Is there REALLY a lawsuit?
Odious
>
> Ross Writes:
>
> <JACKIE, THIS IS JOBERT CLAUDIO FROM THE FLIPPINES!
>
> Hey...idiot...when you post using Dejanews, your isp is listed in the
> "for
> client" header. Your posts come from jpsnet, every single time, so unless
> jps is providing service IN THE PHILLIPINES, you're once again full of
> shit.
>
> <--------As are you when you name Odious as your group administrator and
> then distance yourself from your online pitchman when he LIBELS me.
You do not even know what constitutes libel, you ignorant pedophile.
> That
> wasn't my picture, Ross. Not only that, the person that sent that
> picture around is exactly what Odious falsely accused me of being: five
> elite gymnasts under age 16 he's "stalked" or whatever.
I never accused you of being 5 elite gymnasts. And I've never stalked anybody
ray...that must be why you put it in quotes. Either you are too stupid to express
an idea clearly or too psychotic to have a clear idea...pick one.
> But you only get
> contrite when acting like a victim, I forgot. Perhaps you still have a
> friend with a connection to the legal database and who can show you the
> size of judgments awarded for lies like that.
Um...that would be 0....you idiot. You just, in those few line invalidated any
libel charge. Do you know why? Go look up privileged information.
If that pic is yours, and it is, you and I both know that. Then there is no charge.
If that is not your picture how then would you know both from where it came and who
supplied it? That is unless you sent it to them. However this is moot since you just
stated I'm not the original source.
Also, you are the one who's stalked these girls...claiming (as you did in here just a
day ago) that you were putting the moves on them. How soon you forget your own
admission of guilt...care to see a reminder?
"You wouldn't have a prayer with an olympic gymnast..."
Yet, you would huh, ray? If so, why then would they be passing the picture you sent
them around....despite your begging them not to? Because you harassed them and
stalked them because you sir, are a pedophile. Why would these girls be doing this
unless they had something against you? That sure doesn't mesh with your claims to
have been oh so suave, and put the moves on them.
> <Trust Wuss on this one.
> <Complex, complicated, and even a waste of time. But let's pretend that
> Wuss,
> <as a paralegal/coffee-gofer has a clue.
> <What is so complex? Wuss is trying to sue Steele for preventing Wuss
> from
> <using the secret list to communicate with his students. Right. Well
> nobody
> <has ever heard of suing someone for something that silly before,
>
> In fact, it is called intentional interference with contractual
> advantage, intentional interference with prospective economic advantage,
> unfair business practices(California Business and Professions Code
> 17200).
>
> <------Thank you for saving me research time!
Research time...gosh ray thought you had a lawyer who had already taken care of that
for you....more lies. However that's moot since you have no business, dipshit. Try
getting a charge heard for interference with a sales of a book that consists of
plagiarized material, has no isbn, has no official copyright (and no, mailing
yourself a copy is not an official copyright you twit)...but also has not been
advertised anywhere but online where you are responsible via your history of
destroying any credibility you might have had otherwise. You will be laughed out of
the court house.
You not only have no charge, but even if you did, you've no way to demonstrate any
damages. So by all means, sue away, you gimp.
> <Then I've heard from other "counsel" who say that this whole thing is
> <undoable. What is wrong with Steele calling Wuss a fraud? He has the
> right to
> <his opinion. Steele put it in all his books and on this audio tapes and
> it's
> <even on his new video tapes. He just flat out says, "Paul Ross is a
> fraud."
>
> It's called trade libel per se and libel per se. And "Mr. Steele" has
> said lots of other things that are defamatory on the face of them. I
> won't
> repeat them here. Read the complaint and you'll find out.
>
> <----Thank you again. Let me also tell you that when you file an
> internet libel case, you file it against "John Doe" and the court
> uncovers the identity. This is the proper procedure even when you know
> who John Doe is. Ross, that's not my picture, and I am not a pedophile.
> You, however, are a liar.
>
Libel charges are on a civil level...the methods you speak of are for criminal
actions and state/federal lawsuits. You'd first have to file charges against my ISP
to get my personal info, then file against me. Also, a charge of libel requires you
demonstrate a hell of a lot more than something being said about you that you claim
is untrue.
First and foremost, you'd have to prove that you are not in fact a pedophile. That
would mean a psychiatric evaluation ray. You know hat that means....when the
evaluation comes back saying you are bi polar and subject to delusions and
paranoia...your case goes right down the crapper.
But wait, there's more. Let's assume you pass the evaluation with flying colors.
Then you have to demonstrate that I know for a fact that you are not a pedophile, and
that I am saying so with the malicious intent of harming you in some way. The fact
is I truly believe you are a pedophile.
Also...you'd have to prove that my calling you a pedophile is not simply a just
criticism based on your behavior, but a direct and calculated attempt to harm you.
That means you have to prove that all your obsessive behavior with young girls...and
all your threats and advances...are not enough for a reasonable person to assume you
could be a pedophile.
You must prove that some damage has happened as a result of my claims, that can't be
the result of your own behavior...doing things like threatening to beat kids to death
with a baseball bat.
Then...and this is going to sting. You'd have to prove that the statements I've made
were not privileged information. Meaning you have to show that it is not
information I got from somewhere else, but created my self.
So guess what, dipshit....you lose. You are welcome to try...but know now you'll
never even get the case heard...it will be thrown out before I receive so much as a
phone call.
> <Wuss has to prove that he isn't a fraud to prove that Steele is, uh, uh,
> has a
> <bad opinion? What's that?
> <And how could Wuss prove he's not a fraud? He'd have to uh, well, uh,
> maybe
> <he could get that Rolling Stone guy to come to court and swear that Wuss
> is
> <not a fraud. But if the judge asks him if he ever say Wuss seduce a
> woman,
> <the jig's up. Cause nobody has ever even seen Wuss with any female other
> than
> <a paid shill or a lap dancer.
>
> Don't be too sure.
> Don't be too sure.
> Don't be too sure.
> I think you're in for some TERRIFIC surprises, Johnny boy.
>
> <-----I could say the same about you, little man.
>
> <I mean how would Wuss prove he's not a fraud? Everyone realizes that NLP
> is
> <bullshit. Not one psychologist or psychiarist will testify that it is
> anything
> >other than a salesmanship class.
>
> Don't be too sure.
> Don't be too sure.
> Don't be too sure.
> Hee hee hee. If only you knew who we've got lined up as witnesses.
>
> <-------I don't need witnesses. That picture is not me. Your
> representative said it was and used that to market your products....tsk
> tsk. Of course, you KNOW what's coming and can't do a thing about it, so
> keep posturing, "John Doe."
>
Prove the picture is not you. Prove ross had anything to do with my posting the
picture. Prove that I am the original source of the picture. Prove that I knew for
a fact it was not you and knowingly posted it with the intent of causing you damage.
You have to have proof of all these things before the case will be heard.
--
Check out The Spiffy Page:
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Capsule/2160