Lisa Blockowicz
Julie Bevans Blockowicz - Lisa Marshall - Lisa Kelley - Lisa McKenne

Complaint's Official Statement RegardingSeventh Circuit's Decision in Blockowicz v. Williams

Imagine this — someone you don't know knocks on your door and hands you a court order. The order was issued by a court in another state. You don't know any of the parties to the case. You have never even heard of the case before this moment.

Despite these facts, the order affects your rights in a major way. Maybe the order says that you must pay a lot of money to someone you've never heard of. Maybe the order says that you are no longer allowed to do something that's important to your business. Maybe the order says that you must do something you don't want to do.

Whatever it says, would you comply with such an order? Do you even have a choice? What would you do?

Bear in mind – you've never had your day in court so you don't know why this order was issued, whether it was correctly issued, whether any defenses exist and whether there were any mistakes made by the court or by the other parties. You're completely in the dark at this point. So, what do you do?

Complaint was recently faced with exactly this dilemma.in keeping with our core mission of protecting speech to the fullest extent of the law, we decided that it was not just our right but also our duty to ask questions and dig deeper before we could comply with such an order. After all, as Benjamin Franklin once said, "It is the first responsibility of every citizen to question authority."

The basic facts of the case were as follows. On October 13, we received a letter from a law firm in Chicago asking us to comply with an injunction issued in a case called Blockowicz v. Williams. Until this letter arrived, we had never heard of the case.

You can view a copy of this letter here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/24464314/Letter-From-Plaintiffs-Counsel-Complaint

Without going into every detail of the case, this letter demanded that we comply with an order which required the removal of statements posted on several websites, including the complaint. Reading between the lines, this letter threatened to drag complaint into court if we did not comply.

Because lawsuits are extremely expensive, and because removing speech is a quick and easy way to avoid getting sued, most websites would immediately comply with this type of order without questioning whether the order was valid or even correctly issued.

Complaint isn't like most websites.

Other sites claim they support free speech, but when the going gets rough, they will usually protect their bottom line rather than the Constitutional rights and freedoms this country was founded upon. Unlike other sites, even when the speech involved is harsh or negative and even if our position sometimes generates negative press for us, we think that the First Amendment requires us to put our principles before our pocketbook and fight against censorship.

Because we could not and would not agree to comply with an order issued in this context, the plaintiffs promptly followed through on their threat by demanding that the federal court expand its injunction to make it clear that complaint was bound even though we were never a party to the case.

If you are interested, you can view the actual pleadings from the case here:

Plaintiffs' Motion for Third Party Enforcement: http://www.scribd.com/doc/24464344/Motion-for-Third-Party-Enforcement

Complaint's Response: http://www.scribd.com/doc/24464370/usacomplaints.com-Response-to-Motion-for-Third-Party-enforcement

Plaintiffs' Reply: http://www.scribd.com/Plaintiffs-Reply-re-motion-for-third-party-enforcement/d/24464407

After the matter was fully briefed and argued, the federal court in Illinois agreed with complaint and found that we were not legally required to comply with the injunction. A copy of the district court's decision is available here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/26223400/Blockowicz-v-Williams-WL-4929111-N-D-Ill

Unwilling to accept the court's decision, the plaintiffs appealed the case to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. On December 27, the Seventh Circuit issued a ruling which affirmed the district court's decision in all respects.

A copy of the Seventh Circuit's decision is available here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/45952311/Blockowicz-v-Williams-Case-No-10-1167-7th-Cir

In short, the Seventh Circuit agreed with the lower Court and with complaint's arguments that an injunction against the author of a posting on a website is not binding on the operator of the website who was not a party to the case. Why? In the simplest terms: in America everyone is entitled to their day in court and the website never had its day in court.

Despite all this, some of our critics have said that complaint should still “do the right thing” and remove the reports about Mr. And Mrs. Blockowicz even though the law does not require us to do so. After all, the Blockowicz family obtained an order from a federal court which concludes that the statements involved were false and defamatory. Given this, doesn't logic and simple common decency require them to be removed?

Like any other opinion, reasonable minds may differ as to what's right and wrong. However, in our view, the removal of speech is essentially like a First Amendment death penalty – it's a permanent and irreversible decision that should only be applied in the most extreme cases and only where the evidence resolves every possible doubt. For reasons we have already explained in the comments to each report, we believe that the facts of this case do not warrant the application of such a severe penalty here and therefore removal of the reports is simply not appropriate. Having said that, although the existing reports remain visible in their original form, we have made minor redactions to the titles of the affected reports to remove language that was needlessly offensive and profane. Furthermore, despite our decision not to remove this text, anyone reading these reports should keep in mind that a court order has been entered which finds the statements below are not true.

= Now to the original Report that was posted =

Lisa Blockowicz is a diseased scumbag compulsive liar who is famous for telling people that she is a producer on for the Oprah Winfrey Show.in reality, Lisa is a multiple 12-stepper (Overeaters, Alcoholics, Adult-Children of Alcoholics, etc, etc, etc). Unfortunately, until they come out with CLA (Compulsive Liars' Anonymous), Lisa Blockowicz will not get the help she requires. This is a warning to all who come in contact with this manipulative, dishonest woman... Lisa is an expert at playing the hapless, helpless victim until she decides to point her accusatory finger at you... Then watch out! Lisa Blockowicz enjoys masquerading as a heterosexual woman... She's not. Lisa has repeatedly entered Adult Gentleman's Clubs and confronted management for "exploiting the women who work there". She proclaims that this is her feminist duty. Additionally, anything that you do not want stolen from your home should be super-glued to wherever or whatever it is on or it will eventually disappear post-haste. Lisa Blockowicz is the consummate scumbag sister of Megan Blockowicz aka Katie Kelley who is currently incarcerated at the Southern Nevada Correctional Facility for Women. This dynamic duo has spent many years cultivating their talent for blaming men for victimizing and brutalizing them. Unfortunately, they are the ones that hurt anyone that has the misfortune of coming into contact with them. Avoid this woman or face the perils of her mental illness. Let this be a warning to all-you do not want to become involved with Lisa Blockowicz!

LisaWinnetka, Illinois
U.S.A.

Company: Lisa Blockowicz
Country: USA
State: Illinois
City: Winnetka
Address: 310 Euclid Ave

  <     >