COPS ARREST FOUR WHITE SUPREMACISTS
ofr...@hotmail.com
>
> Texas Cops Arrest 5 White Supremacists
> Raid on Hotel Yields Explosives, Drugs, Police Say
> Aug. 30, 2000
>
> By Frances Ann Burns
>
> FORT WORTH, Texas (APBnews.com) - Investigators are trying to determine what
> four men and a woman were doing in a local hotel room with an explosive
> device, a computer and fax machine, suspected narcotics and white
> supremacist literature.
>
> The suspects, all from Texas, claim to be members of a group called the
> Aryan Circle, said Lt. David Burgess, public information officer for the
> city police department. He said Fort Worth police had never heard of that
> organization.
>
> Investigators recovered two cigarette packages that appeared to be rigged to
> explode when they were opened, Burgess said. One was in the hotel room and
> the other device was found in the back seat of a police car, where
> investigators say one of the suspects ditched it.
>
> Bomb experts are examining the devices, Burgess said, and the white powder
> and liquids found in the room are being analyzed to determine if they are
> illegal drugs.
>
> "There's not a lot of answers right now because we still have a lot of
> evidence to go through," Burgess said. "It could be weeks before we go
> through all the evidence."
>
> Manager gets suspicious
>
> Police arrested Todd William Tucker, 28, of Grand Prairie, and Robert Cliff
> Massey, 25, of Midlothian in the parking lot of the Homewood Suites, Burgess
> said. Ryan Thorne, 24, and Terry Tollett, 34, both of Fort Worth, and
> Heather Petree, 27, of Irving, were arrested in the hotel room Tuesday
> morning.
>
> All five were in custody today on weapons and narcotics charges, Burgess
> said.
>
> Officers were summoned to the hotel, one of several near major highways in
> northeast Fort Worth, after the manager became suspicious. Burgess said
> hotel workers had noticed an unusual volume of telephone calls from the
> room, with incoming or outgoing calls every two to five minutes. When the
> room was still occupied at check-out time and the occupants refused to open
> the door, the manager called police.
>
> The officers who responded saw Tucker and Massey loading a computer into a
> car in the lot, Burgess said.
>
> --
> --
> Zman
>
> OFR says he will accept cards, visitors and phone calls...8^)
Organized harassment by police officers is a violation of my rights.
Posting an article about exploding packages and prompting people
to send me mail, visits and calls could be considered to be inciting
others to commit the crime on your behalf.
Your behavior is attrocious for a police officer.
But I forgive you.
- Outlaw Frog Raper -
Schenectady Copwatch
The schenectady copwatch mailing list contains archived
posts from anywhere regarding police abuse.
Read The Archives Online at:
http://www.listbot.com/archive/Schenectadycopwatch
To subscribe to the SchenectadyCopwatch mailing list:
http://Schenectadycopwatch.listbot.com/
(518) 356-4238
news:alt.thebird.copwatch
news:alt.law-enforcement
news:nyc.general
ofr...@hotmail.com
You have shown that you have no respect for anyone
that thinks differently.
You have accused me of genocide and mass-murder.
You are the killer.
You are the psychological terrorist trying to discredit
me any way you can.
I'm still waiting for you to back up your accusations with
one post of mine saying that I supporty any of your fantasy
charges.
Why do you conclude that all anarchists are your enemy?
You are an ignorant fool.
You are a liar.
Post your evidence.
Even the cops can see that once again you accuse me of things
you know absolutely nothing about.
Think about your accusations.
Do all conservatives support killing prisoners?
Do all liberals support Gore?
You are an idiot.
You have the guns.
You are the killer, yet you accuse me of genocide.
> ofr...@hotmail.com
> >
> > Organized harassment by police officers is a violation of my rights.
>
> As an anarchist, you should have no problem with anyone's rights being
> violated; at all. You also should have no problem with any and all crimes
> that are committed against you or any others. In fact, as an anarchist, you
> cannot even call such acts crimes.
>
> > Posting an article about exploding packages and prompting people
> > to send me mail, visits and calls could be considered to be inciting
> > others to commit the crime on your behalf.
>
> Quit whining. You could at least stand up and be half the anarchist that
> Saco and Venzetti (sp?) were.
Moron.
> Doug
--
FF...@webtv.net
Your behavior is attrocious for a human.
Sgt. Doe
ofr...@hotmail.com
What? My evil typing?
Daring to have my own ideas?
I become a threat to everyman?
> Sgt. Doe
ofr...@hotmail.com
Again.
------------------------Begin
quote--------------------------------------
I didn't expect you to satisfy me. I expected you to satisfy the
requirements of complete discussion and debate. Again, you have
proven what a weasel you are. That's OK Pitcavage. As usual, you
simply run away when it gets to hot for you!
The
thing I really hate about him is that he always disengages the second
he
is called on to back up his beliefs and/or positions.
You were respectfully requested to defend your position with
quantitative replies.
This guy accuses us of murder and increased killing of people but I'm
the one who's reactionary?
You have to resort to name calling. You are using the most
inflammatory rhetoric possible yet you know nothing about me at all.
What gives you the right to call me a punk? What gives you the right
to
say these things without any proof, personal knowledge, or data?
It's easy to sit behind that computer and call people names and make
false accusations. Doing the same thing directly to another human
being
would be quite a different matter. The true "punks are the ones who
call others names and make false accusations while hiding behind that
computer screen; knowing that they are safe from any physical
confrontation.
People should not write or print statements about others
that they are not prepared to say in person to those whom they
criticize.
I am a police officer and I am also on my department's SWAT team.
Where are these increasing deaths you are talking about? Are
you saying that the police are killing more people as each year passes?
What is your proof of this? I sure haven't been seeing any of this
going
on. People get shot and killed, certainly. As for an increase in the
killing....I don't think so
You're calling me "street trash?" Those are fighting words, friend. I
am
not street trash and I defy you to say that to my face. I lay it on
the line
every day, bud and I damn sure don't see you out there with me. You
don't call me street trash without having the stats, and the physical
proof
to back it up. You don't have it and you never will so you'd best back
off from that position.
You arrogant SOB! If you disagree with the flag and it's symbolism,
you can at least be respectful in your disagreement. What you have
said here are fighting words to a very large number of Southerners.
You have just proven what an arrogant bunch of people you anti-flag,
anti-Southern bigots are.
There's no debate going on in this thread. This thread is specifically
dealing with you and how pathetic you are.
And. no, he won't deal with facts because they don't fall inside his
> >> mutilated grasp of "reality."
> >> People like Pitcavage make you wonder if Ohio State is a
diploma mill.
You have failed to address the real issues here. You have failed to
engage in any real debate or discussion. You only care to make short,
snide remarks. Why are you even here? Go play god somewhere else.
Your smart ass postings serve no purpose and they are irritating to
others who wish to engage in real discussion.
A couple of more things about your constant smart ass remarks: I bet
you've never really had your ass whipped. You probably have never
had to physically back up your smart-mouth. In the real world,
Pitcavage, people can and do get their asses whipped for being smart
asses who like to drop short, judgmental comments all the time. It may
not be legal but it sure does happen. You could use an ass whipping to
teach you a little respect. A proper ass whipping would also go a long
ways towards toning down that inflated ego of yours. I bet it's a safe
assumption that you don't act this way with people when you are
dealing with them face to face.
I don't think an invitation to a fight is a threat. It's just that: an
invitation. Mutual combat. It's actually quite healthy and it tends
to
keep people respectful instead of surly and smart-ass like how so many
people on this newsgroup are.
You remain, as always, a
god-playing liberal who refuses to actually engage in the debate but
instead prefers to hover above it ready to divorce yourself from the
fray
the instant you are called on to provide even the flimsiest basis for
your
opinions
> >Do you still have any connections in that gym up in Chicago? The
one I
was
> >going to meet LB in? I think Carson lives there in Chicago.
>
> He has announced that he does not want to fight. Therefore, there is
no
> reason to book a meeting at the dojo. However, it remains available
for
the
> Butts-Deaton "rumble" at anytime.
Thanks, Bro'. I appreciate it.
Doug
Zman
"ofr...@hotmail.com" <ofr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:39AEA8...@hotmail.com...
ofr...@hotmail.com
> > Some quotes from the person accusing me with no proof whatsoever.
>
> admission, you believe that there should be no government, no laws, and no
> rules of any kind. You put yourself in this position, not me. I'm not the
> one what has to back anything up here. I don't have to prove anything. You
> proved it yourself when you embraced anarchism and hatred for all laws and
> govt. of any kind. You prove it yourself everyday when you post your
> mindless cop-hating rhetoric which you have finally admitted springs from
> your philosophy of anarchy. By embracing anarchy, you also simultaneously
> embrace a value system which does not condemn mass murder, genocide,
> robbery, etc. It really is that simple. No accusation, just logic.
>
> Quote what you want. I do find it somewhat entertaining that you had to
> spend all that time and effort finding quotes to try to use against me. Of
> course you have used them out of context and you have selectively culled
> quotes from my most passionate threads in the past. I must have really
> struck a nerve when I called you for what you were. Is this what you meant
> when you said you would "do" something if I "accused" you of "crap?" Is
> this all there is?
>
> I find you pathetic in your belief system and in your efforts to discredit
> me by posting selections from my past quotes. I'm not sure what you're
> trying to accomplish by posting these selections but it only serves to
> reinforce your image on this NG as a rabid nut with an anti-cop agenda
So you admit defeat.
It's ok, I forgive you.
ofr...@hotmail.com
>
> ofr...@hotmail.com <ofr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:39AFD5...@hotmail.com...
>
> admission, you believe that there should be no government, no laws, and no
> rules of any kind.
Never said any such thing. You are extrapolating based on your own
delusional false premise, that all anarchists are alike.
That would make you and Pat Buchanan exactly the same.
> You put yourself in this position, not me. I'm not the
> one what has to back anything up here.
Ok, liar, liar.
This makes twice you slandered me in the group.
You refuse to back it up because you are wrong.
> I don't have to prove anything. You
> proved it yourself when you embraced anarchism and hatred for all laws and
> govt. of any kind.
No, I did not. Post your evidence.
You are a cop. You should understand the concept of evidence.
I realize you are a SWAT member and are taught to attack first,
then deny or cover-up, but you are off-duty.
No one to kill here, Spike.
> You prove it yourself everyday when you post your
> mindless cop-hating rhetoric which you have finally admitted springs from
> your philosophy of anarchy.
I expose you and your treatment of dissidents.
> By embracing anarchy, you also simultaneously
> embrace a value system which does not condemn mass murder, genocide,
> robbery, etc. It really is that simple. No accusation, just logic.
Porcine logic, again.
> Quote what you want. I do find it somewhat entertaining that you had to
> spend all that time and effort finding quotes to try to use against me.
Most cops don't get off as lightly as you.
You still haven't asked around about the other cops that came and went.
> Of
> course you have used them out of context and you have selectively culled
> quotes from my most passionate threads in the past.
The ethics officer where you work is named what?
> I must have really
> struck a nerve when I called you for what you were. Is this what you meant
> when you said you would "do" something if I "accused" you of "crap?" Is
> this all there is?
I told you. Ask the other cops what happened.
Maybe they won't be little girls and tell you.
> I find you pathetic in your belief system and in your efforts to discredit
> me by posting selections from my past quotes.
You are an assassin. A paid killer, and I offend you with my typing.
> I'm not sure what you're
> trying to accomplish by posting these selections but it only serves to
> reinforce your image on this NG as a rabid nut with an anti-cop agenda.
Perhaps you can see now, that words are stronger than your weaponry.
You are required to act responsibly when speaking for the police.
Again.
> Doug
ofr...@hotmail.com
>
> Just so we're all clear, woudl you please make a list of the accusations you
> believe have been made against you by me? I'd like to know what I'm
> supposedly accusing you of this week.
The accused officer wouild like to know the charges?
Unlike the cops who arrested me, I will tell you.
In this thread below, as I was pointing out a possible implied threat
made
against me by a police officer, you took it upon yourself to use that
opportunity to attack and discredit me.
This is exactly what happened the last time I went to the station
to file a complaint. They decided to attack my character and make
threats.
It sounds like standard operating procedures for thugs.
-----------------------begin
quote------------------------------------------
ofr...@hotmail.com
>
> Organized harassment by police officers is a violation of my rights.
As an anarchist, you should have no problem with anyone's rights being
violated; at all. You also should have no problem with any and all
crimes
that are committed against you or any others. In fact, as an anarchist,
you
cannot even call such acts crimes.
> Posting an article about exploding packages and prompting people
> to send me mail, visits and calls could be considered to be inciting
> others to commit the crime on your behalf.
Quit whining. You could at least stand up and be half the anarchist
that
Saco and Venzetti (sp?) were.
Doug
-------------------------end
quote------------------------------------------
Interfering with, or harassing a person, for stating police misconduct
hardly seems ethical for a cop.
Interfering with, or conspiring to violate my rights is punishable by
up to life imprisonment.
You also posted this:
---------------------------begin
quote------------------------------------
The statements you have posted on this particular thread expose you for
what
you truly are: A disgusting human being who is the enemy of any law or
order
in any society anywhere on this earth. Based on your statements, you
are an
affront to mankind as a whole. Your philosophy supports mass murder,
genocide, destruction, and wanton hedonism. Whether you realize it or
not,
you advocate a return to the savage state of man before there was any
law at
all.
----------------------------end
quote---------------------------------------
You clearly state that your accusations are based on my statements
alone.
You imply that I support mass-murder, genocide and destruction.
These words of accusation that you type are based on your preconcieved
ideas about me from your previous accusations based on alleged testimony
from an anonymous Schenectady cop, and on your own prejudices.
I never condoned any such nonsense.
And then we have your violent threatening posts made to others
in the past.
----------------------------Begin
quote---------------------------------------
It's easy to sit behind that computer and call people names and make
false accusations. Doing the same thing directly to another human
being
would be quite a different matter. The true "punks are the ones who
call others names and make false accusations while hiding behind that
computer screen; knowing that they are safe from any physical
confrontation.
People should not write or print statements about others
that they are not prepared to say in person to those whom they
criticize.
You're calling me "street trash?" Those are fighting words, friend. I
am
not street trash and I defy you to say that to my face. I lay it on
the line
every day, bud and I damn sure don't see you out there with me. You
don't call me street trash without having the stats, and the physical
proof
to back it up. You don't have it and you never will so you'd best back
off from that position.
A couple of more things about your constant smart ass remarks: I bet
you've never really had your ass whipped. You probably have never
had to physically back up your smart-mouth. In the real world,
Pitcavage, people can and do get their asses whipped for being smart
asses who like to drop short, judgmental comments all the time. It may
not be legal but it sure does happen.
You could use an ass whipping to
teach you a little respect. A proper ass whipping would also go a long
ways towards toning down that inflated ego of yours.
I don't think an invitation to a fight is a threat. It's just that: an
invitation. Mutual combat. It's actually quite healthy and it tends
to
keep people respectful instead of surly and smart-ass like how so many
people on this newsgroup are.
-----------------------------end
quote------------------------------------
I believe that I have presented my evidence.
You have done nothing but make wild accusations and threats, just as
you have done in the past. Your posting history is evidence.
I base these accusations on your typed words.
Present your evidence.
By the way, I forgive you.
> Doug
ofr...@hotmail.com
>
> You're the biggest racist here.....
Good comeback cop.
I state that you are making implied threats and one cop attacks me,
then you call me a racist.
Just like complaing to the Police station.
You become the accused if the accused is a cop.
--
ofr...@hotmail.com
>
>
> >> Is this what you meant
> > > when you said you would "do" something if I "accused" you of "crap?" Is
> > > this all there is?
> >
> > I told you. Ask the other cops what happened.
>
> wield over me?
I have the power that all citizens have.
The power to contact the authorities about unethical misconduct
by persons claiming to be cops.
Maybe in Texas they allow loudmouth cops to spew wild accusations,
but not if I have any say in it.
The accusations will go on your record.
They will be investigated.
You must be retarded. You can see in my posts that I have contacted the
FBI
and local authorities regarding misconduct.
That is what I do at Copwatch. You know that.
You also know that interfering with, or conspiring to violate my rights
is punishable by up to lifetime imprisnment.
But I still forgive you.
> Doug
--
ofr...@hotmail.com
Using electronic communications to harass is a crime.
You and zman both know that.
>
> ofr...@hotmail.com <ofr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:39AFEB...@hotmail.com...
> This is your charge against me? What statute have I violated? What have I
> done that is unethical? You're a nut. A freak. I suspect you have made
> similar charges to the FBI and to local police before and that the reason
> you were not taken seriously is because you are mentally challenged. Get a
> grip. I wish you understood what a raving lunatic you sound like.
>
> Doug
--
ofr...@hotmail.com
> > by persons claiming to be cops.
> > They will be investigated.
> > You must be retarded. You can see in my posts that I have contacted the
> > FBI and local authorities regarding misconduct.
>
> That's fine. When and if they take your complaint, which I don't think they
> will, it can be easily proven that I have done nothing wrong here.
> A review
> of your posts from the past will show that you have a very serious problem
> and they will go far towards proving that you are not a credible person.
Before a complaint is checked out, they check out the accuser, how
interestingly, coercive.
Your feeble attempts to dissuade me are futile.
> Furthermore, my posts on this NG have been made as a regular guy who draws
> on his LEO expereince. Nowhere have I ever posted using my dept.'s name nor
> have I have ever posted in an official capacity.
You still are claiming to be a cop.
You are bound by rules of conduct. They don't include offing
ass-whippings
to teach respect to posters.
> You'll have a very hard
> time convincing anyone that I have done something wrong here. You would
> have me punished or investigated for expressing my own opinion.
Slander and threats of violence aren't matters taken lightly by the
management.
> > You also know that interfering with, or conspiring to violate my rights
> > is punishable by up to lifetime imprisnment.
>
> Who has done that on this NG? Certainly not me.
I asked you before to not harass me.
When you spoke for another Texas cop. You accused me without any proof
whatsoever and I told you to leave me alone or face the consequences.
A SWAT cop probably pays pretty good, heh?
You should act like a professional when claiming to be a cop.
ofr...@hotmail.com
>
> ofr...@hotmail.com <ofr...@hotmail.com> wrote in
>
> > Slander and threats of violence aren't matters taken lightly by the
> > management.
>
The readers can decide.
> > I asked you before to not harass me.
>
> Posting messages on a public NG is not harrassment.
You are absolutely wrong. Using an electronic communications device
to commit a crime makes it a Federal crime punishable by up to 3
years in prison.
Being educated in Texas would explain your ignorance.
> You post your opinions all the time and even make running commentary
> on the posts of others.
Comments and opinions are fine.
> That's what we do here on the NG's. Now you want me to be punished for
> doing the same thing.
It's called a sting. I learned it from watching the cops.
> > When you spoke for another Texas cop. You accused me without any proof
> > whatsoever and I told you to leave me alone or face the consequences.
>
> Oh. You can post thousands of messages all day long in which you make
> disparaging comments about cops both individually and collectively.
You claim to be on a SWAT team of Costitutionalists and you don't
understand why I am allowed to post comments and criminal government
behavior diguised as legal?
You are a farce. You should defend my right to critique the government.
Your only intent is to silence and or discredit me.
> But let
> me or anyone else post our own personal opinion that violates your idea of
> what we should believe in then you want to report it.
You should learn about civil law. Assassin law apparently doesn't cover
legal
implications of slander a wrongful accusations.
You have repeatedly accused me of mental illness in order to further
your propaganda.
> I still am not clear
> on your exact "charges." What, exactly, are you accusing me of? I am
> assuming that it is slander and harrassment. Is that correct?
>
> As an anarchist, how do you justify going to the authorities to report me?
Only your insane version of Anarchism has no authorities to take care
of abusive government.
I am not the issue. Your posts are.
> If you are a true anarchist, then how can you appeal to the Federal Govt.
> and a Municipal Police Dept. for assistance in relief from postings which
> you feel are harrassment?
If you opened a book you wouldn't be so ignorant.
> Funny how you don't believe we should have any
> government of any kind yet you are now threatening to report me to the govt.
Again, you are stating lies about my beliefs.
You are merely mimmicking the rednecks you work with.
Better check your bazooka, it needs cleaning.
Mr Bubba
"Douglas Deaton" <tex...@sprynet.com> wrote in message You would
> have me punished or investigated for expressing my own opinion.
A...um...happened to me for posting MY OWN OPINION on MY OWN WEBSITE, fair
is fair. Where has free speech gone?
> > You also know that interfering with, or conspiring to violate my rights
> > is punishable by up to lifetime imprisnment.
Wow, can you let me in on this law, I may need it because of what happened
to me. Liftime...that is a long time. Even though every right I have as a
citizen has clearly been maliciously violated, I can't even get an
investigation. This system really sucks, maybe changes can be made, maybe
they can start here.
> Who has done that on this NG? Certainly not me.
I don't know about you but I had several possible LEO's in here posting crap
on me. This is clearly harassment...anyway back to the issues.
Bubba
ofr...@hotmail.com
>
> ofr...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > Conspiracy to harass me by cops is a violation of my rights.
> > Why are you acting so dumb and innocent?
> > You sound like one of the prisoners.
>
> This is a public forum. You choose to come here. No one is harrassing you.
> You can choose nto read the messages anyone posts here. You can also
> killfile people's messages. If I were ending you repeated e-mails
> threatening to harm you, then you might have a case. If I was calling you
> at home, then you might have a case. Hoever, since this is Usenet, you have
> absolutely no standing.
You still insist that you can harass and annoy people at will
on usenet.
Do you want your account canceled as well?
I am ordering you to not harass me again.
You just can't accept defeat, can you?
Refusal to desist will only implicate you more.
Don't make me slap an order of protection on you for my safety.
You have posted threatening ass-whippings to others for using
what you pea-brained Texans call "fightin words."
I think it is reasonable to assume that you are predicated to
violence.
Perhaps a forced psychiatric examination is in order?
I am telling you to cease and desist all contact with me.
You accused me of being the enemy.
You accused me of being a threat.
You are the threat.
You are a threat to all cops that suffer from your actions.
ofr...@hotmail.com
>
> >>Based on your statements, you are an
> >> affront to mankind as a whole. Your
> >>philosophy supports mass murder,
> >> genocide, destruction, and wanton hedonism.
> >>Whether you realize it or
> >> not, you advocate a return to the savage state
> >>of man before there was any law at all.
> >
>
> You wrote:
> > You clearly state that your accusations are based on my statements
> > alone. You imply that I support mass-murder, genocide and destruction.
>
> stated that you were an anarchist and I made some very clear observations
> about that particular philosophy. Then, I made an observation on your own
> position as it was based on your love for anarchy.
>
> > And then we have your violent threatening posts made to others
> > in the past.
>
> Not even one. Telling someone that they need or deserve an ass-whipping is
> a far cry for threatening to give them one.
> Good luck with your complaint.
Save it for the authorities. Perhaps you can learn from this.
Zero tolerance, you know.
I'm just a person archiving abusive police.
I am no criminal.
You are the one who came into the group spouting that you were a
cop and another cop told information about me.
Divulging police business to a person to use in a public forum
is a violation of my rights.
Remember, you cops created me, with your actions.
Now you will reap the rewards of the seeds of pain that you have sown.
I realize that you must feed your family and that all they had
available was the assassin position.
> Go on you little whining tattle tale.
A big brave hunter that wants to hunt pigs with a spear and
that's what you got for me.
Be a man, not a coward.
Just admit you embellished my words with your prejudices and
extrapolated a bunch of nonsense in order to dicredit me
because of your hatred of my Copwatch postings.
It's ok, I forgive you anyway.
ofr...@hotmail.com
Why are you acting so dumb and innocent?
You sound like one of the prisoners.
Douglas Deaton wrote:
>
> ofr...@hotmail.com <ofr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:39AFEB...@hotmail.com...
> This is your charge against me? What statute have I violated? What have I
> done that is unethical? You're a nut. A freak. I suspect you have made
> similar charges to the FBI and to local police before and that the reason
> you were not taken seriously is because you are mentally challenged. Get a
> grip. I wish you understood what a raving lunatic you sound like.
>
> Doug
--
ofr...@hotmail.com
> A...um...happened to me for posting MY OWN OPINION on MY OWN WEBSITE, fair
> is fair. Where has free speech gone?
Exactly.
> > > You also know that interfering with, or conspiring to violate my rights
> > > is punishable by up to lifetime imprisnment.
>
> Wow, can you let me in on this law, I may need it because of what happened
> to me. Liftime...that is a long time.
>> Forum: alt.thebird.copwatch
>> Thread: Civil Rights: U.S. Code Chapter 13
>> Message 5 of 79
Subject:
Civil Rights: U.S. Code Chapter 13
Date:
03/03/2000
Author:
- OFR - <ofr...@hotmail.com>
Sec. 241. Conspiracy against rights
If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or
intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth,
Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right
or
privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United
States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or If two or
more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the
premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free
exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured -
They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten
years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in
violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an
attempt
to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to
commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be
fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life,
or
both, or may be sentenced to death.
Sec. 242. Deprivation of rights under color of law
Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or
custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory,
Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any
rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the
Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different
punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an
alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the
punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or
imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury
results
from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts
include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a
dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title
or
imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from
the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include
kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual
abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an
attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any
term
of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
Ouch!
> Even though every right I have as a
> citizen has clearly been maliciously violated, I can't even get an
> investigation. This system really sucks, maybe changes can be made, maybe
> they can start here.
If your rights have been violated, the FBI is the place to start.
> > Who has done that on this NG? Certainly not me.
>
> I don't know about you but I had several possible LEO's in here posting crap
> on me. This is clearly harassment...anyway back to the issues.
We don't have to tolerate misconduct by cops.
> Bubba
-
Chas
> Wow, can you let me in on this law, I may need it because of what happened
> to me. Liftime...that is a long time. Even though every right I have as a
> citizen has clearly been maliciously violated, I can't even get an
> investigation. This system really sucks, maybe changes can be made, maybe
> they can start here.
Title 42, secs. 1986, 1985, 1983 (in that order); basically a 'civil
rights violation under color of authority'.
The basic prison time is up to ten years, $250,000 fine. The long time
penalties and the death sentence stuff is for major violence and death.
If you'll e-mail me, I'll try to rustle up a complaint forma for you.
It seems that you can also combine it with a Title 18, sec. 1961 et seq-
it's a RICO action against a criminal gang or enterprise. A department
that obstructs justice, interferes with justice, harasses witnesses to a
crime (by a cop for instance)- lots of things that can apply to a
corrupt department.
Chas
http://members.xoom.com/kilap/Keepsafe.htm
http://www.kuntaosilat.com/videos.html
http://www.angelfire.com/co3/jail4judges/index.htm
Chas
> Go on you little whining tattle tale.
I thought you guys encouraged 'tattle tales'.
Have I misunderstood the meaning of 'informant'?
Peter White
> Peter White wrote:
> > Dedicted to destroying the Republic.
>
> That's pretty funny, where'd you come up with that?
>
Basic definition of anarchist, one who believes in the absence of any form
of government. Ken(NY) posted the Webster's definition for you earlier.
Don't tell me you're gonna do the "It depends on what is is" wiggle?
>
> He committed libel. You know it.
>
Requires an untruth causing damage to your reputation. Personally, I think
attacks from cops enhance your reputation in the circles you frequent, so
maybe you should pay him for the helpful PR.
>
> Cops can't intimidate me on the internet.
>
You're right. Not because they shouldn't, but because it's not possible.
> It's not allowed. Both his job and his isp have rules against this
> type of behavior.
>
Anarchist--no rules. But anyway, go to the ISP with your posts and his. I'd
really like to know how that one turns out.
> > Apparently can't be trusted in a public place with a firearm.
>
> Who you talking about here?
>
You. I was working on that free association thing. I'm not very good at it.
PW
Mr Bubba
Douglas Deaton <tex...@sprynet.com> wrote in message As an anarchist, you
should have no problem with anyone's rights being
> > violated; at all. You also should have no problem with any and all
> > crimes
> > that are committed against you or any others. In fact, as an anarchist,
> > you
> > cannot even call such acts crimes.
This type of talk seems to follow complaints against police officers. It
seems that the system prefers to attack political and religious beliefs of
the victims making complaints. Is there a reason for this. The way a person
chooses to live should not determine whether or not his complaint is valid.
You're a nut. A freak. I suspect you have made
> similar charges to the FBI and to local police before and that the reason
> you were not taken seriously is because you are mentally challenged. Get
a
> grip. I wish you understood what a raving lunatic you sound like.
>
> Doug
Again, "You're a nut" "A freak", you probably complained before...whose
whinin here? Mentally challenged??? Hey, do you work where I live? Nothin
personal but...The police here tried to say I was a nut when I complained...
for making a complaint that I was blatantly falsely arrested TWICE. YEAH,
I'am the nut here. A moron could see by reading the facts, warrants, court
transcripts etc...that my Constitutional Rights were violated, yet lawyers,
cops, prosecutors, FBI, just cannot understand.
Okay all the police officers in here, lets debate this, show restraint and
prove me wrong in a humane manner (head shots only). A misdemeanor, alleged
threat by me to alleged victim that is not even present, only the officer is
present, the alleged victim not aware that he had been threatened therefore
could not fear the threat. LEO goes and obtains warrant several days later
as ordered to do so by his chief ), lists on the warrant another officer as
a direct witness to the threat, warrant states alleged victim was
threatened, and feared the threat. Alleged victim does not find out about
the threat for days after I had already been arrested, and testifies to this
in court. Witness officer later testifies they did not hear the alleged
threat. I had been arrested and hauled to jail for this, and placed under a
restraining order for nearly 3 months as part of my bond. I had no personal
contact with this alleged victim for over 2 years prior to this alleged
incident, and have only seen him at court since the alleged incident. OKAY
LEO's whats your opinion? Were my rights violated...Was I in fact falsely
arrested... Was this wrong??? When you get done laughin at the first arrest
I'll let y'all in on the second one...it's even better!!!
** Any resemblence to actual people or events is purely
coincidental and alleged**
And yes, I realize all officers do not condone this type of behavior, but do
I, and should I have the right to complain, express my opinion, and expect
something to be done about the officers actions?
BUBBA
Carol Granger
Then you should/will have your day in court.
But believe me, there ~are~ checks and balances.
Shucks, if I was able to (without much difficulty) get the media
involved
because I felt the local police department (where my daughter-in-law
works
as a dispatcher, by the way) where I live, wasn't actively pursuing
handi-
capped parking violators, then I ~DO~ believe that there are the
adequate
checks and balances.
I think you just have to know how to go about it..........and without
the
typical "whiney" BULL****.
ofr...@hotmail.com
>
> Well, that was quite an exchange.
>
> Froggy, you're simply amazing.
>
> An anarchist who wants government to intercede for him.
It's called using the system against itself.
> Dedicted to destroying the Republic.
That's pretty funny, where'd you come up with that?
> Want to wipe out the Constitution, but insist on its protection for your
> speech.
I only said that I could not support "this" government.
> Wants his actual activities protected, too.
>
> Of course, no one else is allowed to express contempt for this conduct or
> its perpetrator.
What conduct? Typing?
He committed libel. You know it.
He was acting in a manner unsuitable for a cop.
> That calls for a governmental injunction and investigation for some reason.
Cops can't intimidate me on the internet.
It's not allowed. Both his job and his isp have rules against this
type of behavior.
> Apparently can't be trusted in a public place with a firearm.
Who you talking about here?
> Damn, it's hard to write in your trademarked disjointed style. I find it
> near impossible to flit to a new idea before I fill even a single line with
> text. Do you practise free association exercises in your shower to improve
> your standards, or do you come by this naturally?
Something happens when I type. I have no idea what I'm going to write
until I start typing. I just type as it comes to me, then I reread it
to make certain not to commit any crimes.
> The only other poster that
> even comes close is M. Simon, and he's a rank amateur compared to you.
>
> PW
--
Peter White
"Mr Bubba" <mrb...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:0QZr5.6747$yl2....@news4.atl...
>
>
> This type of talk seems to follow complaints against police officers. It
> seems that the system prefers to attack political and religious beliefs of
> the victims making complaints. Is there a reason for this. The way a
person
> chooses to live should not determine whether or not his complaint is
valid.
>
anarchist appealing to the government, can you?
> Okay all the police officers in here, lets debate this, show restraint
and
> prove me wrong in a humane manner (head shots only). A misdemeanor,
alleged
> threat by me to alleged victim that is not even present, only the officer
is
> present, the alleged victim not aware that he had been threatened
therefore
I won't disagree, and need no other information on the case. Where I'm
sitting, the threat only counts if the victim is in reasonable fear. Doesn't
count if he's not afraid, even if he should be, and doesn't count if he's a
paranoid who's afraid of everything anyway.
PW
ofr...@hotmail.com
>
> "ofr...@hotmail.com" <ofr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:39B04A...@hotmail.com...
> > Peter White wrote:
> > > Dedicted to destroying the Republic.
> >
> > That's pretty funny, where'd you come up with that?
> >
> Basic definition of anarchist, one who believes in the absence of any form
> of government. Ken(NY) posted the Webster's definition for you earlier.
> Don't tell me you're gonna do the "It depends on what is is" wiggle?
It does depend.
Ken looked up Anarchism. You are quoting the defintion of Anarchism
and calling it the definition of Anarchist.
Ken also selected his choice of multiple definitions.
> > He committed libel. You know it.
> >
> Requires an untruth causing damage to your reputation.
Back to the books, Peter.
Libel requires no proof of damages.
That would be slander.
> Personally, I think
> attacks from cops enhance your reputation in the circles you frequent, so
> maybe you should pay him for the helpful PR.
> > Cops can't intimidate me on the internet.
> >
> You're right. Not because they shouldn't, but because it's not possible.
Sorry. A cop in a chat room had someone arrested for harassment.
I've already had a person arrested for using an electronic device to
harass me.
> > It's not allowed. Both his job and his isp have rules against this
> > type of behavior.
Nice dodge. It's not allowed.
> Anarchist--no rules. But anyway,
You are deliberately antagonistic. You refuse to listen.
You will see what rules I enforce.
Your only goal is to annoy me.
I will now ask you to stop annoying me.
>go to the ISP with your posts and his. I'd
> really like to know how that one turns out.
I've been down this road before. I learned it from the cops.
They had my account"s" closed first.
> > > Apparently can't be trusted in a public place with a firearm.
> >
> > Who you talking about here?
> >
> You. I was working on that free association thing. I'm not very good at it.
Watch what you say. You are twisting the truth to discredit me.
If you insist on being antagonistic, I will have to ask you to stop
replying to me.
Why do I have to teach cops how to behave in a public forum?
You guys really should learn some verbal judo.
Peter White
> Peter White wrote:
> >
> > "ofr...@hotmail.com" <ofr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:39B04A...@hotmail.com...
> > > Peter White wrote:
> > > > Dedicted to destroying the Republic.
> > >
> > > That's pretty funny, where'd you come up with that?
> > >
> > Basic definition of anarchist, one who believes in the absence of any
form
> > of government. Ken(NY) posted the Webster's definition for you earlier.
> > Don't tell me you're gonna do the "It depends on what is is" wiggle?
>
> It does depend.
>
> Ken looked up Anarchism. You are quoting the defintion of Anarchism
> and calling it the definition of Anarchist.
>
For what it's worth, here's the complete definition (only two parts) from my
edition of Webster's:
"1. The theory that *all* (emphasis mine) forms of government are
incompatible with individual and social liberty, and should be replaced by
voluntary cooperation and mutual aid. 2. The methods, esp. terroristic
ones, of anarchists."
Which kinda flies in the face of your assertion that you only oppose this
current system. And, if you're true to the definition, you do want to
destroy the Republic. Might you understand how I'd take offense?
> Ken also selected his choice of multiple definitions.
>
> > > He committed libel. You know it.
> > >
> > Requires an untruth causing damage to your reputation.
>
> Back to the books, Peter.
>
> Libel requires no proof of damages.
>
> That would be slander.
>
I should start charging for corrections to all your errors of fact. I could
afford that boat...
Slander, sir, refers to an oral defamation. Libel refers to a printed one.
Note the root "liber", Latin for "book". (I had to go look up the root for
"slander". From Latin "scandulum", "scandal". There, got that out of my
system.)
In either case damages must be shown; no victim, no crime, right? Courts
have also held that truth is an absolute defense, that is, you can't libel
someone by printnig the truth.
Take your own advice, froggy, and hit those books. I'd still be happier if
you were more educated on the Constitutional limits to government authority,
but given your avowed intent to overturn the current system, that's probably
not high on your list of things to do.
>
> You are deliberately antagonistic. You refuse to listen.
>
> You will see what rules I enforce.
>
> Your only goal is to annoy me.
>
> I will now ask you to stop annoying me.
>
Public forum, guy. Feel free to kill-file me.
> > > > Apparently can't be trusted in a public place with a firearm.
> > >
> > > Who you talking about here?
> > >
> > You. I was working on that free association thing. I'm not very good at
it.
>
> Watch what you say. You are twisting the truth to discredit me.
>
Sorry. Wasn't it you that said that your permit to carry in public had been
revoked? In every jurisdiction I know, that can only happen when someone
can't be trusted in a public place with a firearm. There are locales where
the government has discretion on the initial issue of a permit, but taking
one away is a whole 'nother ball game. If it was some bureaucratic foul-up,
or you forgot to renew or something, I do apologize.
> If you insist on being antagonistic, I will have to ask you to stop
> replying to me.
>
Again, I won't be hurt or at all retalitory if you kill-file me.
> Why do I have to teach cops how to behave in a public forum?
>
> You guys really should learn some verbal judo.
>
I'm sorry, sir, I understand that you must be feeling annoyed at what must
seem like incessant fault finding on my part. I hope you understand that
many people enjoy the free exchange of ideas, and that factual errors do
somewhat inhibit that exchange. Is there anything at all that I can do or
say to persuade you to at least tolerate the exercise of my First Amendment
rights?
PW
Peter White
>
>
> Hey, in your opinion, just how credible do you think the FBI will find his
> charges? Should I be worried yet? Also, I had no idea that his concealed
> carry permit had been revoked. I know that he's been arrest at least once
> because he admitted it. I wonder what kind of criminal history this OFR
guy
> has?
>
*I* wouldn't take them seriously. Frankly, I'm not even sure what the
charges are. Harassment? When relief is a kill-file away? Threats or
terroristic statements? Don't see the criminal intent, and a refereed match
isn't the same thing as an assassination attempt. Usenet has two neato
things in this realm: there isn't a he said/she said issue, since everything
is preserved on oodles of locations, and the rough-and-tumble/anonymous
nature of the place creates different expectations. Very raw, very free
speech, without the physical aspect.
Froggy is apparently under some type of restraining order, and has been
arrested for harassment. He mentions several arrests, but doesn't give the
charges. Details (such as they were) on that and his permit woes appear in:
Message-ID: <39AC9A...@hotmail.com>
From: "ofr...@hotmail.com" <ofr...@hotmail.com>
Reply-To: schenecta...@listbot.com
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.04Gold (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups:
alt.true-crime,nyc.general,school.teachers,alt.thebird.copwatch,alt.law-enfo
rcement
Subject: Re: Copter Catches Principal Growing Pot (wow)
References: <39AAF517...@mynospam.com> <39AB79...@hotmail.com>
<O%Qq5.148$U41....@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net
>
PW
Ken (NY)
<ofr...@hotmail.com> ejaculated:
>> Basic definition of anarchist, one who believes in the absence of any form
>> of government. Ken(NY) posted the Webster's definition for you earlier.
>> Don't tell me you're gonna do the "It depends on what is is" wiggle?
>
>It does depend.
>Ken looked up Anarchism. You are quoting the defintion of Anarchism
>and calling it the definition of Anarchist.
No, I posted the definition of anarchist, not anarchism.
>Ken also selected his choice of multiple definitions.
Ok, here is the whole thing, offr555, right out of Webster's
Ninth Collegiate Dictionary:
"Anarchist: 1. One who rebels against any authority, established order
or ruling power 2. One who advocates, or promotes ararchism or
anarchy; esp: one who uses violent means to overthrow the established
order"
There ya go; doesn't make you look any better with the entire
definition, does it? You describe yourself as an anarchist but like
Peter observed, you want to retain the rights granted by the
government you want to overthrow.There is ample evidence of a confused
thought process on your part. You really should look into taking a
course on Logic, son.
Regards,
--
Ken (NY)
Chairman,
Department of Redundancy Department,
___________________________________
Those who live by the sword get
shot by those who don't.
http://www.danielfaulkner.com/
Ken (NY)
ejaculated:
>Take your own advice, froggy, and hit those books.
Peter, I am beginning to suspect that we are dealing with
either a grade school educated person, or this is another illustration
of yet another victim of the public schools system.
Sincerely,
Mr Bubba
Carol Granger <cgra...@earthlink.net> wrote in message > Then you
should/will have your day in court.
To quote an earlier poster, I laugh hysterically in your general direction.
I had my day in court...The judge through the case against me out with me
not even having to testify. Ok, now that I had my day... what next? My
freedoms had been removed for nearly 3 months, I was publically humiliated,
my family and I are still taunted by these LEO's over a year later. Oh and
exactly nine days later I was falsely arrested again, same LEO's same place.
> But believe me, there ~are~ checks and balances.
Where, what?
>
> Shucks, if I was able to (without much difficulty) get the media
> involved
MEDIA, just how would one go about getting them involved? Would media be
considered my website that comes up in the top 3 listings when one searches
for our town? A newspaper wrote an article and guess what, the accused had
their attorney respond to the charges, he said "The claims are unfounded".
Excuse me, but how would he or anyone else know the claims are unfounded,
there has never been an investigation conducted regarding my charges.
> because I felt the local police department (where my daughter-in-law
> works
> as a dispatcher, by the way) where I live, wasn't actively pursuing
> handi-
> capped parking violators, then I ~DO~ believe that there are the
> adequate
> checks and balances.
Lady...we ain't talkin minor crap like the police not writing parking
tickets. My families lives have been destroyed, my children dream of rogue
police breaking into our home and taking their father, my life has been
destroyed, our home has been destroyed and the people that did this are the
ones that took an oath before God to preserve our rights and to protect us.
I was jailed twice without cause, can you comprehend that, arrested, cuffed,
put in a cage, hauled to jail, booked, photographed the whole thing FOR NO
REASON. Now I'am even being blackmailed, it appears to leave this town and
drop my charges. You know the funny thing, they are doing this same get out
of our town B/S to another family right now too, luckily my businesses are
not located in this town, theirs unfortunately was. Where the HELL are the
checks and balances for us.
>
> I think you just have to know how to go about it..........and without
> the
> typical "whiney" BULL****.
Oh, you mean meet with these regulators and show evidence, like documents,
video tapes showing where these LEO's actually lied and conspired to harass
me. We did that, I have proved every allegation that I made. Now what? I'll
tell ya, I even proved where the top cop lied in writing to town
officials...he still works there. What checks and balances??? They don't
exist here! http://www.angelfire.com/nc/Bubbasurvivin
Bubba
EX
>for a cop.
How exactly should a cop behave? Better yet,
in what manner would YOU act if you were a cop?
EX
>There's nothing that can bring a smile
>to my face faster than knowing a habitual
>criminal has been EXecuted or shot dead
>by a law-abiding citizen or police officer.
>Welcome to the United States. A country
>that rewards incompetence and allows
>criminal behavior without consequence.
EX
Just a misguided asshole.
>Divulging police business to a
>person to use in a public forum is
>a violation of my rights.
And?
>Remember, you cops created me,
>with your actions.
Oh Geez, another "it's not my fault you made me like this" fool.
>Now you will reap the rewards of
>the seeds of pain that you have sown.
This is scary. The last time I heard those words were from a deep voice
in the sky.
>I realize that you must feed your
>family and that all they had available
>was the assassin position.
I hope you only use 911 for a medical problem. God forbid an assassin
should show up to help.
>Be a man, not a coward.
Considering the source, that remark is quite funny.
>Just admit you embellished
>my words with your prejudices
>and extrapolated a bunch of
>nonsense in order to dicredit me
>because of your hatred of my Copwatch >postings.
>It's ok, I forgive you anyway.
Not only are you a misguided asshole, you're delusional. Don't be so
quick to pat yourself on the back. I don't think there is any hatred
towards you or your postings. It's more like pity.
EX
Like, cool man-----it sounds like a spiritual thing.
>I have no idea what I'm going to
>write until I start typing.
That's obvious.
>I just type as it comes to me,
Sort of like a bowel movement between your ears.
>then I reread it to make certain
>not to commit any crimes.
Every one of your posts is a crime.
Ken (NY)
<tex...@sprynet.com> ejaculated:
>
>ofr...@hotmail.com <ofr...@hotmail.com>
>
>> The power to contact the authorities about unethical misconduct
>> by persons claiming to be cops.
>> The accusations will go on your record.
>> They will be investigated.
>> You must be retarded. You can see in my posts that I have contacted the
>> FBI and local authorities regarding misconduct.
>
>Oh. I see. You're going to report me to the FBI and to my own Dept.
>That's fine. When and if they take your complaint, which I don't think they
>will, it can be easily proven that I have done nothing wrong here. A review
>of your posts from the past will show that you have a very serious problem
>and they will go far towards proving that you are not a credible person.
>Furthermore, my posts on this NG have been made as a regular guy who draws
>on his LEO expereince. Nowhere have I ever posted using my dept.'s name nor
>have I have ever posted in an official capacity. You'll have a very hard
>time convincing anyone that I have done something wrong here. You would
>have me punished or investigated for expressing my own opinion.
>
>> You also know that interfering with, or conspiring to violate my rights
>> is punishable by up to lifetime imprisnment.
>
>Who has done that on this NG? Certainly not me.
>
>Doug
>
>
>
He's a windbag. He threatened my job at one point and I
laughed at him. ofr555 is a pathetic jerk with the intellect of a six
year old.
Regards,
Ken (NY)
ejaculated:
>> > You also know that interfering with, or conspiring to violate my rights
>> > is punishable by up to lifetime imprisnment.
>
>Wow, can you let me in on this law, I may need it because of what happened
>to me. Liftime...that is a long time. Even though every right I have as a
>citizen has clearly been maliciously violated, I can't even get an
>investigation. This system really sucks, maybe changes can be made, maybe
>they can start here.
Bubba, don't listen to him. ofr555 has a problem with logic
and rational thought. Cop killers rarely get a life sentence. Posting
to a news group is hardly something worthy of a life sentence or
ofr555 would have been put away for several centuries. What is the
life span of a slug, by the way?
Ken (NY)
<ofr...@hotmail.com> ejaculated:
>-----------------------begin
>quote------------------------------------------
>
>ofr...@hotmail.com
>>
>> Organized harassment by police officers is a violation of my rights.
>
>As an anarchist, you should have no problem with anyone's rights being
>violated; at all. You also should have no problem with any and all
>crimes
>that are committed against you or any others. In fact, as an anarchist,
>you
>cannot even call such acts crimes.
>
>> Posting an article about exploding packages and prompting people
>> to send me mail, visits and calls could be considered to be inciting
>> others to commit the crime on your behalf.
>
>Quit whining. You could at least stand up and be half the anarchist
>that
>Saco and Venzetti (sp?) were.
>
>Doug
>
>-------------------------end
>quote------------------------------------------
Hey, let's try this out with me:
1) Ofr555, you are an anarchist. How do I know? You said so in many
posts in this news group. Here was an example:
On Thu, 31 Aug 2000 17:52:12 GMT, ofr...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>> > I'm an Anarchist, not a Communist. Of course you don't see a difference.
2) What is an anarchist? "Anarchist: 1. One who rebels against any
authority, established order or ruling power 2. One who advocates, or
promotes anarchism or anarchy; esp: one who uses violent means to
overthrow the established order" ~Webster's
3) Therefore, if you are not lying and are really an anarchist-
4) -you therefore believe in using "violent means to overthrow the
established order".
Ok, there ya go, fella! Call the FBI, the CIA, the DEA, the
AFL-CIO, NFL, NBA, whatever floats your boat. Report me. Tell them
that my posted responses are keeping you from your rights of
overthrowing the established order of this country. Send me to prison
for life. Or sue me.
I hereby challenge you, you goofy windbag.
Ken (NY)
>This is exactly what happened the last time I went to the station
>to file a complaint. They decided to attack my character and make
>threats.
It appears that they had fertile grounds.
hc23hc
>
> Douglas Deaton wrote:
> > Go on you little whining tattle tale.
>
> I thought you guys encouraged 'tattle tales'.
> Have I misunderstood the meaning of 'informant'?
Deaton is a total bambi- a dear old guy pretending
he's got legal legs to quiver on. He's also trying
to have readers believe he has LE credentials, which
becomes ever more painfully and obviously untrue
the more crap he posts.
Give him a break. Start at his ankles.
.
.
.
hc23hc
>
> This is a public forum. You choose to come here. No one is harrassing you.
> You can choose nto read the messages anyone posts here. You can also
> killfile people's messages. If I were ending you repeated e-mails
> threatening to harm you, then you might have a case. If I was calling you
> at home, then you might have a case. Hoever, since this is Usenet, you have
> absolutely no standing.
>
> Doug
Hey, Bozo, on usenet or anywhere else, you are not a police officer. Your
tiresome claims to the contrary are lies. You fail all the basic testing that
weeds out unstable and unpredictable idiots like you from taking up space in
cadet school. It is none of your business what political, social, religious
or ethnic adherence a suspect may have. You're a moron, a liar and a fraud.
Deaton, just fuck off, OK ?
.
.
.
Craig N. Fraser
him out using logic and intelligence so know he is trying to find someone
dumber than he (he needs to start hanging out in the coma ward---at least
there the populace may be receptive to his rants) is that can't prove him
wrong. After you have boxed him in a corner repeatedly he'll get huffy and
ignore you.
Hang in there. He is about he most ignorant human I have ever had contact
with.
"Douglas Deaton" <tex...@sprynet.com> wrote in message
news:8ooqus$rc6$1...@slb7.atl.mindspring.net...
>
> ofr...@hotmail.com <ofr...@hotmail.com>
>
> > You are absolutely wrong. Using an electronic communications device
> > to commit a crime makes it a Federal crime punishable by up to 3
> > years in prison.
>
> Last message from me: Please state exactly what crime I have committed.
> Please be specific.
>
> Doug
>
>
>
>
ofr...@hotmail.com
Internet surfers and researchers often hook into message boards, known
as electronic bulletin
boards, to read for fun or to gather information. However, the messages
placed on the electronic
bulletin boards are not always simply for informational purposes.
Sometimes the messages are
meant to besmirch another party. The reputation of a corporation or an
individual can be ruined by a
few pushes of the computer keys. The potential damage is almost
immeasurable given the size of the
worldwide audience that regularly views the Internet.
When an injurious false statement is made about an individual, the
individual is *defamed*.
Defamation can occur in two forms: libel or slander. Libel occurs when
there is a written statement
injuring an individual, and slander occurs when there is an oral
statement that injures an individual.
Since on-line is considered to be written material, on-line defamation
is considered to be libel.
Libel occurs when a false statement is written which injures an
individual by disgracing him. The
statement must be about an individual and the readers must be aware that
the individual is the
subject of the false statement. Furthermore, the defamatory statement
must not be an opinion, but
rather one of fact. *This is true because . . . only false statements
are actionable, and the Supreme
Court has held, under the First Amendment, there is no such thing as a
false idea.
An individual considered to be a public figure must prove that the
libeler knew the statement was
false, or had serious questions regarding the truth of the statement.
When the individual that was
libeled is not a public figure, the threshold to recover damages is
lower and requires proving
negligence on the part of the libeler. (Internet and the Law, p. 163).
There have been some
proposals during recent case litigation that individuals libeled on the
Internet should be regarded as a
public figure, thus requiring the higher threshold level to recover for
damages. (See libel treatment in
the United States, infra.)
================================================================================
As you can see, I do not need proof of damages, only intent.
Back to the books, genius.
================================================================================
Conspiring with other cops to harass and annoy me to intimidate me from
posting is a violation of my rights that could earn each of you a
lengthy
prison stay.
You cops know that I am a victim of police abuse and each time I try
to post, I am constantly harassed by you self-described cops.
Using an electronic device to commit the offense is punishable by up
to 3 years in prison under Federal law.
Conspiracy can get you life.
> Regards,
> --
>
> Ken (NY)
> Chairman,
> Department of Redundancy Department,
> ___________________________________
> Those who live by the sword get
> shot by those who don't.
> http://www.danielfaulkner.com/
--
ofr...@hotmail.com
>
> On Fri, 01 Sep 2000 16:51:07 GMT, "ofr...@hotmail.com"
> <ofr...@hotmail.com> ejaculated:
>
> >This is exactly what happened the last time I went to the station
> >to file a complaint. They decided to attack my character and make
> >threats.
>
> It appears that they had fertile grounds.
But I'm not the cop on suspension.
Cops are prohibited from harassing or threatening people attempting
to file a complaint.
> --
>
> Ken (NY)
> Chairman,
> Department of Redundancy Department,
> ___________________________________
> Those who live by the sword get
> shot by those who don't.
> http://www.danielfaulkner.com/
--
Peter White
the difference between libel and slander. Now, there's another step...
The content of your research is right on. Part of your conclusion, though,
is faulty. Notice that you discovered:
> Libel occurs when a false statement is written which injures an
> individual by disgracing him.
and
> When an injurious false statement is made about an individual,
But then you wrote:
> As you can see, I do not need proof of damages, only intent.
See the disconnect? An injurious statement is one which causes damages. So,
amongst your crowd, the anarchists and cop watchers and so on, is your
reputation enhanced or damaged by cops opposing you? (We can deal with the
true/false thing another time.) Also, given that you use a screen name, who
exactly has been affected?
PW
Chas
> In either case damages must be shown; no victim, no crime, right? Courts
> have also held that truth is an absolute defense, that is, you can't libel
> someone by printnig the truth.
Sure you can; False Light Invasion of Privacy- Intentional infliction of
emotional distress- malicious exposure of a 'natural defect'.
as far as 'no victim, no crime' or 'truth is an absolute defense', I
would think that 'malicious' defamation would fit the bill- damages are
assumed in 'malice' and there is a provision for treble or 'exemplary'
damages.
OFR's biggest hurdle, and one I don't see him jumping any time soon, is
that you can't malign an anonymous person. The standard, as I understand
it, is that the object of the defamation has to be identifiable.
Cyberlibel has been adjudicated very strongly- it is dangerous to make
intemperate speech.
Chas
http://members.xoom.com/kilap/Keepsafe.htm
http://www.kuntaosilat.com/videos.html
http://www.angelfire.com/co3/jail4judges/index.htm
Peter White
"Chas" <gryp...@home.com> wrote in message
news:39B13120...@home.com...
> Peter White wrote:
> > In either case damages must be shown; no victim, no crime, right? Courts
> > have also held that truth is an absolute defense, that is, you can't
libel
> > someone by printnig the truth.
>
> Sure you can; False Light Invasion of Privacy- Intentional infliction of
> emotional distress- malicious exposure of a 'natural defect'.
> as far as 'no victim, no crime' or 'truth is an absolute defense', I
> would think that 'malicious' defamation would fit the bill- damages are
> assumed in 'malice' and there is a provision for treble or 'exemplary'
> damages.
> OFR's biggest hurdle, and one I don't see him jumping any time soon, is
> that you can't malign an anonymous person. The standard, as I understand
> it, is that the object of the defamation has to be identifiable.
> Cyberlibel has been adjudicated very strongly- it is dangerous to make
> intemperate speech.
>
reputation for fairness and honesty in order to be effective. Suppose that
person has been repeatedly called a thug and murderer, an habitual liar,
corrupt, etc. Suppose further that similar attacks have been launched on
others, perhaps showing a pattern of behavior.
Of course our hypothetical can sue. Think I can win? :)
PW
Craig N. Fraser
police? Seriously. I am curious as to what exactly has happened.
"ofr...@hotmail.com" <ofr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:39B12E...@hotmail.com...
Peter White
> > In either case damages must be shown; no victim, no crime, right? Courts
> > have also held that truth is an absolute defense, that is, you can't
libel
> > someone by printnig the truth.
>
> Sure you can; False Light Invasion of Privacy- Intentional infliction of
> emotional distress- malicious exposure of a 'natural defect'.
> as far as 'no victim, no crime' or 'truth is an absolute defense', I
> would think that 'malicious' defamation would fit the bill- damages are
> assumed in 'malice' and there is a provision for treble or 'exemplary'
> damages.
I don't think that libel includes invasion of privacy. I agree that if I
were to post his credit card numbers, instuctions on how to clone his cell
phone, etc, that would certainly be actionable, but it wouldn't be libel.
Some states do consider emotional distress to be a damage, so that serves to
reinforce my statement, not weaken it. "Intentional" would be a tough nut to
crack on Usenet, where the standards are quite rowdy.
I'm unfamiliar with the exposure of defect thing. Details/example?
> OFR's biggest hurdle, and one I don't see him jumping any time soon, is
> that you can't malign an anonymous person. The standard, as I understand
> it, is that the object of the defamation has to be identifiable.
> Cyberlibel has been adjudicated very strongly- it is dangerous to make
> intemperate speech.
>
Another hurdle is the nature of newsgroups, as opposed to posting something
attacking an individual on your own website. Newsgroups function much as the
op-ed portion of conventional media. That USCC decision (sorry, forget the
name of the case, it dealt with electronic freedom of speech) held that
speech here should be given the strongest 1st Amendment protections.
PW
ofr...@hotmail.com
I made no statement as to the status of written v. oral.
I merely said that libel requires no proof of damages.
Reread what I typed.
> Now, there's another step...
>
> The content of your research is right on. Part of your conclusion, though,
> is faulty. Notice that you discovered:
> > Libel occurs when a false statement is written which injures an
> > individual by disgracing him.
> and
> > When an injurious false statement is made about an individual,
> But then you wrote:
> > As you can see, I do not need proof of damages, only intent.
>
> See the disconnect?
Nope.
> An injurious statement is one which causes damages.
Libel doesn't require actual damages, or proof of damages.
What part don't you understand?
Libel only requires intent.
> So,
> amongst your crowd, the anarchists and cop watchers and so on, is your
> reputation enhanced or damaged by cops opposing you?
Not applicable. You can libel Satan.
It is your intent to damage.
> Also, given that you use a screen name, who
> exactly has been affected?
Screen name, organization, and telephone number, listed to me.
That sounds like you guys may have a somewhat reasonable defense.
But, the continued harassment only serves to provide me with further
evidence of conspiracy to violate my rights with respect to my current
local police harassment. Other cops here in the newsgroup have, for
several years now harassed and tried to intimidate me, in an effort
to dissuade the public from believing that police violations of
citizen's rights are not as common and as big a problem as I claim.
It has been systematic harassment.
Ken and Douglas have been added to a growing list of persons
affilliated with law enforcement that have "caused" damages to me,
including, being arrested on false charges, refusing to arrest a
burglar that works for the local police that was aprehended at
gunpoint by me, dragged from my car aand had weapons inspection,
towed my vehicle repeatedly, firced mental examination consisting
of 10 hours with a Psychologist that gave me an exemplary report
and the judge even acknowledged it in court.
I have been charged with a half dozen traffic infractions, including
infractions made up to cover the police misconduct I stumbled onto.
To date I have had only one conviction for a red light that I admitted
to running because it was not operating properly. If I had proof, I
would've even beaten that. The traffic lights were replaced two weeks
after my court appearance.
I have had the last series of attacks dropped by speaking with the
prosecution and telling him that I was a police abuse victim and
that I was being charged to silence me, and to intimidate me.
I have had 4 speeding tickets dropped in 1 year.
Witnesses have been threatened by the local cops, the FBI is
questioning witnesses and monitoring events as the cops scurry
to cover their actions.
Harassing a victim of police abuse by any other officer is a violation
of my rights.
The police argued anbout my posts with me in front of winesses on more
than one occasion.
Another cop has been feeding me supposed official police leaks.
He no longer talks to me.
Must be the FBI visit shut his big manipulative mouth.
Finding people in your home, cops refusing to arrest them in order
to protect the integrity of on going setups by these informants,
and arresting me for the previously convicted perjuror/crack whore
that works for the police and a drug dealing mother of a person
that was facing 13 life sentences but paid an inmate at Attica
to divulge information on the wherabouts of two dead bodies in
the Hungry hill area of town. His charges were transformed into
lifetime probation. He has since operated a limo service and has
taken the cops to casinos to pick up hookers and to do drugs.
His mom drives to NYC twice a week to purchase cocaine for
distribution. The cops know, the FBI knows, but the pipeline continues.
Cutting the distribution point will force them to actually find
criminals instead of dealing with police protection in order to
harvest prisoners.
You see, these matters may involve some really long sentences.
Harassing me only serves to prove my case.
This is only the beginning of big things to come here in my hometown.
> PW
ofr...@hotmail.com
>
> Peter White wrote:
> > In either case damages must be shown; no victim, no crime, right? Courts
> > have also held that truth is an absolute defense, that is, you can't libel
> > someone by printnig the truth.
>
> Sure you can; False Light Invasion of Privacy- Intentional infliction of
> emotional distress- malicious exposure of a 'natural defect'.
> as far as 'no victim, no crime' or 'truth is an absolute defense', I
> would think that 'malicious' defamation would fit the bill- damages are
> assumed in 'malice' and there is a provision for treble or 'exemplary'
> damages.
> OFR's biggest hurdle, and one I don't see him jumping any time soon, is
> that you can't malign an anonymous person. The standard, as I understand
> it, is that the object of the defamation has to be identifiable.
> Cyberlibel has been adjudicated very strongly- it is dangerous to make
> intemperate speech.
A user in a chat room was arrested for threatening a person in the room
that identified himself as a cop.
They both had screen names.
> Chas
> http://members.xoom.com/kilap/Keepsafe.htm
> http://www.kuntaosilat.com/videos.html
> http://www.angelfire.com/co3/jail4judges/index.htm
--
ofr...@hotmail.com
If you can show intent.
> PW
ofr...@hotmail.com
Does it count when the police chief gets on TV describing a
fugitive as ascumbag?
One other point.
The accusations must not be true.
> > PW
Peter White
> What part don't you understand?
>
damages, then the statement could not have been injurious. If the statement
is not injurious, it is not libel.
> Libel only requires intent.
>
> > So,
> > amongst your crowd, the anarchists and cop watchers and so on, is your
> > reputation enhanced or damaged by cops opposing you?
>
> Not applicable. You can libel Satan.
>
> It is your intent to damage.
>
No. Outraged citizen attacks John Wayne Gacy *prior*to*his*conviction*: "You
murdering pedophile bastard! Buggering those innocent boys; you're the
vilest scum, and I want you to burn in hell! Nothing's too bad or cruel for
you! You probably even cheated on your construction contracts!"
Does Gacy have a case? Nope. We have intent. (I want..Nothing's too bad...)
But we have truth as a defense (murdering, buggering pedophile) even though
it hasn't yet been proven to the public. Perhaps he could sue for the
damages to his business (cheated...), but given the surrounding
circumstances, I seriously doubt that anyone is going to say that statement
damaged his reputation.
PW
Chas
...
> > Cyberlibel has been adjudicated very strongly- it is dangerous to make
> > intemperate speech.
> So suppose a hypothetical, identifiable person, who clearly relies on a
> reputation for fairness and honesty in order to be effective. Suppose that
> person has been repeatedly called a thug and murderer, an habitual liar,
> corrupt, etc. Suppose further that similar attacks have been launched on
> others, perhaps showing a pattern of behavior.
> Of course our hypothetical can sue. Think I can win? :)
I'm not a lawyer (although I would play one on TV; if the vehicle was
right, and the money of course- and any nudity advanced the plot for
dramatic emphasis), so my opinion is worth what you're paying.
Sure.
The criteria for prevailing in libel suit is often that it was done to
affect your 'business'. A police officer who was accused like that might
have a very strong case for libel. The accusations would have to be very
specific- if one accused a former SS officer of being such things, and
it was later proven that he worked through the war in the mess hall, the
accusations might be generic enough to escape a libel, as example. A
statement like 'all prison guards are sadists- you're a prison guard,
therefore you're a sadist' is probably not actionable- if the statement
were closer to 'all prison guards are sadists; you, John Doe, are a
prison guard and did something to Rochard Roe on the 4th of June, 1975
that reflects such sadism' would be more actionable (if untrue), I would
think.
Here in Denver, a group of police officers is suing a media personality
for just such an intemperance of speech. Peter Boyles, a local
commentator/talk show guy, called the SWAT team some unkind names after
they killed a guy under questionable circumstances (incidentally the
killing has been excluded from the perjury trial of the officer who
swore the warrant- a different question entirely). It's being touted as
a 'landmark' case, so I don't know how often such a case has been
instituted or won.
I am presently instituting an action, the first suit I've ever filed, on
some folks that were trying to interfere with a contractual relationship
by publishing some foul lies, so I've been looking at the question a bit
more closely than some others would have done. I have no 'color of
authority' and no 'orders from above', so my situation is significantly
different from a police perspective- take my information as just a
discussion by laymen of a legal question.
ofr...@hotmail.com
>
> "ofr...@hotmail.com" <ofr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:39B14A...@hotmail.com...
> > What part don't you understand?
> >
> One last try. Damages come from an injurious statement. If there are no
> damages, then the statement could not have been injurious. If the statement
> is not injurious, it is not libel.
>
> > Libel only requires intent.
> >
> > > So,
> > > amongst your crowd, the anarchists and cop watchers and so on, is your
> > > reputation enhanced or damaged by cops opposing you?
> >
> > Not applicable. You can libel Satan.
> >
> > It is your intent to damage.
> >
> No. Outraged citizen attacks John Wayne Gacy *prior*to*his*conviction*: "You
> murdering pedophile bastard! Buggering those innocent boys; you're the
> vilest scum, and I want you to burn in hell! Nothing's too bad or cruel for
> you! You probably even cheated on your construction contracts!"
>
> Does Gacy have a case? Nope. We have intent.
> But we have truth as a defense even though
> it hasn't yet been proven to the public.
If the charges were niot true, he could sue.
> Perhaps he could sue for the
> damages to his business (cheated...), but given the surrounding
> circumstances, I seriously doubt that anyone is going to say that statement
> damaged his reputation.
I already stated in an earlier post that if it's true, it isn't libel.
If you stated that he supports mass muder and genocide, that would be
libel.
Unless, of course, you have proof that he does.
That would be your defense.
He still could sue. And lose.
Proof of intent to discredit or slander is all that is required.
> PW
--
Chas
> I don't think that libel includes invasion of privacy. I agree that if I
> were to post his credit card numbers, instuctions on how to clone his cell
> phone, etc, that would certainly be actionable, but it wouldn't be libel.
A false light invasion of privacy might be more along the lines of
discussing his relationship with his wife as a bolster to denigrating
his professional performance, as an example. A good brief to read would
be Blumenthal v. Drudge/AOL- Matt Drudge claimed that Sidney Blumenthal
(White House aide/commentator/journalist) was a 'wife beater' or some
such- the wife sued as well for a false light invasion of her privacy
with an intention to inflict emotional distress.
A good word for a search engine is 'cyberlibel'.
> Some states do consider emotional distress to be a damage, so that serves to
> reinforce my statement, not weaken it. "Intentional" would be a tough nut to
> crack on Usenet, where the standards are quite rowdy.
The 'intentional infliction of emotional distress' is an exacerbating
factor to 'maliciousness', as I understand it. Intent is easier to prove
when one has a range of postings in DejaNews to draw from.
> I'm unfamiliar with the exposure of defect thing. Details/example?
Let's say that a person seeking to libel one's professional performance
exposed the fact that he wore a pink teddy underneath his uniform. That
would hold him up to public ridicule even though the act was not
illegal, done in absolute privacy and didn't affect his professional
activities at all.
> > Cyberlibel has been adjudicated very strongly- it is dangerous to make
> > intemperate speech.
> Another hurdle is the nature of newsgroups, as opposed to posting something
> attacking an individual on your own website. Newsgroups function much as the
> op-ed portion of conventional media. That USCC decision (sorry, forget the
> name of the case, it dealt with electronic freedom of speech) held that
> speech here should be given the strongest 1st Amendment protections.
That in no way relieves the poster from libel action if he publishes or
re-publishes a lie without a 'privilege' to do so. The question has more
often been whether a service provider had a responsibility, not whether
the poster himself bore a responsibility- as far as I know. Just because
we're in a forum of give-and-take doesn't give me the option of
asserting that (the object of the libel) is a 'child-molesting
coprophage' or some such.
Go get him, Tiger! <g>
Chas
> Chas wrote:
> > Cyberlibel has been adjudicated very strongly- it is dangerous to make
> > intemperate speech.
> A user in a chat room was arrested for threatening a person in the room
> that identified himself as a cop.
> They both had screen names.
Not a libel; different situation when one starts making threats. A cop
making a threat would be assumed to be capable of carrying it out; a
nine year old girl would be less so (as an example).
By the way, the use of weasel word qualifiers is not sufficient to
preclude 'libel' under many circumstances. A person having a unique
access to information who published such information, whether factual or
not, might not be able to slither out from under it just by saying
'alleged' or some such. A police officer with access to the interstate
information source who exposed such information could be held culpable
and accountable- and if done under the color of his authority, he might
be in *big* trouble.
Chas
....
> > Of course our hypothetical can sue. Think I can win? :)
> If you can show intent.
'Malice' is it's own 'intent'.
There are about four prima facie examples of malice; unfounded
accusations of the incapacity of professional performance, sexual
indiscretions, accusations of having a loathsome disease, accusations of
criminal conduct (loosely stated- I am a layman in such things)
You don't even have to prove 'damages' in such instances- damage is
deemed because of the viciousness of the accusation.
Chas
> Does it count when the police chief gets on TV describing a
> fugitive as ascumbag?
It may very well include that- he would do well to reserve such opinions
from publication.
> One other point.
> The accusations must not be true.
There's even more to it than that- we have an assumption of privacy in
the exposure of natural defects to the public weal in order to denigrate
us and hold us up to ridicule or public censure. The standard for a
public person would be higher though.
An *opinion* about an action is not necessarily libelous- the libel must
be presented as a fact that is useful for making a decision about the
character or whatever of the object of the libel.
Strong opinion is not prima facie libel- as far as I, a lowly layman,
knows- there are exceptions to everything I would think.
Peter White
> Peter White wrote:
> > I don't think that libel includes invasion of privacy. I agree that if I
> > were to post his credit card numbers, instuctions on how to clone his
cell
> > phone, etc, that would certainly be actionable, but it wouldn't be
libel.
>
> A false light invasion of privacy might be more along the lines of
> discussing his relationship with his wife as a bolster to denigrating
> his professional performance, as an example. A good brief to read would
> be Blumenthal v. Drudge/AOL- Matt Drudge claimed that Sidney Blumenthal
> (White House aide/commentator/journalist) was a 'wife beater' or some
> such- the wife sued as well for a false light invasion of her privacy
> with an intention to inflict emotional distress.
> A good word for a search engine is 'cyberlibel'.
>
Besides that, I think I understand. The basis of the action is whether or
not the revealed information is pertinent to the discussion. Had Drudge been
attacking SB's stance on domestic violence, allegations of SB's own behavior
would have been pertinent, right?
> > Some states do consider emotional distress to be a damage, so that
serves to
> > reinforce my statement, not weaken it. "Intentional" would be a tough
nut to
> > crack on Usenet, where the standards are quite rowdy.
>
> The 'intentional infliction of emotional distress' is an exacerbating
> factor to 'maliciousness', as I understand it. Intent is easier to prove
> when one has a range of postings in DejaNews to draw from.
>
> > I'm unfamiliar with the exposure of defect thing. Details/example?
>
> Let's say that a person seeking to libel one's professional performance
> exposed the fact that he wore a pink teddy underneath his uniform. That
> would hold him up to public ridicule even though the act was not
> illegal, done in absolute privacy and didn't affect his professional
> activities at all.
>
Got it.
> > > Cyberlibel has been adjudicated very strongly- it is dangerous to make
> > > intemperate speech.
> > Another hurdle is the nature of newsgroups, as opposed to posting
something
> > attacking an individual on your own website. Newsgroups function much as
the
> > op-ed portion of conventional media. That USCC decision (sorry, forget
the
> > name of the case, it dealt with electronic freedom of speech) held that
> > speech here should be given the strongest 1st Amendment protections.
>
> That in no way relieves the poster from libel action if he publishes or
> re-publishes a lie without a 'privilege' to do so. The question has more
> often been whether a service provider had a responsibility, not whether
> the poster himself bore a responsibility- as far as I know. Just because
> we're in a forum of give-and-take doesn't give me the option of
> asserting that (the object of the libel) is a 'child-molesting
> coprophage' or some such.
But flat out insulting opinion ("Jane, you ignorant slut.") doesn't rise to
the occasion. Jane might not be a slut, the statement might be malicious,
but comments which are simply poor manners don't fall into the realm of
action.
PW
Chas
> One last try. Damages come from an injurious statement. If there are no
> damages, then the statement could not have been injurious. If the statement
> is not injurious, it is not libel.
Circular reasoning. If I libel a homeless man as 'lazy', 'shiftless',
'mentally ill', my libel of him may not change his 'earning power', but
it is still libel and there are damages and they can be very large. He
may have been none of those things, homeless by no fault of his own, and
my calumnies of him have still damaged him.
There are some interesting things coming up about people falsely accused
of 'racism', 'anti-semitism', 'patriot' accusations and such. It doesn't
do well any more to be throwing words around without a certain reserve
and forethought.
Carol Granger
>
> This message is meant for Peter White and not Mr. Outlaw Frog Raper......
>
> ofr...@hotmail.com <ofr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > He committed libel. You know it.
>
> Peter, if you'll check back on the messages, you'll be able to plainly see
> that no one has committed libel against Mr. Raper here. He claimes to be an
> anarchist and I told him that the philosophy of anarchism would allow or
> support genocide, mass murder, etc. He mistakenly took that to mean that I
> said HE supports these things and then he just went off on a crazed rant. I
> am not being sarcastic and I am not exaggerating when I tell you that I
> honestly believe Mr. Frog Raper is mentally deranged and dangerously
> paranoid.
>
> > Anarchist--no rules. But anyway,
> > You are deliberately antagonistic. You refuse to listen.
> > You will see what rules I enforce.
> > Your only goal is to annoy me.
> > I will now ask you to stop annoying me.
> > I've been down this road before. I learned it from the cops.
> > They had my account"s" closed first.
> > Watch what you say. You are twisting the truth to discredit me.
> > If you insist on being antagonistic, I will have to ask you to stop
> > replying to me.
>
> Based on both his past posts and this most recent rant, it is clear that
> this guy is not playing with a full deck of cards. He has a severe double
<snip>
> I truly and honestly believe that OFR is not in full control of his
> mental faculties. Let me know what you think, Peter.
> Doug
I have considered OFR an annoying little twit for as long as
I can remember.
Mr Bubba
Okay all the police officers in here, lets debate this, show restraint and
prove me wrong in a humane manner (head shots only). A misdemeanor, alleged
threat by me to alleged victim that is not even present, only the officer is
present, the alleged victim not aware that he had been threatened therefore
could not fear the threat. LEO goes and obtains warrant several days later
as ordered to do so by his chief ), lists on the warrant another officer as
a direct witness to the threat, warrant states alleged victim was
threatened, and feared the threat. Alleged victim does not find out about
the threat for days after I had already been arrested, and testifies to this
in court. Witness officer later testifies they did not hear the alleged
threat. I had been arrested and hauled to jail for this, and placed under a
restraining order for nearly 3 months as part of my bond. I had no personal
contact with this alleged victim for over 2 years prior to this alleged
incident, and have only seen him at court since the alleged incident. OKAY
LEO's whats your opinion? Were my rights violated...Was I in fact falsely
arrested... Was this wrong??? When you get done laughin at the first arrest
I'll let y'all in on the second one...it's even better!!!
** Any resemblence to actual people or events is purely coincidental and
only alleged**
And yes, I realize all officers do not condone this type of behavior, but do
I, and should I have the right to complain, express my opinion, and expect
something to be done about the officers actions?
It suprises me that with all the knowledgable police officers in here my
earlier post only received one response. However the argument continues over
the anarchist. Peter White; thank you for an honest answer. As I have said
before there are many good, honest LEO's out there. A major component in
police misconduct, is the fact that the officers seem to cover for the acts
of their co-workers. Many times they even quit their jobs rather than
express their opinions, sometimes they get out so they are not involved with
their co-workers activity
Bubba.
>Peter White <pet...@att.net> wrote in message > >
> I won't disagree, and need no other information on the case. Where I'm
> sitting, the threat only counts if the victim is in reasonable fear.
Doesn't
> count if he's not afraid, even if he should be, and doesn't count if he's
a
> paranoid who's afraid of everything anyway.
>
> PW
Chas
> Interesting that the plantiff was the wife and not the public figure.
Both were co-plaintiffs.
Sidney sued for the libel itself; Jacqueline (I think) sued for libel
and the rest of it too.
gersgal1
Take me for instance. There is only one way to hurt me...to get to me.
And it is not the way most of you think.
Stop allowing yourself to be "their" victim...whomever you say "they"
are.
gersgal1
What don't you like about his behavior?
Just curious.
gersgal1
I am not the most intelligent human being on this earth. I am sure that
is obvious to you, Peter White. Gawd! That's a really nice name, if you
don't mind me saying so. Kinda like Dudley DoRight : )
Anyway,...back to the original train of thought.
He has the right to be an anarchist, here in America, does he not? Like
it or no!!!
Did you see the post about Susan Baby Killer, Peter? Oh yes,...I have
been referred to as a bleeding heart...as a matter of fact,..I am!
But, as a matter of fact, I have felt some very disturbing feelings when
it comes to someone like that. But I am proud to say that if I was a
police officer when Susan was arrested....I wouldn't have tortured
her....I wouldn't have skinned her alive...I wouldn't have done all the
things I would have liked to have done...I simply would have read her
the miranda warning and when my partner whisked her away to jail I would
have puked my guts out!!!
gersgal1
With all due respect,...
Are you a LEO?
Why are you so vindictive?
My nine year old son told me tonight he wants to be a cop when he grows
up....how can I convince him he shouldn't be?
Thank you for your help! : )
gersgal1
Nothing brings a smile to my face faster than knowing a criminal has
been executed...
You know, Ex,...I like you more and more with each post you make!!!
By God, I see your point now! But better than *shooting* them to
death,...let's stone them!!!
~Margie picks up the biggest rock she can find and hands it to her
acquaintance and wonders if EX wil really cast it~
Zman
> Douglas Deaton wrote:
> >
> > ofr...@hotmail.com <ofr...@hotmail.com>
> >
> > > The power to contact the authorities about unethical misconduct
> > > by persons claiming to be cops.
> > > The accusations will go on your record.
> > > They will be investigated.
> > > You must be retarded. You can see in my posts that I have contacted
the
> > > FBI and local authorities regarding misconduct.
> >
> > Oh. I see. You're going to report me to the FBI and to my own Dept.
> > That's fine. When and if they take your complaint, which I don't think
they
> > will, it can be easily proven that I have done nothing wrong here.
>
>
>
> > A review
> > of your posts from the past will show that you have a very serious
problem
> > and they will go far towards proving that you are not a credible person.
>
> interestingly, coercive.
>
> Your feeble attempts to dissuade me are futile.
Put you faser on stun Mr. Spock...
>
> > Furthermore, my posts on this NG have been made as a regular guy who
draws
> > on his LEO expereince. Nowhere have I ever posted using my dept.'s name
nor
> > have I have ever posted in an official capacity.
>
> You still are claiming to be a cop.
>
> You are bound by rules of conduct. They don't include offing
> ass-whippings
> to teach respect to posters.
Does not matter...keep whining.
>
> > You'll have a very hard
> > time convincing anyone that I have done something wrong here. You would
> > have me punished or investigated for expressing my own opinion.
>
> Slander and threats of violence aren't matters taken lightly by the
> management.
>
> > > You also know that interfering with, or conspiring to violate my
rights
> > > is punishable by up to lifetime imprisnment.
When have either one of us threatened physical harm to you....Post one quote
Paul Garrow! Since when do you show faith in anty typw of government
criminal justice system let alone sentencing?
> >
> > Who has done that on this NG? Certainly not me.
>
> I asked you before to not harass me.
>
> When you spoke for another Texas cop. You accused me without any proof
> whatsoever and I told you to leave me alone or face the consequences.
>
> A SWAT cop probably pays pretty good, heh?
>
> You should act like a professional when claiming to be a cop.
>
> > Doug
Zman
"Mr Bubba" <mrb...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:c8Sr5.6398$Xm3....@news1.atl...
>
> "Douglas Deaton" <tex...@sprynet.com> wrote in message You would
> > have me punished or investigated for expressing my own opinion.
>
> A...um...happened to me for posting MY OWN OPINION on MY OWN WEBSITE, fair
> is fair. Where has free speech gone?
>
> > > You also know that interfering with, or conspiring to violate my
rights
> > > is punishable by up to lifetime imprisnment.
>
> Wow, can you let me in on this law, I may need it because of what happened
> to me. Liftime...that is a long time. Even though every right I have as a
> citizen has clearly been maliciously violated, I can't even get an
> investigation. This system really sucks, maybe changes can be made, maybe
> they can start here.
>
> > Who has done that on this NG? Certainly not me.
>
> I don't know about you but I had several possible LEO's in here posting
crap
> on me. This is clearly harassment...anyway back to the issues.
>
> Bubba
>
>
>
>
gersgal1
anyone here, other than Debbie, gives a crap! Other than the crucified
so called liberals...or the "bleeding hearts"...no ofense to the red
cross or other worthwhile charities like the ones that benefit kids and
all...
I am beginning to feel very unwelcome here and I do not think my
presence is wanted.
But before ya all kick me out...give me this...
my nine year old son wants to be a cop when he grows up. He says he
wants to save kids. Go figure!! HOW DO I CONVINCEHIM NOT TO BE A
COP....for these reasons...
*It is a dangerous job
*I feel that "being a cop" is not what it was once cracked up to be
*He should be a humanitarian instead of being a doctor as his second
choice of professions...
that way money and ego will never get in his way...
*He's young and needs time to let the BIG FELLA give him his calling
*He needs to concentrate on more pertinent areas like animal rights and
the like...for these reasons...if you listen to God when He said,
"I see when the sparrow falls from it's nest". Some guy named Abe
Lincoln was an idiot animal rights activist too! He had the audacity to
pick up baby birds and place them back in their nest. I guess he was
dumb enough to think that cause God created them then you should have
respect and awe for them and protect them. Go figure!
*If anything ever happened to him I would lose my reason for living
*I am afraid that he will fall prey to human shortcomings and end up as
a bad apple cop
Anyone else have any input? Only sincere helpfully intended responses
need reply.......
Zman
--
--
Zman
*Your village called...their idiot is missing*
"Ken (NY)" <ken4...@NOSPAMTHANKYOUusa.net> wrote in message
news:39c0fcf2...@netnews.worldnet.att.net...
> On Fri, 1 Sep 2000 12:01:39 -0500, "Douglas Deaton"
> <tex...@sprynet.com> ejaculated:
>
> >
> >ofr...@hotmail.com <ofr...@hotmail.com>
> >
> >> The power to contact the authorities about unethical misconduct
> >> by persons claiming to be cops.
> >> The accusations will go on your record.
> >> They will be investigated.
> >> You must be retarded. You can see in my posts that I have contacted the
> >> FBI and local authorities regarding misconduct.
> >
> >Oh. I see. You're going to report me to the FBI and to my own Dept.
> >That's fine. When and if they take your complaint, which I don't think
they
> >will, it can be easily proven that I have done nothing wrong here. A
review
> >of your posts from the past will show that you have a very serious
problem
> >and they will go far towards proving that you are not a credible person.
> >Furthermore, my posts on this NG have been made as a regular guy who
draws
> >on his LEO expereince. Nowhere have I ever posted using my dept.'s name
nor
> >have I have ever posted in an official capacity. You'll have a very hard
> >time convincing anyone that I have done something wrong here. You would
> >have me punished or investigated for expressing my own opinion.
> >
> >> You also know that interfering with, or conspiring to violate my rights
> >> is punishable by up to lifetime imprisnment.
> >
> >Who has done that on this NG? Certainly not me.
> >
> >Doug
> >
> >
> >
>
> He's a windbag. He threatened my job at one point and I
> laughed at him. ofr555 is a pathetic jerk with the intellect of a six
> year old.
> Regards,
> --
>
> Ken (NY)
> Chairman,
> Department of Redundancy Department,
> ___________________________________
> Those who live by the sword get
> shot by those who don't.
> http://www.danielfaulkner.com/
Zman
>
> Why are you acting so dumb and innocent?
>
> You sound like one of the prisoners.
Doug can say what he likes...freedom of speech Paul.
>
> Douglas Deaton wrote:
> >
> > ofr...@hotmail.com <ofr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:39AFEB...@hotmail.com...
> > > Douglas Deaton wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Just so we're all clear, woudl you please make a list of the
accusations
> > you
> > > > believe have been made against you by me? I'd like to know what I'm
> > > > supposedly accusing you of this week.
> > >
> > >
> > > The accused officer wouild like to know the charges?
> > >
> > > Unlike the cops who arrested me, I will tell you.
> > >
> > > In this thread below, as I was pointing out a possible implied threat
> > > made
> > > against me by a police officer, you took it upon yourself to use that
> > > opportunity to attack and discredit me.
> > >
> > > This is exactly what happened the last time I went to the station
> > > to file a complaint. They decided to attack my character and make
> > > threats.
> > >
> > > It sounds like standard operating procedures for thugs.
> > >
> > > -----------------------begin
> > > quote------------------------------------------
> > >
> > > ofr...@hotmail.com
> > > >
> > > > Organized harassment by police officers is a violation of my rights.
> > >
> > > As an anarchist, you should have no problem with anyone's rights being
> > > violated; at all. You also should have no problem with any and all
> > > crimes
> > > that are committed against you or any others. In fact, as an
anarchist,
> > > you
> > > cannot even call such acts crimes.
> > >
> > > > Posting an article about exploding packages and prompting people
> > > > to send me mail, visits and calls could be considered to be inciting
> > > > others to commit the crime on your behalf.
> > >
> > > Quit whining. You could at least stand up and be half the anarchist
> > > that
> > > Saco and Venzetti (sp?) were.
> > >
> > > Doug
> >
> > This is your charge against me? What statute have I violated? What
have I
> > done that is unethical? You're a nut. A freak. I suspect you have
made
> > similar charges to the FBI and to local police before and that the
reason
> > you were not taken seriously is because you are mentally challenged.
Get a
> > grip. I wish you understood what a raving lunatic you sound like.
Zman
"Douglas Deaton" <tex...@sprynet.com> wrote in message
news:8ooo20$hk8$1...@slb7.atl.mindspring.net...
Zman
> Douglas Deaton wrote:
>
> Using electronic communications to harass is a crime.
>
> You and zman both know that.
So just do me Paul...when have I harrassed you??? I have only responded to
your hateful, anarchist / racist remarks against blacks and jews and so on.
Zman
> >
> > >>Based on your statements, you are an
> > >> affront to mankind as a whole. Your
> > >>philosophy supports mass murder,
> > >> genocide, destruction, and wanton hedonism.
> > >>Whether you realize it or
> > >> not, you advocate a return to the savage state
> > >>of man before there was any law at all.
> > >
> >
> > You wrote:
> > > You clearly state that your accusations are based on my statements
> > > alone. You imply that I support mass-murder, genocide and
destruction.
> >
> > Read what I wrote above. My own words exonerate me of your "charges."
You
> > stated that you were an anarchist and I made some very clear
observations
> > about that particular philosophy. Then, I made an observation on your
own
> > position as it was based on your love for anarchy.
> >
> > > And then we have your violent threatening posts made to others
> > > in the past.
> >
> > There is not a single threat contained in any of my posts that you
quoted.
> > Not even one. Telling someone that they need or deserve an ass-whipping
is
> > a far cry for threatening to give them one.
> > Good luck with your complaint.
>
>
> Save it for the authorities. Perhaps you can learn from this.
>
> Zero tolerance, you know.
>
> I'm just a person archiving abusive police.
>
> I am no criminal.
Yeah...I'd love to look at your record.
>
> You are the one who came into the group spouting that you were a
> cop and another cop told information about me.
>
> Divulging police business to a person to use in a public forum
> is a violation of my rights.
>
> Remember, you cops created me, with your actions.
>
> Now you will reap the rewards of the seeds of pain that you have sown.
Is this when the scary music starts?
>
> I realize that you must feed your family and that all they had
> available was the assassin position.
>
> > Go on you little whining tattle tale.
"Ohhhh...good come back Zman".....
>
> A big brave hunter that wants to hunt pigs with a spear and
> that's what you got for me.
>
> Be a man, not a coward.
>
> Just admit you embellished my words with your prejudices and
> extrapolated a bunch of nonsense in order to dicredit me
> because of your hatred of my Copwatch postings.
>
> It's ok, I forgive you anyway.
>
> > Doug
ofr...@hotmail.com
>
> "ofr...@hotmail.com" <ofr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:39AFF3...@hotmail.com...
> > Douglas Deaton wrote:
> >
> > Using electronic communications to harass is a crime.
> >
> > You and zman both know that.
>
> So just do me Paul...when have I harrassed you??? I have only responded to
> your hateful, anarchist / racist remarks against blacks and jews and so on.
I accuse you also of being a liar.
Hateful remarks against blacks and Jews?
You are insane.
It never happened.
Zman
> > > Some quotes from the person accusing me with no proof whatsoever.
> >
> > Look, Idiot, you are the one who claimed to be an anarchist. By your
own
> > admission, you believe that there should be no government, no laws, and
no
> > rules of any kind.
>
> Never said any such thing. You are extrapolating based on your own
> delusional false premise, that all anarchists are alike.
>
> That would make you and Pat Buchanan exactly the same.
>
> > You put yourself in this position, not me. I'm not the
> > one what has to back anything up here.
>
> Ok, liar, liar.
And you talk about good come backs....Nap time kindergardeners.
>
> This makes twice you slandered me in the group.
>
> You refuse to back it up because you are wrong.
And you are right??? Out of the thousands of things police do right every
day, why do you insist of posting the 1% or less of the things gone wrong. I
have never seen that Paul....why?
>
> > I don't have to prove anything. You
> > proved it yourself when you embraced anarchism and hatred for all laws
and
> > govt. of any kind.
>
> No, I did not. Post your evidence.
Yes you do...every time you post a story about..."A pig stopped me for this
last night"...and how you told him you did not have to do this or that.
That's what they are, STORIES.
>
> You are a cop. You should understand the concept of evidence.
>
> I realize you are a SWAT member and are taught to attack first,
> then deny or cover-up, but you are off-duty.
>
> No one to kill here, Spike.
>
> > You prove it yourself everyday when you post your
> > mindless cop-hating rhetoric which you have finally admitted springs
from
> > your philosophy of anarchy.
>
> I expose you and your treatment of dissidents.
Where's you proof of that?
>
> > By embracing anarchy, you also simultaneously
> > embrace a value system which does not condemn mass murder, genocide,
> > robbery, etc. It really is that simple. No accusation, just logic.
>
> Porcine logic, again.
>
> > Quote what you want. I do find it somewhat entertaining that you had to
> > spend all that time and effort finding quotes to try to use against me.
>
> Most cops don't get off as lightly as you.
>
> You still haven't asked around about the other cops that came and went.
>
> > Of
> > course you have used them out of context and you have selectively culled
> > quotes from my most passionate threads in the past.
>
> The ethics officer where you work is named what?
Proving you have nobody to work for you Paul because you have no ethics. No
one in this NG will speak up for you so we don't even have to ask.
>
> > I must have really
> > struck a nerve when I called you for what you were. Is this what you
meant
> > when you said you would "do" something if I "accused" you of "crap?" Is
> > this all there is?
>
> I told you. Ask the other cops what happened.
>
> Maybe they won't be little girls and tell you.
>
> > I find you pathetic in your belief system and in your efforts to
discredit
> > me by posting selections from my past quotes.
>
> You are an assassin. A paid killer, and I offend you with my typing.
You see...you accuse everyone that is a cop in this NG of being a killer
when in fact, probably only 1% in this NG as cops has ever taken a life.
>
> > I'm not sure what you're
> > trying to accomplish by posting these selections but it only serves to
> > reinforce your image on this NG as a rabid nut with an anti-cop agenda.
>
> Perhaps you can see now, that words are stronger than your weaponry.
>
> You are required to act responsibly when speaking for the police.
>
> Some quotes from the person accusing me with no proof whatsoever.
>
> Again.
>
> ------------------------Begin
> quote--------------------------------------
> I didn't expect you to satisfy me. I expected you to satisfy the
> requirements of complete discussion and debate. Again, you have
> proven what a weasel you are. That's OK Pitcavage. As usual, you
> simply run away when it gets to hot for you!
>
> The
> thing I really hate about him is that he always disengages the second
> he
> is called on to back up his beliefs and/or positions.
>
> You were respectfully requested to defend your position with
> quantitative replies.
>
> This guy accuses us of murder and increased killing of people but I'm
> the one who's reactionary?
>
> You have to resort to name calling. You are using the most
> inflammatory rhetoric possible yet you know nothing about me at all.
> What gives you the right to call me a punk? What gives you the right
> to
> say these things without any proof, personal knowledge, or data?
>
>
> It's easy to sit behind that computer and call people names and make
> false accusations. Doing the same thing directly to another human
> being
> would be quite a different matter. The true "punks are the ones who
> call others names and make false accusations while hiding behind that
> computer screen; knowing that they are safe from any physical
> confrontation.
>
> People should not write or print statements about others
> that they are not prepared to say in person to those whom they
> criticize.
>
> I am a police officer and I am also on my department's SWAT team.
>
> Where are these increasing deaths you are talking about? Are
> you saying that the police are killing more people as each year passes?
> What is your proof of this? I sure haven't been seeing any of this
> going
> on. People get shot and killed, certainly. As for an increase in the
> killing....I don't think so
>
> You're calling me "street trash?" Those are fighting words, friend. I
> am
> not street trash and I defy you to say that to my face. I lay it on
> the line
> every day, bud and I damn sure don't see you out there with me. You
> don't call me street trash without having the stats, and the physical
> proof
> to back it up. You don't have it and you never will so you'd best back
> off from that position.
>
> You arrogant SOB! If you disagree with the flag and it's symbolism,
> you can at least be respectful in your disagreement. What you have
> said here are fighting words to a very large number of Southerners.
> You have just proven what an arrogant bunch of people you anti-flag,
> anti-Southern bigots are.
>
> There's no debate going on in this thread. This thread is specifically
> dealing with you and how pathetic you are.
>
> And. no, he won't deal with facts because they don't fall inside his
> > >> mutilated grasp of "reality."
>
> > >> People like Pitcavage make you wonder if Ohio State is a
> diploma mill.
>
> You have failed to address the real issues here. You have failed to
> engage in any real debate or discussion. You only care to make short,
> snide remarks. Why are you even here? Go play god somewhere else.
> Your smart ass postings serve no purpose and they are irritating to
> others who wish to engage in real discussion.
>
> A couple of more things about your constant smart ass remarks: I bet
> you've never really had your ass whipped. You probably have never
> had to physically back up your smart-mouth. In the real world,
> Pitcavage, people can and do get their asses whipped for being smart
> asses who like to drop short, judgmental comments all the time. It may
> not be legal but it sure does happen. You could use an ass whipping to
> teach you a little respect. A proper ass whipping would also go a long
> ways towards toning down that inflated ego of yours. I bet it's a safe
> assumption that you don't act this way with people when you are
> dealing with them face to face.
>
> I don't think an invitation to a fight is a threat. It's just that: an
> invitation. Mutual combat. It's actually quite healthy and it tends
> to
> keep people respectful instead of surly and smart-ass like how so many
> people on this newsgroup are.
>
> You remain, as always, a
> god-playing liberal who refuses to actually engage in the debate but
> instead prefers to hover above it ready to divorce yourself from the
> fray
> the instant you are called on to provide even the flimsiest basis for
> your
> opinions
>
> > >Do you still have any connections in that gym up in Chicago? The
> one I
> was
> > >going to meet LB in? I think Carson lives there in Chicago.
> >
> > He has announced that he does not want to fight. Therefore, there is
> no
> > reason to book a meeting at the dojo. However, it remains available
> for
> the
> > Butts-Deaton "rumble" at anytime.
>
> Thanks, Bro'. I appreciate it.
>
> Doug
>
> > Doug
Zman
"hc23hc" <hc2...@artlink.ne> wrote in message
news:39B11946...@artlink.ne...
> Douglas Deaton wrote:
> >
> > This is a public forum. You choose to come here. No one is harrassing
you.
> > You can choose nto read the messages anyone posts here. You can also
> > killfile people's messages. If I were ending you repeated e-mails
> > threatening to harm you, then you might have a case. If I was calling
you
> > at home, then you might have a case. Hoever, since this is Usenet, you
have
> > absolutely no standing.
> >
> > Doug
>
>
> Hey, Bozo, on usenet or anywhere else, you are not a police officer. Your
> tiresome claims to the contrary are lies. You fail all the basic testing
that
> weeds out unstable and unpredictable idiots like you from taking up space
in
> cadet school. It is none of your business what political, social,
religious
> or ethnic adherence a suspect may have. You're a moron, a liar and a
fraud.
>
> Deaton, just fuck off, OK ?
Hey Bozo...you just answered Paul the Nimrod's dilemma...on the usenet, he
is not a cop so he cannot pe held responsible (professionally) for voicing
his beliefs or opinions on the NG
>
> .
> .
> .
Zman
> Douglas Deaton wrote:
> >
> > ofr...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >
> > > Conspiracy to harass me by cops is a violation of my rights.
> > > Why are you acting so dumb and innocent?
> > > You sound like one of the prisoners.
> >
you.
> > You can choose nto read the messages anyone posts here. You can also
> > killfile people's messages. If I were ending you repeated e-mails
> > threatening to harm you, then you might have a case. If I was calling
you
> > at home, then you might have a case. Hoever, since this is Usenet, you
have
> > absolutely no standing.
>
> on usenet.
>
> Do you want your account canceled as well?
Uhhh huh...
>
> I am ordering you to not harass me again.
O.K.
>
> You just can't accept defeat, can you?
Where?
>
> Refusal to desist will only implicate you more.
>
> Don't make me slap an order of protection on you for my safety.
Whatever
>
> You have posted threatening ass-whippings to others for using
> what you pea-brained Texans call "fightin words."
When...and please post these "quotes'.
>
> I think it is reasonable to assume that you are predicated to
> violence.
>
> Perhaps a forced psychiatric examination is in order?
>
> I am telling you to cease and desist all contact with me.
As long as you post...you are subject to anty and all replies and there is
nothing you can do about it freak...threaten my job all you want. I'll still
be hear up to my retirement party while you are holding your cardboard
sign..."Wil werk for fud".
>
> You accused me of being the enemy.
>
> You accused me of being a threat.
>
> You are the threat.
>
> You are a threat to all cops that suffer from your actions.
You have never given credit to any cop as long as I have read your postings
which has been for three years.
>
> > Doug
>
> -
debbie
>From: gers...@webtv.net (gersgal1)
>Date: 9/3/00 1:26 AM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: <1605-39B...@storefull-284.iap.bryant.webtv.net>
>
>Oh, pooh! I was gonna say something here, but in reality, I don't think
>anyone here, other than Debbie, gives a crap! Other than the crucified
>so called liberals...or the "bleeding hearts"...no ofense to the red
>cross or other worthwhile charities like the ones that benefit kids and
>all...
>I am beginning to feel very unwelcome here and I do not think my
>presence is wanted.
>Snip>
Hey W A I T Margie, you can't go anywhere. This NG is for people like you and
like me. We do BELONG here. Over the past year, actually almost 1 1/2 yrs,
I've put up with a lot of crap from some on this NG, but that only makes me
more determined to stay around. Remember when you first posted here? I told
you some things that I had learned the hard way. I wanted to keep you from
having to learn the way I did. You are a kind and sincere lady who can help
others. There will be other newbies that will need our help. Stay here and
don't let anyone make you think you are not welcome. Once again, you belong
here...if anyone needs to leave it sure isn't you. Only those who are sincere
stay, the rest will eventually move on to bother someone else.
Debbie
debbie
>From: gers...@webtv.net (gersgal1)
>Date: 9/3/00 12:51 AM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: <1605-39B...@storefull-284.iap.bryant.webtv.net>
>
but I thought I'd give him a chance anyway. Turns out I should have trusted
that first instinct I had. Notice how "Sgt Doe" and "EX" think so much alike?
Kinda reminds me of SHIT FOR BRAINS Brandi and her ole buddy CLEFEL.....
Debbie
debbie
>From: gers...@webtv.net (gersgal1)
>Date: 9/3/00 12:56 AM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: <1605-39B...@storefull-284.iap.bryant.webtv.net>
>
he'll kill file you. Do you ever "imagine" what the posters on here might look
like, based on their posts? I have this picture in my mind of what most of the
regulars look like. I imagine Ken looks like Napoleon.
Debbie
debbie
>Date: 9/3/00 12:28 AM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: <1605-39B...@storefull-284.iap.bryant.webtv.net>
>
appears to be very intelligent and he sounds like a really decent human being.
Debbie
Peter White
"gersgal1" <gers...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:1605-39B...@storefull-284.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
> To your post I say this...???? That zoomed way over my head!!! But then,
> I am not the most intelligent human being on this earth. I am sure that
> is obvious to you, Peter White. Gawd! That's a really nice name, if you
> don't mind me saying so. Kinda like Dudley DoRight : )
Wish I could take credit for it, but the name was pushed on to me. I don't
think I actually objected, but that period in my life is kinda hazy...
> Anyway,...back to the original train of thought.
> He has the right to be an anarchist, here in America, does he not? Like
> it or no!!!
Yes, the frog-miester has the right to be an anarchist. Ideas get lots of
protection here, even repulsive ones. Of course, my ideas get the same
protection, and I'm determined to discredit his view on what society should
look like. Two quotes come to mind: "The only way to defeat an idea is with
a better idea." I'm sure the idea of a constitutional republic is far better
than what froggy stands for. And, "The only thing necessary for evil to
triumph is for good men to do nothing." I find the idea of anarchy to be
evil, going against every forward step in human history. So I
post...Actually, froggy's own printed thought help a great deal.
BTW, just to be clear, ideas get protection. Actions don't.
PW
gersgal1
Margie
gersgal1
?
gersgal1
citizen and a voter...then here goes...
I never did like the guy,...President or no! He fell too short of the
type of people that I want to rule my world! To make a long story
short,...he was no Abe Lincoln! I'm sure you get the drift!
But then, that's just my opinion! : ) Damn! You know what?!?!?! I am
getting tired of having to explain myself (and others) every time I make
a comment on this ng!! And I am growing tired of people crucifying me
because I am opposed to police brutality! I am noticing that some people
here are atacking some people's character so that others will not notice
the bottom line...
This is an anti police brutality ng....does anyone here have any
solutions to the problem????
Sorry,...I just gotta say this! If you are not part of the
solution,..then you are part of the problem!!! Go figure!!
God keep you safe! You are in my prayers! : )
Margie
gersgal1
The last time I heard those words it was from a deep voice in the sky,
you fool.
Margie wrote...The last time I heard those words was from a deep voice
in the sky that said..."If you call your brother a fool, you will be in
danger of the fires of hell".
To me this ony means..."If you think you are righteous enough to replace
God like Lucifer did,...well,..the rest is history.
In the words of Paul Harvey,...Have a good day!!!
: )
Ken (NY)
<ofr...@hotmail.com> ejaculated:
>> > Of course our hypothetical can sue. Think I can win? :)
>>
>> If you can show intent.
>
>
>Does it count when the police chief gets on TV describing a
>fugitive as ascumbag?
Naw. That would be a ploy to get the fugitive to reveal
himself to complain and get locked up. Boy is that chief smart! On
second thought, most criminals are idiots.
Cheers,
--
Ken (NY)
Chairman,
Department of Redundancy Department,
___________________________________
The main accomplishment of almost all
organized protests is to annoy people
who are not in them.
Ken (NY)
ejaculated:
>> I think you just have to know how to go about it..........and without
>> the
>> typical "whiney" BULL****.
>
>Oh, you mean meet with these regulators and show evidence, like documents,
>video tapes showing where these LEO's actually lied and conspired to harass
>me. We did that, I have proved every allegation that I made. Now what? I'll
>tell ya, I even proved where the top cop lied in writing to town
>officials...he still works there. What checks and balances??? They don't
>exist here! http://www.angelfire.com/nc/Bubbasurvivin
>Bubba
I have not followed this thread completely so forgive me if I
missed a bit:
Tell me, have you contacted the Attorney General's office,
the FBI or another agency of the Justice Department such as the Civil
Rights Division? Seriously, if your civil rights have been violated by
government agencies including the police, the local politicians, the
judges, etc., certainly they would help you. They do that all the
time. In fact, after two or three controversial shootings in NYC
within the past few years, the feds are about to investigate the
entire NYPD... all 40,000 sworn members, their supervisors and perhaps
the Mayor's Office. You have detailed at least that many violations
committed against you and you have the evidence they could use.
Cordially,
Ken (NY)
<tex...@sprynet.com> ejaculated:
>
>ofr...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>> You are an assassin. A paid killer, and I offend you with my typing.
>
>I'd find it funny as hell to have OFR actually try to file a suit against me
>for libel or slander or harrassment via Usenet. Considering this little
>blurb and the other remarks he wrote (that I posted) I don't think anyone is
>going to listen for even a second. Hell, if anybody has a case for libel
>here, it's me.
>
>Doug
Doug, we apparently are paying a bit too much of our time to
this bird-brain. Yesterday I repeated your responses under my own
response and challenged him to come do something to me. He hasn't
responded to the challenge and thereby reveals himself as a loudmouth
bully. Stand up to a bully and you win every time. The truth of course
is that he likes to dish it out but can't take it.
Regards,
EX
>she can find and hands it to her
>acquaintance and wonders if EX
>wil really cast it~
Shooting is only one option. I would do whatever it takes to protect the
people I care about. As for your wondering about casting the first
stone, without hesitation. I'd probably enjoy it. I wish the death
penalty was changed to allow the victim's family to chose how the piece
of shit dies.
EX
>There's nothing that can bring a smile
>to my face faster than knowing a habitual
>criminal has been EXecuted or shot dead
>by a law-abiding citizen or police officer.
>Welcome to the United States. A country
>that rewards incompetence and allows
>criminal behavior without consequence.