Re: Ping Bob Larter
Bob Larter
> Somebody posted the answers and counterclaims.
>
> http://www.citmedialaw.org/threats/novins-v-cannon-lawsuit
<reads counterclaims, etc>
Oh, this is fucking priceless! Novins is *screwed*!
I particularly like the fact that Carl's attorney is gunning for Novin's
malpractice insurance. ;^)
--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Crook
Message-Id: <gviv54$l5k$1...@blackhelicopter.databasix.com>:
> miguel wrote:
>> Somebody posted the answers and counterclaims.
>>
>> http://www.citmedialaw.org/threats/novins-v-cannon-lawsuit
>
><reads counterclaims, etc>
The dangers of dragging Usenet into real life. I see Gweg Hall is also
named in there now for labelling someone with the unmentionable 'P'
word. Although he's a kook and worthy of being slapped around Usenet, I
doubt he's deserving of the potential backlash from that faux pas.
--
pub 1024D/228761E7 2003-06-04 Steven Crook
Key fingerprint = 1CD9 95E1 E9CE 80D6 C885 B7EB B471 80D5 2287 61E7
uid Steven Crook <st...@mixmin.net>
krp
"Steve Crook" <st...@mixmin.net> wrote in message
news:slrnh1q8b4...@news.mixmin.net...
> On Wed, 27 May 2009 18:56:19 +1000, Bob Larter wrote in
> Message-Id: <gviv54$l5k$1...@blackhelicopter.databasix.com>:
>
>> miguel wrote:
>>> Somebody posted the answers and counterclaims.
>>>
>>> http://www.citmedialaw.org/threats/novins-v-cannon-lawsuit
>>
>><reads counterclaims, etc>
>
> The dangers of dragging Usenet into real life. I see Gweg Hall is also
> named in there now for labelling someone with the unmentionable 'P'
> word. Although he's a kook and worthy of being slapped around Usenet, I
> doubt he's deserving of the potential backlash from that faux pas.
The defense that the miscreants envisage is that somehow the rules
against libel don't apply in cyberspace and specifically in their fiefdom on
Usenet. That they are somehow "special" because of their holy mission to
expose "kooks" as they define its application to individuals they dislike or
disagree with. That whatever they choose to do to those individuals they do
with complete immunity. Of course IF they believed that line of BULLSHIT -
they would not go through the extraordinary efforts they do to HIDE who they
really are. The problem they also have is that "EVEN IF" the LAW were to
conclude that NO LAW of ANY kind applies to Usenet - that it IS the wild
west and folks are "on their own" and have NO rights to be secure in any
part of their persons for having the misfortune to have come to the
attention of the "CLANTON GANG" of the 21st century, the impact of these
behaviors spill out of Usenet to the REAL WORLD - and the miscreants KNOW
this and GIGGLE that they CAN totally "fuck-up" some person's real life and
they have expressed great pride in seeing the impact of their Usenet
attacks.
The basic problem that exists here is their ARROGANCE that they are
above and outside the law or ANY notions of social behavior other than their
feeling that they are SUPERIOR BEINGS and they have some form of "right" to
abuse others. A notion of the divine right of the intellectually superior
(as they view themselves.) They view themselves as "special cases" that
they have some unique entitlement to behave as they do, bestowing belittling
"AWARDS" on others - such as "KOOK OF THE MONTH" and the "BUSTED URINAL"
award. Because they are BETTER than the average bear. When in reality, they
are often immature bed-wetters.
They can count on the EFF (Electronic Frontier Foundation) to run
interference for them. The EFF and ACLU are kindred in the stand in favor of
those who misbehave. EFF for example screams LOUDLY and PROFUSELY for the
"PRIVACY" rights of the bad-actors to shred people 'ANONYMOUSLY" however -
EFF virulently OPPOSES the rights of the targets of the miscreants to have
ANY right of privacy at all. EFF bemoans that the law hasn't caught up the
technology. Well THEY are one of the major reasons WHY. At one time I was a
supporter of EFF and its predecessor. I have lost that misplaced admiration
almost a decade ago, when it FULLY SUPPORTED and ENDORSED as protected
behavior when anonymous remailers at least ALLOWED users to impersonate
others for the specific purpose of DESTROYING the people. When I suggested
that it would be easy to block that the REMOPS (Remailer operators) said I
was crazy that it was 'TOTALLY IMPOSSIBLE" and when several of the remailers
DID modify their software to not allow impersonations, they RODE those
REMOPS out of business. Now pretty much ALL of the remailers no longer allow
false impersonations. They said it was completely impossible, yet today they
do it. I think in large measure that is because of maturity setting in on
them seeing the damage being done to people. Yet the EFF remains a roadblock
to getting an effective answer to abuses on the net.
I have said before - I support the basic concept of freedom of speech.
Just not the freedom to abuse, harass, blackmail and intimidate people. In
ANY society there must be SOME rules. The question for us in discussing this
is whether it is better to have the government of the world make these
decisions or would it be better if WE in the electronic community imposed
some rules on ourselves and brought some law to the Pecos ourselves?
krp
"Meat Plow" <me...@petitmorte.net> wrote in message
news:2rg4ok....@news.alt.net...
> On Wed, 27 May 2009 11:55:39 GMT, "krp" <kr...@verizon.net>wrote:
>
>> I have said before - I support the basic concept of freedom of speech.
>>Just not the freedom to abuse, harass, blackmail and intimidate people
> So just how effective has your little parade been over the past
> decade?
Well effective enough that the impersonations have pretty well stopped.
THAT was my major beef with remailers. It seems, that according to the
arguments that I managed to achieve the "TOTALLY IMPOSSIBLE." Seems that
people may have bitched and whined, but eventually they did grow up and stop
that bullshit. Things change slowly. CB radio destroyed itself because the
LITTLE BOYS refused to change. If you haven't noticed, Usenet is really
starting to fall into disfavor with most major service providers, Have YOU
ever considered that YOU are a SMALL and perhaps INSIGNIFICANT part of he
reason why?
krp
>miguel wrote:
> Somebody posted the answers and counterclaims.
> http://www.citmedialaw.org/threats/novins-v-cannon-lawsuit
><reads counterclaims, etc>
>>Oh, this is fucking priceless! Novins is *screwed*!
>I particularly like the fact that Carl's attorney is gunning for Novin's
>malpractice insurance. ;^)
Interesting idea. Not likely to get far.
Nomen Nescio
> "kook"
Yes, you are.
krp
>>> Somebody posted the answers and counterclaims.
>>>
>>> http://www.citmedialaw.org/threats/novins-v-cannon-lawsuit
>>
>><reads counterclaims, etc>
>>
>>Oh, this is fucking priceless! Novins is *screwed*!
>>
>>I particularly like the fact that Carl's attorney is gunning for Novin's
>>malpractice insurance. ;^)
>
>
> ....heh priceless.
I find the response to be largely "boiler plate" we don't know nuthin
and you can't prove we know anything." And "You can't sue me cause I'ze
special!" Interesting Idea in the defense, "I can say ANYTHING I want to
about you, but YOU can't say anything about me." I just have to wonder HOW
that schoolyard defense will work with a New Jersey jury. From a legal
standpoint both the complaint and counter-complaint are interesting. I think
anybody hoping it will be quickly dismissed is betting a losing hand. How
hard is ART DECO gonna get slapped. My bet is not very hard this time. BUT
if he keeps it up... Eventually he is going to learn the true meaning of
anal-rape in the legal system( and DICKHEADS - that's a metaphor). Some
folks learn more slowly than others.
krp
"Nomen Nescio" <nob...@dizum.com> wrote in message
news:fb55c4df44852b60...@dizum.com...
> Pigbarn blithered:
>
>> "kook"
>
> Yes, you are.
>
Oh look a RETARD found his keyboard! How are things in APAS?
Bob Larter
> On Wed, 27 May 2009 18:56:19 +1000, Bob Larter wrote in
> Message-Id: <gviv54$l5k$1...@blackhelicopter.databasix.com>:
>
>> miguel wrote:
>>> Somebody posted the answers and counterclaims.
>>>
>>> http://www.citmedialaw.org/threats/novins-v-cannon-lawsuit
>> <reads counterclaims, etc>
>
> The dangers of dragging Usenet into real life. I see Gweg Hall is also
> named in there now for labelling someone with the unmentionable 'P'
> word. Although he's a kook and worthy of being slapped around Usenet, I
> doubt he's deserving of the potential backlash from that faux pas.
It's his own fault. He had plenty of warning to jump out of the train
before the inevitable train wreck.
henri
Go be fat somewhere else.
Bob Larter
So what you're saying is that your pussy really, *really* hurts?
HTH, HAND.
Bob Larter
>
> So just how effective has your little parade been over the past
> decade?
0
Bob Larter
> On Wed, 27 May 2009 18:56:19 +1000, Bob Larter
>
>> miguel wrote:
>>> Somebody posted the answers and counterclaims.
>>>
>>> http://www.citmedialaw.org/threats/novins-v-cannon-lawsuit
>> <reads counterclaims, etc>
>>
>> Oh, this is fucking priceless! Novins is *screwed*!
>>
>> I particularly like the fact that Carl's attorney is gunning for Novin's
>> malpractice insurance. ;^)
>
Yeah, that's an especially nice touch. No wonder the little wimp went
all quiet. ;^)
> ....heh priceless.
Indeed. Congrats to all the defendants!
miguel
wrote:
>miguel wrote:
>> Somebody posted the answers and counterclaims.
>>
>> http://www.citmedialaw.org/threats/novins-v-cannon-lawsuit
>
><reads counterclaims, etc>
>
>Oh, this is fucking priceless! Novins is *screwed*!
>
>I particularly like the fact that Carl's attorney is gunning for Novin's
>malpractice insurance. ;^)
That part goes nowhere, I'd bet. Malpractice coverage usually covers
only negligent acts or omissions. It might be kind of hard to pound an
abuse of process peg into a negligence hole.
In addition, there's a fair chance Novins is practicing without
malpractice coverage.
However, *if* Novins has malpractice coverage, and *if* Carl's
attorney pleaded the counterclaim in such a way that Novins' alleged
actions fall within the coverage of his malpractice policy, the
insurer would likely be contractually entitled to conduct Novins'
defense for any claims that are at face value within the coverage of
the policy.
Steve Crook
Message-Id: <gvjiir$kgh$8...@blackhelicopter.databasix.com>:
> It's his own fault. He had plenty of warning to jump out of the train
> before the inevitable train wreck.
/me nods
Bob Larter
Oh, his case looks pretty tight to me. Have you actually read it?
Bob Larter
> On Wed, 27 May 2009 18:56:19 +1000, Bob Larter <bobby...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> miguel wrote:
>>> Somebody posted the answers and counterclaims.
>>>
>>> http://www.citmedialaw.org/threats/novins-v-cannon-lawsuit
>> <reads counterclaims, etc>
>>
>> Oh, this is fucking priceless! Novins is *screwed*!
>>
>> I particularly like the fact that Carl's attorney is gunning for Novin's
>> malpractice insurance. ;^)
>
> That part goes nowhere, I'd bet. Malpractice coverage usually covers
> only negligent acts or omissions. It might be kind of hard to pound an
> abuse of process peg into a negligence hole.
True, but either way, Novins loses. Let's face it, Novin's case has been
presented incompetently. Shit, he couldn't even number his clauses
sequentially. And WTF is he going to do with all those John Doe /
Company ABC defendants? They're just going to make him look like a fool
in front of the judge.
> In addition, there's a fair chance Novins is practicing without
> malpractice coverage.
In which case he'll have to defend himself against the counterclaims,
which, given the quality of his initial claims, he's unlikely to do
competently. God knows I'm no expert, but the list of defenses in the
responses look pretty solid to me.
> However, *if* Novins has malpractice coverage, and *if* Carl's
> attorney pleaded the counterclaim in such a way that Novins' alleged
> actions fall within the coverage of his malpractice policy, the
> insurer would likely be contractually entitled to conduct Novins'
> defense for any claims that are at face value within the coverage of
> the policy.
But think about this - that's actually a *best case scenario* from
Novin's POV, because their lawyers are likely to be a lot smarter than
he is.
Respondant
> Meat Plow wrote:
>> On Wed, 27 May 2009 18:56:19 +1000, Bob Larter
>> <bobby...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>
>>> miguel wrote:
>>>> Somebody posted the answers and counterclaims.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.citmedialaw.org/threats/novins-v-cannon-lawsuit
>>> <reads counterclaims, etc>
>>>
>>> Oh, this is fucking priceless! Novins is *screwed*!
>>>
>>> I particularly like the fact that Carl's attorney is gunning for Novin's
>>> malpractice insurance. ;^)
>>
>> And that Greggy and HJ are also named in the counter.
>
> Yeah, that's an especially nice touch. No wonder the little wimp went all
> quiet. ;^)
So when people you like go "all quiet" it's what they're expected to do
during litigation. But when people you don't like go "all quiet" during
litigation, they're "wimps"? Pssst. Your double-standards are showing
again/still there, "Bob".
>> ....heh priceless.
Indeed.
> Indeed. Congrats to all the defendants!
Congrats on what? On having to spend time and money defending themselves
against a lawsuit that they could have easily been avoided if not for their
egomaniacal chest thumping at the outset?
I just hope it *does* go to trial here in TR. I won't miss a minute of it.
The courthouse is only 5 minutes from my home, and it'll be interesting to
actually see the "players" and how it plays out. Whatever happens though,
I'll bet the defendants will think twice before they push a RL lawyer's
button again.
Bill
Russell Tavek
On 5/27/09 10:28 AM, in article gvjiir$kgh$8...@blackhelicopter.databasix.com,
"Bob Larter" <bobby...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Steve Crook wrote:
>> On Wed, 27 May 2009 18:56:19 +1000, Bob Larter wrote in
>> Message-Id: <gviv54$l5k$1...@blackhelicopter.databasix.com>:
>>
>>> miguel wrote:
>>>> Somebody posted the answers and counterclaims.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.citmedialaw.org/threats/novins-v-cannon-lawsuit
>>> <reads counterclaims, etc>
>>
>> The dangers of dragging Usenet into real life. I see Gweg Hall is also
>> named in there now for labelling someone with the unmentionable 'P'
>> word. Although he's a kook and worthy of being slapped around Usenet, I
>> doubt he's deserving of the potential backlash from that faux pas.
>
> It's his own fault. He had plenty of warning to jump out of the train
> before the inevitable train wreck.
One small correction: neither Greg nor HJ are *named* as defendants in the
suit at the present time. The counterclaim mentions them and a couple of
their posts, but they haven't yet been served with papers (unless I missed
something), nor does the heading of the counterclaim mention HJ or Greg Hall
(unless of course you count John Does 1-100). Osterwald's lawyer merely
stated that Novins repeated "libelous" posts from HJ and Greg Hall without
naming them -- rather like Novins filed suit against people for reposting a
libelous post without naming the original poster.
To sue "Greg Hall" would require a subpoena against motzarella (which, IIRC,
is in Germany) followed by a subpoena against the ISP whose IP address
"Greg" used to access motzarella. Suing HJ would require a subpoena against
Centurytel, followed by some legal gymnastics explaining why a Colorado
resident was suing a Louisiana resident in a New Jersey court. (It would be
a lot smarter to sue in either Colorado or Louisiana, since you could make a
case for jurisdiction in either of those states).
If Osterwald wants to spend the money for that, he's free to -- but that
might not be advisable seeing as how he's presently *snicker* out of work
thanks to his Usenet antics.
I still stand by my original guess: this case will get dismissed with each
party to bear its own costs. In other words, Osterwald & Friends will wind
up paying several thousands of dollars for the privilege of getting this
dismissed, maybe more if Novins decides to dig his heels in and demand
depositions, file appeals or refile amended versions of the suit, etc. And
Greg Hall, "Honest John" and Kent Wills are going to come out of this with
nary a scratch.
Time will tell, of course, but that's where I'm placing my bet. And it
couldn't have happened to a nicer bunch of scumbags *chortle*
"The Honest One"
"Respondant" <Respo...@none.invalid> wrote in message
news:gvjlei$d2f$1...@aioe.org...
Judging by what the "twin-idiots" of Lionel Laurer and Meat-Spatula just
wrote, I'm sure that they're already looking for another "RL Lawyer
Poking" as we chat !!
--
HJ
"The Honest One"
"Bob Larter" <bobby...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:gvjkr6$t4m$1...@blackhelicopter.databasix.com...
Don't get too excited there "Old Woman" Lionel or you'll have to take a
Valium and a cup of tea.....
What you want to happen and what "will" happen are two different things
!!
--
HJ
Bob Larter
*snort* If you really think this is the case, you should re-read the
counter-claims.
Bob Larter
> "Bob Larter" <bobby...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Meat Plow wrote:
>>> On Wed, 27 May 2009 18:56:19 +1000, Bob Larter
>>> <bobby...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>>
>>>> miguel wrote:
>>>>> Somebody posted the answers and counterclaims.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.citmedialaw.org/threats/novins-v-cannon-lawsuit
>>>> <reads counterclaims, etc>
>>>>
>>>> Oh, this is fucking priceless! Novins is *screwed*!
>>>>
>>>> I particularly like the fact that Carl's attorney is gunning for Novin's
>>>> malpractice insurance. ;^)
>>> And that Greggy and HJ are also named in the counter.
>> Yeah, that's an especially nice touch. No wonder the little wimp went all
>> quiet. ;^)
>
> So when people you like go "all quiet" it's what they're expected to do
> during litigation. But when people you don't like go "all quiet" during
> litigation, they're "wimps"? Pssst. Your double-standards are showing
> again/still there, "Bob".
Hey, nobody's suing me, shit fer brains. Why do you suppose that is?
>>> ....heh priceless.
>
> Indeed.
>
>> Indeed. Congrats to all the defendants!
>
> Congrats on what? On having to spend time and money defending themselves
> against a lawsuit that they could have easily been avoided if not for their
> egomaniacal chest thumping at the outset?
Oh, congrats on cleaning out Novins malpractice insurance, just for
starters. ;^)
Bob Larter
> In article <gvjlei$d2f$1...@aioe.org>, "Respondant" <Respo...@none.invalid>
>
>> actually see the "players" and how it plays out. Whatever happens though,
>> I'll bet the defendants will think twice before they push a RL lawyer's
>> button again.
>
> manner she claims to be defamed, what does that do to the case?
"Unclean hands".
Respondant
> In article <gvjlei$d2f$1...@aioe.org>, "Respondant"
> <Respo...@none.invalid> wrote:
>
>> actually see the "players" and how it plays out. Whatever happens
>> though, I'll bet the defendants will think twice before they push a
>> RL lawyer's button again.
>
> If the plaintiff of a defamation suit can be shown defaming others in
> the same manner she claims to be defamed, what does that do to the
> case?
IANAL so I don't know, and don't care. I just wanna be in the live audience
when/if this soap opera actually plays out in my back yard. :-)
Probably won't get that far, but still ...
Bill
Respondant
> Respondant wrote:
>> "Bob Larter" <bobby...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Meat Plow wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 27 May 2009 18:56:19 +1000, Bob Larter
>>>> <bobby...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> miguel wrote:
>>>>>> Somebody posted the answers and counterclaims.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.citmedialaw.org/threats/novins-v-cannon-lawsuit
>>>>> <reads counterclaims, etc>
>>>>>
>>>>> Oh, this is fucking priceless! Novins is *screwed*!
>>>>>
>>>>> I particularly like the fact that Carl's attorney is gunning for
>>>>> Novin's malpractice insurance. ;^)
>>>> And that Greggy and HJ are also named in the counter.
>>> Yeah, that's an especially nice touch. No wonder the little wimp
>>> went all quiet. ;^)
>>
>> So when people you like go "all quiet" it's what they're expected to
>> do during litigation. But when people you don't like go "all quiet"
>> during litigation, they're "wimps"? Pssst. Your double-standards
>> are showing again/still there, "Bob".
>
> Hey, nobody's suing me, shit fer brains. Why do you suppose that is?
A) that wasn't my point and you know it, Cap'n Deflection. and
B) probably because you don't live in the USA
>
>>>> ....heh priceless.
>>
>> Indeed.
>>
>>> Indeed. Congrats to all the defendants!
>>
>> Congrats on what? On having to spend time and money defending
>> themselves against a lawsuit that they could have easily avoided if not
>> for their egomaniacal chest thumping at the outset?
>
> Oh, congrats on cleaning out Novins malpractice insurance, just for
> starters. ;^)
Really? Has the case been settled in the last 15 minutes?
krp
No I am saying that your thrill ride will be a bit more hazardous than
you think.
krp
> Project China Blue Book wrote:
>> In article <gvjlei$d2f$1...@aioe.org>, "Respondant"
>> <Respo...@none.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> actually see the "players" and how it plays out. Whatever happens
>>> though, I'll bet the defendants will think twice before they push a RL
>>> lawyer's button again.
>>
>> If the plaintiff of a defamation suit can be shown defaming others in the
>> same manner she claims to be defamed, what does that do to the case?
>
> "Unclean hands".
Maybe - but more likely to be seen by a jury as SELF DEFENSE.
Russell Tavek
On 5/27/09 11:58 AM, in article gvjnsn$8ei$3...@blackhelicopter.databasix.com,
"Bob Larter" <bobby...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> One small correction: neither Greg nor HJ are *named* as defendants in the
>> suit at the present time. The counterclaim mentions them and a couple of
>> their posts, but they haven't yet been served with papers (unless I missed
>> something), nor does the heading of the counterclaim mention HJ or Greg Hall
>> (unless of course you count John Does 1-100). Osterwald's lawyer merely
>> stated that Novins repeated "libelous" posts from HJ and Greg Hall without
>> naming them -- rather like Novins filed suit against people for reposting a
>> libelous post without naming the original poster.
>>
>> To sue "Greg Hall" would require a subpoena against motzarella (which, IIRC,
>> is in Germany) followed by a subpoena against the ISP whose IP address
>> "Greg" used to access motzarella. Suing HJ would require a subpoena against
>> Centurytel, followed by some legal gymnastics explaining why a Colorado
>> resident was suing a Louisiana resident in a New Jersey court. (It would be
>> a lot smarter to sue in either Colorado or Louisiana, since you could make a
>> case for jurisdiction in either of those states).
>>
>> If Osterwald wants to spend the money for that, he's free to -- but that
>> might not be advisable seeing as how he's presently *snicker* out of work
>> thanks to his Usenet antics.
>
> *snort* If you really think this is the case, you should re-read the
> counter-claims.
I did. I still don't see any indication that "Greg Hall" or HJ have been
served with papers in this case. Nor do I see anything in the heading like
JOHN DOE 1 (a/k/a "Honest John"), JOHN DOE 2 (a/k/a "Greg Hall")
or such. I see that the complaint *mentions* Greg Hall and HJ, but that
isn't the same thing as serving them with papers or naming them as
defendants in the complaint. It seems like hairsplitting but it's an
important distinction for the purposes of getting a subpoena to find the
real names of the individuals making the posts in question, or holding them
liable in the present action.
I suspect Osterwald's attorney has told him that to bring HJ to court on the
libelous post would require filing a suit in Colorado or Louisiana: since I
don't know where "Greg Hall" lives I cannot say where the suit would have to
be filed. At the very least bringing them to court would require the filing
of an amended counterclaim which named them as defendants. And since
Osterwald is currently *chuckle* unemployed I'm not sure he can afford
another $135 for that.
"John Does 1-100" is a placeholder which means "We know there are other
people involved and will amend the filing as we discover more information
about them." Until HJ and Greg are actually *served*, they aren't parties
to this lawsuit. But do keep thumping your chest and crowing. It will only
make the inevitable "all parties to pay their own costs" that much sweeter
for everyone who's enjoying this ongoing stAUKer-spanking.
krp
"Meat Plow" <me...@petitmorte.net> wrote in message
news:2rg8o9....@news.alt.net...
> On Wed, 27 May 2009 14:06:26 GMT, "krp" <kr...@verizon.net>wrote:
>
>>
>>"Meat Plow" <me...@petitmorte.net> wrote in message
>>news:2rg4ok....@news.alt.net...
>>>> speech.
>>
>>> So just how effective has your little parade been over the past
>>> decade?
>>
>> stopped.
>>THAT was my major beef with remailers. It seems, that according to the
>>arguments that I managed to achieve the "TOTALLY IMPOSSIBLE." Seems that
>>people may have bitched and whined, but eventually they did grow up and
>>stop
>>that bullshit. Things change slowly. CB radio destroyed itself because the
>>LITTLE BOYS refused to change. If you haven't noticed, Usenet is really
>>starting to fall into disfavor with most major service providers, Have YOU
>>ever considered that YOU are a SMALL and perhaps INSIGNIFICANT part of he
>>reason why?
>>
>
> Everyone who posts to Usenet is part of the reason. You might want to
> actually know the reasons first before passing judgment though.
I have watched most of this play out over the past 7 or 8 years. But
tell me YOUR reasons.
krp
"miguel" <mun...@mungge.com> wrote in message
news:epjq155iv9rqrosnb...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 27 May 2009 18:56:19 +1000, Bob Larter <bobby...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>miguel wrote:
>>> Somebody posted the answers and counterclaims.
>>>
>>> http://www.citmedialaw.org/threats/novins-v-cannon-lawsuit
>>
>><reads counterclaims, etc>
>>
>>Oh, this is fucking priceless! Novins is *screwed*!
>>
>>I particularly like the fact that Carl's attorney is gunning for Novin's
>>malpractice insurance. ;^)
>
> That part goes nowhere, I'd bet. Malpractice coverage usually covers
> only negligent acts or omissions. It might be kind of hard to pound an
> abuse of process peg into a negligence hole.
That SHOULD be the first clue to the defendants to be SHITTING BRICKS.
Their attorney is - well - not really UP on the law, malpractice insurance
mainly covers clients, NOT adverse parties.Not even if an action is deemed
"frivolous." This does NOT mean that a court can't award damages. The
insurance carrier would have its own defenses, the LAST thing any SANE
attorney would want to do this early in litigation is to invite in the BIG
GUNS from the Insurance company. BUT he may be the kind that LOVES a good
fight with the big guys.
Respondant
*snort* If you really think their past actions aren't causing your USA
based kookologist-kook friends time and money, maybe *YOU* should re-read
the counter-claims.
It doesn't take long. There are only *TWO* of them (so far) who had the
gumption to respond rather than tuck-tail and run away.
Funnily enough, both answers are riddled with the same lawyer-speak that
puts me in mind of "Seargent Shultz", ... Basically all they say is,
"I know NuuuthhinnK"
Apropos if you think about it. It's denial. Which is the typical AUKtard
defense when confronted with truth.
Now run along and post like a thousand more messages in the next hour or two
bitching about being frogged, K?
Bill
Nodding
"Russell Tavek" <restavek...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:C642E18A.15BDB%restavek...@yahoo.com...
This is an interesting subject. I'm just sorry that it has to be debated by
such abysmal thinkers as that Larter guy and his dormice.
Cyberiade.it Anonymous Remailer
>
> "Nomen Nescio" <nob...@dizum.com> wrote in message
> news:fb55c4df44852b60...@dizum.com...
> > Pigbarn blithered:
> >
> >> "kook"
> >
> > Yes, you are.
> >
>
> Oh look a RETARD found his keyboard!
Yes, you did.
> How are things in APAS?
Dandy. Why not stick around for a while, numbnuts. Maybe I'll poke
at your life some more. You know.... dig up the leans and potential
foreclosures on the pig sty you call a home and post them, force
you to remove the credit card surcharge bullshit from your web
site, beat you up over your "time zone" asininity, tell the
world how even a cum dumpster like your daughter despises the
ground she wishes you were buried in.... shit like that.
*snicker*
Now`squeal for me Piggy, like a nice little porker.
Bob Larter
Please, come & get me, fuck-knuckle.
Bob Larter
The fact is that it fucks both of them, because they both know now that
if they stick their heads over the parapet, they're going to get served.
Why else do you think that they've gone so very quiet?
> I suspect Osterwald's attorney has told him that to bring HJ to court on the
> libelous post would require filing a suit in Colorado or Louisiana: since I
> don't know where "Greg Hall" lives I cannot say where the suit would have to
> be filed. At the very least bringing them to court would require the filing
> of an amended counterclaim which named them as defendants. And since
> Osterwald is currently *chuckle* unemployed I'm not sure he can afford
> another $135 for that.
You say that, but it's obvious that Carl's employer is paying for his
attorney. If you think that's not the case, I suggest that you re-read
his defense & counter-claim.
> "John Does 1-100" is a placeholder which means "We know there are other
> people involved and will amend the filing as we discover more information
> about them."
Of course, but it's obvious that Novins hasn't gotten anywhere with that
tactic. With that one, he was obviously trying to drag DB6 & the
employers of some other defendants in on that basis, but he clearly
hasn't gotten very far in doing so.
> Until HJ and Greg are actually *served*, they aren't parties
> to this lawsuit. But do keep thumping your chest and crowing. It will only
> make the inevitable "all parties to pay their own costs" that much sweeter
> for everyone who's enjoying this ongoing stAUKer-spanking.
You obviously haven't read the counterclaims. ;^)
Bob Larter
It doesn't matter. In a defamation action, the smart people keep their
mouths shut. Novins is /not/ smart.
Bob Larter
You think? Let's see who wins - then we can talk about who are *really*
the abysmal thinkers. ;^)
Rhonda Lea Kirk Fries
Rhonda Lea Kirk Fries
There isn't anything in Carl's answer and counterclaim about "malpractice
insurance." The demand was made pursuant to R. 4:10-2(b), which you can read
here:
http://www.njlawnet.com/njcourtrules/4-10.html
Novins made the exact same demand in his complaint.
How it got interpreted to mean "malpractice insurance" is beyond my ability
to comprehend. And how boilerplate can be interpreted as a party being
"screwed" just boggles the mind.
<shakes head>
Rhonda Lea Kirk Fries
Why are you arguing this with someone so stupid as to interpret a
boilerplate insurance demand prescribed by the New Jersey Court Rules as a
reference to malpractice insurance, thereby concluding that "Novins is
screwed"?
Seriously. If he can't even manage that, how can he manage to understand the
effect of the counterclaim?
Russell Tavek
On 5/27/09 1:33 PM, in article gvjtel$qfm$1...@blackhelicopter.databasix.com,
"Bob Larter" <bobby...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I did. I still don't see any indication that "Greg Hall" or HJ have been
>> served with papers in this case. Nor do I see anything in the heading like
>>
>> JOHN DOE 1 (a/k/a "Honest John"), JOHN DOE 2 (a/k/a "Greg Hall")
>>
>> or such. I see that the complaint *mentions* Greg Hall and HJ, but that
>> isn't the same thing as serving them with papers or naming them as
>> defendants in the complaint. It seems like hairsplitting but it's an
>> important distinction for the purposes of getting a subpoena to find the
>> real names of the individuals making the posts in question, or holding them
>> liable in the present action.
>
> The fact is that it fucks both of them, because they both know now that
> if they stick their heads over the parapet, they're going to get served.
> Why else do you think that they've gone so very quiet?
You have an odd description of "quiet," since HJ is still posting pretty
regularly to the group and engaging in mockery of you and your fellow
stAUKers.
Do let us know when HJ and "Greg Hall" are served: then let us know how Carl
intends to establish that a New Jersey court has jurisdiction over an
internet dispute between parties in Colorado and Louisiana, respectively. I
suspect the results will be entertaining, and rather expensive for Mr.
Osterwald.
>> I suspect Osterwald's attorney has told him that to bring HJ to court on the
>> libelous post would require filing a suit in Colorado or Louisiana: since I
>> don't know where "Greg Hall" lives I cannot say where the suit would have to
>> be filed. At the very least bringing them to court would require the filing
>> of an amended counterclaim which named them as defendants. And since
>> Osterwald is currently *chuckle* unemployed I'm not sure he can afford
>> another $135 for that.
>
> You say that, but it's obvious that Carl's employer is paying for his
> attorney. If you think that's not the case, I suggest that you re-read
> his defense & counter-claim.
Please do enlighten us: where in the defense do you see that Carl's employer
is paying for the claim? I don't see anything that would lead me to either
say that is or is not the case: this looks like a pretty standard answer and
counterclaim from a lawyer who was hired by a defendant. I would be
surprised to see Carl's employer picking up the tab for this one since,
IIRC, his employer wasn't named in the original suit: TSB Bearings and
Oakland Community College were, although I have no idea whether or not they
were actually served with papers.
Of course, this is assuming that you aren't just talking out of your ass
while thumping your chest.
>> "John Does 1-100" is a placeholder which means "We know there are other
>> people involved and will amend the filing as we discover more information
>> about them."
>
> Of course, but it's obvious that Novins hasn't gotten anywhere with that
> tactic. With that one, he was obviously trying to drag DB6 & the
> employers of some other defendants in on that basis, but he clearly
> hasn't gotten very far in doing so.
And until Manzo amends that counterclaim to name "John C" and "Greg Hall" as
parties to the claim, he's not going to get very far with that tactic
either. But do keep entertaining us with your efforts to avoid the point
that your stAUKer buddies are getting shafted for several thousands of
dollars thanks to their Usenet antics. *snicker*
>> Until HJ and Greg are actually *served*, they aren't parties
>> to this lawsuit. But do keep thumping your chest and crowing. It will only
>> make the inevitable "all parties to pay their own costs" that much sweeter
>> for everyone who's enjoying this ongoing stAUKer-spanking.
>
> You obviously haven't read the counterclaims. ;^)
Counterclaim paragraphs 16, 17, 20, 21, 22 and 23 mention "Greg Hall" and/or
"John C." Nobody is disputing that: what I'm disputing is that they are not
parties to the lawsuit until such time as they are served. And so far as I
can tell I've seen no evidence that they have been or will be served with
anything save posturing and preening from you and your fellow stAUKers.
But do keep repeating yourself. The "Tholen defense" suits you well in an
argument.
Bob Larter
Hon, we grownups are trying to have a conversation. Please go & play a
video or something until we're finished. m'kay?
Bob Larter
You're so cute when you get all indignant, hon. ;^)
Gregory Hall
I was served Memorial Day - by a cutie barmaid at the Hog's Breath Saloon.
http://www.hogsbreath.com/key-west/
--
Gregory Hall
Russell Tavek
On 5/27/09 1:17 PM, in article 785ckkF...@mid.individual.net, "Rhonda
Lea Kirk Fries" <rhonda...@earthling.net> wrote:
> Why are you arguing this with someone so stupid as to interpret a
> boilerplate insurance demand prescribed by the New Jersey Court Rules as a
> reference to malpractice insurance, thereby concluding that "Novins is
> screwed"?
>
> Seriously. If he can't even manage that, how can he manage to understand the
> effect of the counterclaim?
Oh, I have no expectation of changing Lauer's mind. What I'm hoping is that
he will continue hopping up and down and responding with Tholenesque "You
have obvious counterclaim comprehension problems" posts. In other words, I'm
making him behave like an idiot for the benefit of the peanut gallery.
I must admit that I am interested in seeing how he came up with "Carl's
employer is obviously paying for his defense" based on the Osterwald
response and counterclaim. Assuming he's not just talking out his ass to
entertain his fellow stAUKers, I'd love to hear his reasoning. But I'm
guessing we'll just see more bluff and bluster.
I still stand by my original bet: the case will end up dismissed with all
parties to bear their own costs. And I'm betting further that Tholen*ahem*
Lionel responds to this with "reread the counterclaim."
Russell Tavek
On 5/27/09 2:05 PM, in article gvjvac$2cb$4...@blackhelicopter.databasix.com,
"Bob Larter" <bobby...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Why are you arguing this with someone so stupid as to interpret a
>> boilerplate insurance demand prescribed by the New Jersey Court Rules as a
>> reference to malpractice insurance, thereby concluding that "Novins is
>> screwed"?
>>
>> Seriously. If he can't even manage that, how can he manage to understand the
>> effect of the counterclaim?
>
> You're so cute when you get all indignant, hon. ;^)
Misogyny ill becomes you. But of course, we wouldn't expect anything better
from the guy who tried to bully her into silence when she went public with
her sexual assault at the hands of your friend Rick "Kadaitcha Man" Mather.
Rhonda Lea Kirk Fries
You're not so cute when you spew your ignorance for all the world to see,
hon.
A. HJ and Greg were not named as defendants.
B. The boilerplate insurance demand has nothing to do with malpractice
insurance.
Fact and fact. Get a grip, Lionel.
<p>sychotic <c>hicken
can do is nothing worth, Since that my penitence comes after all,
Imploring Pardon.
And when you DON'T win ... assuming the worst, which is something only a
fool doesn't do ?
--
Psychotic Chicken - The Usenet Matchmaker.
Spring is in the air and on Usenet the Sap is rising. People are falling
in love like ninepins. Has the matchmaker got a match for you ? You better
believe it.
Respondant
> On 5/27/09 1:17 PM, in article 785ckkF...@mid.individual.net,
> "Rhonda Lea Kirk Fries" <rhonda...@earthling.net> wrote:
>
>
>> Why are you arguing this with someone so stupid as to interpret a
>> boilerplate insurance demand prescribed by the New Jersey Court
>> Rules as a reference to malpractice insurance, thereby concluding
>> that "Novins is screwed"?
>>
>> Seriously. If he can't even manage that, how can he manage to
>> understand the effect of the counterclaim?
>
> Oh, I have no expectation of changing Lauer's mind. What I'm hoping
> is that he will continue hopping up and down and responding with
> Tholenesque "You have obvious counterclaim comprehension problems"
> posts. In other words, I'm making him behave like an idiot for the
> benefit of the peanut gallery.
Yeah. That's kinda what I'm doing too, but the sun just popped out after
yet another rough t-storm and I have to play pick-up-stix in the backyard
now. That's the only "bad" thing about having your property back-up to the
woods. The "good" thing is, picking up twigs in my backyard is much more
mentally stimulating than AUK is these days.
> I must admit that I am interested in seeing how he came up with
> "Carl's employer is obviously paying for his defense" based on the
> Osterwald response and counterclaim. Assuming he's not just talking
> out his ass to entertain his fellow stAUKers, I'd love to hear his
> reasoning. But I'm guessing we'll just see more bluff and bluster.
>
> I still stand by my original bet: the case will end up dismissed with
> all parties to bear their own costs. And I'm betting further that
> Tholen*ahem* Lionel responds to this with "reread the counterclaim."
You can pretty much bank on that. Again.
Respondant
Far be it for me to agree with YOU, but Lionel can't help himself.
He's appointed himself FNVW, and in addition made himself soley responsible
for the survival of AUK these days, haven't you heard? This entails
supporting the mighty poast count by digging up old flamewars from years ago
and dragging them back into AUK, as well as posting scadjillions of messges
accusing others of frogging him. IT's all about the POAST count, Rhonda.
> A. HJ and Greg were not named as defendants.
True.
> B. The boilerplate insurance demand has nothing to do with malpractice
> insurance.
True.
> Fact and fact. Get a grip, Lionel.
Yeah. Like THAT's ever gonna happen. The only thing Lionel can get a grip
on is ... nah. Too easy.
Bill
Respondant
> On Wed, 27 May 2009 11:15:24 -0400, "Respondant"
> <Respo...@none.invalid>wrote:
>> I just hope it *does* go to trial here in TR. I won't miss a minute
>> of it. The courthouse is only 5 minutes from my home, and it'll be
>> interesting to actually see the "players" and how it plays out.
>> Whatever happens though, I'll bet the defendants will think twice
>> before they push a RL lawyer's button again.
l
> Translation:
>
> waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
I know yer not very bright and all, so I don't really expect a reasonable
answer.
But I'll ask anyway;
WTF were ya trying to convey up there?
Bill
Bob Larter
LOL.
When *I* don't win? What makes you think that *I* have any money riding
on this case?
Bob Larter
OMFG!!! Her boyfriend touched her tit! IN PUBLIC!!!!! OMFG!!!!11!!!!1!!
SECKSHWAL ASSALT!!!!!1!!! TAKE BACK TEH NIGHT!!!!!!11!!!1!!!!!!!!!
TEH MEN, DEY ARE ALL TEH RAPISSTS!!!!!!!!!!!11!!!!1!!!!!!!!
ROTFL.
Bob Larter
So what you're saying is that Novin's malpractice insurance is not at risk?
<p>sychotic <c>hicken
Sorry .. I'm still new here and I read the defendants names and thought
you were one of them. I withdraw the above comment.
Russell Tavek
On 5/27/09 3:24 PM, in article gvk3u9$h0d$1...@blackhelicopter.databasix.com,
"Bob Larter" <bobby...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Russell Tavek wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 5/27/09 2:05 PM, in article gvjvac$2cb$4...@blackhelicopter.databasix.com,
>> "Bob Larter" <bobby...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> Why are you arguing this with someone so stupid as to interpret a
>>>> boilerplate insurance demand prescribed by the New Jersey Court Rules as a
>>>> reference to malpractice insurance, thereby concluding that "Novins is
>>>> screwed"?
>>>>
>>>> Seriously. If he can't even manage that, how can he manage to understand
>>>> the
>>>> effect of the counterclaim?
>>> You're so cute when you get all indignant, hon. ;^)
>>
>> Misogyny ill becomes you. But of course, we wouldn't expect anything better
>> from the guy who tried to bully her into silence when she went public with
>> her sexual assault at the hands of your friend Rick "Kadaitcha Man" Mather.
>
> OMFG!!! Her boyfriend touched her tit! IN PUBLIC!!!!! OMFG!!!!11!!!!1!!
> SECKSHWAL ASSALT!!!!!1!!! TAKE BACK TEH NIGHT!!!!!!11!!!1!!!!!!!!!
> TEH MEN, DEY ARE ALL TEH RAPISSTS!!!!!!!!!!!11!!!!1!!!!!!!!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ROTFL.
It's quite common for victims of sexual assault to know their assailants.
It's also common for their assailants (and their assailants' friends) to try
and intimidate them into silence or denigrate the seriousness of the
assault. In this case, I can see that Rick "Kadaitcha Man" Mather's friends
are following through with the classic pattern.
What a gang of winners. We have a guy who molested his girlfriend's underage
daughter (but that should be all right because she was 17). We have a guy
who sexually assaulted an online acquaintance (but that's all right because
she's a kook). And we have a bunch of their fans who try to bully into
silence anyone who tries to hold them accountable for their misdeeds.
Rhonda Lea Kirk Fries
Only if he plans to sue himself for malpractice when this is all over.
krp
"Meat Plow" <me...@petitmorte.net> wrote in message
news:2rggb1....@news.alt.net...
>>>>>> I have said before - I support the basic concept of freedom of
>>>>>> speech.
>>>>>>Just not the freedom to abuse, harass, blackmail and intimidate people
>>>>
>>>>> So just how effective has your little parade been over the past
>>>>> decade?
>>>>
>>>> Well effective enough that the impersonations have pretty well
>>>> stopped.
>>>>THAT was my major beef with remailers. It seems, that according to the
>>>>arguments that I managed to achieve the "TOTALLY IMPOSSIBLE." Seems
>>>>that
>>>>people may have bitched and whined, but eventually they did grow up and
>>>>stop
>>>>that bullshit. Things change slowly. CB radio destroyed itself because
>>>>the
>>>>LITTLE BOYS refused to change. If you haven't noticed, Usenet is really
>>>>starting to fall into disfavor with most major service providers, Have
>>>>YOU
>>>>ever considered that YOU are a SMALL and perhaps INSIGNIFICANT part of
>>>>he
>>>>reason why?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Everyone who posts to Usenet is part of the reason. You might want to
>>> actually know the reasons first before passing judgment though.
>>
>> I have watched most of this play out over the past 7 or 8 years. But
>>tell me YOUR reasons.
>
> Reason for what, posting? Well usually I read a post and have
> something to add so I reply. Or I have something to share and create
> an original post. That's the purpose of Usenet right?
I realize that you and your fellow "Kookologists" consider yourselves to
be the Internet's "Intellectual elite" but as you know, *I* have never
regarded you and your pals as anything but jackasses. Not particularly
bright otherwise you'd be doing something productive instead of your
INFANTILE shit with your "Kook-club." YOU said I should know the "reasons"
before I pass judgment. So I am delaying judgment, but I asked you for YOUR
REASONS. SO ENLIGHTEN US oh great wise one with the REASONS the shit was
going on. You said I should know them, inferring that YOU in your GREAT
WISDOM actually DO know them. I am asking you to SHARE, or is this a
"KOOK-SECRET?"
krp
"Cyberiade.it Anonymous Remailer" <anon...@remailer.cyberiade.it> wrote in
message news:64a3ab93155ec9c5...@remailer.cyberiade.it...
>> How are things in APAS?
>
> Dandy. Why not stick around for a while, numbnuts. Maybe I'll poke
> at your life some more. You know.... dig up the leans and potential
> foreclosures on the pig sty you call a home and post them, force
> you to remove the credit card surcharge bullshit from your web
> site, beat you up over your "time zone" asininity, tell the
> world how even a cum dumpster like your daughter despises the
> ground she wishes you were buried in.... shit like that.
Given that I *OWN* the home GO FOR IT. Look for the liens and the
FORECLOSURES. Let me know when you find them. What you forced me to do is
NOTHING. I have every right to PASS ALONG surcharges from the credit card
companies. Of course the changes to how banks today handle credit card
charges is why I stopped accepting them. Given the state of the economy I
don't take personal checks either. I checked with the state of Florida - it
was legal to pass along the charges as long as they were disclosed and
agreed to before the charge was made. Sorry your legal expertise is
somewhat wanting. Are *YOU* now claiming to have contact with ANY of my
daughters? Moore keeps making the claim BUT he always RUNS away from
actually providing PROOF. I fully suspect YOU will do the same.
krp
"Rhonda Lea Kirk Fries" <rhonda...@earthling.net> wrote in message
news:785ckjF...@mid.individual.net...
Well the KOOKISTS read it that way. When THEY claim that it means X that
is the ONLY thing it can mean in the KOOK universe. IF the attorney for the
defendants is making a shot at malpractice insurance he's REALLY
incompetent.
krp
He probably meant "liability" insurance perhaps such as a Homeowners
policy. But even those would not cover a deliberate tort.
krp
"Bob Larter" <bobby...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:gvjsu8$ne7$6...@blackhelicopter.databasix.com...
> krp wrote:
>>
>> "Bob Larter" <bobby...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:gvjimu$kgh$9...@blackhelicopter.databasix.com...
>>> krp wrote:
>>>>
>>>> "Steve Crook" <st...@mixmin.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:slrnh1q8b4...@news.mixmin.net...
>>>>> On Wed, 27 May 2009 18:56:19 +1000, Bob Larter wrote in
>>>>> Message-Id: <gviv54$l5k$1...@blackhelicopter.databasix.com>:
>>>>>
>>>>>> miguel wrote:
>>>>>>> Somebody posted the answers and counterclaims.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://www.citmedialaw.org/threats/novins-v-cannon-lawsuit
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <reads counterclaims, etc>
>>>>>
>>>>> also
>>>>> named in there now for labelling someone with the unmentionable 'P'
>>>>> word. Although he's a kook and worthy of being slapped around Usenet,
>>>>> I
>>>>> doubt he's deserving of the potential backlash from that faux pas.
>>>>
>>>> The defense that the miscreants envisage is that somehow the rules
>>>> against libel don't apply in cyberspace and specifically in their
>>>> fiefdom on Usenet. That they are somehow "special" because of their
>>>> holy mission to expose "kooks" as they define its application to
>>>> individuals they dislike or disagree with. That whatever they choose to
>>>> do to those individuals they do with complete immunity. Of course IF
>>>> they believed that line of BULLSHIT - they would not go through the
>>>> extraordinary efforts they do to HIDE who they really are. The problem
>>>> they also have is that "EVEN IF" the LAW were to conclude that NO LAW
>>>> of ANY kind applies to Usenet - that it IS the wild west and folks are
>>>> "on their own" and have NO rights to be secure in any part of their
>>>> persons for having the misfortune to have come to the attention of the
>>>> "CLANTON GANG" of the 21st century, the impact of these behaviors spill
>>>> out of Usenet to the REAL WORLD - and the miscreants KNOW this and
>>>> GIGGLE that they CAN totally "fuck-up" some person's real life and they
>>>> have expressed great pride in seeing the impact of their Usenet
>>>> attacks.
>>>>
>>>> The basic problem that exists here is their ARROGANCE that they are
>>>> above and outside the law or ANY notions of social behavior other than
>>>> their feeling that they are SUPERIOR BEINGS and they have some form of
>>>> "right" to abuse others. A notion of the divine right of the
>>>> intellectually superior (as they view themselves.) They view
>>>> themselves as "special cases" that they have some unique entitlement to
>>>> behave as they do, bestowing belittling "AWARDS" on others - such as
>>>> "KOOK OF THE MONTH" and the "BUSTED URINAL" award. Because they are
>>>> BETTER than the average bear. When in reality, they are often immature
>>>> bed-wetters.
>>>>
>>>> They can count on the EFF (Electronic Frontier Foundation) to run
>>>> interference for them. The EFF and ACLU are kindred in the stand in
>>>> favor of those who misbehave. EFF for example screams LOUDLY and
>>>> PROFUSELY for the "PRIVACY" rights of the bad-actors to shred people
>>>> 'ANONYMOUSLY" however - EFF virulently OPPOSES the rights of the
>>>> targets of the miscreants to have ANY right of privacy at all. EFF
>>>> bemoans that the law hasn't caught up the technology. Well THEY are one
>>>> of the major reasons WHY. At one time I was a supporter of EFF and its
>>>> predecessor. I have lost that misplaced admiration almost a decade ago,
>>>> when it FULLY SUPPORTED and ENDORSED as protected behavior when
>>>> anonymous remailers at least ALLOWED users to impersonate others for
>>>> the specific purpose of DESTROYING the people. When I suggested that it
>>>> would be easy to block that the REMOPS (Remailer operators) said I was
>>>> crazy that it was 'TOTALLY IMPOSSIBLE" and when several of the
>>>> remailers DID modify their software to not allow impersonations, they
>>>> RODE those REMOPS out of business. Now pretty much ALL of the remailers
>>>> no longer allow false impersonations. They said it was completely
>>>> impossible, yet today they do it. I think in large measure that is
>>>> because of maturity setting in on them seeing the damage being done to
>>>> people. Yet the EFF remains a roadblock to getting an effective answer
>>>> to abuses on the net.
>>>>
>>>> I have said before - I support the basic concept of freedom of
>>>> speech. Just not the freedom to abuse, harass, blackmail and intimidate
>>>> discussing this is whether it is better to have the government of the
>>>> world make these decisions or would it be better if WE in the
>>>> electronic community imposed some rules on ourselves and brought some
>>>> law to the Pecos ourselves?
>>>
>>> So what you're saying is that your pussy really, *really* hurts?
>>
>>
>> No I am saying that your thrill ride will be a bit more hazardous than
>> you think.
>
> Please, come & get me, fuck-knuckle.
I was not suggesting that *I* would have any role. Just that the thrill
ride may be a little less risk free than you think.
krp
>>> Project China Blue Book wrote:
>>>> In article <gvjlei$d2f$1...@aioe.org>, "Respondant"
>>>>
>>>>> actually see the "players" and how it plays out. Whatever happens
>>>>> though, I'll bet the defendants will think twice before they push a RL
>>>>> lawyer's button again.
>>>>
>>>> the same manner she claims to be defamed, what does that do to the
>>>> case?
>>>
>>> "Unclean hands".
>>
>> Maybe - but more likely to be seen by a jury as SELF DEFENSE.
>
> It doesn't matter. In a defamation action, the smart people keep their
> mouths shut. Novins is /not/ smart.
He doesn't need to be that smart. I know you KOOKISTS believe you know
EVERYTHING - you are, after all, THE ELITE. All he needs to be is smarter
than the clowns he is dealing with.THAT is a SNAP!!!!!
Rhonda Lea Kirk Fries
Russell Tavek <restavek...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 5/27/09 3:24 PM, in article
> gvk3u9$h0d$1...@blackhelicopter.databasix.com, "Bob Larter"
> <bobby...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Russell Tavek wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 5/27/09 2:05 PM, in article
>>> gvjvac$2cb$4...@blackhelicopter.databasix.com, "Bob Larter"
>>> <bobby...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>> Why are you arguing this with someone so stupid as to interpret a
>>>>> boilerplate insurance demand prescribed by the New Jersey Court
>>>>> Rules as a reference to malpractice insurance, thereby concluding
>>>>> that "Novins is screwed"?
>>>>>
>>>>> Seriously. If he can't even manage that, how can he manage to
>>>>> understand the
>>>>> effect of the counterclaim?
>>>> You're so cute when you get all indignant, hon. ;^)
>>>
>>> Misogyny ill becomes you. But of course, we wouldn't expect
>>> anything better from the guy who tried to bully her into silence
<snipped>
But it didn't work, not then, not now, so it's all good.
<snipped scene from a nightmare>
While I certainly appreciate the support, that part of my life
is--thankfully--over, and given the choice, I'd rather think of it as a bad
dream I will never have again.
> What a gang of winners.
Yeah, well, there is that.
<snipped the contention I've bruised my fingers arguing> There are a fair
number of people in the world who have made a more egregious error in
judgment, paid less for their lapse and gone on to get a better break than
Gary has here. Sometimes, as you yourself have pointed out, enough is
enough.
Rhonda Lea Kirk Fries
It's no reflection on the lawyer that a layman failed to understand a
competently drafted pleading.
miguel
True.
>B. The boilerplate insurance demand has nothing to do with malpractice
>insurance.
The boilerplate insurance demand would include any kind of insurance
coverage, including malpractice coverage, wouldn't it?
Marcia
rhonda...@earthling.net wrote on 5/27/09 4:47 PM:
INVOICE:
(1) Keyboard, Mac-compatible..................$39.99
(1) Package monitor wipes, store brand........$ 4.99
Subtotal......................................$44.98
Sales Tax.....................................$ 3.04
Total.........................................$48.02
PayPal accepted. Please do not send cash through the mail.
Rhonda Lea Kirk Fries
Rhonda Lea Kirk Fries
Project China Blue Book <chine...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article <2rhaaa....@news.alt.net>,
>> Russell Tavek <restavek...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> On 5/27/09 3:24 PM, in article
>>> gvk3u9$h0d$1...@blackhelicopter.databasix.com, "Bob Larter"
>>> <bobby...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Russell Tavek wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 5/27/09 2:05 PM, in article
>>>>> gvjvac$2cb$4...@blackhelicopter.databasix.com, "Bob Larter"
>>>>> <bobby...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why are you arguing this with someone so stupid as to interpret
>>>>>>> a boilerplate insurance demand prescribed by the New Jersey
>>>>>>> Court Rules as a reference to malpractice insurance, thereby
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Seriously. If he can't even manage that, how can he manage to
>>>>>>> understand the
>>>>>>> effect of the counterclaim?
>>>>>> You're so cute when you get all indignant, hon. ;^)
>>>>>
>>>>> Misogyny ill becomes you. But of course, we wouldn't expect
>>>>> anything better from the guy who tried to bully her into silence
>>
>> <snipped>
>>
>> But it didn't work, not then, not now, so it's all good.
>>
>> <snipped scene from a nightmare>
>>
>> While I certainly appreciate the support, that part of my life
>> is--thankfully--over, and given the choice, I'd rather think of it
>> as a bad dream I will never have again.
>
> N****s,
Back before I knew he is an irredeemable bully, I did support him.
> and now you sound like one of his main targets.
<shrug> Defendant, target, target, defendant. Seems to be six of one and
half a dozen of another in this case.
> You do have
> bleeding tragic taste in men.
"Before you meet the handsome prince, you have to kiss a lot of toads."
Luckily, none of them gave me warts.
> Please do better in the future.
Did and done. :) Thank you for your concern for my well-being.
Rhonda Lea Kirk Fries
Actually not. It includes "any insurance agreement...that may be liable to
satisfy part of all of a judgment that may be entered...." Here, read it
yourself.
"(b) Insurance Agreements. A party may obtain discovery of the existence and
contents of any insurance agreement under which any person carrying on an
insurance business may be liable to satisfy part or all of a judgment which
may be entered in the action or to indemnify or reimburse for payments made
to satisfy the judgment. Information concerning the insurance agreement is
not by reason of disclosure admissible in evidence at trial."
Legal malpractice insurance isn't applicable to this case. I don't reckon
anyone is expecting him to produce his auto or health insurance policies
either.
Nomen Nescio
>
> "Cyberiade.it Anonymous Remailer" <anon...@remailer.cyberiade.it> wrote in
> message news:64a3ab93155ec9c5...@remailer.cyberiade.it...
> >> How are things in APAS?
> >
> > Dandy. Why not stick around for a while, numbnuts. Maybe I'll poke
> > at your life some more. You know.... dig up the leans and potential
> > foreclosures on the pig sty you call a home and post them, force
> > you to remove the credit card surcharge bullshit from your web
> > site, beat you up over your "time zone" asininity, tell the
> > world how even a cum dumpster like your daughter despises the
> > ground she wishes you were buried in.... shit like that.
>
> Given that I *OWN* the home GO FOR IT. Look for the liens and the
Someone posted the links to Florida public records ages ago
numbnuts. Go argue with them.
> NOTHING. I have every right to PASS ALONG surcharges from the credit card
Sure thing numbnuts. That's why you rushed to remove all that from
your pitiable web site the very day your fat ass was spanked over
it. That's why you don't even TAKE credit cards anymore. A little
ol' you-can't-touch-them anonymous poster jerked your leash and
commanded it.
Heeeeeeeeeeeere Piggy Piggy Piggy.....
Sit.
SIT!
Gooooooood Piggy!
> companies. Of course the changes to how banks today handle credit card
> charges is why I stopped accepting them. Given the state of the economy I
> don't take personal checks either. I checked with the state of Florida - it
> was legal to pass along the charges as long as they were disclosed and
> agreed to before the charge was made. Sorry your legal expertise is
> somewhat wanting. Are *YOU* now claiming to have contact with ANY of my
> daughters? Moore keeps making the claim BUT he always RUNS away from
> actually providing PROOF. I fully suspect YOU will do the same.
Fuck, we even own what you post to Usenet. Derailed your "you must
be Moore" rant before the fact.
You're our bitch even more than your cum dumpster daughter is a
bitch to the roaming bands of aids infested Haitian homos your mail
order cunt passes down. Hell, you'll be spewing and sputtering your
thread bare drivel to this post any time now.
/me pats Piggy on the head, unzips my pants, and gives Piggy a
special Piggy treat.
"The Honest One"
"Fred Hall" <fkh...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:222441d7-2fa3-4827...@q14g2000vbn.googlegroups.com...
On May 27, 10:31 am, "\"The Honest One\"" <honestj...@centurytel.net>
wrote:
> "Sweetness" <sweetchi...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
>
> news:gvjlg7$1ru$1...@blackhelicopter.databasix.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Bob Larter" <bobbylar...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:gvjk5g$qr7$4...@blackhelicopter.databasix.com...
> > : Fred Hall wrote:
> > : > On May 26, 10:11 pm, Sweetness <sweetchixorHATESP4...@yahoo.ca>
> > wrote:> > : >>>news:6n1p15p2fq8uqcqjr...@4ax.com...
> > : >>>> Somebody posted the answers and counterclaims.
> > : >>>>http://www.citmedialaw.org/threats/novins-v-cannon-lawsuit
> > : >>> LOL !!
> > : >> I like how teh response is basically "I don't know what you're
> > talking
> > : >> about" repeated over 9000 times followed by "now gimme some
> > money".
> > : >>
> > : >> --
> > : >> What would Fred Hall say ?
> > : >
> > : > Fred Hall says: Howdy, Sweetness!
> > :
> > : W00t! Hi dude, how's things? (Lionel here)
>
> > It's not Fred Hall.
> > Why would the real Fred Hall be posting through Google ?
> > It's a Fred Hall frogger replying ta a Sweetness frogger......
>
> > <sighs> :(
> > --
> > Sweetness...
>
> "EVIL" Fred Hall
Still obsessing, Dishonest John?
--
Hell-Boi Hall
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Hot down there in hell, Freddy ??
--
HJ
"The Honest One"
If Atlas wins then Peter "Eater" Ross will replace you as the Temporary
FNVW and you will be a Loser and get sucked-down your "loser-hole" in OZ
and join Fred Hall in hell !!
That's what is riding on this, "Corset-Boi"...
--
HJ
"The Honest One"
"The Honest One"
>
>
>
> On 5/27/09 10:28 AM, in article
gvjiir$kgh$8...@blackhelicopter.databasix.com,
> "Bob Larter" <bobby...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Steve Crook wrote:
> >> On Wed, 27 May 2009 18:56:19 +1000, Bob Larter wrote in
> >> Message-Id: <gviv54$l5k$1...@blackhelicopter.databasix.com>:
> >>
> >>> miguel wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> http://www.citmedialaw.org/threats/novins-v-cannon-lawsuit
> >>
> >> The dangers of dragging Usenet into real life. I see Gweg Hall is
also
> >> named in there now for labelling someone with the unmentionable 'P'
> >> word. Although he's a kook and worthy of being slapped around
Usenet, I
> >> doubt he's deserving of the potential backlash from that faux pas.
> >
train
> > before the inevitable train wreck.
>
> One small correction: neither Greg nor HJ are *named* as defendants in
the
> suit at the present time. The counterclaim mentions them and a couple
of
> their posts, but they haven't yet been served with papers (unless I
missed
> something), nor does the heading of the counterclaim mention HJ or
Greg Hall
> (unless of course you count John Does 1-100). Osterwald's lawyer
merely
> stated that Novins repeated "libelous" posts from HJ and Greg Hall
without
> naming them -- rather like Novins filed suit against people for
reposting a
> libelous post without naming the original poster.
>
> To sue "Greg Hall" would require a subpoena against motzarella (which,
IIRC,
> is in Germany) followed by a subpoena against the ISP whose IP address
> "Greg" used to access motzarella. Suing HJ would require a subpoena
against
> Centurytel, followed by some legal gymnastics explaining why a
Colorado
> resident was suing a Louisiana resident in a New Jersey court.
This is funny as I don't live in any of those states !!
> If Osterwald wants to spend the money for that, he's free to -- but
that
> might not be advisable seeing as how he's presently *snicker* out of
work
> thanks to his Usenet antics.
I agree with that statement......
> I still stand by my original guess: this case will get dismissed with
each
> party to bear its own costs. In other words, Osterwald & Friends will
wind
> up paying several thousands of dollars for the privilege of getting
this
> dismissed, maybe more if Novins decides to dig his heels in and demand
> depositions, file appeals or refile amended versions of the suit, etc.
And
> Greg Hall, "Honest John" and Kent Wills are going to come out of this
with
> nary a scratch.
I'll donate my used washing machine that I have stored on my back pourch
to Colorado Carl since he's out of work and needs clean clothes to find
another job.....
> Time will tell, of course, but that's where I'm placing my bet. And it
> couldn't have happened to a nicer bunch of scumbags *chortle*
Indeed !!
--
John C. (Living in the State of my pal: Slick Willie)
"The Honest One"
"Respondant" <Respo...@none.invalid> wrote in message
news:gvk1fq$rg0$1...@aioe.org...
> Russell Tavek wrote:
>
> > On 5/27/09 1:17 PM, in article 785ckkF...@mid.individual.net,
> > "Rhonda Lea Kirk Fries" <rhonda...@earthling.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> Why are you arguing this with someone so stupid as to interpret a
> >> boilerplate insurance demand prescribed by the New Jersey Court
> >> Rules as a reference to malpractice insurance, thereby concluding
> >> that "Novins is screwed"?
> >>
> >> Seriously. If he can't even manage that, how can he manage to
> >> understand the effect of the counterclaim?
> >
> > is that he will continue hopping up and down and responding with
> > Tholenesque "You have obvious counterclaim comprehension problems"
> > posts. In other words, I'm making him behave like an idiot for the
> > benefit of the peanut gallery.
>
> Yeah. That's kinda what I'm doing too, but the sun just popped out
after
> yet another rough t-storm and I have to play pick-up-stix in the
backyard
> now. That's the only "bad" thing about having your property back-up
to the
> woods. The "good" thing is, picking up twigs in my backyard is much
more
> mentally stimulating than AUK is these days.
>
> > I must admit that I am interested in seeing how he came up with
> > "Carl's employer is obviously paying for his defense" based on the
> > Osterwald response and counterclaim. Assuming he's not just talking
> > out his ass to entertain his fellow stAUKers, I'd love to hear his
> > reasoning. But I'm guessing we'll just see more bluff and bluster.
> >
> > I still stand by my original bet: the case will end up dismissed
with
> > all parties to bear their own costs. And I'm betting further that
> > Tholen*ahem* Lionel responds to this with "reread the counterclaim."
>
> You can pretty much bank on that. Again.
IAWTP !! and also live in the woods and has a nice collection of
sticks...
--
HJ
"The Honest One"
>
>
>
> On 5/27/09 1:33 PM, in article
gvjtel$qfm$1...@blackhelicopter.databasix.com,
> "Bob Larter" <bobby...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> I did. I still don't see any indication that "Greg Hall" or HJ have
been
> >> served with papers in this case. Nor do I see anything in the
heading like
> >>
> >> JOHN DOE 1 (a/k/a "Honest John"), JOHN DOE 2 (a/k/a "Greg Hall")
> >>
> >> or such. I see that the complaint *mentions* Greg Hall and HJ, but
that
> >> isn't the same thing as serving them with papers or naming them as
> >> defendants in the complaint. It seems like hairsplitting but it's
an
> >> important distinction for the purposes of getting a subpoena to
find the
> >> real names of the individuals making the posts in question, or
holding them
> >> liable in the present action.
> >
that
> > if they stick their heads over the parapet, they're going to get
served.
> > Why else do you think that they've gone so very quiet?
>
> You have an odd description of "quiet," since HJ is still posting
pretty
> regularly to the group and engaging in mockery of you and your fellow
> stAUKers.
I have cut-back about half on my posting to play a video game because
Lionel & Snuh-Wolf were getting kinda boring !! Playing more video
poker also, have $639,000 in (play) money....
> Do let us know when HJ and "Greg Hall" are served: then let us know
how Carl
> intends to establish that a New Jersey court has jurisdiction over an
> internet dispute between parties in Colorado and Louisiana,
respectively. I
> suspect the results will be entertaining, and rather expensive for Mr.
> Osterwald.
I don't live in none of them states and ain't been served no papers !!
I will donate my used washing machine to Carl, if'n he wants it....
> >> I suspect Osterwald's attorney has told him that to bring HJ to
court on the
> >> libelous post would require filing a suit in Colorado or Louisiana:
since I
> >> don't know where "Greg Hall" lives I cannot say where the suit
would have to
> >> be filed. At the very least bringing them to court would require
the filing
> >> of an amended counterclaim which named them as defendants. And
since
> >> Osterwald is currently *chuckle* unemployed I'm not sure he can
afford
> >> another $135 for that.
> >
> > You say that, but it's obvious that Carl's employer is paying for
his
> > attorney. If you think that's not the case, I suggest that you
re-read
> > his defense & counter-claim.
>
> Please do enlighten us: where in the defense do you see that Carl's
employer
> is paying for the claim? I don't see anything that would lead me to
either
> say that is or is not the case: this looks like a pretty standard
answer and
> counterclaim from a lawyer who was hired by a defendant. I would be
> surprised to see Carl's employer picking up the tab for this one
since,
> IIRC, his employer wasn't named in the original suit: TSB Bearings and
> Oakland Community College were, although I have no idea whether or not
they
> were actually served with papers.
>
> Of course, this is assuming that you aren't just talking out of your
ass
> while thumping your chest.
>
> >> "John Does 1-100" is a placeholder which means "We know there are
other
> >> people involved and will amend the filing as we discover more
information
> >> about them."
> >
> > Of course, but it's obvious that Novins hasn't gotten anywhere with
that
> > tactic. With that one, he was obviously trying to drag DB6 & the
> > employers of some other defendants in on that basis, but he clearly
> > hasn't gotten very far in doing so.
>
> And until Manzo amends that counterclaim to name "John C" and "Greg
Hall" as
> parties to the claim, he's not going to get very far with that tactic
> either. But do keep entertaining us with your efforts to avoid the
point
> that your stAUKer buddies are getting shafted for several thousands of
> dollars thanks to their Usenet antics. *snicker*
LOL !!
> >> Until HJ and Greg are actually *served*, they aren't parties
> >> to this lawsuit. But do keep thumping your chest and crowing. It
will only
> >> make the inevitable "all parties to pay their own costs" that much
sweeter
> >> for everyone who's enjoying this ongoing stAUKer-spanking.
> >
> > You obviously haven't read the counterclaims. ;^)
>
> Counterclaim paragraphs 16, 17, 20, 21, 22 and 23 mention "Greg Hall"
and/or
> "John C." Nobody is disputing that: what I'm disputing is that they
are not
> parties to the lawsuit until such time as they are served. And so far
as I
> can tell I've seen no evidence that they have been or will be served
with
> anything save posturing and preening from you and your fellow
stAUKers.
>
> But do keep repeating yourself. The "Tholen defense" suits you well in
an
> argument.
"A mind is a terrible thing to waste, by living in OZ"...
--
HJ
Cyberiade.it Anonymous Remailer
> I realize that you and your fellow "Kookologists" consider yourselves to
> be the Internet's "Intellectual elite" but as you know, *I* have never
> regarded you and your pals as anything but jackasses.
Well of course you'd think that. You're one of, if not the biggest,
kook to ever borrow enough money from someone to post to Usenet.
How fortunate for them that no part of anyones' life revolves
around the opinion of a gimpy loser kook like you. Your ilk is
about as significant as a pussy fart in a hurricane. The only thing
notable about your useless fat ass is how notably kooky you are.
miguel
<rhonda...@earthling.net> wrote:
I don't believe that can be conclusively established without comparing
the coverage language of Novins' policy, if he has one, with the
allegations in Carl's counterclaim.
"The Honest One"
"krp" <kr...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:AYjTl.1092$9L2...@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
IAWTP !!
--
HJ
"The Honest One"
> Fred Hall wrote:
> > On May 27, 9:55 am, Bob Larter <bobbylar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Fred Hall wrote:
> >>> On May 26, 10:11 pm, Sweetness <sweetchixorHATESP4...@yahoo.ca>
wrote:
> >>>> "The Honest One" wrote:
> >>>>> "miguel" <mun...@mungge.com> wrote in message
> >>>>> news:6n1p15p2fq8uqcqjr...@4ax.com...
> >>>>>> http://www.citmedialaw.org/threats/novins-v-cannon-lawsuit
> >>>> I like how teh response is basically "I don't know what you're
talking
> >>>> about" repeated over 9000 times followed by "now gimme some
money".
> >>>> --
> >>>> What would Fred Hall say ?
> >>> Fred Hall says: Howdy, Sweetness!
> >> W00t! Hi dude, how's things?
> >
>
> Not bad thanks.
>
> >> (Lionel here)
> >
> > Yep, recognized the .sig ;)
>
> So WhereTF have you been?
> --
> Whinel Lionel
hell...
--
HJ
"The Honest One"
>
> "Meat Plow" <me...@petitmorte.net> wrote in message
> news:2rggb1....@news.alt.net...
>
> >>>>>> I have said before - I support the basic concept of freedom
of
> >>>>>> speech.
> >>>>>>Just not the freedom to abuse, harass, blackmail and intimidate
people
> >>>>
> >>>>> decade?
> >>>>
> >>>> Well effective enough that the impersonations have pretty well
> >>>> stopped.
> >>>>THAT was my major beef with remailers. It seems, that according to
the
> >>>>arguments that I managed to achieve the "TOTALLY IMPOSSIBLE."
Seems
> >>>>that
> >>>>people may have bitched and whined, but eventually they did grow
up and
> >>>>stop
> >>>>that bullshit. Things change slowly. CB radio destroyed itself
because
> >>>>the
> >>>>LITTLE BOYS refused to change. If you haven't noticed, Usenet is
really
> >>>>starting to fall into disfavor with most major service providers,
Have
> >>>>YOU
> >>>>ever considered that YOU are a SMALL and perhaps INSIGNIFICANT
part of
> >>>>he
> >>>>reason why?
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Everyone who posts to Usenet is part of the reason. You might want
to
> >>> actually know the reasons first before passing judgment though.
> >>
> >> I have watched most of this play out over the past 7 or 8 years.
But
> >>tell me YOUR reasons.
> >
> > Reason for what, posting? Well usually I read a post and have
> > something to add so I reply. Or I have something to share and create
> > an original post. That's the purpose of Usenet right?
>
> I realize that you and your fellow "Kookologists" consider
yourselves to
> be the Internet's "Intellectual elite" but as you know, *I* have never
particularly
> bright otherwise you'd be doing something productive instead of your
> INFANTILE shit with your "Kook-club." YOU said I should know the
"reasons"
> before I pass judgment. So I am delaying judgment, but I asked you for
YOUR
> REASONS. SO ENLIGHTEN US oh great wise one with the REASONS the shit
was
> going on. You said I should know them, inferring that YOU in your
GREAT
> WISDOM actually DO know them. I am asking you to SHARE, or is this a
> "KOOK-SECRET?"
That would mean changing the "Secret Gay-caballer Code" and Peter
"Eater" Ross wouldn't stand for that !!
--
HJ
Bob Larter
Nice back-pedal, kook.
--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
krp
>> Well the KOOKISTS read it that way. When THEY claim that it means
>> X that is the ONLY thing it can mean in the KOOK universe. IF the
>> attorney for the defendants is making a shot at malpractice insurance
>> he's REALLY incompetent.
> It's no reflection on the lawyer that a layman failed to understand a
> competently drafted pleading.
I disagree as to the level of competence. At best it is a "Boiler Plate"
response. He starts with the Sergeant Shultz "I know NOTHING!" Response.
Generally "safe" and non-committal to avoid the trap of a perjurious
response. I read the counterclaim - it's pretty unenthusiastic. He fails to
raise many defenses that SHOULD have been raised. I am NOT saying they would
have ultimately been successful, just that they should have been raised to
preserve them. The issue on the Novins lawsuit is the collision of "rights
of privacy." Thos of Novins and other victims of the Kook-tribe and the
rights of the tribe itself from ANY government oversight. Essentially the
defense boils down to; "There is NO law west of the Pecos that infringes on
what we want to do, and our targets enter our radar at their own peril."
This is a clever argument, but one that will ultimately be defeated by the
FACTS. The FACTS that will ultimately cause the defense problems is that
almost none of their victims knowingly or voluntarily entered their domain.
The "JURISDICTION" of the KOOK-PATROL will ultimately NOT succeed in
defining itself to every last corner of the internet. The argument that the
defense MUST MAKE is that everyone who enters the internet AGREES to become
a public person and SUBMIT to their jurisdiction to harass. Most of the
targets of the Kookists were participating in unrelated newsgroups, they
only SAID something that the band of assholes didn't like. Or ONE of them
didn't and the gang joined in attacking that person. I think a DIFFICULT
fact to TRY to explain away is their "WAR" on the soc.men newsgroup as a
whole.
The Kookists very much see themselves as the "ELITE" of the Internet.
Somehow intellectually superior and therefore bestowed with some special
ENTITLEMENT to abuse lesser beings with the divine right of kingship. When
the lawsuit moves past the prelims and starts to get into the meat of
litigation - such as depositions - and discovery demands - interrogatories -
and the rest is where we shall see what merit there is to both sides.
Ultimately the defense is "First Amendment." So far in FEDERAL courts that
has succeeded. I don't know if this is a case to change that. But I don't
think it will be the waltz that the Kookists think it will be.
Bob Larter
> Bob Larter <bobby...@gmail.com> as King Henry V: Though all that I
> can do is nothing worth, Since that my penitence comes after all,
> Imploring Pardon.
>> <p>sychotic <c>hicken wrote:
>>> Bob Larter <bobby...@gmail.com> as King Henry V: Though all that
>>> I can do is nothing worth, Since that my penitence comes after all,
>>> Imploring Pardon.
>>>> Nodding wrote:
>>>>> debated by such abysmal thinkers as that Larter guy and his dormice.
>>>>
>>>> You think? Let's see who wins - then we can talk about who are
>>>> *really* the abysmal thinkers. ;^)
>>>>
>>> And when you DON'T win ... assuming the worst, which is something
>>> only a fool doesn't do ?
>>
>> LOL.
>> When *I* don't win? What makes you think that *I* have any money
>> riding on this case?
>>
>>
>
> you were one of them. I withdraw the above comment.
Holy shit! - You're actually capable of acting like a sane adult. I'm
impressed.
krp
"Nomen Nescio" <nob...@dizum.com> wrote in message
news:222f432e8a8fe38e...@dizum.com...
>> >> How are things in APAS?
>> >
>> > Dandy. Why not stick around for a while, numbnuts. Maybe I'll poke
>> > at your life some more. You know.... dig up the leans and potential
>> > foreclosures on the pig sty you call a home and post them, force
>> > you to remove the credit card surcharge bullshit from your web
>> > site, beat you up over your "time zone" asininity, tell the
>> > world how even a cum dumpster like your daughter despises the
>> > ground she wishes you were buried in.... shit like that.
>>
>> Given that I *OWN* the home GO FOR IT. Look for the liens and the
>
> Someone posted the links to Florida public records ages ago
> numbnuts. Go argue with them.
>
>> NOTHING. I have every right to PASS ALONG surcharges from the credit card
> Sure thing numbnuts. That's why you rushed to remove all that from
> your pitiable web site the very day your fat ass was spanked over
> it. That's why you don't even TAKE credit cards anymore. A little
> ol' you-can't-touch-them anonymous poster jerked your leash and
> commanded it.
It's called an abundance of caution till I checked with the state
Deptment of Business Regulation AND the sponsoring bank and found you ewere
FOS.
>> companies. Of course the changes to how banks today handle credit card
>> charges is why I stopped accepting them. Given the state of the economy I
>> don't take personal checks either. I checked with the state of Florida -
>> it
>> was legal to pass along the charges as long as they were disclosed and
>> agreed to before the charge was made. Sorry your legal expertise is
>> somewhat wanting. Are *YOU* now claiming to have contact with ANY of my
>> daughters? Moore keeps making the claim BUT he always RUNS away from
>> actually providing PROOF. I fully suspect YOU will do the same.
> Fuck, we even own what you post to Usenet. Derailed your "you must
> be Moore" rant before the fact.
Oh it's easy to tell you are not Moore. Yopu use BIG WORDS - he can't.
> You're our bitch even more than your cum dumpster daughter is a
> bitch to the roaming bands of aids infested Haitian homos your mail
> order cunt passes down. Hell, you'll be spewing and sputtering your
> thread bare drivel to this post any time now.
You may not be David Moore but your similar breeding history (your
parents) is certainly from the same LOW trailer park.