AutoAdmit defendant sues Yalies
Former director of legal chatroom seeks damages from Law School students for libel, abuse of process
When three Yale Law School students were targeted by sexually explicit and derogatory posts in the online legal chatroom AutoAdmit in 2005, two of them took their case to court. Now the people they sued are firing back.
Anthony Ciolli, a former AutoAdmit director, filed a lawsuit against those two students and their lawyers on Tuesday in a Philadelphia state court, seeking at least $50,000 in damages for abuse of process, libel and false light that he alleges cost him a job offer at a Boston law firm.
Ciolli was originally named a defendant in the students’ suit, filed last...
comment above is incomprehensible.
It might be construed as evidence of the opposite? What an insight, and yet not how the legal system works. Failure does not prove the null.
Dear anonymous
To speak in your pidgin: "comment above is incoherent."
So re your "comment above is incomprehensible." (I'll look on that as an admission of sorts.) And you would claim the following "statement" somehow is? "What an insight, and yet not how the legal system works."
How does it work pray tell oh sagacious one? Well?
Can you understand "Failure does not prove the null," and "might be construed" are consonant?
Your string of fortune cookie pronouncements make it plain that you have no idea whatsoever how the "legal system works." Or do you actually believe you can somehow determine to a certainty the outcome of a Judge's decision or even what a Judge might find relevant to a determination?
The real question is why I would bother even posing those questions to you, for the answer is clear...
All is not lost, however -- at least you gave me a good laugh.
Excellent article.
Why is it that student journalists seem to write balanced and accurate articles about this case, yet "professional" journalists seem to screw the whole thing up?
If anything, you'd think that a Yale paper would be biased toward the Yale students. I haven't seen one whiff of that kind of integrity from this paper.
Kudos. If only the AP and the WaPo had such ethics and professionalism.
I would be very interested to know whether Mr. Ciolli filed and argued a Rule 11 motion in the Federal District Court action. If it had been filed, was it dropped or was it unsuccessful -- if sanctions issued on the basis of such a Rule 11 motion the press might tell us. A successful Rule 11 motion would mean that the Federal Judge found that the claims in the complaint in the District Court action were meritless. A failure to prevail on such a motion might be construed as evidence of the opposite. Failure to file such a motion might be argued to be an indication the particular defendant in that action did not find any harm worth Complaining about. And note that the sequence of events here relative to the alleged action by the law firm who supposedly rescinded their offer is arguably not crucial, rather it might be argued that a defect in the pleadings such as the presence of falsehoods (were the facts set forth "on information and belief") should have been apparent ab initio to the defendant, who presumably would be best situated among the parties to make such assessment.