A Cat Fight revisited
Wranglernator
A note to the public servant, living in Adelaide who forged the identity of
a person and made some very serious threats against that same person and
sent to me. It has been forwarded to the threatened person and recommended
it be taken to the police.
Also a note to both Tony Smith and Seppo Renfors, this same person has been
stirring the pot between you by posting under various names to ferment ill
will - successfully I might add.
Some people have suggested that I got this wrong, so I had another look at
this and a bit more. No I wasn't wrong.
I observe this right from the outset; a later in time statement by David
Conole does not have the effect of 'justifying' the initial actions back in
time by Tony, irrespective of which Kook cloak he was wearing. It takes out
any "kiddy "or "child (whatever)" statements from consideration (dealt with
more at the bottom). This is about the beginning that caused the catfight
that ended up like this:
What I'm looking at is the question; what right does a person have to
threaten, bully and harass another with the intent to either control them in
the manner of a dictator or drive them out from a public, non-moderated
newsgroup. Especially for actions they have themselves regularly initiated
and engaged in. To then take it to another level and go behind the scenes
getting them sacked or cause them some other harm, simply because they would
not do as they were told by a netNazi
The issue isn't the use of vulgar language, racism, cats or any "moral duty"
of another to step on and prevent it. They are a different issues not dealt
with here. There is a very simple cure for those. It is called a kill file.
If you don't like their language, use the kill file. That is what it is for.
Don't sink to their level. Naturally if you are unable to rise above that
level then all others should use their kill files to eliminate you.
It is the initiation of abuse and threats and subsequent acts I'm looking
at. Including the history of the perpetrator's and the propensity to act in
that manner and if there is justification for it.
TONY SMITH'S 'JUSTIFICATION' TO ACT AS A NETNAZI.
We examine the alleged justification and the events that led to Tony Smith's
action of getting David Conole sacked from his job.
There is no denying that David Conole was using less than pleasant language
at some later point in the thread and did resort to personal attacks, but he
did not initiate anything against Tony Smith.
It is in the following message where David Conole starts to get agitated as
he sees an attack on cats as being an attack on cat owners.
"Thecommentator" Jul 7 2006 3:18 pm
1152249492....@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com
That thread should have been left at that point but it is easy to be wise
with hindsight. It was the next person responding, Lindsay, that got the
fireworks going. It is also Lindsay who we see ending the dispute or at
least trying to. In the mean time Lindsay had sunk to about the level of
David Conole, though he was man enough to apologise for his lapse of
judgement (Wed, Jul 12 2006 7:13 pm).
Two days before this, Tony Smith sees that David Conole doesn't have direct
support from others while getting a caning from Lindsay, he resorts to
fermenting ill-will against David using his Kook persona. It is after Tony
Smith had purposely inflamed the situation that he used his real name and
further escalated the situation by posting a "whois" search on David's IP.
It would have been at an end BUT FOR Tony Smith using his Kook clothing
causing the continuance of the fight.
I'm not alone in this view:
http://groups.google.com.au/group/aus.cars/msg/19ae2ba0a29d554a
"The lawyer is mouthing threats and in my opinion goading the cat guy." -
ant
http://news-reader.org/aus.sport.motor/53830/ Thu, 13 Jul 2006, 12:14 am
Tony did give his 'reasoning' for doing what he did, which was primarily:
"you chose to conduct your "argument" in a way that I find annoying and
offensive." - Tony Smith.
- and-
"Your views are not the problem ... it is the way you express them." - Tony
Smith
This was the offending message by "the commentator" that Tony Smith had a
fit over:
http://news-reader.org/aus.sport.motor/53815/
"Apology accepted." - Wed, 12 Jul 2006, 6:48 pm (Time reported differently
than on Google).
That must be what annoyed Tony as it was the post Tony Smith reacted to in
his own name. Up to that point it appeared to be the end of the bun-fight.
It must have offended Tony to the point of making the vile threat as seen
here:
http://news-reader.org/aus.sport.motor/53816/
Wed, 12 Jul 2006, 8:39 pm
But lets look at another post instead from Tony. This one:
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2003
"But, the principle is there that using a carrier service for threats ....
This has been so for years an(sic) years ..... The problem there always was
that in order to use a telephone conversation in (for example) a civil
matter, you had to record it. In order to record it you had to tell the
other party. If you didn't you in fact committed an offence yourself.....
Internet and the email services that use it has brought a new dimension, in
that there is a record of what was said"
According to his own assessment he was committing a crime. What's more he
demonstrated that he had prior knowledge of committing that crime and did so
in the full knowledge of it being a crime!
Of course Tony may argue that he was "offended" under the nick "Kook
Wrangler" and that was justification enough. How people unfamiliar with Tony's
multiple personalities will know that the two are the one and the same
person acting in tandem to attack people is a mystery. It should be noted
that he subsequently had to explain the connection and state that he is the
Kook as well. See here:
http://news-reader.org/aus.sport.motor/53818/
"Yes, Tony Smith is my name, "K00K Wrangler" is a nym I also use;" - Tony
Smith
In the initial post Tony wrote to David under the Kook nick, this was the
second sentence:
http://news-reader.org/aus.sport.motor/53796/ Mon, 10 Jul 2006, 6:29 pm:
"What you do or do not see is irrelevant, your slur on people more
environmentally aware than you in spades." - Kook Wrangler (aka Tony Smith)
I know it doesn't make a lot of sense but that is what he said. Then he
added this:
"Do you own cats to compensate for some deep dark personality disorder?" -
Kook Wrangler (aka Tony Smith)
We have to remember in that post by David nothing was directed at the Kook
or Tony, even should one know they are the one and the same person.
Therefore it is Tony who initiates abuse toward "the commentator" using the
nick "Kook Wrangler"! It has to be expected that when someone starts to
verbally kick the goolies of a person, that the person will react adversely.
I suggest that was what Tony was intending to occur in any event.
The alleged defamation of Tony did not occur until the following day. That
is to say after Tony Smith had instigated a vilification campaign against
"the commander" a day earlier. The allegation "deep dark personality
disorder" is defamatory.. It has the imputation "thecommader is mentally
ill". The "your slur on people" has the imputation "thecommander is a
defamer", which is also defamatory.
So once again we see that Tony Smith initiated the abuse/defamation toward
Dave Conole. Tony Smith then worked in tandem with the Kook nick, abusing
Davis Conole using his Kook persona as well as his own identical Tony Smith
persona. It included using both nicks on the same day, some of it is seen in
the thread at Google (Tony forgot to set the X-archives)
47 & 50 Tony Smith Jul 13
52 The k00k Wrangler Jul 13
57 The k00k Wrangler Jul 14
There is another view one can take of this as well. It can be likened to a
case of assault. They guilty party is the one who throws the first punch. If
two people are already fighting, a third person wading in and beats up on
one of the two (or both) then that third person is guilty of assault as he
had initiated a new assault. It then doesn't matter that the person ends up
with two black eyes and a blood nose. He is still guilty. We see Tony Smith
being that guilty person!
UNCONSCIONABLE CONDUCT
This part examines Tony Smith's conduct. The same conduct he used as
'justification' to get David Conole sacked from his job
Then we have this message:
There is 54 liners of vile personal abuse and defamation actuated by malice
from Tony Smith. This compared to 6 lines retained written by Seppo Renfors
but not one single word in reply to the actual issue (deleted by Tony) of
why Tony Smith named "Renfors, Cornhole" in the subject line. Note the
intentionally derogatory term Tony Smith uses for "David Conole". It
demonstrates his intent to carry on the "catfight", to offend and abuse
David Conole with malicious intent.
While the words from Renfors were admittedly ill-tempered, there is some
justification for it considering that the issue was initiated by Tony Smith
in his subject line and the very long history of him being stalked by Tony
(see later). The subject line was read (wrongly in my view) as somehow
inferring that the article the link pointed to was referring to the named
people, "Renfors, Cornhole and couple of others".
Was there an explanation from Tony of his intent and reasons for posting
that subject line? No, there was not. It appears Tony was deliberately
baiting the named people to enable him to engage in abusive/defamatory
behaviour toward them. We saw the same baiting done by Tony of David Conole.
Was the response by Tony Smith any less vulgar, offensive and abusive than
the one causing Tony Smith to post his threat (Tony's very first post in
that thread)? No it was not. Far from it, it was far worse than the "Apology
accepted" by David Conole that saw Tony enter into a fit of dictatorial rage
demanding David Conole kowtow to Tony. Then too we first saw deliberate
baiting by Tony, to 'justify' his rage. Like this:
Tony Smith as the Kook, Mon, 10 Jul 2006, 6:29 pm
"Do you own cats to compensate for some deep dark personality disorder?"
We look at the messages posted by "Renfors, Cornhole" members.
There are no message by any "Cornhole" not even by "Conole" in the threads
"Non paying customer, what to do", "Spy cameras a stations", "Vote #1
Sylvia", "Renfors, Cornhole and couple of others - take note"
Messages in a chronological order by Seppo Renfors:
4531D3B8...@not.ollis.net on Sun, Oct 15 2006 4:31 pm. (Polite)
4531D510...@not.ollis.net on Sun, Oct 15 2006 4:37 pm (found out
about Tony Smith)
4531EE36...@not.ollis.net on Sun, Oct 15 2006 6:24 pm (noting Tony's
hypocrisy)
4531EDF6...@not.ollis.net on Sun, Oct 15 2006 6:27 pm (question why
he is named)
4531EE3F...@not.ollis.net on Sun, Oct 15 2006 6:27 pm (noting more
hypocrisy)
Here is the first message by Renfors:
http://groups.google.com.au/group/aus.legal/msg/754e9a27f6df043d
"Blue Heeler" aka Tony Smith wrote (assuming the existence of a Romapla
clause):
> If so, and if the goods have not been paid for as required by your
> invoice, pop around and reposess(sic) your property.
Renfors wrote:
"Sorry but that is simply not on. "
And then he goes on to explain why it is "not on". There can be no
"retention of title" to any goods not supplied - eg the box the new parts
are in or the other bits in it, not supplied by the seller. The
"reposess(sic) your property" requires taking away that not supplied by the
seller too. He arrived at the correct conclusion, it would be "theft" to do
as suggested by Tony.
In the same post Tony alleged, "The second is of course to seek to have the
company wound up and a liquidator appointed." - Tony Smith
I caused this message to remain visible on Google for this reason. To use as
evidence visible to all. Tony Smith top-posted this as his opening comments:
"Seppo Renfors the fool, has yet another attempt at correctly stating a
bit of simple law and fucks it as usual:" - Tony Smith
After getting all twisted up trying to justify advocating theft he posts
this (with other abuse):
"Poor, poor Renfors...So loud, so determined to have its stupid say, and
so very, very, wrong as usual." - Tony Smith
If anyone cares to verify the post by Renfors, they will notice that it was
totally non-abusive, on topic and dealing with the issues, not
personalities. He probably didn't realise it was Tony Smith he was
responding to!
Remember this from above:
"I find annoying and offensive." - Tony Smith
How was this annoying or offensive to Tony? Was it the accuracy? Was it the
lack of abuse? What was it?
The response by Tony Smith was not only abusive personal attacks but
included a fairly serious defamation. Tony Smith implied Renfors has been,
or is a bankrupt. The abuse is evidence of malice and it leaves only "truth"
as Tony's sole defence to the defamation. I sure hope he has evidence to
back that claim up with.
Sadly Tony shows a wasted effort of studying law as Tony claims the
following:
"I could refer you to QLD UCPR, but it would be lost on you." - Tony Smith
Why would he do that I wonder? Doesn't he know that bankruptcy belongs in
the federal jurisdiction? Perhaps he hasn't read the Australian
constitution, s51(xvii)? Doesn't he know that the Corporations Act he points
to is a Federal law as well? Doesn't he understand that a forced "wind-up
application" and have a "liquidator appointed" can only be done under
bankruptcy law?
Perhaps it is that Tony Smith gets so frightened, flustered and upset merely
seeing the Renfors name that he cannot think at all (as the abuse suggests).
The response we see from Tony does have elements of a cornered rat.
In the same message Tony claims :
"I have actually drafted, filed and argued these applications, I suspect
that I might just have a better idea on it than you." - Tony Smith
A wet behind the ears office boy has probably "filed" many. It doesn't mean
they have any idea what it entails! One certainly cannot believe the claims
of "drafted" and "argued" other than as part of study exercises, because he
doesn't even know which laws apply.
Those were issues being dealt with by Tony. The rest was defamation and
abuse from Tony Smith. Tony's message comprised of 535 words. Of those words
only 114 dealt with the issues, which he messed up anyway. The remaining 421
words or 50 out of 61 lines were completely and utterly unwarranted abuse
and defamation.
It is once again an attack initiate by Tony Smith. This is no different from
the attack initiated by Tony Smith against David Conole. How would that
'justify' Tony, getting Renfors sacked from a job? After all it is the same
'justification' he used to get David dismissed from his job.
But then we can also see Tony's 'debating standard' in this exchange with
Phil Alison:
Then there is this vile accusation (one among many) by Tony Smith using his
Kook suit:
http://phorums.com.au/showpost.php?p=1621258&postcount=8 09-05-2006,
"Shouldn't you be off to the toilets at Central to make a few quick bucks
on your knees toaster boi(sic)"- Tony Smith alias Kook wrangler
The bit Tony Smith quoted in that message actually supports Phil. I'm sure
he failed to realise this as he attacked Phil and joins in on the existing
bun fight, to fan the flames of that too.
Compare any of Tony's responses to Phil and then compare David Conole's
responses after the debate had been inflamed by Tony, to those by Tony to
Phil. Are they not comparable? Do we not see the effect of Tony's baiting of
Phil? Is anyone surprised at the results from the goading? Who believes that
the baiting is unintentional or justified?
This is an incident that occurred recently. They haven't got a patch on the
distance travelled by Tony Smith. However it does highlight the very real
dangers from deranged people on the net.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/6059726.stm
In the thread "Vote #1 Sylvia" referred to above, we see reference by Tony
Smith do his stalking of Renfors in a physical capacity in real life! It may
only be a hairs breath away from having the same potential outcome,
considering how Tony goes off the deep end at Renfors:
It is ridiculous of Tony Smith to deny his identity when he has posted
pictures of himself as part of his messages with his newsreader. In addition
to that he had a web page that did contain his images. He was identifiable
then and is still identifiable. I am totally confident Tony Smith was
properly identified at the time. Anything else beggars belief.
Of course, as Tony claims to know the person concerned, and it being a
criminal issue, he will himself say who that person was, if it was not Tony
Smith himself! To do otherwise would be to harbour/aid and abet criminals,
would it not? Perhaps he only dobs in and causes people who "offends" him to
lose their jobs?
CREDIBILITY
Here we look at Tony Smith's credibility. We have recently seen Tony Smith,
alias "Blue Heeler" make completely unsubstantiated claims a number of
times. For instance this one:
Message-ID: xn0eskwe...@news.individual.net
"It is evidence that Renfors is a twice dammed fool, both in person and
under his latest nym as "Wranglernator"." - Tony Smith.
It doesn't even qualify as argumentum ad ignorantiam! Where is his evidence
for that string of words? It does not and cannot exist. So why is he making
the claim? It probably is paranoia brought on by a phobia of the Renfors
name if not an intentional lie with a gratuitous attack on "Renfors".
This is also a post where Tony Smith accused Seppo Renfors of being a
"forger". Of course a real lawyer knows accusing another of criminal conduct
is known as "criminal defamation" and is a crime in itself. Where is Tony's
evidence for this claim that Seppo is a "forger"? I hope he has it as it is
actuated by malice and that defeats every defence other than actual truth!
(You won't see it on Google as Tony Smith fears leaving evidence of his
conduct there and sets "X-no-archive: yes")
We find the following statements in another of Tony's messages:
".your idiot idea."
"I am of the opinion that you are a clueless fucktard."
".in to another of your irrational, clueless and fact devoid rants."
"Too stupid to live is what you are"
"Fuck me drunk you are stupid!"
"loons like you"
"But do please feel free to insert 10c and have another go."
That is sufficient to demonstrate Tony Smith's way of 'communicating' and
his perceived 'right' to abuse another.
The party vilified responded partly with the words "you need a break to cool
off with the abuse". The worst language he used to Tony was this: "let me
know when there's some room for more 10c pieces up your arse." Which is
understandable considering Tony's request he "insert 10c".
This was Tony's response:
"Abuse my dear Ponsemby? What abuse, I've stated facts and opinion only." -
Tony Smith
Is the 'typo' in that name deliberate, I wonder? There we see Tony deny his
abuse despite the easily demonstrable lie it is. One has to conclude that
Tony Smith doesn't care that he is seen to be a liar.
Something else that is noteworthy to observe. Both Renfors and Ponsenby do
not hide behind a nick or an anonymous overseas news server like Tony Smith
appears to need to do. Why is it Tony Smith needs to hide if he is the
knight in shining armour he claims to be?
But there is more. In this message we see Tony take an opportunity to
badmouth Renfors once again
Only the perpetrator of the crime can know the information in that message.
We have to remember that Tony Smith sets "X-no-archive: yes". Therefore it
isn't available from the net. Especially not "Google" that Tony points to.
Considering his preparedness to lie in the face of evidence to the contrary
and the apparent in-depth knowledge of the incident we can be certain the
offender was Tony Smith and nobody else. After all, this is still about
stalking Renfors. Stalking of the kind engaged in by Tony Smith is of no
value unless the victim knows they are being stalked!
Seen in this message is a litany of gratuitous defamatory claims as well as
a litany of abuse.
http://groups.google.com.au/group/aus.cars/msg/a1fb295409a3e8fb
The sole "proof" that Renfors has done anything is the tiny-URL Tony Smith
provided, pointing to messages dating back to 2001. It refers to Renfors
saying, "send complaints" in those messages. Nothing more.
Let us examine the "send complaints" allegation. Google finds the following
instances:
97,100 for "send complaints". It means that it is hardly something out of
the ordinary.
So what abut Google groups? It does narrow it a bit, and only shows: "27,200
for "send complaints"". Then the "160 times" makes up only a tad over 0.5 %
of the instances it has been used. It includes every instance of the term
including uses like "send complaint to your MP".
The claim regarding "Deitiker" is where Renfors says: "Send complaints to
these people - the bottle washer is supposed to be working NOT STALKING
PEOPLE on the net.". Nothing in that message even hinted at anything more
than is visible in that message. Any claim of something more needs evidence
and proving. Till then it qualifies as argumentum ad ignorantiam.
Further more, it is clear that Renfors is dealing with stalkers and
parasites. Why should he, or anyone else, tolerate such from anyone? Does
Tony feel "offended" by that intolerance of stalkers? Tony posting this red
herring is the classic tu quoque argument, if it was true that is. It is
hoping to divert attention away from him. So let us be diverted for a
moment, as that is his wish
If Tony's intent was to show Renfors' reaction to stalkers he should have
used the URL I provided in the Cat Fight Blog, where Tony Smith is regularly
called a "Criminal", it is far more dramatic! Why did Tony shy away from
that?
Take note of the first message you see there. It proves who is stalking who.
I get Google report a total of 257 instances for "Criminal Tony Smith" with
the author as Renfors. One of the messages also contains the following link:
There is more:
First Tony states:
"And I consider it my "civic duty" to tell you to go stick your head up a
dead bear's arse." - Tony Smith
In the same message he declares:
"I have never "attacked" or "belittled" anyone for holding a contrary view
to
myself," - ibid
Then there is this one:
"I don't lie" - Tony Smith
Oh well, so much for his "credibility". We know that is not true even from
those posts back in 2003 where he resorts to those lies. After having dobbed
in David Conole, costing him his job we see Tony Smith resort to one of the
biggest lies of all. Deny his own identity as we have seen in a number of
messages from him! Including this:
From: "Blue Heeler" <wo...@bark.net>
Newsgroups: aus.legal
Subject: Re: Vote #1 Sylvia
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2006 05:24:24 +1000
Message-ID: <xn0esnax...@news.individual.net>
References: . <45362075$0$24685$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>
X-Trace: individual.net Yq1k4YLu5CWBecChYJ19ygNKKgu0f35GckUa3meKmYoMQkMVhg
User-Agent: XanaNews/1.18.1.3
X-no-archive: yes
X-Ref: news.individual.net ~XNS:000000A9
r?s wrote:
> >
>
> Any particular reason you don't like google archiving your posts Tony?
>
> Not afraid something might bite you in the arse one day perhaps?
>
> HTH
Reply to my post, but ask a question of someone else?
[end post by "Blue Heeler", aka Tony Smith]
Then we see the evidence of what the truth is from Tony himself:
From: "Blue Heeler" <wo...@bark.net>
Subject: test
Newsgroups: aus.test
User-Agent: XanaNews/1.18.1.3
Message-ID: <xn0er4ol...@192.120.0.199>
X-Ref: 192.120.0.199 ~XNS:00000026
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
X-NNTP-Posting-Host: pc-00171.tonsyl.org
Date: 11 Sep 2006 23:03:44 GMT
Lines: 4
NNTP-Posting-Host: 203.31.114.181
X-Trace: 1158015824 uq-127creek-reader-03.brisbane.pipenetworks.com.au 492
203.31.114.181:1108
X-Complaints-To: Abuse, including message IDs to ab...@pipenetworks.com
Path:
g2news2.google.com!news3.google.com!news.glorb.com!quokka.wn.com.au!figjam.pipenetworks.com!218.100.0.53.MISMATCH!not-for-mail
Note the: X-NNTP-Posting-Host: pc-00171.tonsyl.org
-and-
The 203.31.114.181 resolves to:
Domain Name: femtech.com.au
Last Modified: 15-Jun-2006 14:09:03 UTC
Registrar ID: R00012-AR
Registrar Name: TPP Internet
Status: OK
Registrant: Female Technologies
Registrant ID: OTHER BN18284164
Registrant ROID: C3038506-AR
Registrant Contact Name: S SCAFE
Registrant Email: sama...@getonit.com
Tech ID: C3038497-AR
Tech Name: S SCAFE
Tech Email: sama...@getonit.com
Name Server: ns1.getonit.net
Name Server: ns2.getonit.net
Not that he has been very 'original' in the selection of that name. Not only
does it imply that he is a net cop and proud of it, but it is also a
reference to the "cat fight" itself as we see from here:
If the claim below is true, why does he need to deny who he is?
" I want those I choose to smite to be under absolutely no illusion as to
who is doign(sic) the smiteing(sic)" - Tony Smith
Of course, it is true to the extent that he does want those he is stalking
know that he is stalking them. This we know.
ABUSE OF OFFICE
Tony Smith alleging to be a lawyer
It is a crime to use the office of something for inappropriate purposes (no
it isn't limited to public office), like using the power of the office to
intimidating a person. Eg "Polish my boots because I'm a Lawyer, or else"
type of behaviour. Like in this message:
http://tinyurl.com/y8prs7 Date: 12 Jul 2006
"Firstly, for the elimination of any doubt, I am a lawyer admitted in a
number of jurisdictions in Australia." - Tony Smith
- and -
"The big hint is: Shut up and behave yourself and your employer need
never know." - Tony Smith
Not only is Tony using the status of his alleged "office" to intimidate, he
also makes a threat and implies force to the threat due to his "office",
which he ultimately carried out as seen here:
This is a copy posted to aus.sport.motor including an apology on 25 Jul 2006
http://groups.google.com.au/group/aus.sport.motor/msg/1a0ddd9c6522d02f?dmode=source&hl=en
From that message we can see two things. It appears that Tony Smith had
already got David Conole sacked. Tony Smith has created a "legal
relationship". That is, he is acting as a "practising lawyer", and therefore
is not merely in a "private capacity". He has set up a 'lawyer' -client
basis (himself being both parts) and is acting in a 'professional' capacity
against a potential defendant in a legal action!
There is a second apology and withdrawal of all allegations made:
http://groups.google.com.au/group/aus.sport.motor/msg/794f2e8999a02728?hl=en&
The offence of "abuse of office" (or the tort of misfeasance) is there to
curb corruption! A Justice of Peace will be "struck off" for conduct exactly
like we see from Tony in the threat message (and many others). I'm
reasonably certain, but I care not verify it at present, that it might apply
to Lawyers too.
There is an interesting issue that casts a very long shadow over the alleged
"qualifications" of Tony Smith. He re-published the defamatory material of
himself for the world to see! Unbelievable! Not only that, he has to
actually manufacture the alleged defamation, as David has referred to
"kookwrangler" with exactly that term on Tues,11 Jul 2006.
Then we see Tony Smith defame himself! He puts his hand up and says: Here
look at me, I am the person this allegation refers to!
http://news-reader.org/aus.sport.motor/53818/ Wed, 12 Jul 2006
If the alleged defamation caused damage to his "reputation", why is he
making sure that damage is as wide as possible? Could Tony sue his lawyer
for incompetence?
It negates most if not all the "damages" of any alleged defamation, when he
himself can add to that by putting the spotlight on himself saying, "it is
me" and re-publish the same 'defamation' himself! Who actually caused the
damage, Tony or David? Can there even be any "presumed damages" when Tony
cares so little that he re-publishes the alleged defamation? In this context
I doubt it amounted to anything else than mere abuse anyway. The law will
not resort to knee-jerk reactions like rash and opinionated news-groupies
will.
If anyone has a burning need to find out if he really is a "lawyer" or to
complain about him, it is OK by Tony. He said so in this message:
You cannot make a complaint about the conduct of legal practitioners other
than for their conduct in the practice of law. It seems to me that Tony is
doing his level best to "practise law", as he is "giving advice" (the
threats) based on him being a "Lawyer" (allegedly).
This is the place to find out. (A) Is he actually a "lawyer" of the status
he alleges (B) Is it a breach of conduct bringing the legal profession into
disrepute? I have no doubts, in my opinion he can't do a lot more to
discredit the profession and is not a fit and proper person for the office.
Let me finish this chapter off with the following appropriate quote:
http://groups.google.com.au/group/aus.cars.offroad/msg/320d00b6f2ef494b?dmode=source&hl=en
"And actually whilst I think that some people are probably thinking that
this
is getting a bit "old", no one ever objects to a calculating, back-stabbing
liar getting their just deserts." - Tony Smith
Amen to that! Now I will sit back and watch the inevitable off topic
reaction as to how it is anyone who says anything against Tony must be that
Renfors person even though he appears to not fear using his own name. I'll
watch how Tony will go off the deep end and probably say enough to end up in
Court. Maybe that is what all this is about J
No correspondence will be entered onto.
seppo....@gmail.com
antecedents of both Renfors and Cornhole it is understandable.
Whilst the latest offering by Renfors<>Cornhole contains the usual mix
of lies, selective misquotation, illogical drivel etc. It is only my
purpose to highlight one section of "Wranglenator's" nonsense and leave
readers to make their own decisions as to the rest of it.
I do this on the basis that if it can be shown that she/he/it/they have
once dipped into the realms of fantasy, deliberate untruth, or
displayed a consummate lack of knowledge in respect to the topic they
blather on about, then by implication anything else written by the
fool(s) is inevitably and irretrievably tarred with the same brush.
Wranglernator wrote:
> The Cat Fight revisited
(actually "attempt to restart the catfight" would have been more
honest.)
>
> http://groups.google.com.au/group/aus.legal/msg/754e9a27f6df043d
>
>
>
> "Blue Heeler" aka Tony Smith wrote (assuming the existence of a Romapla
> clause):
>
> > If so, and if the goods have not been paid for as required by your
>
> > invoice, pop around and reposess(sic) your property.
>
>
>
> Renfors wrote:
>
> "Sorry but that is simply not on. "
>
>
> And then he goes on to explain why it is "not on". There can be no
> "retention of title" to any goods not supplied - eg the box the new parts
> are in or the other bits in it, not supplied by the seller. The
> "reposess(sic) your property" requires taking away that not supplied by the
> seller too. He arrived at the correct conclusion, it would be "theft" to do
> as suggested by Tony.
>
What preposterous drivel. A computer is repaired by replacing faulty
cards or components. If they are not paid for, and if title has not
passed, then the supplier is free to obtain the return of their
property.
However, as noted by the O/P - title was not retained so it does not
apply - as noted by Blue Heeler.
>
>
> In the same post Tony alleged, "The second is of course to seek to have the
> company wound up and a liquidator appointed." - Tony Smith
>
>
>
> I caused this message to remain visible on Google for this reason. To use as
> evidence visible to all. Tony Smith top-posted this as his opening comments:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/ybvnzc
>
>
>
> "Seppo Renfors the fool, has yet another attempt at correctly stating a
>
> bit of simple law and fucks it as usual:" - Tony Smith
>
Seems to be a quite accurate statement- made by "Blue Heeler of course
Only someone silly/desperate/stupid enough to allow Renfors tongue in
their ear or down their throat would think differently - particularly
given Renfors long history of getting just about every bit of law it
tackles totally wrong (as was done here - read on boys).....
>
>
> After getting all twisted up trying to justify advocating theft he posts
> this (with other abuse):
>
As no theft was ever advocated it follows that likewise there was no
abuse.
>
>
> "Poor, poor Renfors...So loud, so determined to have its stupid say, and
>
> so very, very, wrong as usual." - Tony Smith
>
Accurate
>
>
> If anyone cares to verify the post by Renfors, they will notice that it was
> totally non-abusive, on topic and dealing with the issues, not
> personalities. He probably didn't realise it was Tony Smith he was
> responding to!
>
Nonsense! If the post lacked Renfors's usual braying stridency it was
only because the pair of you thought you had the perfect "dorothy
dixer" all set up and ready to go.
Sadly, neither of you is very smart and you really should not try
complicated tactics - they are beyond both of you.
> The response by Tony Smith was not only abusive personal attacks but
> included a fairly serious defamation.
This will be good......
> Tony Smith implied Renfors has been,
> or is a bankrupt.
Seeing as the post was not from "Tony Smith" How could this be so?
Without getting invovled in a tawdry argument about nyms, elsewhere in
your stupid diatribe you claim that something said to or by a nym
cannot be defamatory of a "real" person.
You were wrong of course, but it would be nice if you could be
consistently wrong.
Or is the change of view on that particular topic a result of the
multiple personalities involved in its authorship?
> The abuse is evidence of malice and it leaves only "truth"
> as Tony's sole defence to the defamation. I sure hope he has evidence to
> back that claim up with.
>
Best brush up on your defamation law too hadn't you..... mind you,
there is another section of law coming right up which will probably
command your more urgent attention.
>
>
> Sadly Tony shows a wasted effort of studying law as Tony claims the
> following:
>
> "I could refer you to QLD UCPR, but it would be lost on you." - Tony Smith
>
>
>
> Why would he do that I wonder? Doesn't he know that bankruptcy belongs in
> the federal jurisdiction? Perhaps he hasn't read the Australian
> constitution, s51(xvii)? Doesn't he know that the Corporations Act he points
> to is a Federal law as well? Doesn't he understand that a forced "wind-up
> application" and have a "liquidator appointed" can only be done under
> bankruptcy law?
>
Now here is the danger of taking legal advice from Renfors the fool...
You see, there is this wonderful bit of Law called (collectively) "The
cross-vesting rules".
These tricky little numbers allow (amongst other things) State Supreme
Courts to exercise Federal Jurisidiction in certain matters. Hence, you
will find in the QLD Uniform Civil Procedure Rules Schedule 1A the
rules that relate to application made under the Corporations Law.
Here's a link to the forms used - the actual UCPR rules you can find
for yourselves.
See:
http://www.courts.qld.gov.au/practice/legislation/corporation_forms.htm
Then have a good little cry, perhaps a little cuddle might make the
pair of you feel better?
> In the same message Tony claims :
>
> "I have actually drafted, filed and argued these applications, I suspect
> that I might just have a better idea on it than you." - Tony Smith
>
Which would seem to be correct on its face in the light of the above
wouldn't it. But of course remembering that the claim was made by "blue
heeler," the only mention of Tony Smith (allegedly) making any such
claim is by Renfors<>Cornhole
>
>
> A wet behind the ears office boy has probably "filed" many. It doesn't mean
> they have any idea what it entails! One certainly cannot believe the claims
> of "drafted" and "argued" other than as part of study exercises, because he
> doesn't even know which laws apply.
>
Actually, it would seem that "Blue Heeler" got it spot on, and that
once again Renfors the fool has grasped hold of a minor bit of law and,
well, "fucked it up" again...
And Renfors does bray on about it too doesn't he? A well established
character trait of Seppo [the clown TM] is to always be wrong at the
absolute top of your voice.
>
>
> Those were issues being dealt with by Tony. The rest was defamation and
> abuse from Tony Smith. Tony's message comprised of 535 words. Of those words
> only 114 dealt with the issues, which he messed up anyway. The remaining 421
> words or 50 out of 61 lines were completely and utterly unwarranted abuse
> and defamation.
>
As I said at the outset, it is not my intention to get involved in the
fine detail of this nonsense.
However, I have taken the time to follow the other links kindly
provided by the tawdry pair, readers can do likewise and discover the
depths of mis-quotation, outright invention and just plain drivel that
Renfors<>Cornhole indulge themselves in.
I remind the reader of my comment at the beginning that it is only my
intention to expose one of the pillars of sand upon which
Renfors<>Cornhole built their house of cards. I picked the legal issue
because it is one that most people will have had little if any
experience in, and which therefore might have escaped exposure.
The many other examples of their tawdry untruthfulness are easily
discovered. In fact I recommend following the links provided by
Renfors<>Cornhole, delve deep into the conversations and you get a
really good appreciation of the creature that is Renfors, and by
association, also the character and personality of Cornhole given that
he willingly associates with Renfors.
Rob Adams
<wrangl...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>The Cat Fight revisited
What the HELL has this got to do with motorsport, go away.....
Rob.
--
ADVISORY: By sending email to the address in the FROM: header you give
me permission to sell your address to spamlists. To stop yourself from
getting on this list email roba(at)mmx{dit}com(dit)au instead.
Lindsay
Wranglernator wrote:
1040 lines, 300 of 'em blank, and the other 740 of 'em hilarious.
I think the term here would be, er 'Get a life"?
--
Scrap the 00 to post direct.
"We all should present legal cars. I'm embarrassed we've presented a car
that's ineligible." Mark Skaife, Chief Sook, HRT.12/11/04 (It must hurt
to say illegal!)
"Speed limit near schools lowered to 40 grams per student" - CNNNN
Oz
"Lindsay" <lind...@hornet.net.au> wrote in message
news:45430308...@hornet.net.au...
I much prefer "Fuck Off" :-)
its over, what purpose does it do, other than to deliberately stir up shit
??
Maybe we should be saying "Get a life and fuck off" :-)
Oz
Big LN
news:qdj5k2pehh39prm7j...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 28 Oct 2006 01:02:07 +1000, "Wranglernator"
> <wrangl...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>>The Cat Fight revisited
>
> What the HELL has this got to do with motorsport, go away.....
>
> Rob.
The two morons involved had their spat is aus.sport.motor
Keep this shit out of aus.tv.
Be gone with you and your ilk. Keep this shit in your own newsgroup where it
germinated from.
ie. GAGABBDUY
'Onya
Barrabas
<seppo....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1161990546.3...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> It is surprising to see this drivel still going on, but considering the
> antecedents of both Renfors and Cornhole it is understandable.
Is that Cornholio?
The great Cornholio, there is but one.
Deevo
<snip>
> The two morons involved had their spat is aus.sport.motor
>
> Keep this shit out of aus.tv.
>
> Be gone with you and your ilk. Keep this shit in your own newsgroup where
> it germinated from.
Given the amount of shit that's germinated from aus.tv I find the irony of
this statement to be incredibly funny.
--
Deevo
Geraldton Western Australia
Horry
T Bar-Smith wrote:
> seppo....@gmail.com wrote this message
> <1161990546.3...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com> on 28/10/2006:
>
>
> > It is surprising to see this drivel still going on, but considering
> > the antecedents of both Renfors and Cornhole it is understandable.
> >
>
> Horace Wachope........ maaaaate is that a gun in your pocket or are you
> just glad to see me? Sorry bum brother, Sepsis is all mine.
>
> BTW got rid of your piles yet Horry? What about your VD test, how did
> it turn out?
>
> Call me on 8463-4021 well have another get together, lover boy. Say
> hello to Les too.
Will do. Ta.