Judge Called Paul Miller's Actions "Socially Unacceptable"

Paul Miller was unhappyBoard member Paul Miller was unhappy. He was unhappy with this very web site. Apparently over a posting here (see image, right) that pushed him to avenge what he perceived to be wrongs against him.

As a seated board member, the president no less, of a board of directors, his decisions were bound to be questioned by at least some members. But Paul Miller did not address his concern to the writers of this web site, but instead Miller engaged in a campaign he designed to harass, annoy, and alarm, all while failing to ever address his concern directly.

In June 2010, Miller began a campaign of enrollling the writers of this web site in over 400 e-mail subscriptions and creating false online profiles on others. Miller enrolled various e-mail addresses, e-mail addresses which belonged to writers of this web site, to receive unsolicited spam (e-mail advertisements). The topics of this spam ranged from annoying to alarming. A temporary restraining order was issued. Ultimately, on January 19, 2011 , the judge decided not to make it permanent as outlined below.

Subscriptions Include References to Violence

Paul Miller subscribed this web site to e-mail on topics including:

Examples

Paul Miller subscribed this web site to receive various e-mail subscriptions and created online "profiles" on other web sites. And WOW! How much time did he spend doing this? You be the judge.

Paul Miller sent me spam

Subscriptions Include References to Violence

Many of the e-mail newsletters that Paul Miller enrolled us in were topics dealing with violence, pain, rape, illness, disability, and other serious subjects.

How much time did it take for Paul Miller to check each box to enroll in all of these newsletters? Over and over again? Did this take hours? Why does Paul C. Miller have so much time to enter third parties' email addresses to receive hundreds of unwanted e-mail newsletters?

WOW! What kind of message is this? These appear to be not-so-subtle hints of violence. Was Paul Miller considering violence against the writers of this web site? Isn't that a reasonable conclusion the recipients could draw?

 

Paul Miller Libels

Paul C. Miller created an online profile saying a writer was "considering substance abuse treatment." A false, malicious, and defamatory statement.

 

But Paul Miller Got Sloppy

After getting away with this harassment for months, Paul Miller twice invoked a mutually-known third party and started using that as a password or a "friend." And from there, Paul Miller was discovered.


And How He Finally Got Caught

A number of those subscriptions that Paul Miller enrolled this web site to receive contained the following at the bottom of the confirmation e-mails received:

And that was always the same. Someone with a little too much time on their hands sits at home with his Mac signing up strangers to receive information on "sexual trauma" and "pain" and "rape." What an upstanding guy.

That IP address was matched with other e-mail that Paul Miller had sent:

What Defendant's Lawyer Said In Court

     
 

MR. CABRIAN: We would stipulate to --that Mr. Miller did enroll her.

 
     

And What the Judge Said

     
 

I do find that [DEFENDANT'S] conduct up to and including the June date and until the request that he desist was harassment. It was intended to annoy you. It would have annoyed a reasonable person and also made that person suffer significant distress because there were --and I agree with [PETITIONER] on this, if you will, pointed subject matters to which you subscribed her.

 
     
     
 

[DEFENDANT] chose a socially unacceptable way of expressing his displeasure and that was intended to annoy and harass her and there was a continuing course of conduct.

 
     
     
 

So I do not find that great or irreparable harm would happen nor do I find it a continuing course of conduct at this time such an injunction should issue. So the petition for the injunction is going to be denied. There's a request for fees by the defense. Request for attorney fees is denied.