Ed Kramer Court Papers Online

8 views
Skip to first unread message

Flami...@yahoo.com

unread,
Mar 10, 2001, 10:46:19 AM3/10/01
to
A web site with court documents from various
hearings in the Ed Kramer case.
http://geocities.com/edfilez

Joel Rosenberg

unread,
Mar 10, 2001, 7:11:16 PM3/10/01
to
Gee, thanks. I know that everybody here is absolutely fascinated with
the Ed Kramer case, and just aching to pour over every detail of it.

mike weber

unread,
Mar 11, 2001, 2:30:04 AM3/11/01
to
On 10 Mar 2001 15:46:19 GMT, Flami...@yahoo.com typed

>A web site with court documents from various
>hearings in the Ed Kramer case.
>http://geocities.com/edfilez
>

Went to site.

Did "View Source". Got the following:

<meta name="Author" content="Nancy A. Collins">
<meta name="GENERATOR" content="Mozilla/4.5 [en]C-CCK-MCD {Sony}
(Win98; U) [Netscape]">
<meta name="KeyWords" content="Edward Kramer,Ed
Kramer,Dragoncon,DragonCon,Dragon*Con,sci-fi,fandom, HWA,Titan Comics
& Books, Titan Comics, child
molestation,pedophile,paedophile,boylover,pederast,MRESA,MRESAnet,MRESANET,Metropolitian
Regional Educational Service Agency,Metro-RESA, Milton Levy,John
Saenz,Rebecca Tabor, Paul Cashman, Pat Henry,child pornography,
RPG,role playing games, D&D,World Fantasy Convention, World Horror
Convention,WFC, WHC, Bram Stoker Award,S.P. Somtow, Somtow,Little
Savages,child porn,sexual predator,Harlan Ellison">
<title>(p)ED(o)FILES</title>

Note inclusion of "Somtow" and "Harlan Ellison", Paul Cashman, RPG and
D&D and "World Fantasy Convention" and "Bram Stoker Award". to
mention just a few "interesting" names in the "KeyWords" tag.

If i didn't know better, i'd say this was written with someone with
some sort of weird grudge against the entire Fantasy/Horror field.

--
Your mouse has moved. Windows NT must be restarted for the
change to take effect. Reboot now? [ OK ]
================================================================
mike weber kras...@mindspring.com
Book Reviews & More -- http://electronictiger.com

Nancy A Collins

unread,
Mar 11, 2001, 9:28:32 AM3/11/01
to
So? These are the court papers. I didn't expect you to like them.

Loren MacGregor

unread,
Mar 11, 2001, 9:51:11 AM3/11/01
to
Nancy A Collins wrote:
>
> So? These are the court papers. I didn't expect you to like them.

He wasn't talking about the court papers. He was talking about the
key words you used to beef up your hit count. It's -exactly- as
ethical as it is when done by pornographers.

-- LJM

Deb Geisler

unread,
Mar 11, 2001, 10:10:45 AM3/11/01
to

Besides being a deceptive practice, of course, I count at least 17 instances of
probably trademark violation. Use of another's trademark/service mark in
Keywords/meta-tags is actionable infringement of trademark/service mark. See:

http://www.nolo.com/encyclopedia/articles/ilaw/metatags.html

Of course, the presence of certain names in the keywords quoted above by Mike
Weber is also potentially actionable as libel per quod.

Deb
--
Deb Geisler
Graduate Program Director
Department of Communication & Journalism
Suffolk University
Boston, MA 02114
Voice: 617.573.8504
Email: dgei...@acad.suffolk.edu

That which does not kill us has made its last mistake.

Nancy A Collins

unread,
Mar 11, 2001, 11:11:14 AM3/11/01
to
The 'keywords' all appear in various places on the site.

Loren Joseph MacGregor

unread,
Mar 11, 2001, 11:16:03 AM3/11/01
to
In rec.arts.sf.fandom, Deb Geisler <dgei...@acad.nospamsuffolk.edu> wrote:
>Loren MacGregor wrote:
>>
>> Nancy A Collins wrote:
>> >
>> > So? These are the court papers. I didn't expect you to like them.
>>
>> He wasn't talking about the court papers. He was talking about the
>> key words you used to beef up your hit count. It's -exactly- as
>> ethical as it is when done by pornographers.

>Besides being a deceptive practice, of course, I count at least 17
>instances of probably trademark violation. Use of another's
>trademark/service mark in Keywords/meta-tags is actionable
>infringement of trademark/service mark. See:

>http://www.nolo.com/encyclopedia/articles/ilaw/metatags.html

>Of course, the presence of certain names in the keywords quoted above
>by Mike Weber is also potentially actionable as libel per quod.

Mike was including the quoted keywords in part to reference a
previous discussion here, of course, where Somtow dropped in to
explain his tangential relationship to the case. It was clear
at that the time that Christ and Friday were not only attempting
to savage Kramer -and- to distance themselves from any relationship
with Kramer (despite a long history which can be easily documented
even by those who -don't- know the people involved), but to smear
people who -might- have a business relationship with Kramer, in a
clear attempt at obfuscation and at guilt by association, and to
muddy the waters of their own involvement as much as possible.

I knew very little about any of the people involved prior to
Christ and Friday's initial postings on this newsgroup. My
opinion about them has been based solely on what they have
posted, and the minimal curiosity which caused me to follow
up their posts by doing a bit of exploring. What I saw isn't
pretty. I have no opinion as to Ed Kramer's guilt or innocence,
which seems to me to be something that should be determined in a
court of law, not on the web or in a usenet posting. Based on
their postings, however, I -have- formed the conclusion that
Joe Christ and Nancy Friday are cowards, liars and creeps.

-- LJM

Vicki Rosenzweig

unread,
Mar 11, 2001, 11:38:36 AM3/11/01
to
Quoth Nancy A Collins <Flami...@yahoo.com> on 11 Mar 2001 16:11:14
GMT:

>The 'keywords' all appear in various places on the site.

I just did a "view source" and found that some of the keywords people
here pointed out as problematic have been removed from the "meta" tags.

General note: the documents all appear to have been scanned, rather than
transcribed, making the site even slower than normal for Geocities.


>
>Loren MacGregor wrote:
>
>> Nancy A Collins wrote:
>> >
>> > So? These are the court papers. I didn't expect you to like them.
>>
>> He wasn't talking about the court papers. He was talking about the
>> key words you used to beef up your hit count. It's -exactly- as
>> ethical as it is when done by pornographers.
>>
>> -- LJM

--
Vicki Rosenzweig | v...@redbird.org
r.a.sf.f faq at http://www.redbird.org/rassef-faq.html

Loren Joseph MacGregor

unread,
Mar 11, 2001, 11:21:12 AM3/11/01
to
In rec.arts.sf.fandom, Nancy A Collins <Flami...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>The 'keywords' all appear in various places on the site.

This is supposed to be a defense? A justification? A reasons?

-- LJM

Deb Geisler

unread,
Mar 11, 2001, 5:39:14 PM3/11/01
to
Vicki Rosenzweig wrote:
>
> Quoth Nancy A Collins <Flami...@yahoo.com> on 11 Mar 2001 16:11:14
> GMT:
>
> >The 'keywords' all appear in various places on the site.
>
> I just did a "view source" and found that some of the keywords people
> here pointed out as problematic have been removed from the "meta" tags.

Yep. In particular, anything having to do with World Fantasy Convention, World
Horror Convention, Mssrs. Somtow and Ellison.

What still remains, however, are all references to Dragon*Con, which is still a
registered trademark, and Dungeons & Dragons (also a registered trademark of
Hasbro).

From the trademark side of things, there are still actionable mark
infringements. And from the libel side of things, there are still even more.

Deb Geisler

(Page source viewed 5:35 p.m. EDT 11 March 2001 includes the following code:

<meta name="KeyWords" content="Edward Kramer, Ed Kramer, Edward E. Kramer,
Edward Elliott Kramer, Dragoncon, DragonCon, Dragon*Con, sci-fi, fandom,
HWA,Titan Comics & Books, Titan Comics, Dungeons & Dragons, child molestation,
pedophile, paedophile, MRESA, Metropolitian Regional Educational Services
Agency, Metro-RESA, Milton Levy, Wilton Levy, Pat Henry, Robert Patterson Henry,
Sherry Henry, John Saenz, John Sinus, Rebecca Tabor, child pornography, role
playing games, Little Savages, child porn, sexual predator, pederast,
boylover">)

Joel Rosenberg

unread,
Mar 11, 2001, 6:35:04 PM3/11/01
to
Yup. Kind of surprising that the anonymous authors -- Collins and
Christ, possibly? -- left all that lawyer-bait in, but it's clear that
their hatred for Ed Kramer has made them very, very reckless.

Marilee J. Layman

unread,
Mar 11, 2001, 7:09:12 PM3/11/01
to
On 11 Mar 2001 14:28:32 GMT, Nancy A Collins <Flami...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>So? These are the court papers. I didn't expect you to like them.

I didn't bother looking, I don't believe you'd put up real court
papers.

--
Marilee J. Layman
Bali Sterling Beads at Wholesale
http://www.basicbali.com

Joel Rosenberg

unread,
Mar 11, 2001, 7:47:13 PM3/11/01
to
Marilee J. Layman <mjla...@erols.com> writes:

> On 11 Mar 2001 14:28:32 GMT, Nancy A Collins <Flami...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >So? These are the court papers. I didn't expect you to like them.
>
> I didn't bother looking, I don't believe you'd put up real court
> papers.
>

They do appear to be real court papers, and the story they tell is:

[least favorable reading to Ed Kramer} he's guilty as hell, but the
cops had, at most, barely enough evidence to make a very compliant
judge lock him up until trial, and are hoping to develop more before
he's tried. Either that, or they knew that the judge wasn't going to
give bail in this case, and didn't want to let the defense know what's
up their sleeve until they absolutely have to.

or

[most favorable reading to Ed Kramer] he's the victim of a witch hunt,
based on an anonymous and untraceable accusation and an overzealous
member of the Ministry of Love feeding a child a story to tell.

Bernard Peek

unread,
Mar 11, 2001, 7:21:02 PM3/11/01
to
In message <wkn1arx...@winternet.com>, Joel Rosenberg
<jo...@winternet.com> writes

>Yup. Kind of surprising that the anonymous authors -- Collins and
>Christ, possibly? -- left all that lawyer-bait in, but it's clear that
>their hatred for Ed Kramer has made them very, very reckless.

I'm not sure about Hasbro but the earlier users of the D&D trademark
would get their lawyers involved if anyone misused it. I doubt that
associating D&D with paedophilia counts as fair use.


--
Bernard Peek
b...@shrdlu.com
b...@shrdlu.co.uk

Loren MacGregor

unread,
Mar 12, 2001, 2:00:02 AM3/12/01
to
Loren Joseph MacGregor wrote:
>
> ... Based on their postings, however, I -have- formed the
> conclusion that Joe Christ and Nancy Friday are cowards, liars
> and creeps.

I misremembered the name, and hereby apologize to Nancy Friday. I
wouldn't wish it on anyone, that they be mistaken for Nancy Collins.

-- LJM

Martin Wisse

unread,
Mar 12, 2001, 5:25:44 AM3/12/01
to
On Mon, 12 Mar 2001 00:21:02 +0000, Bernard Peek <ber...@shrdlu.com>
wrote:

Apart from legal issues, the behaviours of these people is morally
abhorrent. I for one don't want anything to do with these scumbags
whatsoever.

Martin Wisse
--
There's a special word for people who set up recorded messages
telling you that "your call is important to us" every five minutes
for two hours. That special word is "liar."
-Patrick Nielsen Hayden, rasseff

Rachael Lininger

unread,
Mar 12, 2001, 7:45:10 AM3/12/01
to
In article <3AAC7463...@home.com>,

I had been thinking that that was one of the more interesting confusions
I'd seen in a while.

Rachael

--
Rachael | "Though astronomy is a relatively safe hobby,
Lininger | keep in mind that stars are very, very hot and will burn
rachael@ | for millions of years if left unattended."
dd-b.net | _The Onion_

Ed Dravecky III

unread,
Mar 12, 2001, 2:16:17 PM3/12/01
to
Nancy A Collins <Flami...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> So? These are the court papers. I didn't expect you to like them.

You did seem to expect to hide in the shadows. Too bad.

>> Went to site.
>> Did "View Source". Got the following:
>> <meta name="Author" content="Nancy A. Collins">

Funny how the original post in this thread had no name attached.
Why, it's almost like you were trying to hide something, Nancy!

--
Ed Dravecky III
ed3 at panix dot com

Ed Dravecky III

unread,
Mar 12, 2001, 2:22:00 PM3/12/01
to
Rachael Lininger <rac...@gw.dd-b.net> wrote:
> Loren MacGregor <churn...@home.com> wrote:
> >Loren Joseph MacGregor wrote:
> > > ... Based on their postings, however, I -have- formed the
> > > conclusion that Joe Christ and Nancy Friday are cowards, liars
> > > and creeps.
> > I misremembered the name, and hereby apologize to Nancy Friday.
> > I wouldn't wish it on anyone, that they be mistaken for Nancy
> > Collins.
> I had been thinking that that was one of the more interesting
> confusions I'd seen in a while.

Am I the only one who thought "Joe Friday" if only for a second?

Alison Hopkins

unread,
Mar 12, 2001, 2:17:14 PM3/12/01
to

Ed Dravecky III wrote in message <98j7ko$bot$2...@news.panix.com>...


Nope. <g>

Ali


Loren Joseph MacGregor

unread,
Mar 12, 2001, 2:39:11 PM3/12/01
to

Apparently -I- thought "Joe Friday."

-- LJM

Keith Holder

unread,
Mar 13, 2001, 11:32:18 AM3/13/01
to
Do they give oatmeal baths in Hell?

Will NAMBLA have a table at draggin-con?

I think these are much more fascinating questions than: potential
trademark violations in meta tags.

Nancy Lebovitz

unread,
Mar 13, 2001, 1:41:13 PM3/13/01
to
In article <98j7nl$96v$1...@lure.pipex.net>,
I thought (Jesus) Christ and (His man) Friday.
--
Nancy Lebovitz na...@netaxs.com www.nancybuttons.com

Rachael Lininger

unread,
Mar 13, 2001, 1:42:53 PM3/13/01
to
In article <98j8kv$gl2$1...@news.efn.org>,

I didn't; there is a real Nancy Friday, and that short-circuited the other
process.

Mark Atwood

unread,
Mar 13, 2001, 1:46:52 PM3/13/01
to
rac...@gw.dd-b.net (Rachael Lininger) writes:
> >
> >Apparently -I- thought "Joe Friday."
>
> I didn't; there is a real Nancy Friday, and that short-circuited the other
> process.

Indeed, tho the real Nancy Friday is a well-known expert in
a particular flavor of the "unreal".

--
Mark Atwood | I'm wearing black only until I find something darker.
m...@pobox.com | http://www.pobox.com/~mra

Loren Joseph MacGregor

unread,
Mar 13, 2001, 5:08:11 PM3/13/01
to

I think a far more interesting question is this: "Do those who have
commented about the alleged incidents involving Ed Kramer believe in
the United States standard of law?" Or even, "Do those who have
made public comments about Ed Kramer's guilt believe that 'innocent
until proven guilty in a court of law' is a standard that does not
apply to Ed Kramer?"

-- LJM (who has never met Ed Kramer, but believes in the Constitution
and the Bill of Rights and other assorted apparently meaningless
bits of paper)

Loren MacGregor

unread,
Mar 13, 2001, 8:31:47 PM3/13/01
to
Rachael Lininger wrote:
>
> In article <98j8kv$gl2$1...@news.efn.org>,
> Loren Joseph MacGregor <lmac...@efn.org> wrote:
> >In rec.arts.sf.fandom, Ed Dravecky III <e...@panix.com> wrote:
> >>Rachael Lininger <rac...@gw.dd-b.net> wrote:
> >>> Loren MacGregor <churn...@home.com> wrote:
> >>> >Loren Joseph MacGregor wrote:
> >>> > > ... Based on their postings, however, I -have- formed the
> >>> > > conclusion that Joe Christ and Nancy Friday are cowards, liars
> >>> > > and creeps.
> >>> > I misremembered the name, and hereby apologize to Nancy Friday.
> >>> > I wouldn't wish it on anyone, that they be mistaken for Nancy
> >>> > Collins.
> >>> I had been thinking that that was one of the more interesting
> >>> confusions I'd seen in a while.
> >
> >>Am I the only one who thought "Joe Friday" if only for a second?
> >
> >Apparently -I- thought "Joe Friday."
>
> I didn't; there is a real Nancy Friday, and that short-circuited the other
> process.

I know there is.

I guess I'm just glad I didn't ring in Joan Collins.

-- LJM

Avedon Carol

unread,
Mar 13, 2001, 8:48:14 PM3/13/01
to

Will you slip on an oil-slick, skid off the edge of a cliff, bounce
off the pavement 80 feet below and have a semi run over you? I think
that's a pretty good question, too.

mike weber

unread,
Mar 13, 2001, 9:14:31 PM3/13/01
to
On Tue, 13 Mar 2001 11:32:18 -0500 (EST), Miste...@webtv.net (Keith
Holder) typed

Nancy? Is this your left or your right sock?
--
Who would speak truth should have one foot in the stirrup.
(Church bulletin board, Dunwoody GA)
==========================================================
mike weber kras...@mindspring.com
Book Reviews & More -- http://electronictiger.com

Keith Holder

unread,
Mar 13, 2001, 9:22:20 PM3/13/01
to
Presumption of innocence does not mean that no significance at all may
be attached to the indictment.

U.S. v. Friday, D.C. Mich., 404 F.Supp. 1343,1346.

Dave Weingart

unread,
Mar 13, 2001, 10:54:34 PM3/13/01
to
One day in Teletubbyland, Miste...@webtv.net (Keith Holder) said:
>Presumption of innocence does not mean that no significance at all may
>be attached to the indictment.

Under US law, sorry, this is dead wrong, as the trial judge will inform
you over and over again when you're sitting in the jury box.

--
73 de Dave Weingart KA2ESK This .signature deliberately
mailto:phyd...@liii.com left blank.
http://www.liii.com/~phydeaux
ICQ 57055207

Kate Nepveu

unread,
Mar 13, 2001, 11:36:08 PM3/13/01
to
Keith Holder (Miste...@webtv.net) wrote:

Having access to online cases, which many people here probably do not, I
had to look this up.

Here's the context, for anyone who's interestd. This is a 1975 case which
is not widely cited--where "not widely" means cited by 4 courts.

****
Charles Friday is under indictment for falsely representing on a form in
connection with the purchase of a pistol from a gun shop that he was not
under indictment for a crime punishable by imprisonment for more than one
year, in violation of 18 U.S.C. secs. 922(a)(6), (d)(1).

[...]

Defendant brought this motion to dismiss the indictment claiming that the
federal statute under which he is charged is unconstitutional. Three
arguments are advanced. First, defendant argues that the statute, by
requiring the disclosure of pending indictments and predicating criminal
sanctions on failure to make such disclosure, deprives him of the
presumption of innocence guaranteed by the fifth amendment. Since he is
innocent in the eyes of the law, defendant says, the law may not attach
such consequences to the mere fact that he has been indicted. Defendant's
argument reads far too much into the phrase "presumption of innocence".
This term succinctly conveys the principle that no person may be convicted
of a crime unless the government carries the burden of proving his guilt
beyond a reasonable doubt. To be sure, this means that no criminal
penalties may follow from the mere fact of indictment. It does not,
however, mean that no significance at all may be attached to the
indictment. Under the federal statutory scheme at issue here, Congress has
determined "that the indictment of an individual for a crime punishable by
imprisonment for a term exceeding one year is so often indicative of a
propensity for violence that the indictment classification . . . was
justified in the public interest". United States v. Craven, 478 F.2d 1329,
1339 (6th Cir. 1973). The significance attached to the indictment is that
the indictee has a propensity for violence, and the consequences that
follow are (1) an inability lawfully to purchase a firearm and (2) a duty
to disclose the fact of the indictment in connection with such a purchase.
These consequences do not violate the presumption of innocence, because
they "[do] not authorize the fact finder at the criminal trial to infer
guilt under the Federal Firearms Act from the existence of a prior
indictment or even to discount the credibility of a witness because of
such an indictment". United States v. Thoresen, 428 F.2d 654, 661 (9th
Cir. 1970), quoted with approval in United States v. Craven, 478 F.2d at
1340.

****

The reader can determine for him/herself whether this situation supports
the implicit assertion of the prior poster.

Kate
--
http://www.steelypips.org/elsewhere.html -- Paired Reading Page; Reviews
"I wouldn't be satisfied with a life lived solely on the barricades. I
reserve my right to be frivolous." --Betty Friedan

David G. Bell

unread,
Mar 14, 2001, 3:11:59 AM3/14/01
to
On Tuesday, in article
<10107-3A...@storefull-154.iap.bryant.webtv.net>
Miste...@webtv.net "Keith Holder" wrote:

I know some people don't like Mondays, but did some lawyer want to bunk
off early for the weekend?

--
David G. Bell -- Farmer, SF Fan, Filker, and Punslinger.

If I were to go back to my schooldays, knowing what I know now, I would
pack cheese sandwiches for lunch.

Martin Wisse

unread,
Mar 14, 2001, 4:06:55 PM3/14/01
to
On Tue, 13 Mar 2001 11:32:18 -0500 (EST), Miste...@webtv.net (Keith
Holder) wrote:

Yes, but then again you are the weakest link.

Goodbye.

Martin Wisse
--
Lensmen are the very best men in the Galactic Patrol. (Always men. Only one
woman ever becomes a Lensman. Sort of like smurfs.) -Dani Zweig

Douglas Berry

unread,
Mar 16, 2001, 12:04:11 PM3/16/01
to
On 16 Mar 2001 03:45:53 GMT, a wanderer, known to us only as
p...@panix.com (P Nielsen Hayden) warmed at our fire and told this
tale:

>(3) Irv isn't going to explain any of it to the rest of us.
>
>Goodness, that was useful. Next!

Consider that some of this "stuff" is tied up in a felony court case
at the moment. I respectfully suggest that now is not the time to
start trying to explain the bizarre twists and turns that southern
fandom seem to take.

--

Douglas E. Berry grid...@mindspring.com
http://gridlore.home.mindspring.com/

"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.

mike weber

unread,
Mar 16, 2001, 1:19:04 PM3/16/01
to
On 16 Mar 2001 03:45:53 GMT, p...@panix.com (P Nielsen Hayden) typed

>On Thu, 15 Mar 2001 20:27:08 GMT,
> Irv Koch <irv...@pop.a001.sprintmail.com> wrote:

>>The situation on this Georgia mess is so complicated that I'm not about
>>to try to explain it, but I do appreciate each small chunk of facts, as
>>they drift in.
>
>
>As far as I can tell, the actual informational substance of this
>message is:
>
>(1) Irv has met most of these people,
>
>(2) Irv wants to make sure we appreciate that He Knows Stuff, but


>
>(3) Irv isn't going to explain any of it to the rest of us.
>
>Goodness, that was useful. Next!
>

Nah -- Irv just talks that way. After a while, you get to the point
where you can decode him.

Joel Rosenberg

unread,
Mar 16, 2001, 1:30:32 PM3/16/01
to
Douglas Berry <grid...@mindspring.com> writes:

> On 16 Mar 2001 03:45:53 GMT, a wanderer, known to us only as
> p...@panix.com (P Nielsen Hayden) warmed at our fire and told this
> tale:
>
> >(3) Irv isn't going to explain any of it to the rest of us.
> >
> >Goodness, that was useful. Next!
>
> Consider that some of this "stuff" is tied up in a felony court case
> at the moment. I respectfully suggest that now is not the time to
> start trying to explain the bizarre twists and turns that southern
> fandom seem to take.

Respectfully, I disagree. If any of it has any probative value --
which I tend to doubt -- that ought to be presented in court. If it
doesn't, it likely won't. While I find the Christ and Collins act
kind of tiresome, I really doubt it's going to poison the jury pool.
I'll take the horribly brave and controversial opinion that,
regardless of what Ed Kramer did wrong, if anything (and it's pretty
clear that, at least, he showed awfully bad judgment by driving to his
former girlfriend's apartment and banging on the door when he was
supposedly on his way to be interviewed by the police), he deserves a
fair trial if it gets that far, as appears to be likely.

That doesn't mean that Irv or anybody else is obligated to give any
background on this, although the level of hysteria and by vituperation
from Christ and Collins suggests that there is something else going
on, beyond the putative honest and postulated well-intentioned
righteous anger at someone they putatively believe molested a child.
(I think that molesting a child is a Big Deal, of course, but their
whole campaign reeks of concealed intention, although not particularly
well concealed intention.)

Again, just to be clear: I don't know and don't pretend to know if Ed
Kramer is a chicken hawk who the law has finally caught up with or
some poor schlump who has been caught up in a witch hunt. If it's the
former, he's already gotten a taste of what I think he deserves; it is
the latter, the poor guy has been done a horrible injustice, which is
only going to get worse, before it gets better, if ever.

Irv Koch

unread,
Mar 16, 2001, 4:55:23 PM3/16/01
to
mike weber wrote:
<snip reply to local "judge">

> Nah -- Irv just talks that way. After a while, you get to the point
> where you can decode him.

If you'd care to give your version of what I said, for The Judge's
benefit, please do. Thanks.

For others: Yes, Joe and Nancy may have some interesting things to say
on this matter, in alt.fandom.cons, and are certainly more on topic than
the trolls have been.

Jo Walton

unread,
Mar 16, 2001, 2:49:53 PM3/16/01
to
In article <wku24ta...@winternet.com>
jo...@winternet.com "Joel Rosenberg" writes:

> Again, just to be clear: I don't know and don't pretend to know if Ed
> Kramer is a chicken hawk who the law has finally caught up with or
> some poor schlump who has been caught up in a witch hunt. If it's the
> former, he's already gotten a taste of what I think he deserves; it is
> the latter, the poor guy has been done a horrible injustice, which is
> only going to get worse, before it gets better, if ever.

I don't know either. But the more I hear people screaming, sliming and
insinuating that he's the former, the more I feel inclined to give him
the benefit of every possible doubt.

Not since the infamous "You're never alone with a Strand" ad has a
campaign backfired so badly.

--
Jo J...@bluejo.demon.co.uk
I kissed a kif at Kefk
Locus Recommended First Novel: *THE KING'S PEACE* out now from Tor.
Sample Chapters, Map, Poems, & stuff at http://www.bluejo.demon.co.uk

James Nicoll

unread,
Mar 16, 2001, 3:25:42 PM3/16/01
to
In article <wku24ta...@winternet.com>,

Joel Rosenberg <jo...@winternet.com> wrote:
>
>That doesn't mean that Irv or anybody else is obligated to give any
>background on this, although the level of hysteria and by vituperation
>from Christ and Collins suggests that there is something else going
>on, beyond the putative honest and postulated well-intentioned
>righteous anger at someone they putatively believe molested a child.
>(I think that molesting a child is a Big Deal, of course, but their
>whole campaign reeks of concealed intention, although not particularly
>well concealed intention.)

I thought this shed some light on what other factors might be
at work.

seen on alt.fandom.cons

From syl...@concentric.net Fri Mar 16 15:22:58 EST 2001
Path: news.panix.com!panix!howland.erols.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!look.ca!sjc1.nntp.concentric.net!newsfeed.concentric.net!global-news-master
From: Joe Christ <syl...@concentric.net>
Newsgroups: alt.fandom.cons
Subject: Re: Kramer Court Documents Online
Date: 15 Mar 2001 04:57:50 GMT
Organization: http://geocities.com/joechrist.geo/shows.html
Lines: 135
Message-ID: <3AB04B3E...@concentric.net>
References: <3AA81CC...@yahoo.com> <3AAEEB78...@bellsouth.net> <3AAEF02A...@concentric.net> <3AAF0090...@bellsouth.net>

jtac...@bellsouth.net wrote:

> Joe,
>
> All I am saying is take responsiblility for what you do, and create. You do it
> on your videos. Tell the world that as a public service, we Joe Christ and Nancy
> Collins, have made available to the whole world the court documents pertaining
> to the case. You create a wedsite, you post a message, or someone post a message
> about the site, but you don't put your name on the site. This can be mistaken
> for hiding. Remember, we all look at the world differently.
>

Putting our names on the web site prominently would not serve
any particular purpose. Does it matter who put it up, really?
It's not as if it's a secret or anything.
What's there are public documents, easily picked up from
the court clerk's office in Gwinnett County. Anyone can do it.
The important thing is that what's there is all sworn testimony, and
various legal motions.

>
> You have mentioned to me that you told the police what you know because you
> believe it to be the right thing to do. That is commendable and I would do the
> same, but why did you feel the need to post a message on the web on behalf of
> the Gwinnett County PD looking for people who may be able to offer more info?
> Why do you feel it is necessary to post the documents on the case on a website?
> What is your motivation? Enlighten us!! Did Ed do something to you to piss you
> off?? We are not all privy to what goes on.
>

The Detective in the case seemed to think it was a
good thing if people (such as Nancy and myself)
who are recognizable to local fans, showed publicly that we aren't
afraid of the defendant. Did Kramer do something to
piss me off? You mean besides what he's charged with?
I think you know the answer to that.

> Did Ed not give you a job at the Dragon*Con office?

At half the pay of the job he claimed he was hooking me up with. Ask your
wife if I didn't constantly call Ed a liar and other things in the
office, almost daily. The Dragon*Con progress reports (or lack thereof)
make a good example. I know you remember that issue...I had to
lie to countless people for Ed on the phone every day, as they wondered
where their progress reports were.

> Did Ed not give Nancy a job at MRESA?

You mean where the FBI has been tearing everyone
a new asshole, because of Ed and whatever the hell he was doing up there? Where
Nancy had to leave because of hostility from the
various bosses who are under investigation by the Feds?

> Did Ed not allow you use of the video editing equipment at MRESA to edit your
> last video? At no cost to you? Yet you profited from the sale of the video?

That was supposed to be one of the 'perks' of the actual
job that never materialized, one promised by Ed to everyone he hired there.
As it turned out, I had to sneak in to MRESA after hours
with Ed's help, to finish the movie, and was rushed through it by
Ed, because he didn't want to get caught by his bosses. Ed had lied to
me initially about having permission for me to be there. I'll
be re-editing the whole thing in the next few months, elsewhere,
using my 'profits' to pay for it.

> Has Ed not given you free tables at Dragon*Con to sell your wares?

Do I not draw hundreds of people to my screenings there? That
was part of our business arrangement with Dragon*Con from the start.
It wasn't a favor, it was part of our compensation for us appearing there.
Although I think you may remember that this past year we had to go to Pat Henry
to get a second table, so Nancy & I could each have one, since
we were *two* guests. Dave Collette from ExotiCon told us that
Ed suggested us as guests to him because he could then have two guests
at his little convention for the price of one.

> I for one am a bit confused as to why you feel it is your duty to put Ed in
> jail. Maybe its not, but that is the percepton of some people. Tell the police
> what you know, and then no more. All your actions make people wonder what kind
> of deal they have with you to get you to turn against Ed. If no deal exist,
> great, but enlighten us. If you are going to post the facts, then let the world
> know all the facts, including your past relationship with Ed Kramer. If you
> can't talk about it because of the pending court trial, I understand, but then
> keep quiet about all aspects of the case.

What kind of *deal* could we possibly have with the police? We haven't done anything
to need to have a deal with them. It's not our duty to put Kramer in jail. The
prosecution should have no trouble doing that!
We're just helping to spread the word. And, hey, you
gotta admit...we're damn good at it! Someone should've done this after Kramer's
1997 arrest for child-molestation. Then we could all be just sitting back,
reminiscing about the events of a few years ago, and wondering if Kramer was up for
parole yet!


> This is not intended to be a personal attack and please do not take it as such,
> but I have heard your side of it, and since this is a public forum, I want to
> speak my mind.. That's all. I am confused and frustrated by all this. I see
> people convicting Ed in the press and on the web, yet he has not even gone to
> trial. It is not my place to judge others. I'm sure that you have felt the same
> type of judgement because of the nature of your videos.

Remember when I called you to tell you Ed was in jail? I asked you
if you had any clue as to why, and you asked me..."Child-molestation?"
This was really no surprise to most of the people I know on the Dragon*Con
board of directors. Right after Dragon*Con, Kramer repeatedly suggested
to Nancy that we let him take my 13-year-old son on a camping trip. Good
thing we were on to him by then. Our good friend. If you look at our website,
consisting of nothing but actual court documents, and think Kramer's being
"convicted on the web", that certainly says a lot, doesn't it?

> The issue has even created problems for volunteers at the con, and myself.
> Why? because we happen to attend Dragon*Con and happen to be volunteers we are
> all painted with one broad stroke of the brush.

Don't thank me, thank your former 'chair' and his supporters. I'm still
friendly with several 'top' board members who don't seem to think
we're doing anything wrong. *We're* not responsible for Kramer's
problems with the state and federal authorities. *Kramer's* responsible
for his own situation.

> I have seen people be falsely accused of crimes and go to jail. The papers
> report that all the time. So why not just keep quiet and let justice do its
> thing? Why is it that people seem to believe that you are spearheading this
> effort to have Ed put in prison. Perhaps creating websites with court documents,
> but not your name on it could be a reason. Just a thought. Thats all. Thanks

I have seen people commit crimes and get away with them...it's all relative.
I think you know that I'm not concerned with how people perceive me. People
see or hear about my movies and think I'm evil. Then they meet me in person and
think I'm
a nice guy. Then they fuck with me, and think I'm evil again.
-Joe Christ


--
"Somehow I managed to get a job as an apprentice structural engineering
draughtsman, where I was supposed to design buildings which people would
sit in and the roof would not fall down and kill them. A big responsibility
for someone whose total education had come from PLANET STORIES." Bob Shaw

Loren MacGregor

unread,
Mar 16, 2001, 7:42:46 PM3/16/01
to
Joel Rosenberg wrote:
>
> Again, just to be clear: I don't know and don't pretend to know if Ed
> Kramer is a chicken hawk who the law has finally caught up with or
> some poor schlump who has been caught up in a witch hunt. If it's the
> former, he's already gotten a taste of what I think he deserves; it is
> the latter, the poor guy has been done a horrible injustice, which is
> only going to get worse, before it gets better, if ever.

This pretty much sums up my feeling. As do the paragraphs I cut.

-- LJM

Joe Christ

unread,
Mar 15, 2001, 7:21:15 AM3/15/01
to
Ed? Is that you?

Ed Dravecky III

unread,
Mar 15, 2001, 11:26:46 AM3/15/01
to
Joe Christ <syl...@concentric.net> wrote:

> mike weber wrote:
> > Miste...@webtv.net (Keith Holder) typed:
> > > Do they give oatmeal baths in Hell?
> > > Will NAMBLA have a table at draggin-con?
> > > I think these are much more fascinating questions than:
> > > potential trademark violations in meta tags.
> > Nancy? Is this your left or your right sock? Ed? Is that
> you?

Mike is definitely Mike.

"Keith" is an unknown quantity--advertising a website run by Nancy
Collins and Joe Christ, one on which they attempted to hide their
authorship but were outed by a stray tag in the HTML code. Given
the long string of "fake" names behind which Nancy has posted as
recently as last week, "Keith" could well be a fake as well. I'll
happily accept a copy of his complete driver's license, uncensored,
as proof of his existence. Until then "Keith" is a non-entity, at
least as far as I am concerned. The mileage of others may vary.

mike weber

unread,
Mar 15, 2001, 11:58:50 AM3/15/01
to
On 15 Mar 2001 12:21:15 GMT, Joe Christ <syl...@concentric.net>
typed

>Ed? Is that you?
>

Wanna bet how many people on this NG would believe in me over your
little sock-puppet friend?

Irv Koch

unread,
Mar 15, 2001, 3:27:08 PM3/15/01
to
mike weber wrote:
> On 15 Mar 2001 12:21:15 GMT, Joe Christ <syl...@concentric.net>
> typed

> >Ed? Is that you?
> >
>
> Wanna bet how many people on this NG would believe in me over your
> little sock-puppet friend?

No bet.

I have physically met Mike (and his famous brother)(and my wife even met
their mother, IIRC).

I've met Joe and Nancy.

I've met Ed.

All are separate humans, axes to grind (or defend) and all.

The Keith Holder (from Winder, GA, apparently) appears to also be a real
human (rather than a hoax), but most of the info. has come from his
enemies.

P Nielsen Hayden

unread,
Mar 15, 2001, 10:45:53 PM3/15/01
to
On Thu, 15 Mar 2001 20:27:08 GMT,
Irv Koch <irv...@pop.a001.sprintmail.com> wrote:

As far as I can tell, the actual informational substance of this
message is:

(1) Irv has met most of these people,

(2) Irv wants to make sure we appreciate that He Knows Stuff, but

(3) Irv isn't going to explain any of it to the rest of us.

Goodness, that was useful. Next!

--
Patrick Nielsen Hayden : p...@panix.com : http://www.panix.com/~pnh

P Nielsen Hayden

unread,
Mar 17, 2001, 10:23:52 AM3/17/01
to
On Fri, 16 Mar 2001 09:04:11 -0800,
Douglas Berry <grid...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>On 16 Mar 2001 03:45:53 GMT, a wanderer, known to us only as
>p...@panix.com (P Nielsen Hayden) warmed at our fire and told this
>tale:
>
>>(3) Irv isn't going to explain any of it to the rest of us.
>>
>>Goodness, that was useful. Next!
>
>Consider that some of this "stuff" is tied up in a felony court case
>at the moment. I respectfully suggest that now is not the time to
>start trying to explain the bizarre twists and turns that southern
>fandom seem to take.


You're probably right.

P Nielsen Hayden

unread,
Mar 17, 2001, 10:25:50 AM3/17/01
to
On Fri, 16 Mar 2001 21:55:23 GMT,
Irv Koch <irv...@pop.a001.sprintmail.com> wrote:
>mike weber wrote:
><snip reply to local "judge">
>> Nah -- Irv just talks that way. After a while, you get to the point
>> where you can decode him.
>
>If you'd care to give your version of what I said, for The Judge's
>benefit, please do. Thanks.


Sorry if I've struck you as The Judge. I'm just a little bemused at
the essential emptiness of this conversation.

I do take Doug Berry's point that it's probably just as well not to
hash this stuff out on Usenet.

Avedon Carol

unread,
Mar 17, 2001, 1:22:22 PM3/17/01
to

Are you sure, Loren? Do you think a _chickenhawk_ deserves the kind
of treatment Ed Kramer is getting/in for?


--
Avedon

"At holiday parties, Republican political operatives boasted freely about
their success in snaring the White House. A common refrain, told in a
joking style, was: 'We stole the election fair and square.'" (Robert Parry)

Irv Koch

unread,
Mar 17, 2001, 1:35:20 PM3/17/01
to
P Nielsen Hayden wrote:
> Irv Koch <irv...@pop.a001.sprintmail.com> wrote:
<snip a batch of snippy stuff>


> Sorry if I've struck you as The Judge. I'm just a little bemused at
> the essential emptiness of this conversation.

OK.


> I do take Doug Berry's point that it's probably just as well not to
> hash this stuff out on Usenet.

Regrettably, I'm personally close to too much of it. I feel like I need
to collect as much info. as practical because there's no telling what,
and who, is going to be affected, in the future. A future in which I'm
likely to be involved, at least tangentially. But spitting that info.
back out is a bad idea, until a fairly distant, cooled off, future.

I suspect, also, you've been in a situation in which multiple friends,
or at least people you knew (and might like to be friends with) went
after each other with as harsh attacks as they could come up with.

So, beyond saying that "these are all real people, even though one
accuses the other of being only an alias for someone else" almost
anything said, gets horribly complicated. It's not just that people
will get angry or injured, it's that there are MULTIPLE conflicts
involved.

It's not practical to say ANYTHING, without then going into several
related issues.

There is also a problem similar to "classified/confidential"
information. The correct procedure is to not "talk around it" or
"hint," but to verbally bite one's tounge if mentioning it at all with
statements like "that's an interesting subject but I can't talk about
it."

If you're at Lunacon, and have time (there should be party flyers up
pointing to where I'll be <G>), I can try, in private, to just list all
the hassles.

Mitch Wagner

unread,
Mar 17, 2001, 9:03:02 PM3/17/01
to
Loren Joseph MacGregor <lmac...@efn.org> wrote in
<98m5ob$n2t$2...@news.efn.org>:

>In rec.arts.sf.fandom, Keith Holder <Miste...@webtv.net> wrote:
>>Do they give oatmeal baths in Hell?
>
>>Will NAMBLA have a table at draggin-con?
>
>>I think these are much more fascinating questions than: potential
>>trademark violations in meta tags.
>
>I think a far more interesting question is this: "Do those who have
>commented about the alleged incidents involving Ed Kramer believe in
>the United States standard of law?" Or even, "Do those who have
>made public comments about Ed Kramer's guilt believe that 'innocent
>until proven guilty in a court of law' is a standard that does not
>apply to Ed Kramer?"

Another interesting question: "Are the people who post nasty things about
Ed Kramer people who have been personally hurt by him, or are they idiots
who believe in lynching someone (metaphorically speaking) based on gossip
and news reports?"

--
Mitch Wagner

mike weber

unread,
Mar 18, 2001, 12:44:24 AM3/18/01
to
On 18 Mar 2001 02:03:02 GMT, mit...@sff.net (Mitch Wagner) typed


>Another interesting question: "Are the people who post nasty things about
>Ed Kramer people who have been personally hurt by him, or are they idiots
>who believe in lynching someone (metaphorically speaking) based on gossip
>and news reports?"
>

Or is Ed cast in the light of Granny in the back of the sleigh?

Loren Joseph MacGregor

unread,
Mar 17, 2001, 9:50:28 PM3/17/01
to
In rec.arts.sf.fandom, Avedon Carol <ave...@cix.co.uk> wrote:
>On Sat, 17 Mar 2001 00:42:46 GMT, Loren MacGregor
><churn...@home.com> wrote:

>>This pretty much sums up my feeling. As do the paragraphs I cut.

>Are you sure, Loren? Do you think a _chickenhawk_ deserves the kind
>of treatment Ed Kramer is getting/in for?

No, not entirely. I was reading through my allergies. I believe,
rather, that there is very little that Ed Kramer can do or could have
done which merits the treatment he is receiving.

I guess that someone who is late on delivering a program book for a
conventions deserves everything they get, though.

-- LJM

Loren MacGregor

unread,
Mar 18, 2001, 10:19:09 AM3/18/01
to
mike weber wrote:
>
> On 18 Mar 2001 02:03:02 GMT, mit...@sff.net (Mitch Wagner) typed
>
> >Another interesting question: "Are the people who post nasty things about
> >Ed Kramer people who have been personally hurt by him, or are they idiots
> >who believe in lynching someone (metaphorically speaking) based on gossip
> >and news reports?"
> >
> Or is Ed cast in the light of Granny in the back of the sleigh?

Bingo.

-- LJM

Alison Hopkins

unread,
Mar 18, 2001, 11:35:03 AM3/18/01
to

Loren MacGregor wrote in message <3AB4D272...@home.com>...


Explain reference, please? I am missing something!

Ali


Kip Williams

unread,
Mar 18, 2001, 11:58:07 AM3/18/01
to

The image is of some Russians sleighing across the steppes, and
wolves are chasing them. They drive the horses mercilessly, but the
wolves are gaining on them. It's been told in other ways, but in
this version, the worried passengers look at each other, and then
they look at old Granny there, at the back of the thing. She's had a
long life, and, well, she's not too helpful to everyone else any
more, much as they all love and cherish her. Maybe, just maybe, if
they toss Gran off the sleigh, the slavering wolves will stop and
brunch on her instead of following them quite so closely for the
next mile or so.

The part of 'Gran' having already been cast in this sordid little
tableau, one can then assign other roles to the remaining actors.

Of course, if they're not home within that precious mile, they'll
have no other choice but to toss someone else off the sleigh. Sad,
but true. Damn wolves have tasted blood now. As it happens, the one
who pushed Granny is now closest to the back of the sleigh.

--
--Kip (Williams)
amusing the world at http://members.home.net/kipw/

Mitch Wagner

unread,
Mar 18, 2001, 12:33:20 PM3/18/01
to
kras...@mindspring.com (mike weber) wrote in
<3ab44b1e...@news.alltel.net>:

>On 18 Mar 2001 02:03:02 GMT, mit...@sff.net (Mitch Wagner) typed
>
>
>>Another interesting question: "Are the people who post nasty things
>>about Ed Kramer people who have been personally hurt by him, or are
>>they idiots who believe in lynching someone (metaphorically speaking)
>>based on gossip and news reports?"
>>
>Or is Ed cast in the light of Granny in the back of the sleigh?

Huh?

--
Mitch Wagner

Kip Williams

unread,
Mar 18, 2001, 1:11:03 PM3/18/01
to

I refer anyone else with this query to my own post under the subject
"Granny and the Sleigh."

What? You're still reading this? It's got drama! It's got pathos!
It's got relevance to the human conundrum! All questions answered,
with economy and droll understatement. "A masterpost!" sez Kip
(Williams).

--
--Kip (Williams)
(parenthetically) yours at http://members.home.net/kipw/

Mitch Wagner

unread,
Mar 18, 2001, 1:23:00 PM3/18/01
to
Kip Williams <ki...@home.com> wrote in <3AB4F9EE...@home.com>:

Already read the other post.

"I laughed. I cried. I stuffed my face."--Roger Ebert, Chicago Sun-Times.

--
Mitch Wagner

Alison Hopkins

unread,
Mar 18, 2001, 2:00:55 PM3/18/01
to

Mitch Wagner wrote in message ...

<g> And I was very grateful. It actually got back on to the "Darmok" topic,
yes?

Ali


Mitch Wagner

unread,
Mar 18, 2001, 4:03:17 PM3/18/01
to
"Alison Hopkins" <fn...@dial.pipex.com> wrote in
<3ab50848$0$12241$cc9e...@news.dial.pipex.com>:

Isn't that the TV show with Jenna Elfman as a young married woman strugging
with a drinking problem? "Darmok and Grog"?

--
Mitch Wagner

Alison Hopkins

unread,
Mar 18, 2001, 4:40:04 PM3/18/01
to


*Bad* Mitch. Damn funny!

Ali


mike weber

unread,
Mar 18, 2001, 8:35:40 PM3/18/01
to
On Sun, 18 Mar 2001 16:35:03 -0000, "Alison Hopkins"
<fn...@dial.pipex.com> typed


>Explain reference, please? I am missing something!
>

"Granny's old, she hasn't got much time left anyway. And while the
wolves pause to eat *her*, we can get away."

mike weber

unread,
Mar 18, 2001, 8:57:02 PM3/18/01
to
On Sun, 18 Mar 2001 16:58:07 GMT, Kip Williams <ki...@home.com> typed

Bingo.

Mark Evans

unread,
Mar 18, 2001, 8:55:36 PM3/18/01