Usenet lawsuits
Ace
the cross posting MU from... alt.vacation.las-vegas,
sci.med.cardiology, alt.support.diabetes,
alt.christnet.christianlife,misc.health.alternative, sci.med,
alt.bible.prophecy, alt.messianic.yeshua, alt.christnet.theology etc.
Mr V brought up a lawsuit brought against Chuck Kohlenberg by Dick
Goldhaber
http://www.citmedialaw.org/threats/goldhaber-v-kohlenberg
and wondered what the outcome was.
The outcome Mr. V, is that it was dismissed. Our lawyer friend Andrew
Skier http://www.skierlaw.com quit aptly declared it a frivolous
lawsuit, and of course that’s what it was.
My friend Andrew the lawyer is the first guy you see in that YouTube
video BTW, MU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpvP5zxiTEE (and he like me, is not as
young as he looks).
I’m also @ 10:52 in the video if you want a better look at me. (that
thing looked like a regular photographing camera, so a lot of people
like me and George’s wife Becca did realize at first they were being
filmed instead of just having their picture snapped).
Anyways, I’d say the the fact that Chuck Kohlenberg still has both of
his homes, is proof enough he suffered no damage in the frivolous
lawsuit.
http://trweb.co.clark.nv.us//WEP_summary.asp?Parcel=177-15-813-029
Although I wouldn’t be surprised if it financially destroyed Dick
Goldhaber, the guy who tried suing Chuck in court costs, trying to
push the hopeless cause.
Now if Chuck had just attacked the Goldhabers without any provocation
whatsoever, and the Goldhabers in no way reciprocated, and had a
record of running a consistently squeaky clean show, THEN maybe Dick
Goldhaber might have had a case.
But that wasn’t the case. The Golhabers issued a slew of profanity
laced insults to Chuck Kohlenberg, based on what those who were
“there” testified.
It’s like one boxer suing another boxer for giving him a bloody nose
while they were exchanging punches. Know what I mean?
A*
Mr. V
Voluntary or involuntary?
As part of an agreed settlement, or by a judge saying the case is
without merit?
I haven't bothered to call the clerk in Camden county to get the
details, but I would be willing to bet Chuck had to pony up some dough
to get the dismissal.
As for the costs being too much for the Goldiggers to absorb: says
who?
Could be both they and Chuck have more money than they need, less
sense than they require, and one lawyer too many to represent them.
Ace
sci.med.cardiology using the following keywords?:
"MU is Chung" or "MU is Andrew [Chung]". If you type that in, you'll
see a "cloud of witnesses" as Andrew puts it, declaring that Andrew
Chung posts as MU going back at least 7 years.
Now do a search in sci.med.cardiology using the following keywords:
"Chung Troll". "Chung kook" "Chung quack" “Chung crazy [nuts, insane
et al]" and see what others have had to say about Andrew Chung in the
last several years. Now if no one has said any of those things about
Andrew Chung, you shouldn’t get any hits and I am wrong. But I think
you will get more hits on posts than you or anyone could possibly read
in a lifetime.
I'm still waiting for MU to politely ask me to quit my part in the war
of words he's been playing with me.
A*
Mr. V
Yeah, he seems quite the net kook.
Ace
> It was dismissed, yes, but why?
>
> Voluntary or involuntary?
It was dismissed because a lawsuit based on a mutual war of words is
frivolous. Did you read my entire post before replying? Himmm?
> As part of an agreed settlement, or by a judge saying the case is
> without merit?
It's a forgone conclusion the judge decided it had no merritt
(according to Andrew) as it went absolutely nowhere. If it had gone
somewhere, precedent would have been set (according to David Berman).
Do you see a precedent anywhere?
The only reason why it wasn't tossed right away is because prescient
MIGHT have been established.
> I haven't bothered to call the clerk in Camden county to get the
> details, but I would be willing to bet Chuck had to pony up some dough
> to get the dismissal.
A dismissal from what? Have you read the dialogs between Kohlenberg
and Goldhaber? It was the pot suing the kettle for being black.
> As for the costs being too much for the Goldiggers to absorb: says
> who?
That was obviously surmising on my part based on what has been said by
several people regarding Dick Golhabers apparent finances at the time.
Him being a renter instead of a home owner etc.
> Could be both they and Chuck have more money than they need, less
> sense than they require, and one lawyer too many to represent them.
Mr. V, you can continue to hypothesize this a zillion different ways
till the cows come home to no avail.
The thing was frivolous (Andrew) and it set zero precedence (Berman).
That's what the weight of the available evidence strongly shows. It
went nowhere.
*Prove* me wrong if you want, but don’t could be this could be that me
to death
A*
Mr. V
The case has set precedent in the field of jurisdiction viz. internet
libel suits.
The decision has been frequently quoted in other opinions, not all in
NJ, as being of precedental value.
As for Andrew saying the case had no merit ... if the case was
privately settled, and it seems it was, you can be assured that money
changed hands.
Ace
> I popped over for a brief look, then bailed.
>
> Yeah, he seems quite the net kook.
See, that's why I don't feel bad about briefly clowning around in
sci.med.cardiology, because Chung's antics destroyed that newsgroup a
long time ago. Way, way beyond anything I've ever come close to doing
here in avlv.
I have no agenda in regard to avlv BTW. Just me being me. Take note
that I have never disrupted a strictly on topic thread ever. I may
come in there after it's been destroyed by Mikey or Payton. But as
long as an avlv on topic thread has stayed on topic, I've always
stayed out. Unless I that is, I come in to contribute on topic
material to it. Which I do, more often than I get credit for.
A*
Ace
> Berman is wrong.
>
> The case has set precedent in the field of jurisdiction viz. internet
> libel suits.
In that case Berman would be right. And Berman most definitely would
have written something about it in whatever all he cranks out on a
daily basis. So where's the link to the established precedent? Or is
it written in invisible text?
> The decision has been frequently quoted in other opinions, not all in
> NJ, as being of precedental value.
Please cite your references like I did. Link please. Other than one or
two places showing it simply took place there's nada.
There's no Kohlenberg vs Goldhaber in any law books or court records.
No lawyer has ever been on record citing it as precedence, because
none exists. And it's been years now.
> As for Andrew saying the case had no merit ... if the case was
> privately settled, and it seems it was, you can be assured that money
> changed hands.
Yes, Dick Goldhaber's money went into his lawyer's hands. And maybe
into Chuck's lawyer's too.
Do you remember specifically what they were suing Chuck for?
Do you remember that Chuck tried suing them first?
Show me an established precedent, and I'll buy you an Ellis Island
steak dinner with all the trimmings <pinky swear>
A*
Ace
with me, is that I'm viewing it as a penis measuring contest, the way
he inevitably is. There's no "win" objective for me. Just pegs falling
into holes. It's the overall pattern that interests me. The
kaleidoscope. The fractal. What else would you expect from an
autistic?
A*
Rod
> *Prove* me wrong if you want, but don’t could be this could be that me
> to death
>
Exactly what are you trying to say here, retard.....?
--
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
May you have an eternity of Pain and sorrow
...
George Richard Tiller, MD ...
Baby Killer and Psychopath! ...
August 8, 1941 - May 31, 2009
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ...
Mr. V
> So where's the link to the established precedent? Or is
> it written in invisible text?
>
> Please cite your references like I did. Link please. Other than one or
> two places showing it simply took place there's nada.
> There's no Kohlenberg vs Goldhaber in any law books or court records.
> No lawyer has ever been on record citing it as precedence, because
> none exists. And it's been years now.
>
> Show me an established precedent, and I'll buy you an Ellis Island
> steak dinner with all the trimmings <pinky swear>
>
> A*
Here's one ... http://www.spamsuite.com/webfm_send/171
Here's another ... http://www.graysonbarber.com/pdf/BBauer/Bauer_Narayan_brief.pdf
And yeah, there is no Kohlenberg vs Goldhaber in any law books or
court records; I never said there was.
There are however many citations to Goldhaber vs. Kohlenberg, which is
the name of the case. (clue: the person or persons suing, in this case
the Goldhabers are always listed first).
Alright, I have taken you on your first journey of what could be a
long, satisfying legal education.
My bill will follow ... and don't ask how you can thank me: ever since
the Phoenicians invented money, there has been only one correct answer
to that question.
Las Vegas Don, in Vegas!
I used to know a guy that used to, rarely mind you, rape the dead
bodies of farm animals. He's locked up now. They got him for
plotting to utter the word
Under God" in a public school. To deep and to fast fer ya sonny?
Don
MU
> My friend Andrew the lawyer is the first guy you see in that YouTube
> video BTW, MU
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpvP5zxiTEE (and he like me, is not as
> young as he looks).
Expect that you will need him sooner than later.
MU
> Could be both they and Chuck have more money than they need, less
> sense than they require, and one lawyer too many to represent them.
Finally, someone with a shred of sense interjects the finale.
Here's something for you to chew on. Danni/Dickie and Chuck were
baited *and* counseled into this lawsuit by one prominent member of
RTC (back in those days). Best way to get rid of trash is to have them
toss garbage at each other.
And away they went. Ask Leppla (which btw was a hint I dropped right
in front of you as you watch the ants as the elephants march by).
Ace
> On 11/9/2010 12:41 AM, Ace wrote:
>
> > *Prove* me wrong if you want, but don t could be this could be that me
> > to death
>
> Exactly what are you trying to say here, retard.....?
You and Dr. Chung MU make excellent bedfellows.
A*
Ace
> On Nov 8, 11:34 pm, Ace <avlvsvery...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > So where's the link to the established precedent? Or is
> > it written in invisible text?
>
> > Please cite your references like I did. Link please. Other than one or
> > two places showing it simply took place there's nada.
> > There's no Kohlenberg vs Goldhaber in any law books or court records.
> > No lawyer has ever been on record citing it as precedence, because
> > none exists. And it's been years now.
>
> > Show me an established precedent, and I'll buy you an Ellis Island
> > steak dinner with all the trimmings <pinky swear>
>
> > A*
>
> Here's one ...http://www.spamsuite.com/webfm_send/171
>
>
> And yeah, there is no Kohlenberg vs Goldhaber in any law books or
> court records; I never said there was.
I never said you did, so there.
> There are however many citations to Goldhaber vs. Kohlenberg, which is
> the name of the case. (clue: the person or persons suing, in this case
> the Goldhabers are always listed first).
Where? When?
> Alright, I have taken you on your first journey of what could be a
> long, satisfying legal education.
You have? By posting a link from spamsuit.com and graysonbarber,com?
Oh, that's right, Harvard law professors rely upon those sources all
the time.
> My bill will follow ... and don't ask how you can thank me: ever since
> the Phoenicians invented money, there has been only one correct answer
> to that question.
The answer of course is, 42.
A*
Ace
> On Mon, 8 Nov 2010 22:02:48 -0800 (PST), Ace wrote:
> > My friend Andrew the lawyer is the first guy you see in that YouTube
> > video BTW, MU
> > young as he looks).
>
> Expect that you will need him sooner than later.
MU / Chung, I have been lurking in sci.med.cardiology for years, I
know you much better than you think. Besises, everyone knows I have no
money.
A*
Ace
Ah, so you really are Gary too.
A*
MU
Because of your antipathy to the use of words in newsgroups I suggest
all further posts from you should use pictographs.
then by yourself a few Sherlock Holmes novels and dump reading Harry
Potter. Harry hasn't helped your investigative skills one bit, your
reading comprehension has devolved to trash and your wife won't have
to clean your bed from your wet dreams over Emma Watson.
It's a win-win-win for everyone, Ace*
MU*
MU
> On Nov 9, 11:00 am, MU <efacsimi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 8 Nov 2010 22:02:48 -0800 (PST), Ace wrote:
>>> My friend Andrew the lawyer is the first guy you see in that YouTube
>>> video BTW, MU
>>>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpvP5zxiTEE(and he like me, is not as
>>> young as he looks).
>>
>> Expect that you will need him sooner than later.
>
> MU / Chung, I have been lurking in sci.med.cardiology for years,
Lurking isn't libeling.
> I know you much better than you think.
Then what's my name, Ace*? Eh? Kitten got your tongue, Ace*? Tell me
what you *know* about me, Ace*, I'm all ears, Ace*.
> Besises, everyone knows I have no money.
>
> A*
No money, what a surprise. The last thing I need is money and yours is
tainted anyway, Ace*.
MU*
![]v[etaphoid's profile photo](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/a/default-user=s40-c)
]v[etaphoid
Ace <avlvsv...@hotmail.com> typed:
Yep. We all are...
--
"Don't make me get my IT friend to do a trace on you to find out your
real name." - Brian "Ace" Kelley flexing his online might...
Ace
> Yep. We all are...
That's what she said.
A*