What is a death threat online? winnipeg.general
tayllor
Can people make posts to threaten to do physical harm or to murder someone
on newsgroups in Canada?
A few users here on winnipeg.general seem to do this now and again, and I'm
not sure if its acceptable or not.
Todays comment on winnipeg.general was this one.
These are comments made the user Gutz, who goes by many names as has made
similar threatening comments in the past... some much more hostile sounding.
gutz wrote in message <3a886842...@news.rdc1.mb.home.com>...
>On Mon, 12 Feb 2001 20:38:31 GMT, "tayllor" <tay...@home.com> wrote:
>DonE.........Either Art or myself would and could kick your sorry
>little puckered up ass until you had to shit out of your dick.
>
>Gladly, I may add.
>
>beergut
Mike Powell
264.1 (1)
Every one commits an offence who, in any manner, knowingly utters,
conveys or causes any person to receive a threat
(a) to cause death or bodily harm to any person;
(b) to burn, destroy or damage real or personal property; or
(c) to kill, poison or injure an animal or bird that is the property of
any person.
Punishment
(2) Every one who commits an offence under paragraph (1)(a) is guilty of
(a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not
exceeding five years; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable to
imprisonment for a
term not exceeding eighteen months.
Idem
(3) Every one who commits an offence under paragraph (1)(b) or (c)
(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a
term not exceeding two years; or
(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
tayllor
Now how do we interpret the exact words made in this example
>DonE.........Either Art or myself would and could kick your sorry
>little puckered up ass until you had to shit out of your dick.
>>Gladly, I may add.
>
>beergut
"kick your sorry puckered a**"...I believe that sounds like a direct threat
to do physical harm
"your little puckered up a** until you had to sh*t out of your di*k" ...I
can't imagine that happening or a person living thru it if it did happen. I
assume that it is a direct death threat.
So if a person(s) in Winnipeg or anywhere decides to make these kinds of
comments on a public newsgroup winnipeg.general or anywhere, then they are
probably breaking the law.
I assume if a person had a previous criminal record of violence that it
would be fairly easy for someone to check on.
Mike Powell wrote in message <3A89A66E...@home.com>...
Opus-
thusly:
>Thanks for the post of the legal definition of a threat.
>
>Now how do we interpret the exact words made in this example
>
>>DonE.........Either Art or myself would and could kick your sorry
>>little puckered up ass until you had to shit out of your dick.
>>>Gladly, I may add.
>>
>>beergut
>
>"kick your sorry puckered ass"...I believe that sounds like a direct threat
>to do physical harm
>
>"your little puckered up ass until you had to shit out of your dick" ...I
>can't imagine that happening or a person living thru it if it did happen. I
>assume that it is a direct death threat.
No, it is not a direct threat. A threat would be worded similar to "I
*AM GOING* to kick your..."
He did not say he was GOING to kick your sorry putrid miserable ass,
he simply stated that he was CAPABLE of kicking your miserable ass and
was WILLING to kick your sorry ass. He never said he would actually do
so.
It could also be argued that you asked for it. It DOES make a
difference in court.
>So if a person(s) in Winnipeg or anywhere decides to make these kinds of
>comments on a public newsgroup winnipeg.general or anywhere, then they are
>probably breaking the law.
Probably not. But defamation of character IS actionable, and you KNOW
what I am talking about.
>I assume if a person had a previous criminal record of violence that it
>would be fairly easy for someone to check on.
Contrary to popular opinion, a persons criminal record is only
accessible under a set of very specific circumstances, such as
applying for bonded employment, crossing the border, applying for
employment with police services, military or child care, etc.
It's not possible to simply go to the police station or the courts
and ask to see somebody's criminal record.
--
jbu...@altavista.com
(Jim, single dad to Lesleigh [Autistic] 04/20/94)
**Guilt, fear, mass insanity**
**Let's hear it for Christianity**
Please note: All unsolicited e-mail sent to me may, at
my discretion, be posted in this newsgroup verbatim.
ThePope
>Thanks for the post of the legal definition of a threat.
>
>Now how do we interpret the exact words made in this example
>
>>DonE.........Either Art or myself would and could kick your sorry
>>little puckered up ass until you had to shit out of your dick.
>>>Gladly, I may add.
>>
>>beergut
>
>"kick your sorry puckered a**"...I believe that sounds like a direct threat
>to do physical harm
>
>"your little puckered up a** until you had to sh*t out of your di*k" ...I
>can't imagine that happening or a person living thru it if it did happen. I
>assume that it is a direct death threat.
>
>So if a person(s) in Winnipeg or anywhere decides to make these kinds of
>comments on a public newsgroup winnipeg.general or anywhere, then they are
>probably breaking the law.
>
>I assume if a person had a previous criminal record of violence that it
>would be fairly easy for someone to check on.
>
You are so fucking lame.
Grow up.
[snip]
PeterD
>Thanks for the post of the legal definition of a threat.
>
>Now how do we interpret the exact words made in this example
>
>>DonE.........Either Art or myself would and could kick your sorry
>>little puckered up ass until you had to shit out of your dick.
>>>Gladly, I may add.
>>
>>beergut
>
>"kick your sorry puckered a**"...I believe that sounds like a direct
threat
>to do physical harm
>
>"your little puckered up a** until you had to sh*t out of your di*k"
...I
>can't imagine that happening or a person living thru it if it did
happen. I
>assume that it is a direct death threat.
Nah, I think it's heated debate or passionate discourse, or just plain
old venting. Either way, though, if he decided to actually do it, I'd
buy tickets? Others too, I'll bet.
>So if a person(s) in Winnipeg or anywhere decides to make these kinds
of
>comments on a public newsgroup winnipeg.general or anywhere, then they
are
>probably breaking the law.
As I've recommended before, print out the messages(unedited -- remember
the Police take a dim view of edited messages) , and take them down to
the Community Police Office and ask them. They are qualified to respond,
and once they 've stopped laughing, I'm sure they 'll be glad to help
you.
>I assume if a person had a previous criminal record of violence that it
>would be fairly easy for someone to check on.
Are you not so subtlely suggesting this is the case with beergut/Art? A
new all-time low for you, "ttaylor".
----------
Peter D
o...@there.org
has to say that she thought she was being threatened for a charge to stick. The
law says that it is the perception of the person complaining which determines
that a threat has been made,
Further the police and women in divorce both use threats as an easy way to
clobber men.
Mike Powell <mikep...@home.com> hypothesizes:
o...@there.org
person's criminal record. I am not going to tell you how, but anyone with a
brain can figure out how to do it.
I recommend that you always do such a check on anyone you are seriously dating.
Opus- <jbu...@REMOVEhome.com> hypothesizes:
Arbalest
actually "put up or shut up"
for years you have been content slandering each other and throwing insults
left and right and apparently in some cases
carrying out definitively passive aggressive behaviours such as calling and
harrassing each other, approaching each others employers and ISP's and so
on.
It might be best for all concerned to meet in a gym and bash on each other
until you realize that you are all friends of a feather and whether you like
it or not you all seem pretty like minded and your behaviours and actions
are all carried out under the same principles.
talk is cheap, usenet talk is cheaper.
yeesh, people of the world who also use usenet and check out the winnipeg
servers must think that we in winnipeg are nothing but a bunch of vindictive
whining banality swinging misanthropic oafs.
Chill out you guys, and lets get some positive and informative interaction
going on here.
(something a little more meaningful than "This guy on my way into work was
driving like a maniac and I am steamed about it!" or even better yet "i saw
a movie now i'll reveal the plot and bash the director" or "Don Bayomi stop
calling me at home" or whatever else that has been repeated here aimlessly
and endlessly for as long as I have been readin this stuff (about a year or
two))
The gay crowd here has the most interesting stuff to say even though it is
primarily the voice of cynicism.
well see you in the ether fellow peggers, by the way, how does everyone feel
now that the pay to throw it out program is bunged?
Norman Gall
10:44hrs :
> Wahh!
Thanks for coming out.
--
Probably the saddest thing about Ottawa is the number of fourth-rate
intellects applied to first-rate problems.
Arbalest
Love to lurk and post here, I just hope that the content has some substance
eventually.
is the "whaa" comment in reference to the gist of the post I made or is it a
comment on the user fees for garbage.
see yall in the ether.
"Norman Gall" <nrg...@home.com> wrote in message
news:B6B01405.E709%nrg...@home.com...
Barbara Amero
>
> Let me add one vital qualification. The person who is allegedly
> threatened only has to say that she thought she was being threatened
> for a charge to stick.
If you mean to secure a conviction, what you are saying is
ridiculous. Moreover, the person who is allegedly threatened
won't even be able to get the police to lay charges by simply
saying that she "thought" she was being threatened. For e.g.,
when poster Donna Whitman made a complaint to Sgt. Cowper
about me, as such relates to my posts, she wrote that there
was no doubt in her mind that she was being threatened with
physical harm. But, I did not threaten to physically harm her.
Charges were not laid. IOW, that she "thought" (or claims to
have thought) that she was being threatened doesn't mean she
was being threatened. In the context and circumstances in which
my words were written, no reasonable person would have "thought"
they would convey a threat. To lay a charge, the police must
assess more than the alleged victim's "thought" and to make
a charge stick, the Crown must prove what the alleged victim
"thought." In Canada, we are supposed to be innocent until
proven guilty, not guilty because of what the alleged victim
"thought". And, as Ron Jourard, a lawyer, writes: "The intended
victim need not even be aware of the threat." IOW, the alleged
victim need not have a "thought" as many people in here don't.
Ron Jourard, Barrister and Solicitor (Toronto, Canada) writes:
To secure a conviction at trial, the Crown must prove that the
person making the threat did so knowingly. That is, the prosecution
must show that he was aware of the words used and the meaning
they would convey. It also must show that he intended the threat to
be taken seriously, that is, to intimidate or strike fear into the
recipient. It is not necessary that the person making the threat
intend to carry it out or be capable of doing so. His motive for
making the threat is equally irrelevant.
In assessing whether the words constitute a threat, they must be
considered objectively. One must ask: In the context and
circumstances in which the words were spoken or written, the
manner in which they were used, and the person to whom they
were directed would they convey a threat to a reasonable person?
A history of violence between the parties may support a finding that
the words were intended as a threat. Whether or not the person
making the threat has an apparent ability to carry it out when the
words are spoken, his use of gestures or acts, whether the recipient
of the words takes them seriously, and disparity in size between the
speaker and the recipient of the threat may all be relevant to an
assessment of the speaker's intent.
> The law says that it is the perception of the person complaining which
> determines that a threat has been made,
No. The law says as Ron Jouranrd, a lawyer, says: " One must ask:
In the context and circumstances in which the words were spoken
or written, the manner in which they were used, and the person to
whom they were directed would they convey a threat to a reasonable
person?"
And, the person complaining need not be the person to whom the threat
was directed.
Ron Jourard, a lawyer, writes:
To be an offence, the threat need not be made directly to the
intended victim. The intended victim need not even be aware of
the threat. Nor is it necessary that the person making the threat
intend that it be communicated to the target of the threat.
> Further the police and women in divorce both use threats as an easy
> way to clobber men.
Those who read/listen to the news have seen/heard much about
men assaulting and killing their wives and threatening to
assault or kill their wives. Often, after a man kills his
wife, we read or hear in the news that the police and the
courts let the man, after being charged with assaulting or
threatening to physically harm his wife, free on bail or an
undertaking. More often than not men who kill the women whom
they batter after the women leave.
Cop fired for death threat
Sydney -- A Cape Breton Regional police officer has
been fired for threatening to kill his wife.
Douglas MacLean, 45, of Glace Bay was let go Monday
after an internal investigation and review.
[...]
MacLean pleaded guilty in November to threatening to
kill his wife.
He has been given a conditional discharge and placed
on probation for one year. He was also banned from
possessing firearms for three years.
MacLean and his wife have since separated.
MacLeod [Chief of Police] said the decision should send
a loud message to other members of the force.
"This is not proper conduct for police officers, he said
yesterday.
"We need to protect the integrity of the police service." - CP
Source: The Daily News, Wednesday, February 7, 2001
Barbara A. Amero
Barbara Amero
>
> o...@there.org wrote:
[...]
> > Further the police and women in divorce both use threats as an easy
> > way to clobber men.
>
> Those who read/listen to the news have seen/heard much about
> men assaulting and killing their wives and threatening to
> assault or kill their wives. Often, after a man kills his
> wife, we read or hear in the news that the police and the
> courts let the man, after being charged with assaulting or
> threatening to physically harm his wife, free on bail or an
> undertaking. More often than not men who kill the women whom
> they batter after the women leave.
^
do so
Arbalest
Canada.
There are processes in place such as the freedom of information act that
make it on one hand easy for the person who has commited crimes to get their
record and difficult for anyone else to obtain beyond superfluous materials
if anything at all.
Not just anybody can approach a police department in canada and say "hey
does so and so have a criminal record and if so can I have a copy of it"
try it sometime and see, it is not so easy.
º¿º
Barbara Amero <am...@dbis.ns.ca> wrote in message
news:3A8AFB...@dbis.ns.ca...<snip!>
> Barbara A. Amero
I'm really suprised that you would use as a reference a lawyer that makes a
practice out of defending drunk drivers and people charged with assault...
did you even check his webiste at http://www.criminal-lawyer.on.ca/ ?
its an eye opener....this guy is the scum of the legal profession (IMHO)....
a word twister and legal loop hole ambulance chaser....
tsk tsk babsie... and you were doing soooo good for a moment at least
quoting *Canadian* law for a change..................
guess who.....................
Barbara Amero
[...]
> > The law says that it is the perception of the person complaining which
> > determines that a threat has been made,
>
> No. The law says as Ron Jourard, a lawyer, says: " One must ask:
> In the context and circumstances in which the words were spoken
> or written, the manner in which they were used, and the person to
> whom they were directed would they convey a threat to a reasonable
> person?"
And don't forget other criteria which determine that a threat
has been made.
Ron Jourard, Barrister and Solicitor (Toronto, Canada) writes:
To secure a conviction at trial, the Crown must prove that the
person making the threat did so knowingly. That is, the prosecution
must show that he was aware of the words used and the meaning
they would convey. It also must show that he intended the threat to
be taken seriously, that is, to intimidate or strike fear into the
recipient.
Ron Jourard goes on to write:
No offence is committed, however, if a threat is innocently
made. The offence is not meant to criminalize idle threats
or words blurted out only in anger, desperation, bitterness
or frustration. Words said in jest or in a manner that they
could not be taken seriously do not constitute a threat.
> And, the person complaining need not be the person to whom the threat
> was directed.
>
> Ron Jourard, a lawyer, writes:
>
> To be an offence, the threat need not be made directly to the
> intended victim. The intended victim need not even be aware of
> the threat. Nor is it necessary that the person making the threat
> intend that it be communicated to the target of the threat.
Barbara A. Amero
Barbara Amero
º¿º
place...........
not a very good one... but a reference none-the-less.......
is there any other precedent? or did you just find an ambulance chaser who
**defends** drunks and bashers (possibly violence against women too!!) that
happens to have the same paranioa as you?
guess who............
Barbara Amero <am...@dbis.ns.ca> wrote in message
news:3A8B03...@dbis.ns.ca...
x-no-archive:yes
Carter Lee
>
> Officially Opus is right, however it is still extremely easy to access a
> person's criminal record. I am not going to tell you how, but anyone with a
> brain can figure out how to do it.
Translation; I haven't got a clue how to access a criminal record, I am
just blowing smoke.
> I recommend that you always do such a check on anyone you are seriously dating.
Yeah, right!
Carter
SC
"Carter Lee" <cr...@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:3A8B444F...@ns.sympatico.ca...
Carter Lee
>
> Carter, you ole dog, you pop up in the most surprising places!!
...and who said you can't teach an ole dog new tricks? <grin>
Carter
Carter Lee
>
> On Thu, 15 Feb 2001 02:51:40 GMT, Carter Lee <cr...@ns.sympatico.ca>
> wrote:
>
> >Translation; I haven't got a clue how to access a criminal record, I am
> >just blowing smoke.
>
...and what address would that be Joe?
Carter
Carter Lee
>
> On Thu, 15 Feb 2001 17:32:00 GMT, Carter Lee <cr...@ns.sympatico.ca>
> wrote:
>
> >Joe King wrote:
> >>
> >> On Thu, 15 Feb 2001 02:51:40 GMT, Carter Lee <cr...@ns.sympatico.ca>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Translation; I haven't got a clue how to access a criminal record, I am
> >> >just blowing smoke.
> >>
> >> Translation: Everyone but me knows the on-line address...
> >
> >...and what address would that be Joe?
> >
> >Carter
>
>
> http://www.jus.gov.mb.ca/registry/index.htm
>
> But then again I guess o...@there.org was right on the money when he
> posted:
>
> > Officially Opus is right, however it is still extremely easy to access a
> > person's criminal record. I am not going to tell you how, but anyone with a
> > brain can figure out how to do it.
ROTFLMAO! Anyone with a brain knows the difference between "court
records" and "criminal records".
>
> Joe King
> (who was meathead when you were still in diapers)
I guess you're still a meathead.
Carter
jen...@homacjen.ab.ca
> Joe King wrote:
>> > Officially Opus is right, however it is still extremely easy to access a
>> > person's criminal record. I am not going to tell you how, but anyone with a
>> > brain can figure out how to do it.
> ROTFLMAO! Anyone with a brain knows the difference between "court
> records" and "criminal records".
It is both easy and difficult to access criminal records.
If you are the person whose record is being requested, all you need
to do is go down to the local police station (or RCMP) and request
it. For a fee, they will give you it.
If you want, you can complete the form on the pardon request, add
your thumbprint, and send it into the RCMP in Ottawa. They will
provde a copy of the record for you.
For other people, it is more difficult. Essentially they require
an authorization from you. For example, people who apply for certain
types of employment sign a release authorizing their prospective employer
to do a criminal record check.
On the other hand, if you happen to know where someone was probably
convicted, in Alberta, you can go to the Courthouse and have a search
done. They will charge a fee ($ 10), and then more fees to give you
a photocopy of the Court file.
--
Best regards,
Stephen Jenuth
(jen...@homacjen.ab.ca)
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.
Carter Lee
Exactly.
Carter
taylor
jen...@homacjen.ab.ca wrote in message ...
>In can.legal Carter Lee <cr...@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>>> Joe King wrote:
>>>> > Officially Opus is right, however it is still extremely easy to
access a
>>> > person's criminal record. I am not going to tell you how, but anyone
with a
>>> > brain can figure out how to do it.
>>> ROTFLMAO! Anyone with a brain knows the difference between "court
>> records" and "criminal records".
>>It is both easy and difficult to access criminal records.
>
>For other people, it is more difficult. Essentially they require
>an authorization from you. For example, people who apply for certain
>types of employment sign a release authorizing their prospective employer
>to do a criminal record check.
>
>On the other hand, if you happen to know where someone was probably
>convicted, in Alberta, you can go to the Courthouse and have a search
>done. They will charge a fee ($ 10), and then more fees to give you
>a photocopy of the Court file.
>
>--
>Best regards,
>
>Stephen Jenuth
>(jen...@homacjen.ab.ca)
re; clarify getting proof of criminal record
I'm not sure if I understand this and if it would be as easy in
Manitoba/Winnipeg.
Is it simply a matter of paying the $10 as a total stranger (not a
prospective employer), to check on someone else to see if they in fact have
criminal records?
For example, in the past a few posters claimed on the group that they had
either criminal charges or actual criminal records, I don't recall which.
1. one person claimed that he punched someone in a theatre, maybe 20 years
ago
2. another person claimed that he got into a fight with some young hockey
players 20 years ago
It would be nice to know this information since one of them is the one who
made the violent post last week and a handful of similar ones on the group
before Christmas.
Norman Gall
Well, read it again. It was in English.
> Is it simply a matter of paying the $10 as a total stranger (not a
> prospective employer), to check on someone else to see if they in fact have
> criminal records?
No. He said: "For other people, it is more difficult. Essentially they
require an authorization from you. For example, people who apply for
certain types of employment sign a release authorizing their prospective
employer to do a criminal record check."
What exactly is equivocal about that?
> For example, in the past a few posters claimed on the group that they had
> either criminal charges or actual criminal records, I don't recall which.
Sure.
> 1. one person claimed that he punched someone in a theatre, maybe 20 years
> ago
> 2. another person claimed that he got into a fight with some young hockey
> players 20 years ago
Sure.
> It would be nice to know this information since one of them is the one who
> made the violent post last week and a handful of similar ones on the group
> before Christmas.
It would? Why? You aren't the guy supposed to be making the decisions. The
Crown does. Swear out a complaint and let the Crown decide.
--
"I read: '...philosophers are no nearer to the meaning of 'Reality' than
Plato got, ...". What a strange situation. How extraordinary that Plato
could have got even as far as he did! Or that we could not get any further!
Was it because Plato was so _extremely_ clever?' - Wittgenstein
Opus-
spake thusly:
>On Thu, 15 Feb 2001 17:32:00 GMT, Carter Lee <cr...@ns.sympatico.ca>
>wrote:
>
>>Joe King wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thu, 15 Feb 2001 02:51:40 GMT, Carter Lee <cr...@ns.sympatico.ca>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> >Translation; I haven't got a clue how to access a criminal record, I am
>>> >just blowing smoke.
>>>
>>> Translation: Everyone but me knows the on-line address...
>>
>>...and what address would that be Joe?
>>
>>Carter
>
>Since you can't figure it out here's a hint...
>
>http://www.jus.gov.mb.ca/registry/index.htm
>
>But then again I guess o...@there.org was right on the money when he
>posted:
>
>> Officially Opus is right, however it is still extremely easy to access a
>> person's criminal record. I am not going to tell you how, but anyone with a
>> brain can figure out how to do it.
>
>Joe King
>(who was meathead when you were still in diapers)
I can GUARANTEE on EXELLENT authority that you will NOT find criminal
records on that site. ;-)
taylor
Norman Gall wrote in message ...
>>> an authorization from you. For example, people who apply for certain
>>> types of employment sign a release authorizing their prospective
employer
>>> to do a criminal record check.
>>>
>>> On the other hand, if you happen to know where someone was probably
>>> convicted, in Alberta, you can go to the Courthouse and have a search
>>> done. They will charge a fee ($ 10), and then more fees to give you
>>> a photocopy of the Court file.
>>>
>>> --
>>
>> I'm not sure if I understand this and if it would be as easy in
>> Manitoba/Winnipeg.
>
>Well, read it again. It was in English.
>
>> Is it simply a matter of paying the $10 as a total stranger (not a
>> prospective employer), to check on someone else to see if they in fact
have
>> criminal records?
>
>No. He said: "For other people, it is more difficult. Essentially they
>require an authorization from you. For example, people who apply for
>certain types of employment sign a release authorizing their prospective
>employer to do a criminal record check."
>
>What exactly is equivocal about that?
**
I understood that fully.
But he said that for other people it was more *difficult* to find out if
someone else has a criminal record.
It sounds like its almost impossible unless you are a prospective employer.
How does the average citizen, namely me, go and find out if a total stranger
has a criminal record?
I certainly wouldn't expect the person that I wanted to do the check on to
give me permission/authorization to do the check!
And why would I want to make it clear to that person that I wanted to check!
In this case, I'm not going to waste my time or $10 but it could reach that
point for others or myself.
**
>
>> For example, in the past a few posters claimed on the group that they had
>> either criminal charges or actual criminal records, I don't recall which.
>
>Sure.
**
What do you mean by *sure* ?
Are you saying that you recall posters saying this?
If you do recall, could you refresh my and others memory and say what you
recall reading?
Did one or both say that they had criminal *convictions* or just *charges*
laid?
>
>> 1. one person claimed that he punched someone in a theatre, maybe 20
years
>> ago>> 2. another person claimed that he got into a fight with some young
hockey
>> players 20 years ago
>
>Sure.
**
Again, what do you mean by *sure* ?
Do you recall this post before Christmas made by the user who was
threatening what he would do to me if I turned up at the beerfest? Yes, I
did turn up and it was a fun affair and nothing happend. This is partly why
I am not sure what to believe when this poster or maybe one other might say
things.
**
>
>> It would be nice to know this information since one of them is the one
who
>> made the violent post last week and a handful of similar ones on the
group
>> before Christmas.
>
>It would? Why? You aren't the guy supposed to be making the decisions. The
>Crown does. Swear out a complaint and let the Crown decide.
**
I would want to know if the person had a prior criminal record of abuse or
violence before I decided to go and place any charges or go any further with
the action.
One should try to prove that there was some reasonable expectation that the
threat was real and that the person was quite capable of following that
threat out.
It would certainly help, if I knew that the person who made the threats had
a previous record of violent physical assaults.
If he/she did, then I would very carefully consider my next steps... call
the police, hire a private security officer, install more security
equipment, record ever message on line and start to build a file, warn
others of this person/poster etc etc.
As it stands, most of the people who have said certain things are pretty
well total strangers to me and I have no way of knowing if when they talk
about doing some physical violence to me or my family, if they actually
intend to do it
**
jen...@homacjen.ab.ca
> re; clarify getting proof of criminal record
> I'm not sure if I understand this and if it would be as easy in
> Manitoba/Winnipeg.
> Is it simply a matter of paying the $10 as a total stranger (not a
> prospective employer), to check on someone else to see if they in fact have
> criminal records?
The problem is they would only have the information at the particular
courthouse.
--
Best regards,
Stephen Jenuth
(jen...@homacjen.ab.ca)
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.
Barbara Amero
>
> Barbara Amero <am...@dbis.ns.ca> wrote in message
> news:3A8AFB...@dbis.ns.ca...
> > o...@there.org wrote:
> > >
> > Ron Jourard, Barrister and Solicitor (Toronto, Canada) writes:
> <snip!>
> > Barbara A. Amero
>
> I'm really suprised that you would use as a reference a lawyer that
> makes a practice out of defending drunk drivers and people charged
> with assault...
Your comment is absurd. Aside from that, the lawyer in question
defends people _charged_ with drinking and driving (not everyone
charged with drinking and driving is drunk), and, as noted on his
website, he defends all charges under the Criminal Code and other
laws. That would include child molestation, rape, and murder. The
job of a criminal lawyer is to defend people who have been charged
with a criminal offence, regardless of whether or not they have
committed the offence. Not everyone charged with a criminal offence
is guilty. And, even if a person admits that s/he committed the act
of which s/he is accused, the person is still entilted to plead not
guilty and to have a lawyer present a defence.
> did you even check his webiste at http://www.criminal-lawyer.on.ca/ ?
Yes. In other threads concerning threats, peace bonds and corporal
punishment, I have posted information on threats, peace bonds and
corporal punishment from his website, as well as the url for his
website on which there is informative material concerning legal
issues (as opposed to the material posted to this thread by others
going on about threats).
> its an eye opener....this guy is the scum of the legal profession
> (IMHO)....
On what basis have you formed that opinion? Your statement is
libellous per se, unless you can prove that he is, as you say,
'the scum of the legal profession'.
> a word twister
Well, the words aren't twisted wrt the law on uttering threats.
If you are charged with a criminal offence, you, of course,
would not hire a lawyer who is a word twister to defend you
in court. :^)
> and legal loop hole ambulance chaser....
He is a criminal defence lawyer who defends people, in criminal
court, accused of criminal offences. Doesn't 'ambulance chaser'
refer to a 'suit-happy shark', a hawkish personal injury lawyer
who, on behalf of the client, sues (sometimes drunk drivers) in
civil court, and goes after a BIG chunk of the judgment, i.e.,
money awarded to the injured party (sometimes injured by a drunk
driver) or relatives of the injured party? Or, at least, in
reference to aggressive, unethical solicitation of clients by
lawyers concerned with litigation as opposed to criminal defence
lawyers?
I've read articles about outrageous examples of such in the U.S.
One in which a lawyer's agent posed as a priest and mingled with
the grieving relatives at a funeral. Another in which a lawyer
went to the scene of a collapsed building while survivors were
being dug out of the rubble. Another in which a happily married
couple received mail from a law firm with information on divorce.
Billboards in U.S. subways with the phone number 1-800-DIVORCE and
a pic of a woman throwing away a diamond ring. And, now, offensive
advertising on the Internet flogging legal services, referred to,
by U.S. lawyers on websites addressing unethical advertising of
lawyers on the Interent, as 'client-chasing'.
Now that I think of it I do recall a website on which there was an
article published in a law journal (U.S.) concerning 'ambulance chasing'
on the Interent in which there was mention of the website of a U.S.
attorney who bills himself as the 'Top Gun DUI Defense Attorney', and
of the 'drunk browsing test' on his website. I checked out the website,
but didn't take the tongue in cheek 'drunk browsing test' as invited.
His website also includes testimonials -- published letters of satisfied
clients. Tacky, unprofessional. I can't recall the top gun's name, but a
'net search for 'Top Gun DUI Defense Attorney' will bring up the
website.
While criminal defence lawyers may engage in unethical solicitation
of clients, wouldn't 'client chaser' be a more appropriate term than
'ambulance chaser'?
Last year, in the U.S., the 'ambulance chaser" label was ruled
defamatory by a court of appeals that ruled an attorney could
sue The American Association of University Women and its related
AAUW Legal Advocacy Fund that put out a directory with a written
description of him as an 'ambulance chaser' given to taking only
'slam dunk cases'. I don't know the outcome, but on the following
site there is an article about the issue.
http://www.lawnewsnetwork.com/stories/A12833-2000Jan5.html
Whatever term you use for the Canadian lawyer in question, I
didn't find his website offensive, nor view it as unethical
solicitation of clients.
> tsk tsk babsie... and you were doing soooo good for a moment at least
> quoting *Canadian* law for a change..................
For a change? When I quote law in response to discussion concerning
legal issues in Canada, I always quote *Canadian* law from *Canadian*
lawyers' websites, articles in *Canadian* magaznines or *Canadian*
law books, and the Criminal Code of *Canada* (which isn't to say that
I don't mention U.S. law). And, as regular readers can see, whatever
the discussion, the discussion becomes a discussion of what Amero does
or doesn't do.
> guess who.....................
someone stupid like steve ewert
Barbara A. Amero
PeterD
abuse it and cause havoc for someone else. Let him find his own way to
do his own dirty deeds.
Remember: Please don't feed the troll.
Thank you
----------
PeterD
taylor wrote in message ...
taylor
PeterD wrote in message ...
>Please (please) dont' feed this troll. He will take your information and
>abuse it and cause havoc for someone else. Let him find his own way to
>do his own dirty deeds.
>
>Remember: Please don't feed the troll.
>Thank you
>----------
>PeterD
>
>taylor wrote in message ...
>>re; clarify getting proof of
Don't be silly Pete.
We're having a discussion here.. just us adults.
Go and play in the sand box for a while and we'll call you when dinners
ready!.
PeterD
stranger
>has a criminal record?
<DOH!>
Just walk up to the total stranger and ask him/her to sign an
authorization for the authorities to release the information.
<DOH!>
(oh, yeah, then duck!)
>I certainly wouldn't expect the person that I wanted to do the check on
to
>give me permission/authorization to do the check!
No shit! <double DOH!>
>And why would I want to make it clear to that person that I wanted to
check!
No shit again! <triple DOH!>
>**
>I would want to know if the person had a prior criminal record of abuse
or
>violence before I decided to go and place any charges or go any further
with
>the action.
Why? It's immaterial. If a person should be charged, they should be
charged. Prior criminal acts are immaterial. THe Crown deals in *facts*
not old oral histories and innuendo.
>One should try to prove that there was some reasonable expectation that
the
>threat was real and that the person was quite capable of following that
>threat out.
And the Crown is much more experienced and qualified to make the
decision than you. Amazing, I know, but there it is.
<rest of your whiny nonsense deleted>
---------
Peter D
taylor
PeterD wrote in message ...
>taylor
>>**
>>I would want to know if the person had a prior criminal record of abuse
>or
>>violence before I decided to go and place any charges or go any further
>with
>>the action.
>
>Why? It's immaterial. If a person should be charged, they should be
>charged. Prior criminal acts are immaterial. THe Crown deals in *facts*
>not old oral histories and innuendo.
>
>>One should try to prove that there was some reasonable expectation that
>the
>>threat was real and that the person was quite capable of following that
>>threat out.
>
>And the Crown is much more experienced and qualified to make the
>decision than you. Amazing, I know, but there it is.
>
><rest of your whiny nonsense deleted>
>---------
>Peter D
>
No of course it would help to know before hand as much about the person
making the threats as possible so you could satisfy yourself that it was
worth pursing and if you should take further actions.
1. see the person live and make some decisions on their demeanor
2. read past posts
3. talk to people who know the individual
I got the impression that the police take the actions very seriously if you
start the converation by telling them that the person has a prior record of
assault.
Otherwise, its just some guy complaining and if its internet related, they
would just proably laugh it off and expect some real substantial evidence of
many posts etc.
Carter Lee
> How does the average citizen, namely me, go and find out if a total stranger
> has a criminal record?
Unless you are considering hiring him in a particularly sensitive job,
you can't.
> I would want to know if the person had a prior criminal record of abuse or
> violence before I decided to go and place any charges or go any further with
> the action.
A prior criminal record is irrelevant to the decision to lay charges.
In fact it generally only relevant in a court of law during the
sentencing procedure.
>
> One should try to prove that there was some reasonable expectation that the
> threat was real and that the person was quite capable of following that
> threat out.
That is not your responsibility as a citizen. That is the
responsibility of the police and the Crown.
>
> It would certainly help, if I knew that the person who made the threats had
> a previous record of violent physical assaults.
How? What could you possibly do with that information?
>
> If he/she did, then I would very carefully consider my next steps... call
> the police, hire a private security officer, install more security
> equipment, record ever message on line and start to build a file, warn
> others of this person/poster etc etc.
You don't need the information of a prior criminal record to do that.
>
> As it stands, most of the people who have said certain things are pretty
> well total strangers to me and I have no way of knowing if when they talk
> about doing some physical violence to me or my family, if they actually
> intend to do it
Nor would you know that if you knew of any prior criminal record.
As Stephen told you, if you live in the province of Alberta spend your
money and find out. You had better do it before the conservative
government loses the next election, if they do, because I will bet that
little information loophole will soon be plugged by a Liberal or NDP
government.
Carter
Carter Lee
> No of course it would help to know before hand as much about the person
> making the threats as possible so you could satisfy yourself that it was
> worth pursing and if you should take further actions.
How would the knowledge that a person had a prior criminal record "make
it worth pursuing"?
> I got the impression that the police take the actions very seriously if you
> start the converation by telling them that the person has a prior record of
> assault.
Where do you get that impression from?
>
> Otherwise, its just some guy complaining and if its internet related, they
> would just proably laugh it off and expect some real substantial evidence of
> many posts etc.
Well if you make a complaint it will be necessary for you to to show
some evidence that you have been threatened, that is only fair.
Evidence that the individual about whom you are complaining has a prior
criminal is not evidence of that.
Carter
taylor
>You don't need the information of a prior criminal record to do that.
>>
>> As it stands, most of the people who have said certain things are pretty
>> well total strangers to me and I have no way of knowing if when they talk
>> about doing some physical violence to me or my family, if they actually
>> intend to do it
>
>Nor would you know that if you knew of any prior criminal record.
> >
>Carter
Carter ...of course it would help if I knew that a person making online
threats had a past criminal record of violent activity!
because...
1. then I would know that he/she had a previous track record of violence and
not just somebody with an overly big mouth
2. I could easily go the police and they could quickly call up the record
and then probably deal with my claim much more seriously and expeiditiously
3. it would reduce some of my burden of proof to show all kinds of past
posts etc if I could simply point to a past criminal record containing
assaut chargees...especially if it was recent
So i certainly feel that knowing this information would be useful.
If i knew someone was previously convicted as being a stalker or a cyber
stalker, then I would know for sure that this was serious.
most of the people joke around on the net and you can never be totally sure
if the comment is truly coming from someone with a violent past or not.
I have met most of the posters here and flamers so at least I know how
large/small they are and how they handle a social situation. So far no
problems there.
anyhow...
Carter Lee
>
> >You don't need the information of a prior criminal record to do that.
> >>
> >> As it stands, most of the people who have said certain things are pretty
> >> well total strangers to me and I have no way of knowing if when they talk
> >> about doing some physical violence to me or my family, if they actually
> >> intend to do it
> >
> >Nor would you know that if you knew of any prior criminal record.
> > >
> >Carter
>
> Carter ...of course it would help if I knew that a person making online
> threats had a past criminal record of violent activity!
>
> because...
>
> 1. then I would know that he/she had a previous track record of violence and
> not just somebody with an overly big mouth
My question was, How would knowing that help?
> 2. I could easily go the police and they could quickly call up the record
> and then probably deal with my claim much more seriously and expeiditiously
You don't need to know if there was a past criminal record to do that.
The police will not take your claim any more seriously because you know
that. They will of course check for a criminal record when they receive
your complaint. Don't be offended if they do not breach privacy laws
and tell you what they find.
> 3. it would reduce some of my burden of proof
No it would not.
to show all kinds of past
> posts etc if I could simply point to a past criminal record containing
> assaut chargees...especially if it was recent
No you could not. The police will not start an investigation based only
on evidence of a past criminal record. Nor, BTW, will courts be
influenced by it until it comes to sentencing.
>
> So i certainly feel that knowing this information would be useful.
I'm sorry but you are wrong. You might get some personal gratification
from the knowledge but it is not legally useful to you.
>
> If i knew someone was previously convicted as being a stalker or a cyber
> stalker, then I would know for sure that this was serious.
How could you know that for sure? Don't you think people can be
rehabilitated?
>
> most of the people joke around on the net and you can never be totally sure
> if the comment is truly coming from someone with a violent past or not.
So take the problem to the police and let them find out.
>
> I have met most of the posters here and flamers so at least I know how
> large/small they are and how they handle a social situation. So far no
> problems there.
Good for you.
>
> anyhow...
What?
Carter
Opus-
spake thusly:
>On Thu, 15 Feb 2001 20:12:27 GMT, Opus- <jbu...@REMOVEhome.com> wrote:
>
>>I can GUARANTEE on EXELLENT authority that you will NOT find criminal
>>records on that site. ;-)
>
>And I can GUARANTEE on EXELLENT authority that you will NOT find all
>the data base records on that site, nor are they complete.
I noticed that too. ;-)
Carter Lee
>
> On Thu, 15 Feb 2001 18:18:37 GMT, Joe King <cluelessnewbie*@home.com>
> spake thusly:
>
> >On Thu, 15 Feb 2001 17:32:00 GMT, Carter Lee <cr...@ns.sympatico.ca>
> >wrote:
> >
> >>Joe King wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, 15 Feb 2001 02:51:40 GMT, Carter Lee <cr...@ns.sympatico.ca>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> >Translation; I haven't got a clue how to access a criminal record, I am
> >>> >just blowing smoke.
> >>>
> >>> Translation: Everyone but me knows the on-line address...
> >>
> >>...and what address would that be Joe?
> >>
> >>Carter
> >
> >Since you can't figure it out here's a hint...
> >
> >http://www.jus.gov.mb.ca/registry/index.htm
> >
> >But then again I guess o...@there.org was right on the money when he
> >posted:
> >
> >> Officially Opus is right, however it is still extremely easy to access a
> >> person's criminal record. I am not going to tell you how, but anyone with a
> >> brain can figure out how to do it.
> >
> >Joe King
> >(who was meathead when you were still in diapers)
>
> I can GUARANTEE on EXELLENT authority that you will NOT find criminal
> records on that site. ;-)
Yes I know. Joe is somewhat confused.
Carter
Carter Lee
>
> On Thu, 15 Feb 2001 20:12:27 GMT, Opus- <jbu...@REMOVEhome.com> wrote:
>
> >records on that site. ;-)
>
> the data base records on that site, nor are they complete.
>
> conviction against a named defendant, the person has a criminal record
> although it may not show up on CPIC/NPS/NCIC systems.
They will show up when the responsible people get around to putting them
there.
>
> There used to be three PC's in the court clerks office area that
> provided information retrieval for law firm use, although it's been a
> while since I've been around there so they may not be there any
> longer.
>
> As well there are fee for service database connections available with
> the court system, but the only way of reviewing much of the material
> itself is still to order the original docket file. Depending on how
> old the case is it may take a day or two, and it's only done on a
> need/right to know basis.
None of which has anything to do with access to criminal records.
Carter
gutz
wrote:
In Manitoba, you must pay to get a copy of your own criminal record. I
seriously doubt it would be *free* on-line ;)
beergut
Barbara Amero
>
> PeterD wrote in message ...
> >taylor
> >>**
> >> I would want to know if the person had a prior criminal record of
> >> abuse or violence before I decided to go and place any charges or
> >> go any further with the action.
That's ridiclous. If Art Mira and beergut assaulted or sexually
assaulted you, would you want to know if they had a prior criminal
record of abuse or violence before you decided to go and place any
charges or go any further with the action? What if you do not know
the name of the person who assaults or sexually assaults you, but
you can identify the person? Would you check the pics of America's
most wanted before you decided to go and place any charges or go
any further with the action? And the usednet jerks say I'm a
net kook. ;) I ain't never seen a fella like you before in here,
but you don't fit in my category of degenerates, unless your alleged
groping of the woman young enough to be your daughter is true, tho'
your kiss 'n' tell posts about her puts you in my disgusting category.
And, I have seen you, tho' I didn't realize that until last week when
I was looking for something in my mail folders and came across an
unsolicited email from a 'Don Bayomi' (Jan. 1998) with a link to
his business website on which he appears in living color saying 'Hi'.
In the unsolicited email in question, you said: "I only email with
people a few times, and then meet in person, so don't worry I won't
be harassing you or posting about you." But, you lied. A couple of
months ago, I found you posting to and about me. And, I found you
annoying. I ignored you, until you took it upon yourself to delete
my name in posts, as you said, for the purpose of protecting my family
name and family members; took it upon yourself to tell me how to make
posts, what to say in my posts, what to discuss in my posts and how to
discuss it; and took it upon yourself to call me 'Barb' and continued
to do so, tho' I told you numerous times that my name is Barbara. When
I took you to task, you got miffed and made a post informing me and
all that you would no longer read or reply to my posts. IIRC, it was
Arthole who pointed out that you have said the same to others many
times and keep reading and replying to their posts. Indeed, you have
read and replied to my posts again.
> >Why? It's immaterial. If a person should be charged, they should be
> >charged. Prior criminal acts are immaterial. THe Crown deals in *facts*
> >not old oral histories and innuendo.
If a person should be charged, the person should be charged. But,
prior criminal acts are not immaterial, both in terms of whether
or not the police lay a charge and what transpires in court. If
the police investigate a complaint about you, they don't check
police files just for the fun of it to see if there's anything
on ya. If there is, the police are human (gawd, don't tell anybody
I said that) so their judgment will be biased. Yes, the Crown deals
in *facts* and a person's criminal record is fact, or, at least,
shows that one has a record of a finding of guilt or a conviction
of a criminal offence, which, as we know, doesn't necessarily mean
that the person really did commit the criminal offence. WRT a finding
of guilt, while absolute or conditional discharges are not recorded
as convictions, they represent a finding of guilt and are included
in your criminal record. So, what I am saying here is that the
Crown may be able to use your criminal record against you. Even
if you have received a pardon and your criminal record of a finding
of guilt or a conviction has been 'sealed' in Mr. State's vault and
cannot be used against you during your trial, should you be found
guilty of the same offence, the judge, upon sentencing, can use
your previous finding of guilt or conviction. IOW, the judge can
use it to give you a tougher sentence.
> >> One should try to prove that there was some reasonable expectation
> >> that the threat was real and that the person was quite capable of
> >> following that threat out.
Well, it's good to provide evidence to support your complaint; but,
it is up to the Crown "to prove" that the offence of uttering a
threat was committed (or, for you "to prove" it in court, if you are
doing a private prosecution). To get a conviction, if the threat meets
the criteria of the criminal offence of uttering a threat, the person
who made the threat need not be able capable of following that threat
out. Not all threats to kill or otherwise harm another person or damage
another person's property are made with the intent to carry out the
threat. Some threats of the nature being discussed are made solely for
the purpose of intimidation, which also contitutes the criminal offence
of uttering a threat.
http://www.criminal-lawyer.on.ca/utter-threats.html
> >And the Crown is much more experienced and qualified to make the
> >decision than you. Amazing, I know, but there it is.
:)
> ><rest of your whiny nonsense deleted>
> >---------
> >Peter D
> >
Barbara A. Amero
Barbara Amero
> No of course it would help to know before hand as much about the
> person making the threats as possible so you could satisfy yourself
> that it was worth pursing and if you should take further actions.
>
> 1. see the person live and make some decisions on their demeanor
> 2. read past posts
> 3. talk to people who know the individual
Well, I s'pose if you want to do that and you find out the person
is someone known to make _idle_ threats in the heat of the moment,
such could satisfy yourself that the person has a short fuse and is
prone to angry outbursts, during which he says dumb things that he
doesn't mean, and that it's not worth pursuing.
On idle threats....
"No offence is committed, however, if a threat is innocently
made. The offence is not meant to criminalize idle threats or
words blurted out only in anger, desperation, bitterness or
frustration. Words said in jest or in a manner that they could
not be taken seriously do not constitute a threat." -Ron Jourard
http://www.criminal-lawyer.on.ca/utter-threats.html
Jourard goes on to write:
"Leave my family alone. If you don't leave them alone,
I'll kill you." Toronto Mayor Mel Lastman reportedly
uttered these words to a television reporter during a
city council meeting last May. It was said Lastman was
angry with the reporter over a story published in a
satirical magazine that alluded to the mayor's wife. Did
the mayor commit a crime? The answer depends primarily on
whether his words were no more than an angry outburst or
whether he meant them to be taken seriously.
http://www.criminal-lawyer.on.ca/utter-threats.html
Having said that, you
1. have seen beergut live and should be able to make some decisions
on his demeanor
2. have read MANY of his past posts
3. have talked to people who know beergut.
Given that, at times, he is a testerical hothead whose friends,
on at least one occasion, had to physically restrain him to keep
him from catching a plane to come down here (Halifax) to beat up
George Johnston, a jerk who used to make posts, I wouldn't count
on his threats to beat up on you as being idle. ;)
> I got the impression that the police take the actions very seriously
> if you start the converation by telling them that the person has a
> prior record of assault.
From whom or where or when did you get that impression?
If you come down here (Halifax), go to a ns.general teambronze
BABOONFEST at one of their local watering holes and one of the
fellas with the metallic ball sacks hits you upside the head
(common assault), the police (if you or someone else calls the
police) will come to the bar and write, in a liddle note pad,
what you and others have to say, and presumably file a report.
That's it. The police won't lay charges, unless it's a so-called
'domestic thing'. If not and you want further action taken, you
will have to go to the court house, lay charges yourself and do
a private prosecution. If there's a witness perhaps the Crown
would prosecute??
> Otherwise, its just some guy complaining and if its internet related,
> they would just proably laugh it off and expect some real substantial
> evidence of many posts etc.
Well, that depends. If Amero makes ONE post in which she threatens
to kick your sorry little puckered up ass until you have to shit out
of your dick and you send that post to Sgt. Cowper (if there's still
a Sgt. Cowper), he will be off to the designated technological crime
prosecutor with the the post in hand, or my place to arrest me, faster
than he can shake his ... hmm... let's say find his handgun. Well, that
could take awhile. ;)
OTOH, when I sent Sgt. Cowper a post in which there was a direct
threat to physically harm me ('I will kick your fuckin teeth out
and take my chances in court), I didn't get a response. However,
a couple of months ago, another police Sgt. told me that threat
was a direct threat to cause me bodily harm, and not one that
would be considered an idle threat said in the heat of the moment.
I forgot to ask if the police are going to do anything about it.
I guess not. BUT, if Amero had said that to poster Donna Whitman,
I have no doubt that Sgt. Cowper would have charged Amero with
uttering a threat.
Since beergut has been going on like this for years and has not
beat up on you, nor other posters (I assume, since I've not seen
anyone mention being beat on by beergut), I suggest the police
would see his many posts as some real substantial evidence that
he is just a jerk mouthing off on Usenet, in this case, to a
pipsqueak who, at the beerfest, allegedly groped a female poster
young enough to be his daughter. BTW, when you first posted about
your sexual encounter with, as you said, a '21 year old girl', you
said she has 38DDs, then 40DDs, then, 45DDs, and, IIRC, then 48DDs.
If you make a complaint about beergut to the police, make sure you
get your measurements straight. No further comment. :)
Barbara A. Amero
º¿º
> şżş wrote:
> >
> > Barbara Amero <am...@dbis.ns.ca> wrote in message
> > news:3A8AFB...@dbis.ns.ca...
> > > o...@there.org wrote:
> > > >
> > > Ron Jourard, Barrister and Solicitor (Toronto, Canada) writes:
> > <snip!>
it occurred to me that you have not referenced that url until *after* I had
posted it.... which tells me that you didnt do your homework................
tsk tsk....
clean up in aisle 2.............
and how much are tomatoes going for today?
guess who.....................
Barbara Amero
> bla bla bla bla <snip>
>
> it occurred to me that you have not referenced that url until
> *after* I had posted it.... which tells me that you didnt do
> your homework................
I have never posted the url that you posted.
I posted the following url to this thread, and, in the past,
to other threads.
http://www.criminal-lawyer.on.ca/utter-threats.html
Keep your harassment out of my mailbox.
Subject: Re: in response to Internet Terrorism
Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 20:40:20 -0400
From: sle...@ns.sympatico.ca (Steve Ewert)
To: <am...@dbis.ns.ca>
Subject: Re: in response to Internet Terrorism
Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 21:02:37 -0400
From: sle...@ns.sympatico.ca (Steve Ewert)
To: <am...@dbis.ns.ca>
Carter Lee
>
> On Fri, 16 Feb 2001 00:23:53 GMT, Carter Lee <cr...@ns.sympatico.ca>
> intelligent and knowing person in the universe, I'll never question
> anything you come out with ever again. You posts are an absolute treat
> to read, and I enjoy them.
Thanks Joe, I thought for a minute you had forgotten that.
Carter
º¿º
that was a usenet post... not a mail post...
guess who..........
Barbara Amero <am...@dbis.ns.ca> wrote in message
news:3A8D75...@dbis.ns.ca...
Barbara Amero
>
> as I said in the mail I sent to you....
Stop sending mail to me.
Keep your harassment and name-calling out of my mailbox.
Stay out of my mailbox.
A complaint is going to your ISP.
Subject: Re: Steve Ewert ... Re: What is a death threat online?
winnipeg.general
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 12:10:40 -0800
From: sle...@ns.sympatico.ca (Steve Ewert)
To: "Barbara Amero" <am...@dbis.ns.ca>
º¿º
with DBIS....expect a call froim them....
btw did you know that your time is incorrect on your computer?
guess who
Barbara Amero <am...@dbis.ns.ca> wrote in message
news:3A8D7E...@dbis.ns.ca...
Barbara Amero
>
> complain away... that is your perogative...
I don't have a 'perogative'.
> I have already had a conversation with DBIS....expect
> a call froim them....
Your twig is bent.
Keep your harassment and name-calling out of my mailbox.
> btw did you know that your time is incorrect on your computer?
Yes. That, for the Amero harassers, that was once a topic
of discussion in ns.general.
> guess who
Steve Ewert, a 'net harasser.
º¿º
post ad nauseum to the usenet as I see fit....if you cannot tell the
difference between the 2 ,that is you shortfall not mine..........
this is not your private soapbox.....
guess who...........
Barbara Amero <am...@dbis.ns.ca> wrote in message
news:3A8D90...@dbis.ns.ca...
> º¿º wrote:
> >
> > complain away... that is your perogative...
>
> I don't have a 'perogative'.
>
> > I have already had a conversation with DBIS....expect
> > a call froim them....
>
> Your twig is bent.
>
> Keep your harassment and name-calling out of my mailbox.
>
> > btw did you know that your time is incorrect on your computer?
>
> Yes. That, for the Amero harassers, that was once a topic
> of discussion in ns.general.
>
> > guess who
>
> Steve Ewert, a 'net harasser.
>
> > Barbara Amero <am...@dbis.ns.ca> wrote in message
> > news:3A8D7E...@dbis.ns.ca...
Barbara Amero
>
> as I have said before... this is the usenet... not your mailbox...
> I will post ad nauseum to the usenet as I see fit....if you cannot
> tell the difference between the 2 ,that is you shortfall not mine..........
I don't give a fuck how many posts you post to 'the usenet'.
You are dumping your crap in my mailbox. Keep your harassment
and name-calling out of my mailbox. Do not send email to my mailbox.
> this is not your private soapbox.....
>
> guess who...........
Steve Ewert, a 'net harasser
Barbara Amero
>
> On Fri, 16 Feb 2001 17:59:51 GMT, " º¿º" <som...@microsoft.com>
> wrote:
>
> >as I have said before... this is the usenet... not your mailbox... I will
> >post ad nauseum to the usenet as I see fit....if you cannot tell the
> >difference between the 2 ,that is you shortfall not mine..........
>
> e-mail copy of each of your usenet posts to whoever you are responding
> to...if you don't understand that then you really are dumber than
> dirt, but I'm sure someone at mpoweredpc.net will either hold your
> hand to straighten it out or terminate your account...
That jerk Steve Ewert has sent me harassing email, not just
an email copy of his usenet posts. IOW, he has sent email
messages that he has not posted. And, he did so using his
real name and email address, not the stupid handle he uses
to make posts.
Barbara A. Amero
x-no-archive:yes
> That jerk Steve Ewert has sent me harassing email, not just
> an email copy of his usenet posts. IOW, he has sent email
> messages that he has not posted. And, he did so using his
> real name and email address, not the stupid handle he uses
> to make posts.
>
> Barbara A. Amero
And now the search is on to find anything Steve ever posted to the
internet, his employer and the names of his children.
Steve if you are reading this BEWARE. Ms. Amero has threatened Pete
Dexters wife and child, called several employers of posters in here,
called one businessman claiming to be an owner of a business seeking
assistance (using fake name), claiming to be an avon lady while stalking
another man and threatening to do physical harm to posters under the
guise of self-defence.
There is a file on this women at Halifax Regional Police Service.
It will be only time until she is in court and answering for her
actions.
gutz
wrote:
>taylor wrote:
>
>> No of course it would help to know before hand as much about the
>> person making the threats as possible so you could satisfy yourself
>> that it was worth pursing and if you should take further actions.
[....]
>
>Having said that, you
>
>1. have seen beergut live and should be able to make some decisions
> on his demeanor
>2. have read MANY of his past posts
>3. have talked to people who know beergut.
Me?? He thought I was going after him...........LOL
Fuck, if I wanted him, I'd have gone over a table at a beerfest and
*did* him.
>
>Given that, at times, he is a testerical hothead whose friends,
>on at least one occasion, had to physically restrain him to keep
>him from catching a plane to come down here (Halifax) to beat up
>George Johnston, a jerk who used to make posts, I wouldn't count
>on his threats to beat up on you as being idle. ;)
I've mellowed...........trust me ;)
>
>Since beergut has been going on like this for years and has not
>beat up on you, nor other posters (I assume, since I've not seen
>anyone mention being beat on by beergut),
Yea.........I'm just a big cuddly teddy bear ;)
Good to see ya alive, Barbara
cheers
beergut
Tam Rabble
Barbara Amero wrote:
> That jerk Steve Ewert has sent me harassing email, not just
> an email copy of his usenet posts. IOW, he has sent email
> messages that he has not posted. And, he did so using his
> real name and email address, not the stupid handle he uses
> to make posts.
>
> Barbara A. Amero
FYI I don't give a fack if he warms his hands in your abdomen.
Tam Rabble
gutz
Ya really care about stupid personal info??
>BAYO, DONALD 212 MARYLAND ST APT 5
>WINNIPEG, MB R3G 1L6 (204) 831-5519
This is his families first home.......the only income he gets is the
rent from other tenants...............
does it matter???????????
BAWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA
beergut
Tam Rabble
gutz wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Feb 2001 16:40:00 -0600, Tam Rabble
> <Tam_R...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Barbara Amero wrote:
> >
> >> That jerk Steve Ewert has sent me harassing email, not just
> >> an email copy of his usenet posts. IOW, he has sent email
> >> messages that he has not posted. And, he did so using his
> >> real name and email address, not the stupid handle he uses
> >> to make posts.
> >>
> >> Barbara A. Amero
> >
> >FYI I don't give a fack if he warms his hands in your abdomen.
>
> Ya really care about stupid personal info??
No.
>
> >BAYO, DONALD 212 MARYLAND ST APT 5
> >WINNIPEG, MB R3G 1L6 (204) 831-5519
>
> This is his families first home.......the only income he gets is the
> rent from other tenants...............
>
> does it matter??????????
No.
Tam
taylor
gutz wrote in message <3a8dbd0a...@news.rdc1.mb.home.com>...
>>Barbara ands in your abdomen.
>
> Ya really care about stupid personal info??
>
>>BAYO, DONALD
>>WINNIPEG, MB 5519
>
>This is his families >does it matter???????????
>
>BAWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA
>
>beergut
re: posting peoples home addresses and numbers...hmmmm
oh' I see now.....so dat's how it waggles does it....lookin' in phone books
and postin' peoples addreses.
shucks'....
well, anyhow dats' ma fax number Rufus 837 is ma' voice...but no heavy
breathin' after midnite.... cause then ma' cat gets nervous and I have to
throw it in a box....
but i loves' visitors...shucks' nobody seems to see me no mores'... ever
since the rumors in the papers that I done ate' ma mailman'.
ain't true...ain't true at all....
I didnt really...eat nobody....
nope...I just chewed on his' neck for a spell...ain't no law agin' that!
I don't think he right liked' it though...as he went screamin' to da
naybors.
...and nope that big ol' pot I gots, ain't for people...no way..I ain't no
Hanofbull Lecturer....
nope...
but you come on buy.. but phone me' first...cause I might be all greased up
and standin' on the roof of the shed scarin' off the crows like ma' uncle
Jebediah used ta' do before they put em' in a home.
anyhow...can you people get a life' and leave me' to my supper'.... its pigs
feet and cornpone pie. Well....but I kayn't quite figure out why they
shipped me these pigs feets with tennis shoes on em'.... gotta' find me a
new butcher' i thinks...
bye fer' now....
yer freind, clem
***
Okay...now lets post the home addresses and phone numbers of a few other
posters here.... fair is fair. yes? no?
gutz
>
>but you come on buy.. but phone me' first...cause I might be all greased up
>and standin' on the roof of the shed scarin' off the crows like ma' uncle
>Jebediah used ta' do before they put em' in a home.
I intend to. You WILL buy me a case of 50' to get that piece of
Italian crap running.......simple. I CAN get it going............ ;)
>
>Okay...now lets post the home addresses and phone numbers of a few other
>posters here.... fair is fair. yes? no?
Don Doherty
20 Worthington Ave
256-8789
big whoop!!
beergut
Paul Morgan
wrote:
Maybe his ISP is run by an asshole like yours is. Then again, it may
be a real ISP that honours their contract.
º¿º
Paul Morgan <I'm...@home.com> wrote in message
news:ovhu8t4btr06fsgah...@4ax.com...
Barbara Amero
> >>
> >> as I said in the mail I sent to you....
> >
> >Stop sending mail to me.
> >
> >Keep your harassment and name-calling out of my mailbox.
> >
> >Stay out of my mailbox.
> >
> >A complaint is going to your ISP.
> >
> >
> >Subject: Re: Steve Ewert ... Re: What is a death threat online?
> > winnipeg.general
> >Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 12:10:40 -0800
> >From: sle...@ns.sympatico.ca (Steve Ewert)
> >To: "Barbara Amero" <am...@dbis.ns.ca>
> >
> >Subject: Re: in response to Internet Terrorism
> >Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 20:40:20 -0400
> >From: sle...@ns.sympatico.ca (Steve Ewert)
> >To: <am...@dbis.ns.ca>
> >
> >Subject: Re: in response to Internet Terrorism
> >Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 21:02:37 -0400
> >From: sle...@ns.sympatico.ca (Steve Ewert)
> >To: <am...@dbis.ns.ca>
>
> Maybe his ISP is run by an asshole like yours is.
Based on what I read in here, that asshole would be me. ;)
> Then again, it may be a real ISP that honours their contract.
I don't have a contract with his ISP. And, his contract with his
ISP is for his ISP's benefit, not mine. Nor is it for his benefit,
tho' his ISP's Acceptable Use Policy states: "The Policy has been
established to protect our Customer's use of the Internet..." In
reality, it has been established to protect the ISP. Everything
but the kitchen sink is thrown at their customers. If a customer
violates the AUP, the ISP can pull the plug. And, his ISP, "retains
the right to modify the Policy at any time and any such modification
shall be automatically effective as to all Customers when adopted by
MTT." As well, "At its sole discretion, MTT reserves the right to
remove materials from its servers and to terminate Internet access
to Customer that MTT determines has violated this Policy in addition
to any other rights or remedies it may have at law or at equity."
But, given the posts made by the 'net bully Sympatico users and the
harassing email I've received from Sympatico users, obviously, his
ISP does not always terminate accounts for violations of the AUP.
If that means his ISP doesn't honour their contract with its users,
then, based on what you said, his ISP is not a 'real' ISP. Nor is
your ISP.
MTT Acceptable Use Policy
http://www.mtt.ca/AboutMTT/UsePolicy/index.html
3.03 Prohibited Actions: E-Mail
Harassment, whether through language, frequency, or size of messages,
is prohibited.
3.01 Prohibited Actions: General Conduct
Transmitting on or through any of MTT's networks, systems, services,
or products any material that is, in MTT's sole discretion, unlawful,
obscene, threatening, harassing, abusive, libelous, or hateful, or
encourages conduct that may constitute a criminal offence, may give
rise to civil liability, or otherwise may violate any municipal,
provincial, federal, international or other law or regulation.
If MTT enforced its AUP, all of the ns.general 'net bullies with
Sympatico accounts, and Donna Whitman, would have their accounts
terminated. Yet she and they go on about my ISP not enforcing its
AUP.
Barbara A. Amero
º¿º
--
Notice: Spelling mistakes left in for people who need to correct others to
make their life fulfilled.
Politically Incorrect and proud of it
Albert Prozac <posti...@workmail.com> wrote in message
news:9048D3D47posti...@142.177.129.14...
> am...@dbis.ns.ca (Barbara Amero) wrote in <3A8AFB...@dbis.ns.ca>:
> >
> To lay a charge, the police must
> >assess more than the alleged victim's "thought" and to make
> >a charge stick, the Crown must prove what the alleged victim
> >"thought."
> This contradicts your posts about sexual harassment, in univerities I
> think, where you said the rules were, and you agreed, that the victim only
> had to 'feel' harassed. So they 'thought' the thought that they were being
> harassed.
> How many careers have been ruined because the 'victim' said she 'felt'
> harassed? I don't know if this actually was deemed a criminal offence, but
> it certainly forced action by the authorities and cost people their
careers
> and a lot of money in legal fees.
>
> bert Ph. D.
º¿º
make their life fulfilled.
Politically Incorrect and proud of it
<snip>
acceptable use policies are ones that you dont have to sign... basically by
using the service (in this case) you agree to abide by the rules set forth
by the service provider...they (in most cases) do not have to tell you of
changes in policy or changes in the acceptable use agreement as it is the
responsibility of the subscriber to keep abreast of that... all the service
provider has to do is make the policy readily available to the subscriber...
in this case the acceptable usage page for the service provider....
end of line