the defendant’s failure to mention the rival blogger’s death on the
defendant’s Web site caused readers to post “the profanity-laced” comments on the
defendant’s Web site, such as the comments submitted on (a) “2012/08/24 at 9:34
AM,” stating, in pertinent part, “all you had to do was give Lynn a damn mention,
the woman died you heartless cunt”; and (b) “2012/08/27 at 10:18 PM,” stating, in
pertinent part, “Hey CUNT STOOPID, YOU FORGOT TO ADD WHEN PUBLISHING MY COMMENT CUNT FACT THAT ALL YOU HAD TO DO WAS MENTION LYNN HUDSON PASSING YOU STOOPID CUNT FACE COW! YOU GOT HALF YOUR READERS FROM HER YOU HEARTLESS CUNT!”
Furthermore, an e-mail message, contained in Exhibit A, dated “Feb 20, 2012 at 3:59 AM,” sent to the defendant’s Web site, from a reader who used to support and promote the defendant’s Web site, and who appears to have been blocked from accessing the defendant’s Web site, does not contain any threats; rather, it expresses the reader’s disappointment about being blocked from accessing the Web site. The comment dated “2012/09/24 at 5:30 PM,” contained in Exhibit A, refers to “the ladies on NJ housewives especially Kathy and Melissa,” and states “I believe
someone associated with the NJ franchise will be killed. Considering 3 of the NJ
housewives are still friendly with Kim D. A known drug trafficker. That’s not a
good look.” It is not clear what relevance, if any, the “2012/09/24″ comment has
to the defendant’s Web site or the defendant’s writings, as it does not appear to
involve the defendant’s Web site or refer to it in any way.
The defense (SH) says in part in their motions that the following comments on her blog should allow her to be anonymous in the legal proceedings :
In pertinent part, the August 27, 2012 comment states “HOW THE FUCK IS WANTING YOU TO MENTION LYNN’s DEATH PROFANITY? Here is a comment for you cunt! YOU DON’T WANT TO LET HER POST IT, THERE ABOUT 50 of us CUNT! You are going to get fucked with no return.”
This is from the judge’s ruling:
The use of profane language by readers of the defendant’s Web site, by
itself, is not a sufficient ground warranting the defendant’s proceeding in this
action by using a pseudonym. The defendant presented no evidence establishing a
risk of retaliatory physical or mental harm would exist if the defendant’s
identity were to be revealed in this action. The defendant does not identify, in
the defendant’s declaration or by other evidence, any acts or omissions that the
defendant perceives might pose a risk of retaliatory physical or mental harm if
the defendant’s identity is revealed. The defendant’s declaration states only that
the defendant removed the defendant’s photograph from the defendant’s Web site
when the defendant “began to receive abusive communications wherein individuals
were harassing me for my contact information.” The defendant does not explain why, as the defendant contends, the defendant “could be exposed to physical and/or mental abuse at [the defendant's] place of residence,” solely because the
“individuals [have been] harassing [the defendant] for [the defendant's] contact
information.” The defendant does not explain why or in relation to what factual
circumstances those “individuals” have been “harassing” the defendant for the
defendant’s contact information. The evidence before the Court does not support the defendant’s contention that the defendant or an innocent party will be exposed to a risk of retaliatory physical or mental harm if the defendant’s identity is revealed in this action, and this factor militates against granting the defendant’s request to proceed by using a pseudonym.
[Source:Westlaw.com legal records]
Frankly, I think the judge underestimated the crazy that is the LynnNChicago followers. We all have differing opinions on Stoopidhousewives. Regardless of what yours are, I can assure you that the followers of LynnNChicago trolled and harassed not only RHONY cast members but other bloggers who disagreed with their points of view. It does not surprise me that they would be brought up in court. Were I the judge on the case, I would have granted SH the right to be sued under a pseudonym. That’s just my opinion. Furthermore, I find Stoopidhousewives silence regarding the passing of Lynn Hudson much better than being hypocritical and saying something nice. If I don’t like you when you are live, I am not going to change my mind if you die. I say respectful silence is the way to go.
Anyway, this is all very dramatic, no?