PDA

View Full Version : Ray Gordon Loses, Yet again (Parker v. Tilles et al,020901068, 8 Oct2003)


Paul Robinson
10-25-2003, 03:53 PM
Someone forwarded me the following information and asked me to see
that it was publicized.

As of October 8, 2003, yet another one of Ray's cases has been
tossed:

http://fjdwebserver.phila.gov/fjd/repl/zk_fjd_public_qry_03.zp_dktrpt_frames?case_id=0209 01068

http://tinylink.com/?zgFXnpmpVX
http://tinyurl.com/scvy

And again, the mighty Ray Gordon litigation train blows its whistle
at 7 am as it steams out of the station, only to derail in a
spectacular wreck. The engineer of this catastrophe is Gordon Roy
Parker, alias Ray "Continued and Inexcusable Failure" Gordon.

For those of you not wanting to look up the case, here's the
details, lightly edited off the above website. (Addresses and
telephone numbers appearing on the site have been deleted from this
posting; empty docket entries have been removed. The rest is as it
is on the original.)


Case Description
Case ID: 020901068
Case Caption: PARKER VS ERIC TILLES ESQ ETAL
Filing Date: Tuesday , September 10th, 2002
Court: MN - MAJOR NON JURY
Location: CH - City Hall
Jury: N - NON JURY

Case Type: 2L - LIBEL, SLANDER, MISREPRESENT
Status: JDVER - JUDGMENT ENTERED ON VERDICT

Case Parties
1 PARKER, GORDON ROY ( PLAINTIFF )
2 TILLES ESQUIRE, ERIC ( DEFENDANT , UNIVERSITY OF PA )
3 DAILY PENNSYLVANIAN (DEFENDANT )
4 YANG, CHRISTINA (DEFENDANT )
5 MELENDEZ, JEANETTE (DEFENDANT )
6 MYERS, JOHN M (DEFENDANT )
7 PYLE, JONATHAN (DEFENDANT )
8 SPROUL, GAYLE C (DEFENDANT )
9 MELENDEZ, JEANETTE (DEFENDANT )


Docket Entries

10-SEP-2002 12:32 PM PRIFP - PRAECIPE - INFORMA PAUPERIS PARKER,
GORDON ROY
Docket Entry: PRAECIPE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS PURSUANT TO PA
R.C.P. 240(D) FILED.

10-SEP-2002 12:32 PM CIVIL - COMMENCEMENT OF CIVIL ACTION PARKER,
GORDON ROY

10-SEP-2002 12:32 PM CMPLT - COMPLAINT FILED NOTICE GIVEN PARKER,
GORDON ROY
Docket Entry: COMPLAINT WITH NOTICE TO DEFEND WITHIN TWENTY (20)
DAYS AFTER SERVICE IN ACCORDANCE WITH RULE 1018.1 FILED. DISCOVERY
DEADLINE 02-JUN-2003.

10-SEP-2002 12:32 PM SSCG3 - SHERIFF'S SURCHARGE 3 DEFTS PARKER,
GORDON ROY

10-SEP-2002 12:32 PM CLWST - WAITING TO LIST STATUS CONF PARKER,
GORDON ROY

10-SEP-2002 12:32 PM ACTIV - ACTIVE CASE

10-SEP-2002 01:16 PM PTIFP - PETITION FOR IN FORMA PAUPERIS PARKER,
GORDON ROY
Docket Entry: 91-02090691 RESPONSE DATE 9-30-02.

03-OCT-2002 02:28 PM MTASN - MOTION ASSIGNED
Docket Entry: 91-02090691 PETITION FOR IN FORMA PAUPERIS ASSIGNED TO
JUDGE MANFREDI ON 10-4-02.

08-OCT-2002 09:51 AM ORDER - ORDER ENTERED/236 NOTICE GIVEN
MANFREDI, WILLIAM J.
Docket Entry: 91-02090691-IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND DECREED THAT: 1.
PETITIONER BE PERMITTED TO PROCEED WITHOUT PAYING THE COSTS OF THIS
PROCEEDING OR POSTING A BOND. 2. PETITIONER BE PERMITTED TO OBTAIN
SERVICE OF THE PAPERS FILED WITHOUT COST. 3. PETITIONER BE PERMITTED
TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AS TO ANY ADDITIONAL COSTS WHICH ACCRUE
IN THE COURSE OF THIS PROCEEDING. 4. IF THERE IS A MONETARY RECOVERY
BY JUDGMENT OR SETTLEMENT IN FAVOR OF THE PARTY PERMITTED TO PROCEED
IN FORMA PAUPERIS, THE EXONERATED FEES AND COSTS SHALL BE TAXED AS
COSTS AND PAID TO THE PROTHONOTARY BY THE PARTY PAYING THE MONETARY
RECOVERY. 5. PETITIONER HAS A CONTINUING OBLIGATION TO INFORM THE
COURT OF ANY IMPROVEMENT IN PARTY'S FINANCIAL CIRCUMSTANCES THAT
WILL ENABLE THE PARTY TO PAY COSTS. BY THE COURT: JUDGE WILLIAM J.
MANFREDI, 10-07-02.

18-DEC-2002 03:10 PM CLLST - LISTED FOR STATUS CONFERENCE

19-DEC-2002 03:59 PM CLNGV - NOTICE GIVEN

02-JAN-2003 04:26 PM RSCVA - REINSTATE/REISSUE CIVIL ACTION
Docket Entry: COMPLAINT WITH NOTICE TO DEFEND WITHIN TWENTY (20)
DAYS AFTER SERVICE IN ACCORDANCE WITH RULE 1018.1 REINSTATED.

21-JAN-2003 02:19 PM AFDVT - AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE FILED
Docket Entry: OF COMPLAINT BY PERSONAL SERVICE UPON DFT ERIC TILLES
ON 01-17-03 AND DAILY PENNSYLVANIA ON 01-06-03

31-JAN-2003 01:36 PM CLSHD - STATUS HEARING DISPOSED ACKERMAN,
NORMAN
Docket Entry: It is hereby ORDERED and DECREED as follows: 1.
Development of Joint Statement of Uncontested and Contested Facts.
(a) Plaintiff's Proposed Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and
Legal Issues for Trial. By 6/25/03, plaintiff shall provide the
Court with a narrative statement listing all facts proposed to be
proved by him or her at trial in support of his or her claim(s) as
to liability and damages. Additionally, plaintiff shall provide the
Court with all relevant conclusions of law based upon his or her
proposed findings of fact and any and all legal issues presented
thereto. (b) Defendant's Response and Proposed Facts. By 7/25/03,
defendant shall provide the Court a statement: (1) indicating the
extent to which defendant contests and does not contest the
plaintiff's proposed facts: (2) listing all additional facts
proposed to be proved by defendant at trial in opposition to, or in
special defense of, the plaintiff's claim(s) as to liability and
damages; (3) listing all facts proposed to be proved by defendant at
trial in support of any counterclaim(s), and/or third-party claim(s)
if such claims exist; (4) listing any and all conclusions of law
which arise from all contested and uncontested facts as proposed by
the plaintiff; and, (5) listing for the Court all legal issues
presented based upon proposed facts and conclusions of law. (c)
Statement of Uncontested Facts. By 6/25/03, the same date as that
listed in paragraph 1 (a) of this order, the parties shall submit a
joint statement of uncontested facts. This statement is separate and
distinct from any other submitted. As such, agreement or
disagreement, which terms are defined below, with any proposed fact
by a defendant does not obviate the requirements of this paragraph.
2. Identification of Witnesses and Exhibits. (a) Plaintiff's
Witnesses. By 6/25/03, plaintiff shall provide the Court with a list
of all possible witnesses, including a brief narrative of each
respective witness's expected testimony. (b) Plaintiff's Exhibits.
By 6/25/03, plaintiff shall provide the Court with a list of all
possible exhibits which he or she may use during the course of
trial. (c) Defendant's Witnesses. By 7/25/03, defendant shall
provide the Court with a list of all possible witnesses, including a
brief narrative of each respective witness's expected testimony. (d)
Defendant's Exhibits. By 7/25/03, defendant shall provide the Court
with a list of all possible exhibits which he or she may use during
the course of the trial. 3. Definitions. (a) Narration of Proposed
Facts. In stating facts proposed to be proved, counsel shall do so
in simple, declarative, self contained, consecutively numbered
sentences. In a case with multiple parties, if a fact is to offered
against fewer than all parties, counsel shall indicate the parties
against which the fact will (or will not) be offered. (The facts to
be set forth include not only ultimate facts, but also all
subsidiary and supporting facts except those offered solely for
impeachment purposes.) (b) Agreement and Disagreement. Defense
counsel shall indicate that he or she does not contest a proposed
fact if at trial they will not controvert or dispute that fact. In
indicating disagreement with a proposed fact, defense counsel shall
so set forth those disagreement(s) as explained above. (c)
Objections. Objections to the admissability of a proposed fact
(either as irrelevant or on other grounds) may not be used to avoid
indicating whether or not the party contests the truth of that fact.
(Counsel shall, however, indicate any objections, both to the facts
which they contest and those which they do not contest.) (d)
Individual Positions. To the extent feasible, counsel with similar
interests are expected to coordinate their efforts and express a
joint position with respect to the facts they propose to prove and
to the facts other parties propose to prove. Subject to the time
limits above, each party may, however, list additional proposed
facts to cover positions unique to it. 4. Annotations. For each
proposed fact, the parties shall, at the time of proposing to prove
the fact, list the witnesses (including expert witnesses),
documents, and (with line-by-line references) any depositions and
answers to interrogatories or requests for admissions that they will
offer to prove that fact. In his or her response, defense counsel
shall, if he or she objects to any such proposed fact or proposed
proof, state precisely the grounds of their objections and, if they
will contest the accuracy of the proposed fact, similarily list the
witnesses, documents, depositions, interrogatories, or admissions
that they will offer to controvert that fact. Except for good cause
shown, a party will be precluded at trial from offering any evidence
on any fact not so disclosed and from making any objection not so
disclosed. 5. Effect. (a) Preclusion of other facts. Except for good
cause shown, parties shall be precluded at trial from offering proof
of any fact not disclosed in their listing of proposed facts (except
purely for impeachment purposes). 6. Sanctions. Unjustified refusal
to admit a proposed fact or to limit the extent of disagreement with
a proposed fact shall be subject to sanctions. Excessive listing of
proposed facts (or of the evidence to be submitted in support of or
denial of such facts) which imposes obvious burdens on opposing
parties shall also be subject to sanctions. BY THE COURT: Norman
Ackerman, Coordinating Judge

31-JAN-2003 01:39 PM CLLSC - LISTED FOR SETTLEMENT CONF

31-JAN-2003 01:40 PM CLLTR - LISTED FOR TRIAL

14-FEB-2003 04:21 PM ENAPP - ENTRY OF APPEARANCE FILED MELENDEZ,
JEANETTE
Docket Entry: ENTRY OF APPEARANCE OF JEANETTE MELENDEZ BEAD FILED ON
BEHALF OF DFT THE DAILY PENNSYLVANIAN.

14-FEB-2003 04:21 PM ENAPP - ENTRY OF APPEARANCE FILED MYERS, JOHN
M
Docket Entry: ENTRY OF APPEARANCE OF JOHN M. MYERS AND JONATHAN PYLE
FILED ON BEHALF OF DFT ERIC TILLES.

14-FEB-2003 04:21 PM PROBJ - PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS FILED MELENDEZ,
JEANETTE
Docket Entry: PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF(S) COMPLAINT FILED
BY DEFENDANT THE DAILY PENNSYLVANIAN, INC.

14-FEB-2003 04:21 PM PROBJ - PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS FILED MYERS,
JOHN M
Docket Entry: PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF(S) COMPLAINT FILED
BY DEFENDANT ERIC TILLES.

17-MAR-2003 08:31 AM DPROB - MOTION TO DETERMINE P.O. FILED DAILY
PENNSYLVANIAN,
Docket Entry: 72-03031572 RESPONSE DATE 4-16-03

17-MAR-2003 08:32 AM DPROB - MOTION TO DETERMINE P.O. FILED TILLES
ESQUIRE, ERIC
Docket Entry: 71-03031571 RESPONSE DATE 4-16-03

15-APR-2003 11:08 AM MTANS - ANSWER (MOTION/PETITION) FILED PARKER,
GORDON ROY
Docket Entry: 71-03031571 ANS FILED TO PO'S

22-APR-2003 04:30 PM MTASN - MOTION ASSIGNED
Docket Entry: 72-03031572 MOTION TO DETERMINE PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS
ASSIGNED TO JUDGE CARRAFIELLO ON 4-23-03.

22-APR-2003 04:30 PM MTASN - MOTION ASSIGNED
Docket Entry: 71-03031571 MOTION TO DETERMINE PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS
ASSIGNED TO JUDGE CARRAFIELLO ON 4-23-03.

23-APR-2003 02:32 PM REPLY - REPLY FILED
Docket Entry: 71-03031571 REPLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PO'S FILED.
(FILED BY DFTS., ERIC TILLES AND THE DAILY PENNSYLVANIAN, INC.)

07-MAY-2003 01:33 PM PFFCT - PROPOSED FINDING OF FACT FILED PARKER,
GORDON ROY
Docket Entry: PLAINTIFF'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
OF LAW FILED.

20-JUN-2003 01:11 PM ORDER - ORDER ENTERED/236 NOTICE GIVEN
CARRAFIELLO, MATTHEW D
Docket Entry: 71-03031571 AND NOW, THIS 16TH DAY OF JUNE, 2003, UPON
CONSIDERATION OF DEFENDANTS PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S
COMPLAINT, AND PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE THERETO, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED
AND DECREED THAT DEFENDANT ERIC TILLES' PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS WHICH
ALLEGES DEMURRER REGARDING ATTORNEY'S FEES IS MOOT AS PARKER IS NOT
REPRESENTED BY AN ATTORNEY. ALL OTHER OBJECTIONS ARE OVERRULED. BY
THE COURT: CARRAFIELLO, J. 6/16/03

23-JUN-2003 10:04 AM ORDER - ORDER ENTERED/236 NOTICE GIVEN
CARRAFIELLO, MATTHEW D
Docket Entry: 03-03031572 AND NOW, THIS 16TH DAY OF JUNE, 2003, UPON
CONSIDERATION OF THE PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS OF DEFENDANT THE DAILY
PENNSYLVANIA, INC., THE MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT THEREOF, AND
ANY OPPOSITION THERETO, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT THE PRELIMINARY
OBJECTIONS ARE OVERRULED. DEFENDANT IS ORDERED TO FILE THEIR ANSWER
WITHIN TWENTY (20) DAYS. BY THE COURT: CARRAFIELLO, J. 6-16-03

25-JUN-2003 02:13 PM PFFCT - PROPOSED FINDING OF FACT FILED PARKER,
GORDON ROY
Docket Entry: PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FILED


25-JUN-2003 02:38 PM STPLT - STIPULATION FILED
Docket Entry: JOINT STATEMENT OF UNCONTESTED FACTS FILED

07-JUL-2003 04:13 PM STPLT - STIPULATION FILED
Docket Entry: STIPULATION AS TO CERTAIN DAMAGES RECOVERABLE FILED

09-JUL-2003 04:26 PM ANCOM - ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FILED PYLE,
JONATHAN
Docket Entry: ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT WITH NEW MATTER FILED
BY DEFENDANT ERIC TILLES

09-JUL-2003 04:26 PM ANCOM - ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FILED MELENDEZ,
JEANETTE
Docket Entry: ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT WITH NEW MATTER FILED
BY DEFENDANT DAILY PENNSYLVANIAN INC.

21-JUL-2003 12:19 PM REPLY - REPLY FILED
Docket Entry: PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DFT DAILY PENNSYLVANIA'S
ANSWER AND NEW MATTER AND PLAINTIFF'S NEW MATTER

21-JUL-2003 12:20 PM REPLY - REPLY FILED
Docket Entry: PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT TILLE'S ANSWER AND
NEW MATTER AND PLAINTIFF'S NEW MATTER

06-AUG-2003 11:26 AM MTSJD - MOTION/SUMMARY JDGMT FILED
Docket Entry: 77-03072977 RESPONSE DATE 9/5/03 (FILED BY ELIC TILLES
AND THE DAILY PENNSYLVANIAN)

06-AUG-2003 03:22 PM PROBJ - PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS FILED MYERS,
JOHN M
Docket Entry: DEFENDANTS PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' NEW
MATTER

20-AUG-2003 11:31 AM CLSCC - SETTLEMENT CONF COMPLETED

25-AUG-2003 03:51 PM WSDMG - DISPOSITIVE MOTION GRANTED DIBONA,
JR., ALFRED J
Docket Entry: THE MOTION OF ERIC TILLES FOR A COMPULSORY NONSUIT IS
GRANTED. THE MOTION OF THE DAILY PENNSYLVANIAN FOR NON SUIT IS
GRANTED...8/25/03 BY THE COURT: JUDGE ALFRED J. DIBONA, JR.....

25-AUG-2003 03:51 PM ZR236 - NOTICE GIVEN UNDER RULE 236

02-SEP-2003 04:40 PM PTTMF - POST TRIAL MOTION FILED PARKER,
GORDON ROY
Docket Entry: PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR POST-TRIAL RELIEF FILED.

08-SEP-2003 04:42 PM PTTMA - POST TRIAL MOTION ASSIGNED
Docket Entry: PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR POST-TRIAL RELIEF ASSIGNED TO
JUDGE DIBONA, 9-8-03.

19-SEP-2003 11:07 AM MTDAM - MOTION/PETITION MARKED MOOT
Docket Entry: 77-03072977 MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT MARKED MOOT -
CASE DISPOSED 8-25-03 AS DISPOSITIVE MOTION GRANTED.

06-OCT-2003 02:53 PM ORDER - ORDER ENTERED/236 NOTICE GIVEN DIBONA,
JR., ALFRED J
Docket Entry: IT IS ORDERED THAT PLTF'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
IS DENIED. BY THE COURT ....DIBONA,J 10/3/03

08-OCT-2003 12:09 PM JDVER - JUDGMENT ENTERED ON VERDICT PARKER,
GORDON ROY
Docket Entry: PLAINTIFF'S PRAECIPE TO ENTER JUDGMENT ON THE VERDICT
IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANT. NOTICE GIVEN UNDER PA RCP 237. NOTICE GIVEN
UNDER PA RCP 236. JUDGMENT IS HEREBY ENTERED.....

Alex
10-25-2003, 05:10 PM
What's really scary about this is that it took over a year.

Guess the law really is an ***.

in article 3F9AFECB.D733ED04@paul.washington.dc.us, Paul Robinson at
postmaster@paul.washington.dc.us wrote on 10/25/03 6:53 PM:
Someone forwarded me the following information and asked me to see that it was publicized. As of October 8, 2003, yet another one of Ray's cases has been tossed: http://fjdwebserver.phila.gov/fjd/repl/zk_fjd_public_qry_03.zp_dktrpt_frames?c ase_id=020901068 http://tinylink.com/?zgFXnpmpVX http://tinyurl.com/scvy And again, the mighty Ray Gordon litigation train blows its whistle at 7 am as it steams out of the station, only to derail in a spectacular wreck. The engineer of this catastrophe is Gordon Roy Parker, alias Ray "Continued and Inexcusable Failure" Gordon. For those of you not wanting to look up the case, here's the details, lightly edited off the above website. (Addresses and telephone numbers appearing on the site have been deleted from this posting; empty docket entries have been removed. The rest is as it is on the original.) Case Description Case ID: 020901068 Case Caption: PARKER VS ERIC TILLES ESQ ETAL Filing Date: Tuesday , September 10th, 2002 Court: MN - MAJOR NON JURY Location: CH - City Hall Jury: N - NON JURY Case Type: 2L - LIBEL, SLANDER, MISREPRESENT Status: JDVER - JUDGMENT ENTERED ON VERDICT Case Parties 1 PARKER, GORDON ROY ( PLAINTIFF ) 2 TILLES ESQUIRE, ERIC ( DEFENDANT , UNIVERSITY OF PA ) 3 DAILY PENNSYLVANIAN (DEFENDANT ) 4 YANG, CHRISTINA (DEFENDANT ) 5 MELENDEZ, JEANETTE (DEFENDANT ) 6 MYERS, JOHN M (DEFENDANT ) 7 PYLE, JONATHAN (DEFENDANT ) 8 SPROUL, GAYLE C (DEFENDANT ) 9 MELENDEZ, JEANETTE (DEFENDANT ) Docket Entries 10-SEP-2002 12:32 PM PRIFP - PRAECIPE - INFORMA PAUPERIS PARKER, GORDON ROY Docket Entry: PRAECIPE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS PURSUANT TO PA R.C.P. 240(D) FILED. 10-SEP-2002 12:32 PM CIVIL - COMMENCEMENT OF CIVIL ACTION PARKER, GORDON ROY 10-SEP-2002 12:32 PM CMPLT - COMPLAINT FILED NOTICE GIVEN PARKER, GORDON ROY Docket Entry: COMPLAINT WITH NOTICE TO DEFEND WITHIN TWENTY (20) DAYS AFTER SERVICE IN ACCORDANCE WITH RULE 1018.1 FILED. DISCOVERY DEADLINE 02-JUN-2003. 10-SEP-2002 12:32 PM SSCG3 - SHERIFF'S SURCHARGE 3 DEFTS PARKER, GORDON ROY 10-SEP-2002 12:32 PM CLWST - WAITING TO LIST STATUS CONF PARKER, GORDON ROY 10-SEP-2002 12:32 PM ACTIV - ACTIVE CASE 10-SEP-2002 01:16 PM PTIFP - PETITION FOR IN FORMA PAUPERIS PARKER, GORDON ROY Docket Entry: 91-02090691 RESPONSE DATE 9-30-02. 03-OCT-2002 02:28 PM MTASN - MOTION ASSIGNED Docket Entry: 91-02090691 PETITION FOR IN FORMA PAUPERIS ASSIGNED TO JUDGE MANFREDI ON 10-4-02. 08-OCT-2002 09:51 AM ORDER - ORDER ENTERED/236 NOTICE GIVEN MANFREDI, WILLIAM J. Docket Entry: 91-02090691-IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND DECREED THAT: 1. PETITIONER BE PERMITTED TO PROCEED WITHOUT PAYING THE COSTS OF THIS PROCEEDING OR POSTING A BOND. 2. PETITIONER BE PERMITTED TO OBTAIN SERVICE OF THE PAPERS FILED WITHOUT COST. 3. PETITIONER BE PERMITTED TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AS TO ANY ADDITIONAL COSTS WHICH ACCRUE IN THE COURSE OF THIS PROCEEDING. 4. IF THERE IS A MONETARY RECOVERY BY JUDGMENT OR SETTLEMENT IN FAVOR OF THE PARTY PERMITTED TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS, THE EXONERATED FEES AND COSTS SHALL BE TAXED AS COSTS AND PAID TO THE PROTHONOTARY BY THE PARTY PAYING THE MONETARY RECOVERY. 5. PETITIONER HAS A CONTINUING OBLIGATION TO INFORM THE COURT OF ANY IMPROVEMENT IN PARTY'S FINANCIAL CIRCUMSTANCES THAT WILL ENABLE THE PARTY TO PAY COSTS. BY THE COURT: JUDGE WILLIAM J. MANFREDI, 10-07-02. 18-DEC-2002 03:10 PM CLLST - LISTED FOR STATUS CONFERENCE 19-DEC-2002 03:59 PM CLNGV - NOTICE GIVEN 02-JAN-2003 04:26 PM RSCVA - REINSTATE/REISSUE CIVIL ACTION Docket Entry: COMPLAINT WITH NOTICE TO DEFEND WITHIN TWENTY (20) DAYS AFTER SERVICE IN ACCORDANCE WITH RULE 1018.1 REINSTATED. 21-JAN-2003 02:19 PM AFDVT - AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE FILED Docket Entry: OF COMPLAINT BY PERSONAL SERVICE UPON DFT ERIC TILLES ON 01-17-03 AND DAILY PENNSYLVANIA ON 01-06-03 31-JAN-2003 01:36 PM CLSHD - STATUS HEARING DISPOSED ACKERMAN, NORMAN Docket Entry: It is hereby ORDERED and DECREED as follows: 1. Development of Joint Statement of Uncontested and Contested Facts. (a) Plaintiff's Proposed Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Legal Issues for Trial. By 6/25/03, plaintiff shall provide the Court with a narrative statement listing all facts proposed to be proved by him or her at trial in support of his or her claim(s) as to liability and damages. Additionally, plaintiff shall provide the Court with all relevant conclusions of law based upon his or her proposed findings of fact and any and all legal issues presented thereto. (b) Defendant's Response and Proposed Facts. By 7/25/03, defendant shall provide the Court a statement: (1) indicating the extent to which defendant contests and does not contest the plaintiff's proposed facts: (2) listing all additional facts proposed to be proved by defendant at trial in opposition to, or in special defense of, the plaintiff's claim(s) as to liability and damages; (3) listing all facts proposed to be proved by defendant at trial in support of any counterclaim(s), and/or third-party claim(s) if such claims exist; (4) listing any and all conclusions of law which arise from all contested and uncontested facts as proposed by the plaintiff; and, (5) listing for the Court all legal issues presented based upon proposed facts and conclusions of law. (c) Statement of Uncontested Facts. By 6/25/03, the same date as that listed in paragraph 1 (a) of this order, the parties shall submit a joint statement of uncontested facts. This statement is separate and distinct from any other submitted. As such, agreement or disagreement, which terms are defined below, with any proposed fact by a defendant does not obviate the requirements of this paragraph. 2. Identification of Witnesses and Exhibits. (a) Plaintiff's Witnesses. By 6/25/03, plaintiff shall provide the Court with a list of all possible witnesses, including a brief narrative of each respective witness's expected testimony. (b) Plaintiff's Exhibits. By 6/25/03, plaintiff shall provide the Court with a list of all possible exhibits which he or she may use during the course of trial. (c) Defendant's Witnesses. By 7/25/03, defendant shall provide the Court with a list of all possible witnesses, including a brief narrative of each respective witness's expected testimony. (d) Defendant's Exhibits. By 7/25/03, defendant shall provide the Court with a list of all possible exhibits which he or she may use during the course of the trial. 3. Definitions. (a) Narration of Proposed Facts. In stating facts proposed to be proved, counsel shall do so in simple, declarative, self contained, consecutively numbered sentences. In a case with multiple parties, if a fact is to offered against fewer than all parties, counsel shall indicate the parties against which the fact will (or will not) be offered. (The facts to be set forth include not only ultimate facts, but also all subsidiary and supporting facts except those offered solely for impeachment purposes.) (b) Agreement and Disagreement. Defense counsel shall indicate that he or she does not contest a proposed fact if at trial they will not controvert or dispute that fact. In indicating disagreement with a proposed fact, defense counsel shall so set forth those disagreement(s) as explained above. (c) Objections. Objections to the admissability of a proposed fact (either as irrelevant or on other grounds) may not be used to avoid indicating whether or not the party contests the truth of that fact. (Counsel shall, however, indicate any objections, both to the facts which they contest and those which they do not contest.) (d) Individual Positions. To the extent feasible, counsel with similar interests are expected to coordinate their efforts and express a joint position with respect to the facts they propose to prove and to the facts other parties propose to prove. Subject to the time limits above, each party may, however, list additional proposed facts to cover positions unique to it. 4. Annotations. For each proposed fact, the parties shall, at the time of proposing to prove the fact, list the witnesses (including expert witnesses), documents, and (with line-by-line references) any depositions and answers to interrogatories or requests for admissions that they will offer to prove that fact. In his or her response, defense counsel shall, if he or she objects to any such proposed fact or proposed proof, state precisely the grounds of their objections and, if they will contest the accuracy of the proposed fact, similarily list the witnesses, documents, depositions, interrogatories, or admissions that they will offer to controvert that fact. Except for good cause shown, a party will be precluded at trial from offering any evidence on any fact not so disclosed and from making any objection not so disclosed. 5. Effect. (a) Preclusion of other facts. Except for good cause shown, parties shall be precluded at trial from offering proof of any fact not disclosed in their listing of proposed facts (except purely for impeachment purposes). 6. Sanctions. Unjustified refusal to admit a proposed fact or to limit the extent of disagreement with a proposed fact shall be subject to sanctions. Excessive listing of proposed facts (or of the evidence to be submitted in support of or denial of such facts) which imposes obvious burdens on opposing parties shall also be subject to sanctions. BY THE COURT: Norman Ackerman, Coordinating Judge 31-JAN-2003 01:39 PM CLLSC - LISTED FOR SETTLEMENT CONF 31-JAN-2003 01:40 PM CLLTR - LISTED FOR TRIAL 14-FEB-2003 04:21 PM ENAPP - ENTRY OF APPEARANCE FILED MELENDEZ, JEANETTE Docket Entry: ENTRY OF APPEARANCE OF JEANETTE MELENDEZ BEAD FILED ON BEHALF OF DFT THE DAILY PENNSYLVANIAN. 14-FEB-2003 04:21 PM ENAPP - ENTRY OF APPEARANCE FILED MYERS, JOHN M Docket Entry: ENTRY OF APPEARANCE OF JOHN M. MYERS AND JONATHAN PYLE FILED ON BEHALF OF DFT ERIC TILLES. 14-FEB-2003 04:21 PM PROBJ - PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS FILED MELENDEZ, JEANETTE Docket Entry: PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF(S) COMPLAINT FILED BY DEFENDANT THE DAILY PENNSYLVANIAN, INC. 14-FEB-2003 04:21 PM PROBJ - PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS FILED MYERS, JOHN M Docket Entry: PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF(S) COMPLAINT FILED BY DEFENDANT ERIC TILLES. 17-MAR-2003 08:31 AM DPROB - MOTION TO DETERMINE P.O. FILED DAILY PENNSYLVANIAN, Docket Entry: 72-03031572 RESPONSE DATE 4-16-03 17-MAR-2003 08:32 AM DPROB - MOTION TO DETERMINE P.O. FILED TILLES ESQUIRE, ERIC Docket Entry: 71-03031571 RESPONSE DATE 4-16-03 15-APR-2003 11:08 AM MTANS - ANSWER (MOTION/PETITION) FILED PARKER, GORDON ROY Docket Entry: 71-03031571 ANS FILED TO PO'S 22-APR-2003 04:30 PM MTASN - MOTION ASSIGNED Docket Entry: 72-03031572 MOTION TO DETERMINE PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS ASSIGNED TO JUDGE CARRAFIELLO ON 4-23-03. 22-APR-2003 04:30 PM MTASN - MOTION ASSIGNED Docket Entry: 71-03031571 MOTION TO DETERMINE PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS ASSIGNED TO JUDGE CARRAFIELLO ON 4-23-03. 23-APR-2003 02:32 PM REPLY - REPLY FILED Docket Entry: 71-03031571 REPLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PO'S FILED. (FILED BY DFTS., ERIC TILLES AND THE DAILY PENNSYLVANIAN, INC.) 07-MAY-2003 01:33 PM PFFCT - PROPOSED FINDING OF FACT FILED PARKER, GORDON ROY Docket Entry: PLAINTIFF'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FILED. 20-JUN-2003 01:11 PM ORDER - ORDER ENTERED/236 NOTICE GIVEN CARRAFIELLO, MATTHEW D Docket Entry: 71-03031571 AND NOW, THIS 16TH DAY OF JUNE, 2003, UPON CONSIDERATION OF DEFENDANTS PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT, AND PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE THERETO, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND DECREED THAT DEFENDANT ERIC TILLES' PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS WHICH ALLEGES DEMURRER REGARDING ATTORNEY'S FEES IS MOOT AS PARKER IS NOT REPRESENTED BY AN ATTORNEY. ALL OTHER OBJECTIONS ARE OVERRULED. BY THE COURT: CARRAFIELLO, J. 6/16/03 23-JUN-2003 10:04 AM ORDER - ORDER ENTERED/236 NOTICE GIVEN CARRAFIELLO, MATTHEW D Docket Entry: 03-03031572 AND NOW, THIS 16TH DAY OF JUNE, 2003, UPON CONSIDERATION OF THE PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS OF DEFENDANT THE DAILY PENNSYLVANIA, INC., THE MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT THEREOF, AND ANY OPPOSITION THERETO, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT THE PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS ARE OVERRULED. DEFENDANT IS ORDERED TO FILE THEIR ANSWER WITHIN TWENTY (20) DAYS. BY THE COURT: CARRAFIELLO, J. 6-16-03 25-JUN-2003 02:13 PM PFFCT - PROPOSED FINDING OF FACT FILED PARKER, GORDON ROY Docket Entry: PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FILED 25-JUN-2003 02:38 PM STPLT - STIPULATION FILED Docket Entry: JOINT STATEMENT OF UNCONTESTED FACTS FILED 07-JUL-2003 04:13 PM STPLT - STIPULATION FILED Docket Entry: STIPULATION AS TO CERTAIN DAMAGES RECOVERABLE FILED 09-JUL-2003 04:26 PM ANCOM - ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FILED PYLE, JONATHAN Docket Entry: ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT WITH NEW MATTER FILED BY DEFENDANT ERIC TILLES 09-JUL-2003 04:26 PM ANCOM - ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FILED MELENDEZ, JEANETTE Docket Entry: ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT WITH NEW MATTER FILED BY DEFENDANT DAILY PENNSYLVANIAN INC. 21-JUL-2003 12:19 PM REPLY - REPLY FILED Docket Entry: PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DFT DAILY PENNSYLVANIA'S ANSWER AND NEW MATTER AND PLAINTIFF'S NEW MATTER 21-JUL-2003 12:20 PM REPLY - REPLY FILED Docket Entry: PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT TILLE'S ANSWER AND NEW MATTER AND PLAINTIFF'S NEW MATTER 06-AUG-2003 11:26 AM MTSJD - MOTION/SUMMARY JDGMT FILED Docket Entry: 77-03072977 RESPONSE DATE 9/5/03 (FILED BY ELIC TILLES AND THE DAILY PENNSYLVANIAN) 06-AUG-2003 03:22 PM PROBJ - PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS FILED MYERS, JOHN M Docket Entry: DEFENDANTS PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' NEW MATTER 20-AUG-2003 11:31 AM CLSCC - SETTLEMENT CONF COMPLETED 25-AUG-2003 03:51 PM WSDMG - DISPOSITIVE MOTION GRANTED DIBONA, JR., ALFRED J Docket Entry: THE MOTION OF ERIC TILLES FOR A COMPULSORY NONSUIT IS GRANTED. THE MOTION OF THE DAILY PENNSYLVANIAN FOR NON SUIT IS GRANTED...8/25/03 BY THE COURT: JUDGE ALFRED J. DIBONA, JR..... 25-AUG-2003 03:51 PM ZR236 - NOTICE GIVEN UNDER RULE 236 02-SEP-2003 04:40 PM PTTMF - POST TRIAL MOTION FILED PARKER, GORDON ROY Docket Entry: PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR POST-TRIAL RELIEF FILED. 08-SEP-2003 04:42 PM PTTMA - POST TRIAL MOTION ASSIGNED Docket Entry: PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR POST-TRIAL RELIEF ASSIGNED TO JUDGE DIBONA, 9-8-03. 19-SEP-2003 11:07 AM MTDAM - MOTION/PETITION MARKED MOOT Docket Entry: 77-03072977 MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT MARKED MOOT - CASE DISPOSED 8-25-03 AS DISPOSITIVE MOTION GRANTED. 06-OCT-2003 02:53 PM ORDER - ORDER ENTERED/236 NOTICE GIVEN DIBONA, JR., ALFRED J Docket Entry: IT IS ORDERED THAT PLTF'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION IS DENIED. BY THE COURT ....DIBONA,J 10/3/03 08-OCT-2003 12:09 PM JDVER - JUDGMENT ENTERED ON VERDICT PARKER, GORDON ROY Docket Entry: PLAINTIFF'S PRAECIPE TO ENTER JUDGMENT ON THE VERDICT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANT. NOTICE GIVEN UNDER PA RCP 237. NOTICE GIVEN UNDER PA RCP 236. JUDGMENT IS HEREBY ENTERED.....

Alex
10-25-2003, 05:30 PM
Having just read through the entire summary, I'm now wondering two things:

1. Is the court aware of Gordon's claims to run a "successful internet
business" while filing IFP?

2. Is the court aware of Gordon's alias (Ray Gordon is NOT his actual name)
since he failed to provide it where it would have been appropriate.

John C. Randolph
10-26-2003, 01:48 AM
Paul Robinson wrote: Someone forwarded me the following information and asked me to see that it was publicized. As of October 8, 2003, yet another one of Ray's cases has been tossed: http://fjdwebserver.phila.gov/fjd/repl/zk_fjd_public_qry_03.zp_dktrpt_frames?case_id=0209 01068 http://tinylink.com/?zgFXnpmpVX http://tinyurl.com/scvy And again, the mighty Ray Gordon litigation train blows its whistle at 7 am as it steams out of the station, only to derail in a spectacular wreck. The engineer of this catastrophe is Gordon Roy Parker, alias Ray "Continued and Inexcusable Failure" Gordon.


Thanks, that was entertaining. So, who's this guy Tilles, and why was
grp bothering him?

-jcr

Paul Robinson
10-27-2003, 12:17 AM
"John C. Randolph" wrote:
Paul Robinson wrote: Someone forwarded me the following information and asked me to see that it was publicized. As of October 8, 2003, yet another one of Ray's cases has been tossed: http://fjdwebserver.phila.gov/fjd/repl/zk_fjd_public_qry_03.zp_dktrpt_frames?case_id=0209 01068 http://tinylink.com/?zgFXnpmpVX http://tinyurl.com/scvy And again, the mighty Ray Gordon litigation train blows its whistle at 7 am as it steams out of the station, only to derail in a spectacular wreck. The engineer of this catastrophe is Gordon Roy Parker, alias Ray "Continued and Inexcusable Failure" Gordon. Thanks, that was entertaining. So, who's this guy Tilles, and why was grp bothering him?

If I read the case file directly, Tilles is probably either the head of some department at the
University of Pennsylvania or its chief counsel. In some states you cannot sue a public agency, you
have to sue the particular individual in charge. It might be the case.

This created an interesting scenario where this guy in California was trying to get credit and was
denied because he had been sued thousands of times. Turns out he was head of a major government
agency there and so people suing the agency had to sue him personally.

--
Paul Robinson "Above all else... We shall go on..."
"...And continue!"
"If the lessons of history teach us anything it is
that nobody learns the lessons that history teaches us."

Complete Labor Law Poster for $24.95
from www.LaborLawCenter.com, includes
State, Federal, & OSHA posting requirements