What Chive doesn't know about Aol :Please forward this letter to AOL's Abuse Department with your name!
Ilena Rose
Has AOL responded to any of your requests?
If so, I'd love to see you post it.
When my Harassers were first posting viscious lies about me and spamming
stolen email lists while on AOL, refused to do anything to stop them.
My group sent hundreds of abuse reports ... they did nothing at all, even
though it violated their own Terms of Service Agreements.
I, like Chive, had forgers stealing my email addresses as well as taking
many aliases with "Ilena" in them ... altho they all came from AOL ... AOL
did nothing.
So, I'm quite anxious to see how they have responded to you.
They way it seems to be, after being both a Plaintiff and a Defendant in a
cyber libel suit ... we're all on our own. The ISPs have immunity, and
basically, the courts are ruling that the First Amendments Rules on the
internet ... if someone wants to believe something that another posts ...
that's their right ... whatever is written. Damages are also very
difficult to prove in a cyber libel suit.
I don't know what CEI Flack Andy is yelping about and threatening Chive
about ... it's all distraction.
The professional junkscience Flacks do all they can to disrupt and defame
and create confusion on Usenet because it is one place they can't control.
Junk Lawyer Flack Milloy censors the opposition of his Funders on
TrashTalk ... some come under different aliases ... the Quack Flacks from
similarly funded ACSH do the same ...
They use any type of propaganda they can ... and being able to morph and
hide their identity on Usenet makes these boards all the more vulnerable.
Silicone Manufacturer McGhan's former president spent 4 years hiding
behind his alias and denying his obvious bias on implants ... ever
taunting me that I would never find out who he was.
http://www.humanticsfoundation.com/defamation.htm
The SLAPP statute even protected him ... altho the Superior Court of
California found for me.
http://www.humanticsfoundation.com/superiorcourt.html
I think Andy is just another Kontrol Junkie Junk Science Flack huffing and
puffing ... head Quack Barrett and his gang now owe my attorney, for their
SLAPP suit against me, over $30K ...
http://www.humanticsfoundation.com/quacklibelsuit.htm
the SLAPP statute requires the losing side to pay ...
So, if you've had luck getting AOL to support your campaign, please share.
Thanks.
Ilena
http:www.BreastImplantAwareness.Org
http://www.humanticsfoundation.com/defamation.htm
In article <c13fbe22.01120...@posting.google.com>,
artemes...@aol.com (Artemesia) wrote:
**chyve...@yahoo.com (Chive Mynde) wrote in message
news:<1d159063.01120...@posting.google.com>...
**
**
**
**chive has been soliciting readers of at least 12 n/g's to write to AOL
**about
**getting me centured there.
**
**
**Chive bleeted:
**> One would think so, but in many cases, they request
**> a certain number of complaints before they take action.
**> Currently, all complaints about the forger, artemes...@aol.com,
**> should be sent to "tosu...@aol.com".
**>
**> Here is the evidence you will need to send them:
**>
**> Current List of Artemesia's Sock Puppets
**
**(snip)
**
**What chive,real name, Devin McAndrews, does not know, is that after he
**began to slander me on various newsgroups, by calling me psychotic and
**dependent on anti-psychotic medications, (which am am not, and never
**have been) in the Autumn of 2001, My attorney and I contacted aol in a
**first step to determine who to stop this harrasment and slander by
**said Devin Mc andrews, Chive Mynde.
**
**We also have been working with the distric Attorney's offices in Los
**Angeles, wher I live, and in SFO, where he apparently lives, pursuing
**him under California's internet stalking laws.
**
**When chive began circulatin request that readers report me to Aol, in
**December 2001, AOl and the CA Dept. of Justice was already familiar
**with him and his prior bad deeds.
**
**In spite of the amusing fact that he is now calling for me to be
**turned in,
**The sheer number of posts and crossposts he issues about me daily on
**news groups ranging from clutter, feminism and depression, lends
**credence to the fact that he is obcessed with me and has some sort of
**twisted vendetta going.
**
**sorry that his rantings have affected your n/g.
**>
Andrew Langer
>
>I don't know what CEI Flack Andy is yelping about and threatening Chive
>about ... it's all distraction.
>
Oh, the fact that Devin referred to me as a murderer online, and had to
apoligize for it, and then agreed not to mention me or interact with me online
for 6 months (and I agreed to do the same).
He broke that agreement.
..
>I think Andy is just another Kontrol Junkie Junk Science Flack huffing and
>puffing ... head Quack Barrett and his gang now owe my attorney, for their
>SLAPP suit against me, over $30K ...
>
And, of course, you owe O'Leary his attorney's fees. How convenient of you not
to mention that.
But how typical of you.
- Andrew Langer
--
Any posts by Andrew Langer are his own, written by him, for his own
enjoyment (and the education of others). Unless expressly stated,
they represent his own views, and not those of any other individuals
or entities. He is not, nor has he ever been, paid to post here.
Chive Mynde
> chyve...@yahoo.com (Chive Mynde) wrote in message news:<1d159063.01120...@posting.google.com>...
>
>
>
And you, Artemesia, have been forging my name in 12 newsgroups,
soliciting readers to join your imaginary libel lawsuit against me
since early October of 2001, and you continue to attack me with
racist, neo-nazi rhetoric from multiple sock-puppet accounts. In
case you haven't noticed, you've been stalking me from newsgroup
to newsgroup since early October, as well. In response, I have
reposted various snippets of your delusionary psychosis, where
you promote anti-semitic, racist, neo-nazi arguments, claim
to be on the verge of suicide multiple times, and threaten me
with imaginary lawsuits for pointing out your psychoses.
> > One would think so, but in many cases, they request
> > a certain number of complaints before they take action.
> > Currently, all complaints about the forger, artemes...@aol.com,
> > should be sent to "tosu...@aol.com".
> >
> > Here is the evidence you will need to send them:
> >
> > Current List of Artemesia's Sock Puppets
>
> (snip)
>
> What chive,real name, Devin McAndrews, does not know, is that after he
> began to slander me on various newsgroups, by calling me psychotic
You are psychotic. That is an observation of what you have posted.
> and
> dependent on anti-psychotic medications, (which am am not, and never
> have been)
Perhaps you should take them?
> in the Autumn of 2001, My attorney and I contacted aol in a
> first step to determine who to stop this harrasment and slander by
> said Devin Mc andrews, Chive Mynde.
Bullshit. No attorney in the world would give you the time of day.
> We also have been working with the distric Attorney's offices in Los
> Angeles, wher I live, and in SFO, where he apparently lives, pursuing
> him under California's internet stalking laws.
Interestingly, YOU have been stalking me from newsgroup to newsgroup
since October of 2001. Please continue to demonstrate that in
post after post.
> When chive began circulatin request that readers report me to Aol, in
> December 2001, AOl and the CA Dept. of Justice was already familiar
> with him and his prior bad deeds.
Bullshit. No prior "bad deeds" have occurred. However, I am
sure the feds will be very interested in your racist, neo-nazi
postings.
You are a psychotic, Artemesia. Your posts make that self-evident.
HTH.
-=Chive
--
Tired of the "Artemesia" forgeries, trolls, and flames?
Send a letter to "tosu...@aol.com" and ask them to stop
artemes...@aol.com aka Diana "Artemesia" Hunter
from forging Usenet users.
Chive Mynde
> Has AOL responded to any of your requests?
>
> If so, I'd love to see you post it.
Hi, Ilena. This is Artemesia's little schtick. She claims
that she is suing me with an imaginary lawsuit because I
reposted her psychotic comments from the Google archive.
Additionally, she has been stalking me from group to group,
under multiple sock puppets, forging my name, and posting
anti-semitic, racist, sexist, homophobic, neo-nazi rhetoric.
She is apparently connected to a White Supremacist group
that operates on the Usenet.
There is some evidence that she is related to the Matt Gwier,
Alex Vange, Brandon Orr neo-nazi group, and that she may
in fact be a man posing as a woman to avoid detection.
I will update you with evidence as it comes in, but it
doesn't look good for the Artemesia poster. I am in
the process of notifiying the appropriate law enforcement
entities and having her scrutinized by the proper
authorities.
just me
chive saying you're this, that or the other thing? hell, there is no
criminal code violation to stating one's belief..............
note to chive: call him anything u please, sweet dick all he can do about
it, retract your apology! he aint worthy of u
--
M. Louise Marchand
Graduate Student
Legal Studies
Carleton University
Ottawa, ON
"Andrew Langer" <Lan...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:BVxQ7.54556$xS6....@www.newsranger.com...
just me
what.........u have your own unique writing style.........and artemisia is
simply incompetent to duplicate it...........i have someone who is using my
name, email address and handle on another group..................water off a
duck's back...........nobody can mistake who i am................hehehehe
p.s.............my dad..............days, weeks perhaps a couple of
months...................u'll know what i mean
--
M. Louise Marchand
Graduate Student
Legal Studies
Carleton University
Ottawa, ON
"Chive Mynde" <chyve...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1d159063.01120...@posting.google.com...
Chive Mynde
> hey, if lan can advocate murdering all feminists, what's the problem with
> chive saying you're this, that or the other thing? hell, there is no
> criminal code violation to stating one's belief..............
>
> note to chive: call him anything u please, sweet dick all he can do about
> it, retract your apology! he aint worthy of u
Louise, for the record, I made a mistake. I called Andrew Langer
a murderer accidentally, when clearly Andrew Langer is *not* a murderer.
Since I made this mistake, I felt that Andrew deserved an apology,
and I still hold to my original apology. I made a mistake,
and I acknowledge that mistake. Some people claim that I
issues a retraction of my comments because I "feared" getting
sued. Nothing could be farther from the truth. I issued
a retraction because I was WRONG.
As for Artemesia she is, and remains a PSYCHOTIC nutcase. There
is no similarity between what occurred between Andrew and I.
I don't believe Andrew is psychotic, nor do I believe he is crazy.
And, I certainly don't believe *he* is a murderer.
Lan
> chyve...@yahoo.com (Chive Mynde) wrote in message news...
> chive has been soliciting readers of at least 12 n/g's to write to AOL
> about getting me centured there.
> Chive bleeted:
>> One would think so, but in many cases, they request a certain number
>> of complaints before they take action. Currently, all complaints
>> about the forger, artemes...@aol.com, should be sent to
>> "tosu...@aol.com".
>> Here is the evidence you will need to send them:
>> Current List of Artemesia's Sock Puppets
> (snip)
> What chive,real name, Devin McAndrews, does not know, is that after he
> began to slander me on various newsgroups, by calling me psychotic and
> dependent on anti-psychotic medications, (which am am not, and never
> have been) in the Autumn of 2001, My attorney and I contacted aol in a
> first step to determine who to stop this harrasment and slander by
> said Devin Mc andrews, Chive Mynde.
> We also have been working with the distric Attorney's offices in Los
> Angeles, wher I live, and in SFO, where he apparently lives, pursuing
> him under California's internet stalking laws.
> When chive began circulatin request that readers report me to Aol, in
> December 2001, AOl and the CA Dept. of Justice was already familiar
> with him and his prior bad deeds.
> In spite of the amusing fact that he is now calling for me to be
> turned in, The sheer number of posts and crossposts he issues about me
> daily on news groups ranging from clutter, feminism and depression,
> lends credence to the fact that he is obcessed with me and has some
> sort of twisted vendetta going.
> sorry that his rantings have affected your n/g.
Thanks Artemesia.
I hope this nut case gets thrown off the internet forever and into a
looney bin where he deserves.
--
Kill all feminists, make them feel the pain they are responsible for creating
so that it destroys them. Stop at nothing to make every single fucking evil
sexist female feel every thing they did do, plus everything they could have
done, and added to that everything they even ever wanted to do. DESTROY THEM
ICQ: 26027485
Chive Mynde
> hey chive............i think most of us can tell who is writing
> what.........u have your own unique writing style.........and artemisia is
> simply incompetent to duplicate it...........i have someone who is using my
> name, email address and handle on another group..................water off a
> duck's back...........nobody can mistake who i am................hehehehe
>
> p.s.............my dad..............days, weeks perhaps a couple of
> months...................u'll know what i mean
>
>
>
> --
> M. Louise Marchand
> Graduate Student
> Legal Studies
> Carleton University
> Ottawa, ON
Thanks for your note of support, Louise.
I'm sorry to hear about your father. It saddens me to hear
this news. My thoughts and feelings go out to you in this
trying time.
Andrew Langer
>
>hey, if lan can advocate murdering all feminists, what's the problem with
>chive saying you're this, that or the other thing? hell, there is no
>criminal code violation to stating one's belief..............
>
>note to chive: call him anything u please, sweet dick all he can do about
>it, retract your apology! he aint worthy of u
>
>
Um, Ms. Marchand, a few things.
First of all, I hope you recognize that "Lan" and I are not the same person. I
don't know who "Lan" is. I am "Andrew Langer" and I post using my AOL address,
"Lan...@aol.com".
Second, I don't claim to know the laws of Canada, but certainly a "graduate
student" in "legal studies" should know a little bit about libel and slander
issues. Perhaps you are ill-versed in the way our legal and political systems
protect rights, but in America our rights extend as far as they do not interfere
with the rights of other people.
In terms of free speech, someone is free to exercise his right to speak out on
his opinion on an issue - as long as that opinion doesn't interfere with someone
else's rights. This is where when someone speaks out and lies about someone,
damaging their reputation, then that gives rise to potential civil and criminal
claims.
Here is a little more of a lesson for you:
Libel (from Findlaw.com's legal dictionary): a defamatory statement or
representation esp. in the form of written or printed words
specif
: a false published statement that injures an individual's reputation (as in
business) or otherwise exposes him or her to public contempt.
ie, when someone calls someone else a murderer online, and that statement isn't
true, that's libel.
Chive Mynde
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > chive has been soliciting readers of at least 12 n/g's to write to AOL
> > > about getting me centured there.
> >
> > soliciting readers to join your imaginary libel lawsuit against me
> > since early October of 2001, and you continue to attack me with
> > racist, neo-nazi rhetoric from multiple sock-puppet accounts. In
> > case you haven't noticed, you've been stalking me from newsgroup
> > to newsgroup since early October, as well. In response, I have
> > reposted various snippets of your delusionary psychosis, where
> > you promote anti-semitic, racist, neo-nazi arguments, claim
> > to be on the verge of suicide multiple times, and threaten me
> > with imaginary lawsuits for pointing out your psychoses.
> >
> >
> >
> > > began to slander me on various newsgroups, by calling me psychotic
> >
>
Yes it is. I've already posted the definitiobn. You don't have
a grip on reality. You are delusional. I called you a psychotic
in a recent post and you claimed that I called Parg a psycho,
when clearly in plain English, I was calling you a psycho. You
do things like this every day. You don't have the ability to
understand what you read, or recognize truth from falsity. You
live in a twilight mental state -- where all you think about is
you, you, you, and you. In your world, YOU are the only person
who exists. Nobody else matters. You are psychotic.
Philip Lewis
And you are a cowardly disgusting piece of shit that likes to exploit people
when they are down.
Phil
Lansdale
"environmentalist's", pro/com together for a party. We are all so much
alike. It's not the side we're on, but the way we think. Details and
technicalities. And such an ability to concentrate. There would be little
boring chit-chat at this party. We could have some fun games, for instance I
would enjoy throwing a water baloon at certian corporate shills (it would be
fair of course, you would have your own supply to return fire). And I'll bet
we could raise some money for some worthy cause (say WTC vicitm families)
by charging $10 for a chance to knock Chive into a barrell of water by
throwing a ball.
But since we now must use only words for our entertainment we have to use
strong ones. Threats of legal suits and accusitions for crimes ranging from
slander to to murder abound. If we have the party, I can see we will need
some ground rules. No suits (except for bathing) and no weapons are the
first two.
"Artemesia" <artemes...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:c13fbe22.01120...@posting.google.com...
> chyve...@yahoo.com (Chive Mynde) wrote in message
news:<1d159063.01120...@posting.google.com>...
>
>
>
> chive has been soliciting readers of at least 12 n/g's to write to AOL
> about
> getting me centured there.
>
>
> Chive bleeted:
> > One would think so, but in many cases, they request
> > a certain number of complaints before they take action.
> > Currently, all complaints about the forger, artemes...@aol.com,
> > should be sent to "tosu...@aol.com".
> >
> > Here is the evidence you will need to send them:
> >
> > Current List of Artemesia's Sock Puppets
>
> (snip)
>
> What chive,real name, Devin McAndrews, does not know, is that after he
just me
or somene else? i was talking about LAN..........??
btw, i went to your website, your other projects have not been revised since
november 1st, what gives, there's nothing on your site :(
--
M. Louise Marchand
Graduate Student
Legal Studies
Carleton University
Ottawa, ON
"Chive Mynde" <chyve...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1d159063.0112...@posting.google.com...
just me
none that would be actionable for libel..........most people dont use their
real names.........even if u SAY u are andrew and i say i am louise, doesn't
mean either of us who we purport to be..........if u are in usa, u are right
that i know little about usa laws, but i do know that a civil suit over name
calling is stretching things a bit unless u have nothing else to do with at
least $50K...............the other party would claim freedom of
speech...........
i maintain chive can say anything he wants, so long as he does not advocate
criminality......the chances of him being pursued, out of state, for calling
him a name are greater than winning the lottery..........let alone a
conviction based on such name calling...............however, if u want to
intimidate him with threats of legal action, you are also free to lie
through your teeth (keyboard) about an action u most likely will never
undertake...........on the other hand, i was speaking about another poster,
a guy, a child really by the name of LAN and he advocates murdering all
feminists......i dont see the cops handcuffing yet he is breaching criminal
law..........if anyone would be subject to sanctions, i'd put my money on
his arrest, not chive's.........and yes i am a legal scholar, for better for
worse eh? lol
--
M. Louise Marchand
Graduate Student
Legal Studies
Carleton University
Ottawa, ON
"Andrew Langer" <Lan...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:nNRQ7.55412$xS6....@www.newsranger.com...
just me
psychotic, the person complaining would have to prove he/she is not eh?
imagine that little scenario......i wonder if artemesia is willing to
undergo extensive psychiatric tests to PROVE he/she is mentally fit in order
to prove his/her case :)
--
M. Louise Marchand
Graduate Student
Legal Studies
Carleton University
Ottawa, ON
"Philip Lewis" <phill...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9v14t6$c7c5a$1...@ID-59530.news.dfncis.de...
just me
chive and take it like a womyn...........proceed must go to a feminist
organization trying to help womyn who are/have been hurt by
misogyny............deal?
--
M. Louise Marchand
Graduate Student
Legal Studies
Carleton University
Ottawa, ON
"Lansdale" <lans...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:ukVQ7.84635$MX1.13...@news02.optonline.net...
Society
M. Louise Marchand as "just me" <lm...@home.com> blabbed in message
news:lAXQ7.11934$iO6.3...@news3.rdc2.on.home.com...
>
> naw, he calls it the way it is,
False. (Wazzat subject line you used your idea
or Devin's, Louise?
But truth matters not to a feminist -- thanks for
giving us all another example of that, Louise. See,
you're not a compleat failure; you're bolstering
the veracity of my sig. Thanks.
> there is nothing illegal in calling someone
> psychotic, the person complaining would
> have to prove he/she is not eh?
Well, you're the Legal Studies matron, Louise,
why don't you explain what is meant by
"truth is a defense" to libel and slander.
Looks like establishing the truth of the allegation
is the defense's job once it goes to court, eh?
> imagine that little scenario......i wonder if
> artemesia is willing to undergo extensive
> psychiatric tests to PROVE he/she is
> mentally fit in order to prove his/her case :)
Naah, you've got it worng again, Louise. Artemesia
need do nothing but show harm and malice on
Devin's part. Not too tough, eh? She need not
prove anything regarding the veracity of Devin's
snotty remarks -- that's his job, he's defending
against the suit. To get Artemesia "to undergo
extensive psychiatric tests" to prove anything,
Devin would have to persuade a judge that Devin
had sufficient reason to make his ugly remarks
w/o such tests in the first place. Ain't gonna
happen, Louise.
--
All excuses for feminism depend on censorship
of reality to appear plausible to rubes, boobs,
and graduates of clown colleges.
Lan
> naw, he calls it the way it is, there is nothing illegal in calling
> someone psychotic, the person complaining would have to prove he/she
> is not eh? imagine that little scenario......i wonder if artemesia is
> willing to undergo extensive psychiatric tests to PROVE he/she is
> mentally fit in order to prove his/her case :)
I wonder if you are willing to take one, too.
And I wonder if you'd believe it if it were taken. Seeing as you don't
believe anything you don't want to, even if it is right in front of
your stupid ugly feminist face.
Philip Lewis
likes to exploit people when they are down.
Phil
"just me" <lm...@home.com> wrote in message
news:lAXQ7.11934$iO6.3...@news3.rdc2.on.home.com...
Andrew Langer
>
>in canada, we have very little laws re the internet.......and most certainly
>none that would be actionable for libel
Ah, but Devin (also known as "Chive") is in California, and here is what
California has to say about libel and slander:
---begin quoted material---
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAISdocID=9929173181+0+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve
44. Defamation is effected by either of the following:
(a) Libel.
(b) Slander.
45. Libel is a false and unprivileged publication by writing,
printing, picture, effigy, or other fixed representation to the eye,
which exposes any person to hatred, contempt, ridicule, or obloquy,
or which causes him to be shunned or avoided, or which has a tendency
to injure him in his occupation.
45a. A libel which is defamatory of the plaintiff without the
necessity of explanatory matter, such as an inducement, innuendo or
other extrinsic fact, is said to be a libel on its face. Defamatory
language not libelous on its face is not actionable unless the
plaintiff alleges and proves that he has suffered special damage as a
proximate result thereof. Special damage is defined in Section 48a
of this code.
46. Slander is a false and unprivileged publication, orally
uttered, and also communications by radio or any mechanical or other
means which:
1. Charges any person with crime, or with having been indicted,
convicted, or punished for crime;
2. Imputes in him the present existence of an infectious,
contagious, or loathsome disease;
3. Tends directly to injure him in respect to his office,
profession, trade or business, either by imputing to him general
disqualification in those respects which the office or other
occupation peculiarly requires, or by imputing something with
reference to his office, profession, trade, or business that has a
natural tendency to lessen its profits;
4. Imputes to him impotence or a want of chastity; or
5. Which, by natural consequence, causes actual damage.
,,,
48a. 1. In any action for damages for the publication of a libel in
a newspaper, or of a slander by radio broadcast, plaintiff shall
recover no more than special damages unless a correction be demanded
and be not published or broadcast, as hereinafter provided.
Plaintiff shall serve upon the publisher, at the place of publication
or broadcaster at the place of broadcast, a written notice
specifying the statements claimed to be libelous and demanding that
the same be corrected. Said notice and demand must be served within
20 days after knowledge of the publication or broadcast of the
statements claimed to be libelous.
2. If a correction be demanded within said period and be not
published or broadcast in substantially as conspicuous a manner in
said newspaper or on said broadcasting station as were the statements
claimed to be libelous, in a regular issue thereof published or
broadcast within three weeks after such service, plaintiff, if he
pleads and proves such notice, demand and failure to correct, and if
his cause of action be maintained, may recover general, special and
exemplary damages; provided that no exemplary damages may be
recovered unless the plaintiff shall prove that defendant made the
publication or broadcast with actual malice and then only in the
discretion of the court or jury, and actual malice shall not be
inferred or presumed from the publication or broadcast.
3. A correction published or broadcast in substantially as
conspicuous a manner in said newspaper or on said broadcasting
station as the statements claimed in the complaint to be libelous,
prior to receipt of a demand therefor, shall be of the same force and
effect as though such correction had been published or broadcast
within three weeks after a demand therefor.
4. As used herein, the terms "general damages," "special damages,"
"exemplary damages" and "actual malice," are defined as follows:
(a) "General damages" are damages for loss of reputation, shame,
mortification and hurt feelings;
(b) "Special damages" are all damages which plaintiff alleges and
proves that he has suffered in respect to his property, business,
trade, profession or occupation, including such amounts of money as
the plaintiff alleges and proves he has expended as a result of the
alleged libel, and no other;
(c) "Exemplary damages" are damages which may in the discretion of
the court or jury be recovered in addition to general and special
damages for the sake of example and by way of punishing a defendant
who has made the publication or broadcast with actual malice;
(d) "Actual malice" is that state of mind arising from hatred or
ill will toward the plaintiff; provided, however, that such a state
of mind occasioned by a good faith belief on the part of the
defendant in the truth of the libelous publication or broadcast at
the time it is published or broadcast shall not constitute actual
malice.
---end quoted material---
Clearly, defamatory statements transmitted via the internet from a computer in
California (where Devin, er, "Chive" lives) are actionable under California law.
> ..........most people dont use their
>real names.........even if u SAY u are andrew and i say i am louise, doesn't
>mean either of us who we purport to be
Then again, it is easy to verify that I am who I am. I've been very open about
that - unlike Devin, er, "Chive".
> ..........if u are in usa, u are right
>that i know little about usa laws, but i do know that a civil suit over name
>calling is stretching things a bit unless u have nothing else to do with at
>least $50K.
Ms. Marchand, I've been fortunate enough to have worked with some of this
nation's best litigators, and become close friends with them. My former boss
was the nation's chief environmental law enforcement officer when he was the
head of the Environment and Natural Resources Division at the US DOJ. I've
worked for two of the top law firms in the United States.
And I'm lucky that a number of these individuals have very high senses of
loyalty and individual justice - and are willing to pitch in a hand when called
upon to do so.
>..............the other party would claim freedom of
>speech...........
>
And they would be taught a lesson that free speech only extends insofar as it
doesn't infringe on the rights of someone else.
>i maintain chive can say anything he wants, so long as he does not advocate
>criminality.
And you would be wrong. Sorry. Perhaps you might want to raise this in class?
>.....the chances of him being pursued, out of state, for calling
>him a name are greater than winning the lottery..........let alone a
>conviction based on such name calling...............however, if u want to
>intimidate him with threats of legal action, you are also free to lie
>through your teeth (keyboard) about an action u most likely will never
>undertake..
Well, I never lie online. Ever.
>.........on the other hand, i was speaking about another poster,
>a guy, a child really by the name of LAN and he advocates murdering all
>feminists......i dont see the cops handcuffing yet he is breaching criminal
>law..........if anyone would be subject to sanctions, i'd put my money on
>his arrest, not chive's.........and yes i am a legal scholar, for better for
>worse eh? lol
>
Well, I am certain that there are laws regarding libel and slander in Canada.
In fact, here you go:
http://www.canlii.org/ca/sta/c-46/sec298.html
Definition
298. (1) A defamatory libel is matter published, without lawful justification or
excuse, that is likely to injure the reputation of any person by exposing him to
hatred, contempt or ridicule, or that is designed to insult the person of or
concerning whom it is published.
Mode of expression
(2) A defamatory libel may be expressed directly or by insinuation or irony
(a) in words legibly marked on any substance; or
(b) by any object signifying a defamatory libel otherwise than by words.
R.S., c. C-34, s. 262.
---end quoted material---
Thanks again!
Andrew Langer
>
>You know, I keep thinking how much fun it would be to get all of us
>"environmentalist's", pro/com together for a party. We are all so much
>alike. It's not the side we're on, but the way we think. Details and
>technicalities. And such an ability to concentrate. There would be little
>boring chit-chat at this party. We could have some fun games, for instance I
>would enjoy throwing a water baloon at certian corporate shills (it would be
>fair of course, you would have your own supply to return fire). And I'll bet
>we could raise some money for some worthy cause (say WTC vicitm families)
>by charging $10 for a chance to knock Chive into a barrell of water by
>throwing a ball.
>
>But since we now must use only words for our entertainment we have to use
>strong ones. Threats of legal suits and accusitions for crimes ranging from
>slander to to murder abound. If we have the party, I can see we will need
>some ground rules. No suits (except for bathing) and no weapons are the
>first two.
>
>
I'm coming to New York next week. Let me know if you set something up.
harvest dancer
> hey, i'm in.......send me a return ticket and i'll jump in the barrel WITH
> chive and take it like a womyn...........proceed must go to a feminist
> organization trying to help womyn who are/have been hurt by
> misogyny............deal?
>
>
> --
> M. Louise Marchand
> Graduate Student
> Legal Studies
> Carleton University
> Ottawa, ON
How about if the proceeds were split so that the other half went to
men who are/have been hurt by misandrony.
Oh, you misspelled women again.
Harvest Dancer
harvest dancer
> As for Artemesia she is, and remains a PSYCHOTIC nutcase. There
> is no similarity between what occurred between Andrew and I.
> I don't believe Andrew is psychotic, nor do I believe he is crazy.
> And, I certainly don't believe *he* is a murderer.
>
> HTH.
>
> -=Chive
I see. Tell us another one about how all rich people want to posion
and kill everyone else and destroy the environment just for their own
amusement. That should be good for a few laughs.
Harvest Dancer
Michael Snyder
harvest dancer wrote in message <4f697f9f.01121...@posting.google.com>...
Nah, Louse is a sexist -- she only wants women to benefit.
And no -- I did not misspell "Louise".
>Oh, you misspelled women again.
;-) Yeah, that's because she's a sexist. But you misspelled misandry.
just me
--
M. Louise Marchand
Graduate Student
Legal Studies
Carleton University
Ottawa, ON
"harvest dancer" <harves...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4f697f9f.01121...@posting.google.com...
just me
paternalistic and condescending, but you are male, so i'll let it go this
time eh?
go back and check what u cited.............nowhere in there is what chive
typed actionable.........u may know lawyers hot shot, but you will never get
a judge to care less about what chive types about you in this or any other
newsgroup..........i know what libel is and i know what slander is, but
thanks so MUCH for providing it for the NG.................now unless i
misread the blurb u so respectfully submitted, slander and libel is
applicable only to newspapers and broadcasts on television or radio eh?
show me where it says ELECTRONIC communication hot shot?
you have obviously never analyzed the supreme court of the united states'
decision on freedom of speech eh? chive can call you ANYTHING he wants, and
get away with it...................always, anywhere, anytime, through press,
radio, whatever.............much worse has been said about Blacks,
homosexuals and jews in the united states and in the final analysis the 14th
amendment was primordial............your country sucks
now quit telling ME what canadian law is.............and find yourself
another dummy to educate..........it aint gonna be me, i hold the degrees,
remember?
M. Louise Marchand
Graduate Student
Legal Studies
Carleton University
Ottawa, ON
"Andrew Langer" <Lan...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:bT3R7.56041$xS6....@www.newsranger.com...
Andrew Langer
>
>you are very debonair to provide me with canadian law eh? a tad
>paternalistic and condescending, but you are male, so i'll let it go this
>time eh?
>
>go back and check what u cited.............nowhere in there is what chive
>typed actionable.........u may know lawyers hot shot, but you will never get
>a judge to care less about what chive types about you in this or any other
>newsgroup..........i know what libel is and i know what slander is, but
>thanks so MUCH for providing it for the NG.................now unless i
>misread the blurb u so respectfully submitted, slander and libel is
>applicable only to newspapers and broadcasts on television or radio eh?
>show me where it says ELECTRONIC communication hot shot?
>
Alright, do we have to go over this one more time? And pardon me if you thought
I was being condescending and paternalistic - I thought that I was speaking with
a student of the law, someone who might be interested in learning something new.
But, once again, California law says the following:
46. Slander is a false and unprivileged publication, orally
uttered, and also communications by radio or any mechanical or other
means which:
1. Charges any person with crime, or with having been indicted,
convicted, or punished for crime;
---end quoted material---
Let me reiterate: communications by radio OR ANY MECHANICAL OR OTHER MEANS
WHICH: 1. CHARGES ANY PERSON WITH CRIME... etc (emphasis added).
Chive called me a murderer - either charging me with it, or inferring that I was
convicted of it, and communicated it by a computer through the internet, which
no matter how you slice it is a mechanical (or other) means.
Now, this is obvious even from a casual reading of the law - or do you think
that there's some different way to interpret the language here?
Please, share it. Be as maternalistic and condescending as you want to be.
Oh, and as for Canadian law, the law says "published" - are materials broacast
over the internet "published" or not?
>you have obviously never analyzed the supreme court of the united states'
>decision on freedom of speech eh?
And that's not maternalistic and condescending?
Ms. Marchand, I assure you that I am well-versed in Supreme Court caselaw on the
subject of First Amendment Rights. And just as the court has held that you
cannot yell "fire" in a crowded theater, you similarly cannot slander or libel
someone.
> chive can call you ANYTHING he wants, and
>get away with it...................always, anywhere, anytime, through press,
>radio, whatever.............much worse has been said about Blacks,
>homosexuals and jews in the united states and in the final analysis the 14th
>amendment was primordial............your country sucks
>
Well, if you're basing that impression upon your understanding of American
jurisprudence, you might want to go back and look again.
Ms. Marchand, if you are casting aspersions upon a particular group, ie, stating
a political or philosophical opinion (let's say, "All men are rapists." or "All
heterosexuals are deviants." or "All white people are devils" then what you are
saying is protected speech.
And we want that in a free society - for how else can we discredit warped ideas
and ideologies unless they are spoken aloud? If we were to outlaw, say, the Ku
Klux Klan, and make the utterance of their ideologies illegal, then we wouldn't
be able to have the merry time that we do when representatives of that
organization appear on the Howard Stern Show, and are shown to be idiotic.
But making a directed statement about a particular individual in order to
affirmatively misrepresent something about that person's life or character, so
as to defame them in some manner - that specifically violates an individuals
rights.
This is why we have laws against it.
But then again, this all comes down to the fundamental nature of rights, doesn't
it, and how you or I might see it?
>now quit telling ME what canadian law is.
Hey, I just wanted to make sure you were clear over what Canada has to say about
libel. You seemed to be unclear about it.
> ............and find yourself
>another dummy to educate..........it aint gonna be me, i hold the degrees,
>remember?
>
Could've fooled me.
harvest dancer
I misspelled misandry because I wrote it before my morning coffee. ;-)
What is Louise' excsue for a Graduate Student to misspell "woman" or
"women"? Is the trying to say that because "human" has the word
"man", she is not one of that group?
Harvest Dancer
Ilena Rose
http://www.newsbytes.com/news/01/172455.html
California Appeals Court Upholds Message Board Speech
By Michael Bartlett, Newsbytes
RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA, U.S.A.
27 Nov 2001, 4:34 PM CST
A California court of appeal recently issued what legal experts say is a
precedent-setting decision on the right to make comments about a public
company on Internet message boards.
In March 2000, ComputerXpress [OTCBB:CPXP], a company that sells
computer-related products, filed a complaint against eight defendants
after a proposed merger fell through. The company alleged nine causes of
action against defendants, including fraud, trade libel and interference
with prospective economic advantage.
ComputerXpress claimed defendants made "numerous false and disparaging
statements" about the company on the Internet.
Defendants moved to dismiss the suit by seeking protection from a
California law written to protect individuals from retaliatory lawsuits by
corporations that feel they have been disparaged. These are referred to as
"Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation," or SLAPP lawsuits.
The trial court initially ruled three of the nine causes of action were
not covered by the anti-SLAPP statute, but the remaining six were. The
court subsequently changed its mind, finding that none of the allegations
were protected by the statute, and therefore denied the motion to dismiss
the case.
The appellate court agreed with the trial court on four causes of action,
but reversed on the remaining five. The appellate court found that
postings on an Internet message board constituted a "public forum," as
defined in the anti-SLAPP statute. The court further ruled the defendants
posted opinions as shareholders of ComputerXpress, not competitors, and
the matter was therefore "an issue of public interest."
As for the content of the postings, the court said they "certainly could
be considered disparaging," but found that, "their tone and content
identified them as statements of opinion and not fact."
The court said the postings presented as evidence by ComputerXpress were,
"hyperbolic, informal and lacked the characteristics of typical fact-based
documents."
The Riverside Court's ruling closely followed - and frequently cited - a
May ruling by a U.S. District Court. The federal court ordered Global
Telemedia International [OTCBB:GLTIE.OB] to pay over $55,000 in attorney's
fees to two defendants. The company had sued several anonymous individuals
for posting comments critical of GTMI in an Internet chat room.
In the Global Telemedia case, the court said that, unlike many traditional
media, there are no controls on the postings in chat rooms. As a result,
such writings are almost always opinions, and therefore are protected
under the First Amendment.
The opinion by the Court of Appeal for the Fourth District in the
ComputerXpress case is the first published appellate decision on the state
level in California, according to Megan Gray, a Los Angeles-based attorney
who is an expert on SLAPP lawsuits. She was not involved in the matter,
but followed it closely
"It is a great case, and one that is long overdue," said Gray. "The court
recognized the dearth of binding case law on this issue, and this ruling
takes care of that."
There are many cases pending in courtrooms that stem from Internet message
board postings. Gray said she hopes the Court of Appeal decision will
encourage some of those cases to, "go away, one way or another, and not
clog the court system."
"The ruling does not mean everything you say on a message board is
protected," she said. "But, generally, a lot of that talk is along the
lines of, 'this stock sucks,' or 'this management sucks.' The Riverside
Court said to determine if something is fact or opinion, you must examine
the context."
"For example, if Dan Rather says something about ComputerXpress or its
management on the nightly news, that is different than someone who can't
even spell right posting something on a message board," Gray continued.
"This ruling protects John Doe who is just speaking his mind on the
Internet to a wide audience."
Paul Levy of the Public Citizen Litigation Group, a non-profit consumer
advocacy organization based in Washington, D.C., said the most important
part of the ruling is the finding that a discussion of a public company is
covered by the anti-SLAPP statute.
"It is wise for people to assume postings on a message board are opinions,
not facts," said Levy. "This opinion makes it clear that [the federal
court ruling in] Global Telemedia is the state law in California. At least
it is for now, unless the California Supreme Court steps in," he added.
The Public Citizen Litigation Group was not directly involved in the
ComputerXpress case, but asked the court to publish its opinion - which it
had not previously done - to make it binding on state trial courts.
Unpublished appellate decisions cannot be cited as precedent.
Yvonne Renfrew, who represented six of the eight defendants (the other two
settled out of court with ComputerXpress), said the original, unpublished
decision did not include an award of jury fees to her clients.
"We won attorney's fees upon rehearing," said Renfrew. "Not only is this
case important in that it clarifies First Amendment protection for
Internet postings, it is very important that people have the ability to
recoverfees. In many cases, people are silenced by the threat of a lawsuit
because they cannot afford to spend $200,000 to defend themselves."
Attorneys for ComputerXpress did not return phone calls for this story.
See the opinion at http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/E027841.PDF .
Public Citizen Litigation Group is at http://www.citizen.org .
Reported by Newsbytes.com, http://www.newsbytes.com .
16:34 CST
Reposted 17:15 CST
(20011127/Press Contact: Paul Levy, Public Citizen Litigation Group,
202-588-1000/WIRES TOP, LEGAL, ONLINE, BUSINESS/ATWORLD/PHOTO)
Ilena Rose
As much fun as Andy has playing corporate lawyer ... his CEI sponsors are
some of the corporations that the SLAPP laws were created to protect from
...
Corporations and their flacks so over used the court system to intimidate
critics ... the SLAPP laws were born
harvest dancer
> "harvest dancer" <harves...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:4f697f9f.01121...@posting.google.com...
> > chyve...@yahoo.com (Chive Mynde) wrote in message
> news:<1d159063.0112...@posting.google.com>...
> > > As for Artemesia she is, and remains a PSYCHOTIC nutcase. There
> > > is no similarity between what occurred between Andrew and I.
> > > I don't believe Andrew is psychotic, nor do I believe he is crazy.
> > > And, I certainly don't believe *he* is a murderer.
> > >
> > > HTH.
> > >
> > > -=Chive
> >
> > I see. Tell us another one about how all rich people want to posion
> > and kill everyone else and destroy the environment just for their own
> > amusement. That should be good for a few laughs.
> >
> > Harvest Dancer
>
>
> --
> M. Louise Marchand
It is both revealing and frightening that you actually think that.
May I take you as representative of feminism with that opinion?
Harvest Dancer
just me
--
M. Louise Marchand
Graduate Student
Legal Studies
Carleton University
Ottawa, ON
"harvest dancer" <harves...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
just me
pieces of it, i want the entire document, its title, year of ascent, etc and
where i can locate it
i still maintain chive did nothing wrong.........he can call u whatever he
pleases, ure no celebrity and u would have to prove he has caused u some
kind of financial damages............
no judge would care less about what chive says.........show me otherwise,
try citing a case where such a USA judgement was held, after any possible
appeal..........THIS i got to see!
--
M. Louise Marchand
Graduate Student
Legal Studies
Carleton University
Ottawa, ON
"Andrew Langer" <Lan...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:IDaR7.56648$xS6....@www.newsranger.com...
just me
stupid CA law? PLUS these people stood to lose financially and still
lost.................chive: say anything u want, an opinion is not a fact,
retract your apology please!
lol
--
M. Louise Marchand
Graduate Student
Legal Studies
Carleton University
Ottawa, ON
"Andrew Langer" <Lan...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:IDaR7.56648$xS6....@www.newsranger.com...
just me
evidence, THANK U.........now the question is will andy pandy be a big man
and apologize to chive? and me?
--
M. Louise Marchand
Graduate Student
Legal Studies
Carleton University
Ottawa, ON
"Ilena Rose" <il...@san.rr.com> wrote in message
news:ilena-10120...@dt011n65.san.rr.com...
just me
right, andy pandy was wrong and HE owes chive an apology
now arte, get lost
--
M. Louise Marchand
Graduate Student
Legal Studies
Carleton University
Ottawa, ON
"Society" <soc...@feminism.is.invalid> wrote in message
news:llZQ7.1631$jm4.1...@nntp3.onemain.com...
just me
--
M. Louise Marchand
Graduate Student
Legal Studies
Carleton University
Ottawa, ON
"Lan" <as...@zxcv.net> wrote in message
news:asdfg-BE21B6....@news.btinternet.com...
just me
--
M. Louise Marchand
Graduate Student
Legal Studies
Carleton University
Ottawa, ON
"harvest dancer" <harves...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4f697f9f.01121...@posting.google.com...
just me
--
M. Louise Marchand
Graduate Student
Legal Studies
Carleton University
Ottawa, ON
"Michael Snyder" <msn...@redhat.com> wrote in message
news:D25R7.1848$q4.9...@newsrump.sjc.telocity.net...
>
just me
go read the thing
--
M. Louise Marchand
Graduate Student
Legal Studies
Carleton University
Ottawa, ON
"harvest dancer" <harves...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4f697f9f.01121...@posting.google.com...
just me
and it aint gonna be me...........any takers? lol
wouldn't ya all love to take a shot at me? lol
--
M. Louise Marchand
Graduate Student
Legal Studies
Carleton University
Ottawa, ON
"Andrew Langer" <Lan...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:AU3R7.56044$xS6....@www.newsranger.com...
just me
--
M. Louise Marchand
Graduate Student
Legal Studies
Carleton University
Ottawa, ON
"Andrew Langer" <Lan...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:AU3R7.56044$xS6....@www.newsranger.com...
Ilena Rose
I both won and lost libel cases based on this SLAPP statute:
http://www.humanticsfoundation.com/quacklibelsuit.htm
http://www.humanticsfoundation.com/defamation.htm
In article <bVfR7.12600$iO6.4...@news3.rdc2.on.home.com>, "just me"
<lm...@home.com> wrote:
**i am reposting mr. hotshot.........now what do u have to say about your
**stupid CA law? PLUS these people stood to lose financially and still
**lost.................chive: say anything u want, an opinion is not a fact,
**retract your apology please!
**
**
**
**lol
**
**California Appeals Court Upholds Message Board Speech
**
**
**By Michael Bartlett, Newsbytes
**RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA, U.S.A.
**27 Nov 2001, 4:34 PM CST
**
** A California court of appeal recently issued what legal experts say is a
**precedent-setting decision on the right to make comments about a public
**company on Internet message boards.
**
**In March 2000, ComputerXpress [OTCBB:CPXP], a company that sells
**computer-related products, filed a complaint against eight defendants
**after a proposed merger fell through. The company alleged nine causes of
**action against defendants, including fraud, trade libel and interference
**with prospective economic advantage.
**
** ComputerXpress claimed defendants made "numerous false and disparaging
**statements" about the company on the Internet.
**
**Defendants moved to dismiss the suit by seeking protection from a
**California law written to protect individuals from retaliatory lawsuits by
**corporations that feel they have been disparaged. These are referred to as
**"Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation," or SLAPP lawsuits.
**
**The trial court initially ruled three of the nine causes of action were
**not covered by the anti-SLAPP statute, but the remaining six were. The
**court subsequently changed its mind, finding that none of the allegations
**were protected by the statute, and therefore denied the motion to dismiss
**the case.
**
**The appellate court agreed with the trial court on four causes of action,
**but reversed on the remaining five. The appellate court found that
**postings on an Internet message board constituted a "public forum," as
**defined in the anti-SLAPP statute. The court further ruled the defendants
**posted opinions as shareholders of ComputerXpress, not competitors, and
**the matter was therefore "an issue of public interest."
**
**As for the content of the postings, the court said they "certainly could
**be considered disparaging," but found that, "their tone and content
**identified them as statements of opinion and not fact."
**
**The court said the postings presented as evidence by ComputerXpress were,
**"hyperbolic, informal and lacked the characteristics of typical fact-based
**documents."
**
**The Riverside Court's ruling closely followed - and frequently cited - a
**May ruling by a U.S. District Court. The federal court ordered Global
**Telemedia International [OTCBB:GLTIE.OB] to pay over $55,000 in attorney's
**fees to two defendants. The company had sued several anonymous individuals
**for posting comments critical of GTMI in an Internet chat room.
**
**In the Global Telemedia case, the court said that, unlike many traditional
**media, there are no controls on the postings in chat rooms. As a result,
**such writings are almost always opinions, and therefore are protected
**under the First Amendment.
**
**The opinion by the Court of Appeal for the Fourth District in the
**ComputerXpress case is the first published appellate decision on the state
**level in California, according to Megan Gray, a Los Angeles-based attorney
**who is an expert on SLAPP lawsuits. She was not involved in the matter,
**but followed it closely
**
**"It is a great case, and one that is long overdue," said Gray. "The court
**recognized the dearth of binding case law on this issue, and this ruling
**takes care of that."
**
**There are many cases pending in courtrooms that stem from Internet message
**board postings. Gray said she hopes the Court of Appeal decision will
**encourage some of those cases to, "go away, one way or another, and not
**clog the court system."
**
**"The ruling does not mean everything you say on a message board is
**protected," she said. "But, generally, a lot of that talk is along the
**lines of, 'this stock sucks,' or 'this management sucks.' The Riverside
**Court said to determine if something is fact or opinion, you must examine
**the context."
**
**"For example, if Dan Rather says something about ComputerXpress or its
**management on the nightly news, that is different than someone who can't
**even spell right posting something on a message board," Gray continued.
**"This ruling protects John Doe who is just speaking his mind on the
**Internet to a wide audience."
**
**Paul Levy of the Public Citizen Litigation Group, a non-profit consumer
**advocacy organization based in Washington, D.C., said the most important
**part of the ruling is the finding that a discussion of a public company is
**covered by the anti-SLAPP statute.
**
**"It is wise for people to assume postings on a message board are opinions,
**not facts," said Levy. "This opinion makes it clear that [the federal
**court ruling in] Global Telemedia is the state law in California. At least
**it is for now, unless the California Supreme Court steps in," he added.
**
**The Public Citizen Litigation Group was not directly involved in the
**ComputerXpress case, but asked the court to publish its opinion - which it
**had not previously done - to make it binding on state trial courts.
**Unpublished appellate decisions cannot be cited as precedent.
**
**Yvonne Renfrew, who represented six of the eight defendants (the other two
**settled out of court with ComputerXpress), said the original, unpublished
**decision did not include an award of jury fees to her clients.
**
**"We won attorney's fees upon rehearing," said Renfrew. "Not only is this
**case important in that it clarifies First Amendment protection for
**Internet postings, it is very important that people have the ability to
**recoverfees. In many cases, people are silenced by the threat of a lawsuit
**because they cannot afford to spend $200,000 to defend themselves."
**
**Attorneys for ComputerXpress did not return phone calls for this story.
**
**See the opinion at
**http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/E027841.PDF .
**
**Public Citizen Litigation Group is at http://www.citizen.org .
**
**Reported by Newsbytes.com, http://www.newsbytes.com .
**
**16:34 CST
**Reposted 17:15 CST
**
**(20011127/Press Contact: Paul Levy, Public Citizen Litigation Group,
**202-588-1000/WIRES TOP, LEGAL, ONLINE, BUSINESS/ATWORLD/PHOTO)
**
**--
**M. Louise Marchand
**Graduate Student
**Legal Studies
**Carleton University
**Ottawa, ON
**
**
**
**"Andrew Langer" <Lan...@aol.com> wrote in message
**news:IDaR7.56648$xS6....@www.newsranger.com...
**> In article <Ig9R7.12201$iO6.4...@news3.rdc2.on.home.com>, just me
**says...
**> >
**> >you are very debonair to provide me with canadian law eh? a tad
**> >paternalistic and condescending, but you are male, so i'll let it go
**this
**> >time eh?
**> >
**> >go back and check what u cited.............nowhere in there is what chive
**> >typed actionable.........u may know lawyers hot shot, but you will never
**get
**> >a judge to care less about what chive types about you in this or any
**other
**> >newsgroup..........i know what libel is and i know what slander is, but
**> >thanks so MUCH for providing it for the NG.................now unless i
**> >misread the blurb u so respectfully submitted, slander and libel is
**> >applicable only to newspapers and broadcasts on television or radio eh?
**> >show me where it says ELECTRONIC communication hot shot?
**> >
**>
**> Alright, do we have to go over this one more time? And pardon me if you
**thought
**> I was being condescending and paternalistic - I thought that I was
**speaking with
**> a student of the law, someone who might be interested in learning
**something new.
**>
**> But, once again, California law says the following:
**>
**> 46. Slander is a false and unprivileged publication, orally
**> uttered, and also communications by radio or any mechanical or other
**> means which:
**> 1. Charges any person with crime, or with having been indicted,
**> convicted, or punished for crime;
**> ---end quoted material---
**>
**> Let me reiterate: communications by radio OR ANY MECHANICAL OR OTHER
**MEANS
**> WHICH: 1. CHARGES ANY PERSON WITH CRIME... etc (emphasis added).
**>
**> Chive called me a murderer - either charging me with it, or inferring that
**I was
**> convicted of it, and communicated it by a computer through the internet,
**which
**> no matter how you slice it is a mechanical (or other) means.
**>
**> Now, this is obvious even from a casual reading of the law - or do you
**think
**> that there's some different way to interpret the language here?
**>
**> Please, share it. Be as maternalistic and condescending as you want to
**be.
**>
**> Oh, and as for Canadian law, the law says "published" - are materials
**broacast
**> over the internet "published" or not?
**>
**> >you have obviously never analyzed the supreme court of the united states'
**> >decision on freedom of speech eh?
**>
**> And that's not maternalistic and condescending?
**>
**> Ms. Marchand, I assure you that I am well-versed in Supreme Court caselaw
**on the
**> subject of First Amendment Rights. And just as the court has held that
**you
**> cannot yell "fire" in a crowded theater, you similarly cannot slander or
**libel
**> someone.
**>
**> > chive can call you ANYTHING he wants, and
**> >get away with it...................always, anywhere, anytime, through
**press,
**> >radio, whatever.............much worse has been said about Blacks,
**> >homosexuals and jews in the united states and in the final analysis the
**14th
**> >amendment was primordial............your country sucks
**> >
**>
**> Well, if you're basing that impression upon your understanding of American
**> jurisprudence, you might want to go back and look again.
**>
**> Ms. Marchand, if you are casting aspersions upon a particular group, ie,
**stating
**> a political or philosophical opinion (let's say, "All men are rapists." or
**"All
**> heterosexuals are deviants." or "All white people are devils" then what
**you are
**> saying is protected speech.
**>
**> And we want that in a free society - for how else can we discredit warped
**ideas
**> and ideologies unless they are spoken aloud? If we were to outlaw, say,
**the Ku
**> Klux Klan, and make the utterance of their ideologies illegal, then we
**wouldn't
**> be able to have the merry time that we do when representatives of that
**> organization appear on the Howard Stern Show, and are shown to be idiotic.
**>
**> But making a directed statement about a particular individual in order to
**> affirmatively misrepresent something about that person's life or
**character, so
**> as to defame them in some manner - that specifically violates an
**individuals
**> rights.
**>
**> This is why we have laws against it.
**>
**> But then again, this all comes down to the fundamental nature of rights,
**doesn't
**> it, and how you or I might see it?
**>
**> >now quit telling ME what canadian law is.
**>
**> Hey, I just wanted to make sure you were clear over what Canada has to say
**about
**> libel. You seemed to be unclear about it.
**>
**> > ............and find yourself
**> >another dummy to educate..........it aint gonna be me, i hold the
**degrees,
**> >remember?
**> >
**>
**> Could've fooled me.
**>
**> - Andrew Langer
**>
**> --
**> Any posts by Andrew Langer are his own, written by him, for his own
**> enjoyment (and the education of others). Unless expressly stated,
**> they represent his own views, and not those of any other individuals
**> or entities. He is not, nor has he ever been, paid to post here.
The 9th Witch
just me <lm...@home.com> wrote in message
news:GZfR7.12607$iO6.4...@news3.rdc2.on.home.com...
> and u mispelled mispell LOL
>
m-i-s-s-p-e-l-l. Look it up.
T9W
Misspell is a word on my peeve list.
Chive Mynde
And what's even more ironic, is that these are the same corporations
who fund PR shills to complain about the legal system!!
-=Chive
Science is not belief, but the will to find out.
Michael Snyder
Andrew Langer wrote in message ...
>In article <Ig9R7.12201$iO6.4...@news3.rdc2.on.home.com>, just me says...
>>
>>you are very debonair to provide me with canadian law eh? a tad
>>paternalistic and condescending, but you are male, so i'll let it go this
>>time eh?
Were you TRYING to show us an example of sexism?
Chive Mynde
> "harvest dancer" <harves...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:4f697f9f.01121...@posting.google.com...
> > "just me" <lm...@home.com> wrote in message
> news:<B79R7.12200$iO6.4...@news3.rdc2.on.home.com>...
> > > "harvest dancer" <harves...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:4f697f9f.01121...@posting.google.com...
> > > > chyve...@yahoo.com (Chive Mynde) wrote in message
> news:<1d159063.0112...@posting.google.com>...
> > > > > As for Artemesia she is, and remains a PSYCHOTIC nutcase. There
> > > > > is no similarity between what occurred between Andrew and I.
> > > > > I don't believe Andrew is psychotic, nor do I believe he is crazy.
> > > > > And, I certainly don't believe *he* is a murderer.
> > > > >
> > > > > HTH.
> > > > >
> > > > > -=Chive
> > > >
> > > > I see. Tell us another one about how all rich people want to posion
> > > > and kill everyone else and destroy the environment just for their own
> > > > amusement. That should be good for a few laughs.
> > > >
> > > > Harvest Dancer
> > >
> > > er, actually, that's DAMN close to the truth!
> > >
> > > --
> > > M. Louise Marchand
> >
> > It is both revealing and frightening that you actually think that.
> > May I take you as representative of feminism with that opinion?
> >
> > Harvest Dancer
>
Hi, Louise. I didn't know you were an environmentalist/ecologist.
I'm happy to know you...
Chive Mynde
> right, andy pandy was wrong and HE owes chive an apology
>
> now arte, get lost
She did, Louise. The groups are calm, once again. :)
We can all get back to normal debate and discussion without
being threatened by her imaginary lawsuits or her threats
of suicide.
Chive Mynde
> "Lan" <as...@zxcv.net> wrote in message
> news:asdfg-BE21B6....@news.btinternet.com...
> > "just me" <lm...@home.com> wrote:
> >
> > > naw, he calls it the way it is, there is nothing illegal in calling
> > > someone psychotic, the person complaining would have to prove he/she
> > > is not eh? imagine that little scenario......i wonder if artemesia is
> > > willing to undergo extensive psychiatric tests to PROVE he/she is
> > > mentally fit in order to prove his/her case :)
> >
> > I wonder if you are willing to take one, too.
> >
> > And I wonder if you'd believe it if it were taken. Seeing as you don't
> > believe anything you don't want to, even if it is right in front of
> > your stupid ugly feminist face.
> >
> > --
> > Kill all feminists, make them feel the pain they are responsible for
> creating
> > so that it destroys them. Stop at nothing to make every single fucking
> evil
> > sexist female feel every thing they did do, plus everything they could
> have
> > done, and added to that everything they even ever wanted to do. DESTROY
> THEM
> >
> > ICQ: 26027485
>
One can only hope, Louise. :)
just me
--
M. Louise Marchand
Graduate Student
Legal Studies
Carleton University
Ottawa, ON
"The 9th Witch" <appalach...@hotsnail.com> wrote in message
news:k2hR7.1495$hC.102...@news.incc.net...
just me
chive says and dont mind giving him hell if he circulates myths himself
about womyn
--
M. Louise Marchand
Graduate Student
Legal Studies
Carleton University
Ottawa, ON
"Philip Lewis" <phill...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9v2dri$cin5u$1...@ID-59530.news.dfncis.de...
> Naw - it is as I said - he is a cowardly disgusting piece of shit that
> likes to exploit people when they are down.
> BTW I don't take "advice" from Chive's sock puppets.
>
> Phil
>
> "just me" <lm...@home.com> wrote in message
> news:lAXQ7.11934$iO6.3...@news3.rdc2.on.home.com...
> > naw, he calls it the way it is, there is nothing illegal in calling
> someone
> > psychotic, the person complaining would have to prove he/she is not eh?
> > imagine that little scenario......i wonder if artemesia is willing to
> > undergo extensive psychiatric tests to PROVE he/she is mentally fit in
> order
> > to prove his/her case :)
> >
> >
> > --
> > M. Louise Marchand
> > Graduate Student
> > Legal Studies
> > Carleton University
> > Ottawa, ON
> >
> >
> >
> > "Philip Lewis" <phill...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:9v14t6$c7c5a$1...@ID-59530.news.dfncis.de...
> > >
> > > "Chive Mynde" <chyve...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > > news:1d159063.01120...@posting.google.com...
> > > > artemes...@aol.com (Artemesia) wrote in message
> > > news:<c13fbe22.01120...@posting.google.com>...
> > > > > chyve...@yahoo.com (Chive Mynde) wrote in message
> > > news:<1d159063.01120...@posting.google.com>...
> > > > > > artemes...@aol.com (Artemesia) wrote in message
> > > news:<c13fbe22.01120...@posting.google.com>...
> > > > > > > chyve...@yahoo.com (Chive Mynde) wrote in message
> > > news:<1d159063.01120...@posting.google.com>...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > chive has been soliciting readers of at least 12 n/g's to
write
> to
> > > AOL
> > > > > > > about getting me centured there.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > And you, Artemesia, have been forging my name in 12 newsgroups,
> > > > > > soliciting readers to join your imaginary libel lawsuit against
me
> > > > > > since early October of 2001, and you continue to attack me with
> > > > > > racist, neo-nazi rhetoric from multiple sock-puppet accounts.
In
> > > > > > case you haven't noticed, you've been stalking me from newsgroup
> > > > > > to newsgroup since early October, as well. In response, I have
> > > > > > reposted various snippets of your delusionary psychosis, where
> > > > > > you promote anti-semitic, racist, neo-nazi arguments, claim
> > > > > > to be on the verge of suicide multiple times, and threaten me
> > > > > > with imaginary lawsuits for pointing out your psychoses.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > What chive,real name, Devin McAndrews, does not know, is that
> > after
> > > he
> > > > > > > began to slander me on various newsgroups, by calling me
> psychotic
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You are psychotic. That is an observation of what you have
> posted.
> > > > >
> > > > > No, it is not
> > > >
> > > > Yes it is. I've already posted the definitiobn. You don't have
> > > > a grip on reality. You are delusional. I called you a psychotic
> > > > in a recent post and you claimed that I called Parg a psycho,
> > > > when clearly in plain English, I was calling you a psycho. You
> > > > do things like this every day. You don't have the ability to
> > > > understand what you read, or recognize truth from falsity. You
> > > > live in a twilight mental state -- where all you think about is
> > > > you, you, you, and you. In your world, YOU are the only person
> > > > who exists. Nobody else matters. You are psychotic.
> > >
> > > And you are a cowardly disgusting piece of shit that likes to exploit
> > people
> > > when they are down.
> > >
> > > Phil
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > -=Chive
> > > > --
> > > > Tired of the "Artemesia" forgeries, trolls, and flames?
> > > > Send a letter to "tosu...@aol.com" and ask them to stop
> > > > artemes...@aol.com aka Diana "Artemesia" Hunter
> > > > from forging Usenet users.
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
just me
she asks nicely :)
--
M. Louise Marchand
Graduate Student
Legal Studies
Carleton University
Ottawa, ON
"Chive Mynde" <chyve...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1d159063.01121...@posting.google.com...
just me
those url's are web sites about legal cases..........post them from a legal
data base and i'll take a gander at them eh?
--
M. Louise Marchand
Graduate Student
Legal Studies
Carleton University
Ottawa, ON
"Ilena Rose" <il...@san.rr.com> wrote in message
news:ilena-10120...@dt011n65.san.rr.com...
>
just me
accused of it................go give yer head a shake
--
M. Louise Marchand
Graduate Student
Legal Studies
Carleton University
Ottawa, ON
"Michael Snyder" <msn...@redhat.com> wrote in message
news:ZRhR7.283$em.1...@newsrump.sjc.telocity.net...
just me
beliefs, so i made that statement.......i am a radical feminist mixed in
with marxism and post-structuralism :)
--
M. Louise Marchand
Graduate Student
Legal Studies
Carleton University
Ottawa, ON
"Chive Mynde" <chyve...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1d159063.01121...@posting.google.com...
Andrew Langer
> i am reposting mr. hotshot.........now what do u have to say about your
> stupid CA law?
I have to say that this case is inapposite and not on-point to the
issue at hand in my dispute with Mr. McAndrews.
The California law was specifically written for, among other things,
when someone states publicly, either by publishing or by _MECHANICAL
OR OTHER MEANS_ that someone is either guilty of a crime for which
they have not yet been convicted, or has been found guilty of a crime
when that is not, in fact, true.
This is precisely what "Chive Mynde" stated, when he called me a
"murderer" and said that I was "targeting women".
> PLUS these people stood to lose financially and still
> lost.................chive: say anything u want, an opinion is not a fact,
> retract your apology please!
>
When "Chive Mynde" made those statements, he was stating them as
"fact". He was not stating them as "opinion". "Andrew Langer is a
murderer" is a statement purporting to be factual, and not merely
opinion-based.
Now, in your legal studies, do they teach you how to distinguish when
cases are on-point, and when cases are not on-point?
Perhaps you might send me the e-mail address of your legal research
and writing teacher - I might want to drop her a line and let her know
that she ought to help you brush up a bit.
- Andrew Langer
Andrew Langer
>
> http://www.humanticsfoundation.com/quacklibelsuit.htm
> http://www.humanticsfoundation.com/defamation.htm
>
And you might've thought that you would have learned something about
your own behavior.
- Andrew Langer
--
Any posts by Andrew Langer are his own, written by him, for his own
enjoyment (and the education of others). Unless expressly stated,
they represent his own views, and not those of any other individuals
Andrew Langer
> some of the corporations that the SLAPP laws were created to protect from
> ...
>
> Corporations and their flacks so over used the court system to intimidate
> critics ... the SLAPP laws were born
But it still doesn't change the _FACT_ that if you libel or slander
someone, you can still be held accountable for it, Ms. Rosenthal.
Andrew Langer
> andy pandy is full of shit, as i said he was and u just provided the
> evidence, THANK U.........now the question is will andy pandy be a big man
> and apologize to chive? and me?
>
>
For what? You're wrong about Canadian law, you're wrong about
American constitutional law, and you're wrong about California law.
I have zero to apologize to you for, and absolutely nothing to _EVER_
apologize to Devin McAndrews for.
Perhaps you might ask Devin why, if I am so wrong about so many
things, that he didn't debate me, in public, when he had the chance to
do so in San Francisco this August.
Andrew Langer
> give me the exact citation for the law u are citing, rather than posting
> pieces of it, i want the entire document, its title, year of ascent, etc and
> where i can locate it
>
You know, I did offer you a citation to the code - and you called me
paternalistic and condescending.
But if you want me to do your research for you, fine, here goes:
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAISdocID=08006813324+0+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve
California Civil Code
Section 43-53
44. Defamation is effected by either of the following:
(a) Libel.
(b) Slander.
45. Libel is a false and unprivileged publication by writing,
printing, picture, effigy, or other fixed representation to the eye,
which exposes any person to hatred, contempt, ridicule, or obloquy,
or which causes him to be shunned or avoided, or which has a tendency
to injure him in his occupation.
45a. A libel which is defamatory of the plaintiff without the
necessity of explanatory matter, such as an inducement, innuendo or
other extrinsic fact, is said to be a libel on its face. Defamatory
language not libelous on its face is not actionable unless the
plaintiff alleges and proves that he has suffered special damage as a
proximate result thereof. Special damage is defined in Section 48a
of this code.
46. Slander is a false and unprivileged publication, orally
uttered, and also communications by radio or any mechanical or other
means which:
1. Charges any person with crime, or with having been indicted,
convicted, or punished for crime;
2. Imputes in him the present existence of an infectious,
contagious, or loathsome disease;
3. Tends directly to injure him in respect to his office,
profession, trade or business, either by imputing to him general
disqualification in those respects which the office or other
occupation peculiarly requires, or by imputing something with
reference to his office, profession, trade, or business that has a
natural tendency to lessen its profits;
4. Imputes to him impotence or a want of chastity; or
5. Which, by natural consequence, causes actual damage.
47. A privileged publication or broadcast is one made:
(a) In the proper discharge of an official duty.
(b) In any (1) legislative proceeding, (2) judicial proceeding,
(3) in any other official proceeding authorized by law, or (4) in the
initiation or course of any other proceeding authorized by law and
reviewable pursuant to Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 1084) of
Title 1 of Part 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, except as follows:
(1) An allegation or averment contained in any pleading or
affidavit filed in an action for marital dissolution or legal
separation made of or concerning a person by or against whom no
affirmative relief is prayed in the action shall not be a privileged
publication or broadcast as to the person making the allegation or
averment within the meaning of this section unless the pleading is
verified or affidavit sworn to, and is made without malice, by one
having reasonable and probable cause for believing the truth of the
allegation or averment and unless the allegation or averment is
material and relevant to the issues in the action.
(2) This subdivision does not make privileged any communication
made in furtherance of an act of intentional destruction or
alteration of physical evidence undertaken for the purpose of
depriving a party to litigation of the use of that evidence, whether
or not the content of the communication is the subject of a
subsequent publication or broadcast which is privileged pursuant to
this section. As used in this paragraph, "physical evidence" means
evidence specified in Section 250 of the Evidence Code or evidence
that is property of any type specified in Section 2031 of the Code of
Civil Procedure.
(3) This subdivision does not make privileged any communication
made in a judicial proceeding knowingly concealing the existence of
an insurance policy or policies.
(4) A recorded lis pendens is not a privileged publication unless
it identifies an action previously filed with a court of competent
jurisdiction which affects the title or right of possession of real
property, as authorized or required by law.
(c) In a communication, without malice, to a person interested
therein, (1) by one who is also interested, or (2) by one who stands
in such a relation to the person interested as to afford a reasonable
ground for supposing the motive for the communication to be
innocent, or (3) who is requested by the person interested to give
the information. This subdivision applies to and includes a
communication concerning the job performance or qualifications of an
applicant for employment, based upon credible evidence, made without
malice, by a current or former employer of the applicant to, and upon
request of, the prospective employer. This subdivision shall not
apply to a communication concerning the speech or activities of an
applicant for employment if the speech or activities are
constitutionally protected, or otherwise protected by Section 527.3
of the Code of Civil Procedure or any other provision of law.
(d) (1) By a fair and true report in, or a communication to, a
public journal, of (A) a judicial, (B) legislative, or (C) other
public official proceeding, or (D) of anything said in the course
thereof, or (E) of a verified charge or complaint made by any person
to a public official, upon which complaint a warrant has been issued.
(2) Nothing in paragraph (1) shall make privileged any
communication to a public journal that does any of the following:
(A) Violates Rule 5-120 of the State Bar Rules of Professional
Conduct.
(B) Breaches a court order.
(C) Violates any requirement of confidentiality imposed by law.
(e) By a fair and true report of (1) the proceedings of a public
meeting, if the meeting was lawfully convened for a lawful purpose
and open to the public, or (2) the publication of the matter
complained of was for the public benefit.
47.5. Notwithstanding Section 47, a peace officer may bring an
action for defamation against an individual who has filed a complaint
with that officer's employing agency alleging misconduct, criminal
conduct, or incompetence, if that complaint is false, the complaint
was made with knowledge that it was false and that it was made with
spite, hatred, or ill will. Knowledge that the complaint was false
may be proved by a showing that the complainant had no reasonable
grounds to believe the statement was true and that the complainant
exhibited a reckless disregard for ascertaining the truth.
48. In the case provided for in subdivision 3 of the preceding
section, malice is not inferred from the communication.
48a. 1. In any action for damages for the publication of a libel in
a newspaper, or of a slander by radio broadcast, plaintiff shall
recover no more than special damages unless a correction be demanded
and be not published or broadcast, as hereinafter provided.
Plaintiff shall serve upon the publisher, at the place of publication
or broadcaster at the place of broadcast, a written notice
specifying the statements claimed to be libelous and demanding that
the same be corrected. Said notice and demand must be served within
20 days after knowledge of the publication or broadcast of the
statements claimed to be libelous.
2. If a correction be demanded within said period and be not
published or broadcast in substantially as conspicuous a manner in
said newspaper or on said broadcasting station as were the statements
claimed to be libelous, in a regular issue thereof published or
broadcast within three weeks after such service, plaintiff, if he
pleads and proves such notice, demand and failure to correct, and if
his cause of action be maintained, may recover general, special and
exemplary damages; provided that no exemplary damages may be
recovered unless the plaintiff shall prove that defendant made the
publication or broadcast with actual malice and then only in the
discretion of the court or jury, and actual malice shall not be
inferred or presumed from the publication or broadcast.
3. A correction published or broadcast in substantially as
conspicuous a manner in said newspaper or on said broadcasting
station as the statements claimed in the complaint to be libelous,
prior to receipt of a demand therefor, shall be of the same force and
effect as though such correction had been published or broadcast
within three weeks after a demand therefor.
4. As used herein, the terms "general damages," "special damages,"
"exemplary damages" and "actual malice," are defined as follows:
(a) "General damages" are damages for loss of reputation, shame,
mortification and hurt feelings;
(b) "Special damages" are all damages which plaintiff alleges and
proves that he has suffered in respect to his property, business,
trade, profession or occupation, including such amounts of money as
the plaintiff alleges and proves he has expended as a result of the
alleged libel, and no other;
(c) "Exemplary damages" are damages which may in the discretion of
the court or jury be recovered in addition to general and special
damages for the sake of example and by way of punishing a defendant
who has made the publication or broadcast with actual malice;
(d) "Actual malice" is that state of mind arising from hatred or
ill will toward the plaintiff; provided, however, that such a state
of mind occasioned by a good faith belief on the part of the
defendant in the truth of the libelous publication or broadcast at
the time it is published or broadcast shall not constitute actual
malice.
48.5. (1) The owner, licensee or operator of a visual or sound
radio broadcasting station or network of stations, and the agents or
employees of any such owner, licensee or operator, shall not be
liable for any damages for any defamatory statement or matter
published or uttered in or as a part of a visual or sound radio
broadcast by one other than such owner, licensee or operator, or
agent or employee thereof, if it shall be alleged and proved by such
owner, licensee or operator, or agent or employee thereof, that such
owner, licensee or operator, or such agent or employee, has exercised
due care to prevent the publication or utterance of such statement
or matter in such broadcast.
(2) If any defamatory statement or matter is published or uttered
in or as a part of a broadcast over the facilities of a network of
visual or sound radio broadcasting stations, the owner, licensee or
operator of any such station, or network of stations, and the agents
or employees thereof, other than the owner, licensee or operator of
the station, or network of stations, originating such broadcast, and
the agents or employees thereof, shall in no event be liable for any
damages for any such defamatory statement or matter.
(3) In no event, however, shall any owner, licensee or operator of
such station or network of stations, or the agents or employees
thereof, be liable for any damages for any defamatory statement or
matter published or uttered, by one other than such owner, licensee
or operator, or agent or employee thereof, in or as a part of a
visual or sound radio broadcast by or on behalf of any candidate for
public office, which broadcast cannot be censored by reason of the
provisions of federal statute or regulation of the Federal
Communications Commission.
(4) As used in this Part 2, the terms "radio," "radio broadcast,"
and "broadcast," are defined to include both visual and sound radio
broadcasting.
(5) Nothing in this section contained shall deprive any such
owner, licensee or operator, or the agent or employee thereof, of any
rights under any other section of this Part 2.
48.7. (a) No person charged by indictment, information, or other
accusatory pleading of child abuse may bring a civil libel or slander
action against the minor, the parent or guardian of the minor, or
any witness, based upon any statements made by the minor, parent or
guardian, or witness which are reasonably believed to be in
furtherance of the prosecution of the criminal charges while the
charges are pending before a trial court. The charges are not
pending within the meaning of this section after dismissal, after
pronouncement of judgment, or during an appeal from a judgment.
Any applicable statute of limitations shall be tolled during the
period that such charges are pending before a trial court.
(b) Whenever any complaint for libel or slander is filed which is
subject to the provisions of this section, no responsive pleading
shall be required to be filed until 30 days after the end of the
period set forth in subdivision (a).
(c) Every complaint for libel or slander based on a statement that
the plaintiff committed an act of child abuse shall state that the
complaint is not barred by subdivision (a). A failure to include
that statement shall be grounds for a demurrer.
(d) Whenever a demurrer against a complaint for libel or slander
is sustained on the basis that the complaint was filed in violation
of this section, attorney's fees and costs shall be awarded to the
prevailing party.
(e) Whenever a prosecutor is informed by a minor, parent,
guardian, or witness that a complaint against one of those persons
has been filed which may be subject to the provisions of this
section, the prosecutor shall provide that person with a copy of this
section.
(f) As used in this section, child abuse has the meaning set forth
in Section 11165 of the Penal Code.
---end quoted material---
This version of the California Code doesn't include the dates the
sections became effective, but it doesn't really matter in this case.
This was the version which was in effect when Chive made his
statements.
For the caselaw, see below.
> i still maintain chive did nothing wrong....
And you have yet to show us how you have come to this conclusion.
Perhaps you might start by explaining why the law shouldn't apply to
him.
> .....he can call u whatever he
> pleases, ure no celebrity and u would have to prove he has caused u some
> kind of financial damages............
>
Not at all. See below.
> no judge would care less about what chive says.........show me otherwise,
> try citing a case where such a USA judgement was held, after any possible
> appeal..........THIS i got to see!
>
>
Let's first of all look at the following:
HOWLAND v. BALMA , 143 Cal.App.3d 899 (1983)
In which the court stated, "The gist of an action for slander,
however, is damage to reputation. (Civ. Code, § 46; 4 Witkin, Summary
of Cal. Law (8th ed. 1974) Torts, § 271, p. 2542.) The harm flowing
therefrom is not a "personal injury" (i.e., medical or physical injury
to the body) or a risk of employment within the purview of the
workers' compensation law. (See Battista v. Chrysler Corp., supra, 454
A.2d at p. 289; Gambrell v. Kan. City Chiefs Football Club, supra, 562
S.W.2d at p. 166.) "In fact, an injury to reputation affects a
proprietary interest and as such is not a personal injury at all, any
concomitant physical or mental injury notwithstanding." (Battista v.
Chrysler Corp., supra, 454 A.2d at p. 289.) "
In Howland, the court was stating that plaintiff's claims weren't
barred by his signing of a release with his employer upon the ending
of employment - but that quite to the contrary, he was entitled to
pursue his claims of slander, in which his employer had defamed him to
a local newspaper. Howland was no celebrity, merely an employee of a
local law enforcement agency.
In Douglas v. Janis , 43 Cal.App.3d 931 (1974), the appeals court
affirmed the lower court's judgement for the plaintiff, a television
producer, and reversed a holding for a new trial. Janis, the
defendant, had uttered false statements, accusing Douglas of various
crimes of financial impropriety. The court stated, "in Swift & Co. v.
Gray (9th Cir. [43 Cal.App.3d 940] 1939) 101 F.2d 976, a slander
action decided under California statutory and case law, the court in
affirming a plaintiff's judgment stated: "To say that one has 'taken'
money belonging to another and not accounted for it is to say that he
has stolen that money." (P. 981.) It is true that Carl v. McDougal, 43
Cal.App. 279 [184 P. 885], declares that "The word 'taken' does not
imply the commission of a crime," (p. 282), but this isolated comment
is pure dictum, the result of an obviously inartful attempt to
distinguish another case cited by defendant -- the words actually used
by the defendant in Carl having been "He forged a check on me," which
were found to be actionable and a judgment for slander was affirmed."
The fact is, Devin McAndrews claimed that I am a murderer, and I
targeted women. Both statements, according to California law, are
slanderous.
Do you want me to continue, Ms. Marchand? You asked me for one case.
I've now cited two (and more, frankly).
Andrew Langer
> almost worth a few bucks eh? lol
>
Not even.
But if you come to New York City anytime next week, Ms. Marchand,
between Monday and Friday, I'll make time to debate you (I do have
certain constraints - I am doing things just about every night).
And if you come to DC anytime after that, I'll also make time to
debate you.
I'd be happy to do so - unlike just about anyone else here.
But to pay you to come here? Please. You've spent too much time in
Canada.
Andrew Langer
>
>the word sexism itself is used to describe male behaviour, womyn cannot be
>accused of it................go give yer head a shake
>
According to my copy of Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, the definition
is as follows:
Main Entry: sex搏sm
Pronunciation: 'sek-"si-z&m
Function: noun
Etymology: 1sex + -ism (as in racism)
Date: 1968
1 : prejudice or discrimination based on sex; especially : discrimination
against women
2 : behavior, conditions, or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles
based on sex
- sex搏st /'sek-sist/ adjective or noun
Stop reinventing the language, Ms. Marchand.
To say that sexism just applies to discrimination against women, is, in fact,
sexist.
And if we were going to carry what you said to its logical conclusion, it would
mean that only whites could be accused of racism. That's obviously not true.
Andrew Langer
>
>
>
>
>http://www.newsbytes.com/news/01/172455.html
>
>California Appeals Court Upholds Message Board Speech
>
Which is inapposite to the subject at hand (do you even know what inapposite
means, I wonder?). The court upheld the specific instances as "opinion", which
is not what Chive was purporting to state.
Further, the fact is the court did not extend its holdings to usenet newsgroups,
but was discussing "chat rooms".
harvest dancer
> "harvest dancer" <harves...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:4f697f9f.01121...@posting.google.com...
> > > hey, i'm in.......send me a return ticket and i'll jump in the barrel
> WITH
> > > chive and take it like a womyn...........proceed must go to a feminist
> > > organization trying to help womyn who are/have been hurt by
> > > misogyny............deal?
> >
> > men who are/have been hurt by misandrony.
> >
> >
>
I see. And why this hatred of myn?
Harvest Dancer
Mctaste
> > > > > > As for Artemesia she is, and remains a PSYCHOTIC nutcase. There
> > > > > > is no similarity between what occurred between Andrew and I.
> > > > > > I don't believe Andrew is psychotic, nor do I believe he is crazy.
> > > > > > And, I certainly don't believe *he* is a murderer.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > HTH.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -=Chive
> > > > >
> > > > > I see. Tell us another one about how all rich people want to posion
> > > > > and kill everyone else and destroy the environment just for their own
> > > > > amusement. That should be good for a few laughs.
> > > > >
> > > > > Harvest Dancer
> > > >
> > > > er, actually, that's DAMN close to the truth!
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > M. Louise Marchand
> > >
> > > It is both revealing and frightening that you actually think that.
> > > May I take you as representative of feminism with that opinion?
> > >
> > > Harvest Dancer
> >
> > yes, u may, especially eco-feminism :)
>
> Hi, Louise. I didn't know you were an environmentalist/ecologist.
>
> I'm happy to know you...
>
> -=Chive
>
> Science is not belief, but the will to find out.
You guys remind me of that movie starring Juliet Lewis and Giovanni
Ribisio, you know one where the two retarded kids fall in love?
Chive, make sure you get your handler to wipe your chin before you try
and kiss "her"...
Ilena Rose
Langer<Lan...@aol.com> wrote:
**Stop reinventing the language, Ms. Marchand.
LOL ... Andyyyyyyyy the Impotent Dictator!
This way TOO highly paid Dow and other Corporation $hill ... is a joke ...
attempting to control any critics.
Do his employers know what he is doing?
Either he is spending hours a day posting "personal" messages while being
paid for other things ...
Or he is spending hours a day posting their propaganda ... which includes
his feeble attempts to silence critics and buoy up the reputations of the
sponsors of CEI ... and lying in his "signature" in every post ...
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&selm=ilena-0912012126450001%40dt011n65.san.rr.com
Ilena Rose
the SLAPP statutes were created because of Corporations like the sponsors
who paid Andyyyyyy's paycheck ...
Ilena Rose
Lan...@aol.com (Andrew Langer) wrote:
**il...@san.rr.com (Ilena Rose) wrote in message
news:<ilena-10120...@dt011n65.san.rr.com>...
**> I both won and lost libel cases based on this SLAPP statute:
**>
**> http://www.humanticsfoundation.com/quacklibelsuit.htm
**> http://www.humanticsfoundation.com/defamation.htm
**>
**
**And you might've thought that you would have learned something about
**your own behavior.
**
*
Absolutely ... that lying, sneaking, sniveling silicone manufacturers can
hide like Moles & deny who they are, while breaking Federal Court
Ordersand libel me and get away with it ... because of the nature of
Usenet, the Internet, and the topic ...
http://www.humanticsfoundation.com/defamation.htm
And I can post my opinion of Quacks like Steve Barrett, "The Media", and
Terry the Terror Polevoy AND post other's opinions of Quacks like them
and, those actions are privileged and immune ...
http://www.humanticsfoundation.com/quacklibelsuit.htm
Andyyyyyyyyy, the Sniveller, apparently hasn't learned anything tho.
These are public bulletin boards discussing matters of public interest ...
not just platforms for the Corporations like those who fund CEI to carry
on the vast Public Relations which includes bashing all their critics.
Ilena Rose
The Judge's opinion and all the documents are here ...
http://www.humanticsfoundation.com/quacklibelsuit.htm
In article <CNmR7.13246$iO6.4...@news3.rdc2.on.home.com>, "just me"
<lm...@home.com> wrote:
**like i'm gonna click on a link that ends with quack libel suit? none of
**those url's are web sites about legal cases..........post them from a legal
**data base and i'll take a gander at them eh?
**
**
**--
**M. Louise Marchand
**Graduate Student
**Legal Studies
**Carleton University
**Ottawa, ON
**
**
**
**"Ilena Rose" <il...@san.rr.com> wrote in message
**news:ilena-10120...@dt011n65.san.rr.com...
**>
**> I both won and lost libel cases based on this SLAPP statute:
**>
**> http://www.humanticsfoundation.com/quacklibelsuit.htm
**> http://www.humanticsfoundation.com/defamation.htm
**>
**>
**>
**> In article <bVfR7.12600$iO6.4...@news3.rdc2.on.home.com>, "just me"
**> <lm...@home.com> wrote:
**>
**> **i am reposting mr. hotshot.........now what do u have to say about your
**> **stupid CA law? PLUS these people stood to lose financially and still
**> **lost.................chive: say anything u want, an opinion is not a
**fact,
**> **retract your apology please!
**> **
**> **
**> **
**> **lol
**> **
**> **California Appeals Court Upholds Message Board Speech
**> **
**> **
**> **By Michael Bartlett, Newsbytes
**> **RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA, U.S.A.
**> **27 Nov 2001, 4:34 PM CST
**> **
**> ** A California court of appeal recently issued what legal experts say is
**a
**> **precedent-setting decision on the right to make comments about a public
**> **company on Internet message boards.
**> **
**> **In March 2000, ComputerXpress [OTCBB:CPXP], a company that sells
**> **computer-related products, filed a complaint against eight defendants
**> **after a proposed merger fell through. The company alleged nine causes of
**> **action against defendants, including fraud, trade libel and interference
**> **with prospective economic advantage.
**> **
**> ** ComputerXpress claimed defendants made "numerous false and disparaging
**> **statements" about the company on the Internet.
**> **
**> **Defendants moved to dismiss the suit by seeking protection from a
**> **California law written to protect individuals from retaliatory lawsuits
**by
**> **corporations that feel they have been disparaged. These are referred to
**as
**> **"Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation," or SLAPP lawsuits.
**> **
**> **The trial court initially ruled three of the nine causes of action were
**> **not covered by the anti-SLAPP statute, but the remaining six were. The
**> **court subsequently changed its mind, finding that none of the
**allegations
**> **were protected by the statute, and therefore denied the motion to
**dismiss
**> **the case.
**> **
**> **The appellate court agreed with the trial court on four causes of
**action,
**> **but reversed on the remaining five. The appellate court found that
**> **postings on an Internet message board constituted a "public forum," as
**> **defined in the anti-SLAPP statute. The court further ruled the
**defendants
**> **posted opinions as shareholders of ComputerXpress, not competitors, and
**> **the matter was therefore "an issue of public interest."
**> **
**> **As for the content of the postings, the court said they "certainly could
**> **be considered disparaging," but found that, "their tone and content
**> **identified them as statements of opinion and not fact."
**> **
**> **The court said the postings presented as evidence by ComputerXpress
**were,
**> **"hyperbolic, informal and lacked the characteristics of typical
**fact-based
**> **documents."
**> **
**> **The Riverside Court's ruling closely followed - and frequently cited - a
**> **May ruling by a U.S. District Court. The federal court ordered Global
**> **Telemedia International [OTCBB:GLTIE.OB] to pay over $55,000 in
**attorney's
**> **fees to two defendants. The company had sued several anonymous
**individuals
**> **for posting comments critical of GTMI in an Internet chat room.
**> **
**> **In the Global Telemedia case, the court said that, unlike many
**traditional
**> **media, there are no controls on the postings in chat rooms. As a result,
**> **such writings are almost always opinions, and therefore are protected
**> **under the First Amendment.
**> **
**> **The opinion by the Court of Appeal for the Fourth District in the
**> **ComputerXpress case is the first published appellate decision on the
**state
**> **level in California, according to Megan Gray, a Los Angeles-based
**attorney
**> **who is an expert on SLAPP lawsuits. She was not involved in the matter,
**> **but followed it closely
**> **
**> **"It is a great case, and one that is long overdue," said Gray. "The
**court
**> **recognized the dearth of binding case law on this issue, and this ruling
**> **takes care of that."
**> **
**> **There are many cases pending in courtrooms that stem from Internet
**message
**> **board postings. Gray said she hopes the Court of Appeal decision will
**> **encourage some of those cases to, "go away, one way or another, and not
**> **clog the court system."
**> **
**> **"The ruling does not mean everything you say on a message board is
**> **protected," she said. "But, generally, a lot of that talk is along the
**> **lines of, 'this stock sucks,' or 'this management sucks.' The Riverside
**> **Court said to determine if something is fact or opinion, you must
**examine
**> **the context."
**> **
**> **"For example, if Dan Rather says something about ComputerXpress or its
**> **management on the nightly news, that is different than someone who can't
**> **even spell right posting something on a message board," Gray continued.
**> **"This ruling protects John Doe who is just speaking his mind on the
**> **Internet to a wide audience."
**> **
**> **Paul Levy of the Public Citizen Litigation Group, a non-profit consumer
**> **advocacy organization based in Washington, D.C., said the most important
**> **part of the ruling is the finding that a discussion of a public company
**is
**> **covered by the anti-SLAPP statute.
**> **
**> **"It is wise for people to assume postings on a message board are
**opinions,
**> **not facts," said Levy. "This opinion makes it clear that [the federal
**> **court ruling in] Global Telemedia is the state law in California. At
**least
**> **it is for now, unless the California Supreme Court steps in," he added.
**> **
**> **The Public Citizen Litigation Group was not directly involved in the
**> **ComputerXpress case, but asked the court to publish its opinion - which
**it
**> **had not previously done - to make it binding on state trial courts.
**> **Unpublished appellate decisions cannot be cited as precedent.
**> **
**> **Yvonne Renfrew, who represented six of the eight defendants (the other
**two
**> **settled out of court with ComputerXpress), said the original,
**unpublished
**> **decision did not include an award of jury fees to her clients.
**> **
**> **"We won attorney's fees upon rehearing," said Renfrew. "Not only is this
**> **case important in that it clarifies First Amendment protection for
**> **Internet postings, it is very important that people have the ability to
**> **recoverfees. In many cases, people are silenced by the threat of a
**lawsuit
**> **because they cannot afford to spend $200,000 to defend themselves."
**> **
**> **Attorneys for ComputerXpress did not return phone calls for this story.
**> **
**> **See the opinion at
**> **http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/E027841.PDF .
**> **
**> **Public Citizen Litigation Group is at http://www.citizen.org .
**> **
**> **Reported by Newsbytes.com, http://www.newsbytes.com .
**> **
**> **16:34 CST
**> **Reposted 17:15 CST
**> **
**> **(20011127/Press Contact: Paul Levy, Public Citizen Litigation Group,
**> **202-588-1000/WIRES TOP, LEGAL, ONLINE, BUSINESS/ATWORLD/PHOTO)
**> **
**> **--
**> **M. Louise Marchand
**> **Graduate Student
**> **Legal Studies
**> **Carleton University
**> **Ottawa, ON
**> **
**> **
**> **
**> **"Andrew Langer" <Lan...@aol.com> wrote in message
**> **news:IDaR7.56648$xS6....@www.newsranger.com...
**> **> In article <Ig9R7.12201$iO6.4...@news3.rdc2.on.home.com>, just me
**> **says...
**> **> >
**> **> >you are very debonair to provide me with canadian law eh? a tad
**> **> >paternalistic and condescending, but you are male, so i'll let it go
**> **this
**> **> >time eh?
**> **> >
**> **> >go back and check what u cited.............nowhere in there is what
**chive
**> **> >typed actionable.........u may know lawyers hot shot, but you will
**never
**> **get
**> **> >a judge to care less about what chive types about you in this or any
**> **other
**> **> >newsgroup..........i know what libel is and i know what slander is,
**but
**> **> >thanks so MUCH for providing it for the NG.................now unless
**i
**> **> >misread the blurb u so respectfully submitted, slander and libel is
**> **> >applicable only to newspapers and broadcasts on television or radio
**eh?
**> **> >show me where it says ELECTRONIC communication hot shot?
**> **> >
**> **>
**> **> Alright, do we have to go over this one more time? And pardon me if
**you
**> **thought
**> **> I was being condescending and paternalistic - I thought that I was
**> **speaking with
**> **> a student of the law, someone who might be interested in learning
**> **something new.
**> **>
**> **> But, once again, California law says the following:
**> **>
**> **> 46. Slander is a false and unprivileged publication, orally
**> **> uttered, and also communications by radio or any mechanical or other
**> **> means which:
**> **> 1. Charges any person with crime, or with having been indicted,
**> **> convicted, or punished for crime;
**> **> ---end quoted material---
**> **>
**> **> Let me reiterate: communications by radio OR ANY MECHANICAL OR OTHER
**> **MEANS
**> **> WHICH: 1. CHARGES ANY PERSON WITH CRIME... etc (emphasis added).
**> **>
**> **> Chive called me a murderer - either charging me with it, or inferring
**that
**> **I was
**> **> convicted of it, and communicated it by a computer through the
**internet,
**> **which
**> **> no matter how you slice it is a mechanical (or other) means.
**> **>
**> **> Now, this is obvious even from a casual reading of the law - or do you
**> **think
**> **> that there's some different way to interpret the language here?
**> **>
**> **> Please, share it. Be as maternalistic and condescending as you want
**to
**> **be.
**> **>
**> **> Oh, and as for Canadian law, the law says "published" - are materials
**> **broacast
**> **> over the internet "published" or not?
**> **>
**> **> >you have obviously never analyzed the supreme court of the united
**states'
**> **> >decision on freedom of speech eh?
**> **>
**> **> And that's not maternalistic and condescending?
**> **>
**> **> Ms. Marchand, I assure you that I am well-versed in Supreme Court
**caselaw
**> **on the
**> **> subject of First Amendment Rights. And just as the court has held
**that
**> **you
**> **> cannot yell "fire" in a crowded theater, you similarly cannot slander
**or
**> **libel
**> **> someone.
**> **>
**> **> > chive can call you ANYTHING he wants, and
**> **> >get away with it...................always, anywhere, anytime, through
**> **press,
**> **> >radio, whatever.............much worse has been said about Blacks,
**> **> >homosexuals and jews in the united states and in the final analysis
**the
**> **14th
**> **> >amendment was primordial............your country sucks
**> **> >
**> **>
**> **> Well, if you're basing that impression upon your understanding of
**American
**> **> jurisprudence, you might want to go back and look again.
**> **>
**> **> Ms. Marchand, if you are casting aspersions upon a particular group,
**ie,
**> **stating
**> **> a political or philosophical opinion (let's say, "All men are
**rapists." or
**> **"All
**> **> heterosexuals are deviants." or "All white people are devils" then
**what
**> **you are
**> **> saying is protected speech.
**> **>
**> **> And we want that in a free society - for how else can we discredit
**warped
**> **ideas
**> **> and ideologies unless they are spoken aloud? If we were to outlaw,
**say,
**> **the Ku
**> **> Klux Klan, and make the utterance of their ideologies illegal, then we
**> **wouldn't
**> **> be able to have the merry time that we do when representatives of that
**> **> organization appear on the Howard Stern Show, and are shown to be
**idiotic.
**> **>
**> **> But making a directed statement about a particular individual in order
**to
**> **> affirmatively misrepresent something about that person's life or
**> **character, so
**> **> as to defame them in some manner - that specifically violates an
**> **individuals
**> **> rights.
**> **>
**> **> This is why we have laws against it.
**> **>
**> **> But then again, this all comes down to the fundamental nature of
**rights,
**> **doesn't
**> **> it, and how you or I might see it?
**> **>
**> **> >now quit telling ME what canadian law is.
**> **>
**> **> Hey, I just wanted to make sure you were clear over what Canada has to
**say
**> **about
**> **> libel. You seemed to be unclear about it.
**> **>
**> **> > ............and find yourself
**> **> >another dummy to educate..........it aint gonna be me, i hold the
**> **degrees,
**> **> >remember?
**> **> >
**> **>
**> **> Could've fooled me.
**> **>
**> **> - Andrew Langer
**> **>
**> **> --
**> **> Any posts by Andrew Langer are his own, written by him, for his own
**> **> enjoyment (and the education of others). Unless expressly stated,
**> **> they represent his own views, and not those of any other individuals
**> **> or entities. He is not, nor has he ever been, paid to post here.
The 9th Witch
> i did! its actually spelled more than one way!
>
It's misspelled so often that they refer it back to the correct spelling. A
good dictionary with a usage clause will tell you this.
It's not found at m-w.
dictionary.com refers you to the correct spellings of various mis+s* words
(misspell, misspent).
The OED (online) gives the message "No results found".
American Heritage will not return on "mispell".
The correct spelling is m-i-s-s-p-e-l-l.
http://www.lineone.net/dictionaryof/englishusage/d0082431.html
http://www.bartleby.com/68/3/3903.html
http://www.tiscali.co.uk/reference/dictionaries/english/data/d0082431.html
From http://basementnoises.com/pstnftb/2001_04_25.htm
If you, too, find yourself battling certain words, then Word
has a nice feature known as AutoCorrect that was made just
for you. To see AutoCorrect in action, open a blank Word
document and type "mispell", EXACTLY as I have. Notice
as soon as you type the space after the word, it is
automatically corrected to "misspell". Word can correct
any known misspelling "on the fly" for you. (Word "knows"
a certain limited number of common misspellings as it is
shipped, "misspell" is one of them!)
T9W
Ilena Rose
Langer<Lan...@aol.com> wrote:
g to state.
**
**Further, the fact is the court did not extend its holdings to usenet
newsgroups,
**but was discussing "chat rooms".
**
In my case, they did:
Andrew Langer
>
>In article <uupR7.57448$xS6....@www.newsranger.com>, Andrew
>Langer<Lan...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>**Stop reinventing the language, Ms. Marchand.
>
>LOL ... Andyyyyyyyy the Impotent Dictator!
>
LOL - Ilena Rosenthal, who can't discuss subjects on their merits, and must
instead make petty insinuations about someone's sexual functionality.
Do your funders know that you spend their hard-earned money engaging in such
behavior?
>This way TOO highly paid Dow and other Corporation $hill ... is a joke ...
>attempting to control any critics.
>
Ms. Rosenthal, if you believe that I am funded by Dow, then you can post some
verifiable proof of that.
Please do so now.
>Do his employers know what he is doing?
>
My employers have no say in what I do on my personal time.
Do your funders know what you are doing with their money? Do your funders know
that you refuse to account for the erroneous information on your IRS filings?
Do they know that you harass your detractors' families?
>Either he is spending hours a day posting "personal" messages while being
>paid for other things ...
>
>Or he is spending hours a day posting their propaganda ... which includes
>his feeble attempts to silence critics and buoy up the reputations of the
>sponsors of CEI ... and lying in his "signature" in every post ...
>
Feel free to prove that I am lying at any time. Thus far, between the two of
us, the only person who has been proved to have lied is you.
For anyone interested in learning the truth about Ilena Rosenthal, please feel
free to visit http://www.guidestar.org, type in the "Humantics Foundation" in a
search, select the organization with the address in San Diego, and examine their
IRS form 990s. These are the forms which are required to be filed by all
non-profit entities.
You will note that on the forms for Ms. Rosenthal's organization, she has failed
to account for monies left over at the end of each year on the following year's
forms.
What happened to this money? I have asked Ms. Rosenthal repeatedly, and she has
offered no response - except to say that I ought to complain to the IRS.
Is that what you want me to do, Ms. Rosenthal?
Andrew Langer
>
And just what do you think that "privileged" means in terms of defamatory
statements?
Andrew Langer
And in your case, the court laid out the issue of defamation succinctly, and why
the plaintiffs did not meet the burden.
But let's distinguish _YOUR_ case, from mine with Devin:
"(ii) Rosenthal Has Published Nothing About Plaintiff Grell"
In this particular instance, Devin did publish something about me.
Specifically, he stated that I am a murderer, and I target women.
So, on this claim, your defense does not fit Devin.
"(iii) Plaintiffs Cannot Establish That Most Of The Statements At Issue Are
Demonstrably False Statements Of Fact"
Devin made two affirmative statements, to the effect that I am/was doing
something, or had done something. Those were statements purporting to be fact.
So, on this claim, your defense does not fit Devin.
"(iv) Rosenthal's Statement About Polevoy Is Protected By Federal Law"
You prevailed on this claim because you were repeating something that someone
else had written. Devin did no such thing. He was stating something for the
first time, an invented fact of his own.
"(v) Plaintiffs Barrett and Polevoy Are Public Figures, Whose Claims Fail
Because They Cannot Show Actual Malice"
While I may be a public figure (which means, incidentally, that so are you), I
can demonstrate actual malice. I can show that "that the statements [I]
attribute to [Chive] were false and defamatory, but also that they were
published with actual knowledge of their falsity or otherwise circulated with
reckless disregard of whether they were false or not." (See Copp v. Paxton, 45
Cal.App.4th at 846.)
So, Ms. Rosenthal, your case is easily distinguishable from the situation at
hand with Mr. McAndrews - your arguments, and those of Ms. Marchand's
notwithstanding.
Andrew Langer
>Lan...@aol.com (Andrew Langer) wrote:
>
>**il...@san.rr.com (Ilena Rose) wrote in message
>news:<ilena-10120...@dt011n65.san.rr.com>...
>**> I both won and lost libel cases based on this SLAPP statute:
>**>
>**> http://www.humanticsfoundation.com/quacklibelsuit.htm
>**> http://www.humanticsfoundation.com/defamation.htm
>**>
>**
>**And you might've thought that you would have learned something about
>**your own behavior.
>**
>*
>
>Absolutely ... that lying, sneaking, sniveling silicone manufacturers can
>hide like Moles & deny who they are, while breaking Federal Court
>Ordersand libel me and get away with it ... because of the nature of
>Usenet, the Internet, and the topic ...
>
See, one would have thought that a public figure like yourself would have
learned that perhaps the leader of a national advocacy organization ought to
comport herself with a little more dignity and professionalism in her online
dealings.
>
>Andyyyyyyyyy, the Sniveller, apparently hasn't learned anything tho.
>
Oh, absolutely I have. I've gained a tremendous amount of insight into just who
you are, Ms. Rosenthal, and just what kind of an organization the Humantics
Foundation is.
>These are public bulletin boards discussing matters of public interest ...
>not just platforms for the Corporations like those who fund CEI to carry
>on the vast Public Relations which includes bashing all their critics.
And do you think I'm "bashing" you because you criticize people or entities
which may or may not be funding CEI?
just me
grip
--
M. Louise Marchand
Graduate Student
Legal Studies
Carleton University
Ottawa, ON
"Mctaste" <mct...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ee736f18.01121...@posting.google.com...
Ilena Rose
Langer<Lan...@aol.com> wrote:
**Ms. Rosenthal, if you believe that I am funded by Dow, then you can post some
**verifiable proof of that.
Here's Andy ...
http://www.cei.org/staff/alangerbio.html
COMPETITIVE ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE
advancing the principles of free enterprise and limited government {read
... their Corporate Sponsors}
Andrew Langer
Associate Director of Development
ala...@cei.org
http://www.corpwatch.org/trac/greenwash/ed_chart1.html
Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) -
Funded by:
Aequus Institute, Amer. Petroleum Institute, Amoco, ARCO Foundation,
Armstrong Foundation, Burlington Northern Railroad Co., Carthage
Foundation, Charles C. Koch Charitable Foundation, Claude R. Lambe
Charitable Foundation, Coca-Cola, CSX Corp., David H. Koch Charitable
Foundation, Detroit Farming Inc., Dow Chemical, EBCO Corp., Ford Motor
Co., General Motors, IBM, JM Foundation, Lynde and Harry Bradley
Foundation, Pfizer Inc., Philip Morris Companies, Phillip M. McKenna
Foundation, Precision Valve Corp., Sarah Scaife Foundation, Smith
Richardson Foundation, Texaco Foundation
Andrew Langer
And how does Corpwatch.org know that any of the corporations on this list, like
Dow, or Coca-Cola, are current funders of CEI?
Where can the average person go and verify Corpwatch.org's information, Ms.
Rosenthal?
What's that? You don't know? They can't? Then how can you be certain that
this information is accurate?
just me
mean.........chive stated his opinion of u and there was no financial loss
to u, so WHAT damages are u going to claim hot shot?
ure feelings were hurt? heck if that is the case, with the insults flying
around on this NG a lot of guys owe me a fortune for calling me a bitch, a
dyke, a man-hater, etc cause those are also UNTRUE............in the big
picture, who cares? unless chive hit a chord, why is your nose out of joint
exactly? been arrested for murder in the past? WHY is this bothering you?
nobody could care less about YOU, per se
--
M. Louise Marchand
Graduate Student
Legal Studies
Carleton University
Ottawa, ON
"Andrew Langer" <Lan...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:6CpR7.57459$xS6....@www.newsranger.com...
just me
knew u were not what he said u were.........like the guy is stupid enough to
admit it?
dont think so, my chive is brilliant :)
--
M. Louise Marchand
Graduate Student
Legal Studies
Carleton University
Ottawa, ON
"Andrew Langer" <Lan...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:aOsR7.57788$xS6....@www.newsranger.com...
just me
else u would have done it..........now retract your constant threats, i see
YOU harrassing HIM, not the other way around........................
need a witness chive? i am your gal eh?
--
M. Louise Marchand
Graduate Student
Legal Studies
Carleton University
Ottawa, ON
"Andrew Langer" <Lan...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:baf29ab5.01121...@posting.google.com...
just me
apology for stating YOU knew better than ME how to read your own State's
bloody legal decisions
--
M. Louise Marchand
Graduate Student
Legal Studies
Carleton University
Ottawa, ON
"Andrew Langer" <Lan...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:baf29ab5.01121...@posting.google.com...
just me
on a NG..........
i've asked u to post this 3 times now, 3 strikes you're out eh? lol
--
M. Louise Marchand
Graduate Student
Legal Studies
Carleton University
Ottawa, ON
"Andrew Langer" <Lan...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:baf29ab5.01121...@posting.google.com...
just me
your reputation............why dont u simply hit the off button rather than
relentlessly trying to provoke more slander.............u go looking for it
and then u go whining it happens
--
M. Louise Marchand
Graduate Student
Legal Studies
Carleton University
Ottawa, ON
"Andrew Langer" <Lan...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:lAsR7.57766$xS6....@www.newsranger.com...
just me
are stealing corporate time to post?
are u admitting to being a public THIEF?
LOL
andy pandy, i think u just tied the noose around your neck..........wonder
how your employer would like to know how much of his time ure wasting?
anyone know how to get a hold of his boss? :)
just an idea andy pandy, with all DUE respect and all that horseshit eh?
--
M. Louise Marchand
Graduate Student
Legal Studies
Carleton University
Ottawa, ON
"Andrew Langer" <Lan...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:XSsR7.57795$xS6....@www.newsranger.com...
just me
waste, u can find mine out yourself...........problem is my supervisor knows
what i am doing and cheers me on :)
--
M. Louise Marchand
Graduate Student
Legal Studies
Carleton University
Ottawa, ON
"Andrew Langer" <Lan...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:baf29ab5.01121...@posting.google.com...
> "just me" <lm...@home.com> wrote in message
news:<bVfR7.12600$iO6.4...@news3.rdc2.on.home.com>...
> > i am reposting mr. hotshot.........now what do u have to say about your
> > stupid CA law?
>
> I have to say that this case is inapposite and not on-point to the
> issue at hand in my dispute with Mr. McAndrews.
>
> The California law was specifically written for, among other things,
> when someone states publicly, either by publishing or by _MECHANICAL
> OR OTHER MEANS_ that someone is either guilty of a crime for which
> they have not yet been convicted, or has been found guilty of a crime
> when that is not, in fact, true.
>
> This is precisely what "Chive Mynde" stated, when he called me a
> "murderer" and said that I was "targeting women".
>
> > PLUS these people stood to lose financially and still
> > lost.................chive: say anything u want, an opinion is not a
fact,
> > retract your apology please!
> >
>
> When "Chive Mynde" made those statements, he was stating them as
> "fact". He was not stating them as "opinion". "Andrew Langer is a
> murderer" is a statement purporting to be factual, and not merely
> opinion-based.
>
> Now, in your legal studies, do they teach you how to distinguish when
> cases are on-point, and when cases are not on-point?
>
> Perhaps you might send me the e-mail address of your legal research
> and writing teacher - I might want to drop her a line and let her know
> that she ought to help you brush up a bit.
>
> - Andrew Langer
Ilena Rose
Andy, are you denying that Dow Chemical has not ever funded CEI?
In article <NEtR7.57871$xS6....@www.newsranger.com>, Andrew
Langer<Lan...@aol.com> wrote:
**In article <ilena-11120...@dt011n65.san.rr.com>, Ilena Rose says...
**>
**>In article <xzsR7.57764$xS6....@www.newsranger.com>, Andrew
**>Langer<Lan...@aol.com> wrote:
**>
**>
**>**Ms. Rosenthal, if you believe that I am funded by Dow, then you can
post some
**>**verifiable proof of that.
**>
**>
**>
**>Here's Andy ...
**>
**>http://www.cei.org/staff/alangerbio.html
**>
**>COMPETITIVE ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE
**>advancing the principles of free enterprise and limited government {read
**>... their Corporate Sponsors}
**>
**>
**>Andrew Langer
**>Associate Director of Development
**>ala...@cei.org
**>
**>
**>http://www.corpwatch.org/trac/greenwash/ed_chart1.html
**>
**>
**>Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) -
**>
**>Funded by:
**>Aequus Institute, Amer. Petroleum Institute, Amoco, ARCO Foundation,
**>Armstrong Foundation, Burlington Northern Railroad Co., Carthage
**>Foundation, Charles C. Koch Charitable Foundation, Claude R. Lambe
**>Charitable Foundation, Coca-Cola, CSX Corp., David H. Koch Charitable
**>Foundation, Detroit Farming Inc., Dow Chemical, EBCO Corp., Ford Motor
**>Co., General Motors, IBM, JM Foundation, Lynde and Harry Bradley
**>Foundation, Pfizer Inc., Philip Morris Companies, Phillip M. McKenna
**>Foundation, Precision Valve Corp., Sarah Scaife Foundation, Smith
**>Richardson Foundation, Texaco Foundation
**
**And how does Corpwatch.org know that any of the corporations on this
list, like
**Dow, or Coca-Cola, are current funders of CEI?
**
**Where can the average person go and verify Corpwatch.org's information, Ms.
**Rosenthal?
**
**What's that? You don't know? They can't? Then how can you be certain that
**this information is accurate?
**
**- Andrew Langer
**
**--
**Any posts by Andrew Langer are his own, written by him, for his own
**enjoyment (and the education of others). Unless expressly stated,
**they represent his own views, and not those of any other individuals
**or entities. He is not, nor has he ever been, paid to post here.
just me
done to womyn, so i tend to disregard the exception to the rule eh?
--
M. Louise Marchand
Graduate Student
Legal Studies
Carleton University
Ottawa, ON
"Andrew Langer" <Lan...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:uupR7.57448$xS6....@www.newsranger.com...
> In article <jOmR7.13247$iO6.4...@news3.rdc2.on.home.com>, just me
says...
> >
> >the word sexism itself is used to describe male behaviour, womyn cannot
be
> >accused of it................go give yer head a shake
> >
>
> According to my copy of Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, the
definition
> is as follows:
>
> Main Entry: sex搏sm
> Pronunciation: 'sek-"si-z&m
> Function: noun
> Etymology: 1sex + -ism (as in racism)
> Date: 1968
> 1 : prejudice or discrimination based on sex; especially : discrimination
> against women
> 2 : behavior, conditions, or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social
roles
> based on sex
> - sex搏st /'sek-sist/ adjective or noun
>
> Stop reinventing the language, Ms. Marchand.
>
> To say that sexism just applies to discrimination against women, is, in
fact,
> sexist.
>
> And if we were going to carry what you said to its logical conclusion, it
would
> mean that only whites could be accused of racism. That's obviously not
true.
>
> - Andrew Langer
>
> --
> Any posts by Andrew Langer are his own, written by him, for his own
> enjoyment (and the education of others). Unless expressly stated,
> they represent his own views, and not those of any other individuals
Ilena Rose
Andy is giving credibility to Chive by claiming that people believed Chive
when he said Andy was a murderer.
The courts have disagreed on similar matters.
In article <7XtR7.13505$iO6.4...@news3.rdc2.on.home.com>, "just me"
<lm...@home.com> wrote:
**i digress..............how are u going to prove he had malice or prove he
**knew u were not what he said u were.........like the guy is stupid enough to
**admit it?
**dont think so, my chive is brilliant :)
**
**
**--
**M. Louise Marchand
**Graduate Student
**Legal Studies
**Carleton University
**Ottawa, ON
**
**
**
**"Andrew Langer" <Lan...@aol.com> wrote in message
**news:aOsR7.57788$xS6....@www.newsranger.com...
**> In article <ilena-11120...@dt011n65.san.rr.com>, Ilena Rose
**says...
**> >
**> >In article <6CpR7.57459$xS6....@www.newsranger.com>, Andrew
**> >Langer<Lan...@aol.com> wrote:
**> >
**> >g to state.
**> >**
**> >**Further, the fact is the court did not extend its holdings to usenet
**> >newsgroups,
**> >**but was discussing "chat rooms".
**> >**
**> >
**> >In my case, they did:
**> >
**> >http://www.casp.net/barrett.html
**>
**> And in your case, the court laid out the issue of defamation succinctly,
**and why
**> the plaintiffs did not meet the burden.
**>
**> But let's distinguish _YOUR_ case, from mine with Devin:
**>
**> "(ii) Rosenthal Has Published Nothing About Plaintiff Grell"
**>
**> In this particular instance, Devin did publish something about me.
**> Specifically, he stated that I am a murderer, and I target women.
**>
**> So, on this claim, your defense does not fit Devin.
**>
**> "(iii) Plaintiffs Cannot Establish That Most Of The Statements At Issue
**Are
**> Demonstrably False Statements Of Fact"
**>
**> Devin made two affirmative statements, to the effect that I am/was doing
**> something, or had done something. Those were statements purporting to be
**fact.
**>
**> So, on this claim, your defense does not fit Devin.
**>
**>
**> "(iv) Rosenthal's Statement About Polevoy Is Protected By Federal Law"
**>
**> You prevailed on this claim because you were repeating something that
**someone
**> else had written. Devin did no such thing. He was stating something for
**the
**> first time, an invented fact of his own.
**>
**> "(v) Plaintiffs Barrett and Polevoy Are Public Figures, Whose Claims Fail
**> Because They Cannot Show Actual Malice"
**>
**> While I may be a public figure (which means, incidentally, that so are
**you), I
**> can demonstrate actual malice. I can show that "that the statements [I]
**> attribute to [Chive] were false and defamatory, but also that they were
**> published with actual knowledge of their falsity or otherwise circulated
**with
**> reckless disregard of whether they were false or not." (See Copp v.
**Paxton, 45
**> Cal.App.4th at 846.)
**>
**> So, Ms. Rosenthal, your case is easily distinguishable from the situation
**at
**> hand with Mr. McAndrews - your arguments, and those of Ms. Marchand's
**> notwithstanding.
**>
**> - Andrew Langer
**>
**>
**>
**>
**>
**>
**>
**> --
**> Any posts by Andrew Langer are his own, written by him, for his own
**> enjoyment (and the education of others). Unless expressly stated,
**> they represent his own views, and not those of any other individuals
**> or entities. He is not, nor has he ever been, paid to post here.
just me
than to mess with her...........u californians have too much time in the sun
:)
--
M. Louise Marchand
Graduate Student
Legal Studies
Carleton University
Ottawa, ON
"Andrew Langer" <Lan...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:xzsR7.57764$xS6....@www.newsranger.com...
Ilena Rose
<lm...@home.com> wrote:
**oh for crying out loud, get a grip, u have zero chance at suing chive or
**else u would have done it..........now retract your constant threats, i see
**YOU harrassing HIM, not the other way around........................
**
**need a witness chive? i am your gal eh?
Exactly.
These Flacks are paid to Harass activists who disagree with the
corporations who sponsor CEI, etc. and then scream like Wailing Banshees
and threaten lawsuits when stood up to.
just me
--
M. Louise Marchand
Graduate Student
Legal Studies
Carleton University
Ottawa, ON
"harvest dancer" <harves...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4f697f9f.01121...@posting.google.com...
> "just me" <lm...@home.com> wrote in message
news:<3ZfR7.12606$iO6.4...@news3.rdc2.on.home.com>...
> > "harvest dancer" <harves...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:4f697f9f.01121...@posting.google.com...
> > > "just me" <lm...@home.com> wrote in message
> > news:<RBXQ7.11935$iO6.3...@news3.rdc2.on.home.com>...
> > > > hey, i'm in.......send me a return ticket and i'll jump in the
barrel
> > WITH
> > > > chive and take it like a womyn...........proceed must go to a
feminist
> > > > organization trying to help womyn who are/have been hurt by
> > > > misogyny............deal?
> > >
> > > How about if the proceeds were split so that the other half went to
> > > men who are/have been hurt by misandrony.
> > >
> > > Oh, you misspelled women again.
> > >
> >
> > nope, its got to go to womyn's organizations or the deal is off
>
> I see. And why this hatred of myn?
>
> Harvest Dancer
Ilena Rose
He uses company time, company computers to post about the very things he
is paid to speak about.
He is either ripping off his company or lying in his signature or both.
In article <y1uR7.13510$iO6.4...@news3.rdc2.on.home.com>, "just me"
<lm...@home.com> wrote:
**your signature says you are not paid to post............so are u saying you
**are stealing corporate time to post?
**
**are u admitting to being a public THIEF?
**
**LOL
**
**andy pandy, i think u just tied the noose around your neck..........wonder
**how your employer would like to know how much of his time ure wasting?
**
** anyone know how to get a hold of his boss? :)
**
**just an idea andy pandy, with all DUE respect and all that horseshit eh?
**
**
**--
**M. Louise Marchand
**Graduate Student
**Legal Studies
**Carleton University
**Ottawa, ON
**
**
**
**"Andrew Langer" <Lan...@aol.com> wrote in message
**news:XSsR7.57795$xS6....@www.newsranger.com...
**> In article <ilena-11120...@dt011n65.san.rr.com>, Ilena Rose
**says...
**> >
**> >In article <baf29ab5.01121...@posting.google.com>,
**> >Lan...@aol.com (Andrew Langer) wrote:
**> >
**> >**il...@san.rr.com (Ilena Rose) wrote in message
**> >news:<ilena-10120...@dt011n65.san.rr.com>...
**> >**> I both won and lost libel cases based on this SLAPP statute:
**> >**>
**> >**> http://www.humanticsfoundation.com/quacklibelsuit.htm
**> >**> http://www.humanticsfoundation.com/defamation.htm
**> >**>
**> >**
**> >**And you might've thought that you would have learned something about
**> >**your own behavior.
**> >**
**> >*
**> >
**> >Absolutely ... that lying, sneaking, sniveling silicone manufacturers can
**> >hide like Moles & deny who they are, while breaking Federal Court
**> >Ordersand libel me and get away with it ... because of the nature of
**> >Usenet, the Internet, and the topic ...
**> >
**>
**> See, one would have thought that a public figure like yourself would have
**> learned that perhaps the leader of a national advocacy organization ought
**to
**> comport herself with a little more dignity and professionalism in her
**online
**> dealings.
**>
**> >
**> >Andyyyyyyyyy, the Sniveller, apparently hasn't learned anything tho.
**> >
**>
**> Oh, absolutely I have. I've gained a tremendous amount of insight into
**just who
**> you are, Ms. Rosenthal, and just what kind of an organization the
**Humantics
**> Foundation is.
**>
**> >These are public bulletin boards discussing matters of public interest
**...
**> >not just platforms for the Corporations like those who fund CEI to carry
**> >on the vast Public Relations which includes bashing all their critics.
**>
**> And do you think I'm "bashing" you because you criticize people or
**entities
**> which may or may not be funding CEI?
**>
**> - Andrew Langer
**>
**> --
**> Any posts by Andrew Langer are his own, written by him, for his own
**> enjoyment (and the education of others). Unless expressly stated,
**> they represent his own views, and not those of any other individuals
**> or entities. He is not, nor has he ever been, paid to post here.
just me
you do spend too much time in the sun, perhaps you should visit ottawa and
i'll debate your ass off on my turf, oh, and u can pay your expenses
--
M. Louise Marchand
Graduate Student
Legal Studies
Carleton University
Ottawa, ON
"Andrew Langer" <Lan...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:baf29ab5.01121...@posting.google.com...
> "just me" <lm...@home.com> wrote in message
news:<y%fR7.12610$iO6.4...@news3.rdc2.on.home.com>...
> > almost worth a few bucks eh? lol
> >
>
> Not even.
>
> But if you come to New York City anytime next week, Ms. Marchand,
> between Monday and Friday, I'll make time to debate you (I do have
> certain constraints - I am doing things just about every night).
>
> And if you come to DC anytime after that, I'll also make time to
> debate you.
>
> I'd be happy to do so - unlike just about anyone else here.
>
> But to pay you to come here? Please. You've spent too much time in
> Canada.
>
> - Andrew Langer
>
> --
> Any posts by Andrew Langer are his own, written by him, for his own
> enjoyment (and the education of others). Unless expressly stated,
> they represent his own views, and not those of any other individuals
Andrew Langer
>
>the court was discussing "bulletin boards" which is what NG's have come to
>mean.
Did you read the decision?
"A federal court recently described the Raging Bull Web site as “a financial
website that organizes individual bulletin boards or ‘chat-rooms,’"
Furthermore, if you read the decision, there was a public interest involved.
>........chive stated his opinion of u and there was no financial loss
>to u, so WHAT damages are u going to claim hot shot?
>
And if you've read the caselaw as well as the law itself, you would know that
there are actual and punitive damages which can be held.
Furthermore, "hot shot", perhaps you'd care to share with me how someone stating
that someone else is a "murderer" is not a statement of fact, and is an
"opinion"?
>ure feelings were hurt? heck if that is the case, with the insults flying
>around on this NG a lot of guys owe me a fortune for calling me a bitch, a
>dyke, a man-hater, etc cause those are also UNTRUE............in the big
>picture, who cares? unless chive hit a chord, why is your nose out of joint
>exactly? been arrested for murder in the past? WHY is this bothering you?
>nobody could care less about YOU, per se
>
Of course, Ms. Marchand, it's not a question of whether or not my "feelings were
hurt". It's a question of the defamatory statements which were made about me.
Regardless of my feelings, the fact remains that the defamatory statements were
made.
That is wrong. I'm surprised that someone like you can find some way to justify
that.
Ilena Rose
Langer<Lan...@aol.com> wrote at
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2001 15:41:52 EST
It's 3:41 PM ... you stealing time from your employers or in the potty
again on break, Andyyyyyy?
Andrew Langer
>
>i digress..............how are u going to prove he had malice or prove he
>knew u were not what he said u were.........like the guy is stupid enough to
>admit it?
>dont think so, my chive is brilliant :)
>
If he's so brilliant, Ms. Marchand, then he wouldn't have had to apologize,
would he?
First of all, he admitted that he knew what he said wasn't true:
> > There is and never was any factual basis for these assertions. As far as I
> > know, Andrew Langer is not a murderer and is not committing murders. As far
> > as I know, Andrew Langer is not targeting women, and has not targeted women.
> > Andrew Langer has no connection to the activities discussed in the articles I posted.
Second, he had no cause to believe that this was true - it is an easily
verifiable fact, and as I had been posting to Usenet for nearly 4 years before
Chive made this statement, and it hadn't been raised before, then there was no
indication that it might have even been true.
Finally, the malicious intent is obvious from the tenor of my relationship with
Chive since Spring of 2000 - and from the fact that I have no relationship to
the subject matter of the articles which bore my name in the titles that Chive
gave them.
Now, with all this in mind, are you finally going to admit that you are wrong on
this subject, and drop it, or do we need to continue to go back and forth, so
that I can continue to demonstrate that you know nothing of what you are
speaking?
Andrew Langer
>
>oh for crying out loud, get a grip, u have zero chance at suing chive or
>else u would have done it..........now retract your constant threats, i see
>YOU harrassing HIM, not the other way around........................
>
>need a witness chive? i am your gal eh?
>
Oh, for crying out loud, you get answers to your questions, and then you refuse
to address the substance of those answers.
The reason I didn't sue Chive, Ms. Marchand, is that I am a man of my word, and
I offered to negotiate with him. When I negotiate agreements, I stick to them.
The only reason I am now discussing the subject with you is that you have been
speaking incorrectly about the issues therein, and I feel obligated to dispel
your misinformation.