Letter of intent to sue Arny.
S888Wheel
On August 8 2003 at 22:13:11 PST in the following post,Message 62 in thread
From: Arny Krueger (ar...@hotpop.com) Subject: Re: People that have or do
listen to both Vinyl and Cd: Basic survey/poll,on the Usenet Rec. Audio Opinion
forum you falsely accused me of being a pedophile. your accusation was a
willful lie intended to damage my reputation. By law this makes your post
libelous. I am demanding that you post a response to this libelous post to
retract it, admit that the post was libelous and apologize for it. I also
demand that you do the same for every libelous and contentious post you have
made regarding me since the post in question was made. If in thirty days from
today, 8/20/03 you have failed to comply with these demands I will file a
lawsuit for libel against you in the California Superior Court. a copy of the
complaint is enclosed in this letter. Should you comply with these demands no
lawsuit will be filed on this matter. Should you comply with these demands and
then libel me again in the future, a new lawsuit will be filed for all
incidents of libel by you against me.
Scott Wheeler.
Arny Krueger
news:20030820184044...@mb-m10.aol.com
> Mr. Krueger,
>
> On August 8 2003 at 22:13:11 PST in the following post,Message 62 in
> thread From: Arny Krueger (ar...@hotpop.com) Subject: Re: People that
> have or do listen to both Vinyl and Cd: Basic survey/poll,on the
> Usenet Rec. Audio Opinion forum you falsely accused me of being a
> pedophile. your accusation was a willful lie intended to damage my
> reputation.
Whose reputation? Sockpuppet "Wheel" You've been identifying yourself
publicly as an anonymous AOL screeen ID that you made up.
Why don't you go back to misc.legal and ask the eggsperts there whether a
lawsuit can be filed by a anonymous AOL screen name that you made up?
LOL!
Arny Krueger
> If in thirty days
> from today, 8/20/03 you have failed to comply with these demands I
> will file a lawsuit for libel against you in the California Superior
> Court. a copy of the complaint is enclosed in this letter.
Sokpuppet "Wheel", your filing is illegal. You have to file against me in a
court where I live or do business. Since I neither live nor do business in
California, your filing is illegal .
BTW, here's the fee structure for filing in California superior court:
http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org/fees/pdf/fee-schedule.pdf
The thought of you paying $269.50 + other fees to file an obviously illegal
case really does make my day!
Oh and BTW have a nice day.
Marc Phillips
>> If in thirty days
>> from today, 8/20/03 you have failed to comply with these demands I
>> will file a lawsuit for libel against you in the California Superior
>> Court. a copy of the complaint is enclosed in this letter.
>
>Sokpuppet "Wheel", your filing is illegal. You have to file against me in a
>court where I live or do business. Since I neither live nor do business in
>California, your filing is illegal .
>
>BTW, here's the fee structure for filing in California superior court:
>
>http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org/fees/pdf/fee-schedule.pdf
>
>The thought of you paying $269.50 + other fees to file an obviously illegal
>case really does make my day!
>
>Oh and BTW have a nice day.
Scott, if you need me to file this for you during my upcoming trip to Detroit,
let me know.
Boon
S888Wheel
Nah. California courts have jurisdiction in this case. The message was
technically a nation wide post which is why I looked at Federal court but after
a bit of research I found out that the federal courts want libel cases to take
place in state courts. I read the message here in California so Caifornia
courts have jurisdiction. Similar cases of libel on the internet have gone the
same way. But thanks.
Phil
"Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:6XCdneErIrv...@comcast.com...
Actually it is untrue that he has to file in the state of the accused, in
this case Michigan. He can file in the state in which the damage happens,
i.e. California. But, libel is very hard to prove. Not only do you have to
show that someone said something that is untrue and malicious but you also
have to prove damages. This isn't easy. the courts have allowed great
latitude in freedom of speech.
It is unlikely under California law that S888wheel can make a good enough
case that the court will grant services of papers of Arny to be tried on
libel.
The case is not illegal but it is most likely unviable.
Phil
S888Wheel
>> Mr. Krueger,
>>
>> On August 8 2003 at 22:13:11 PST in the following post,Message 62 in
>> thread From: Arny Krueger (ar...@hotpop.com) Subject: Re: People that
>> have or do listen to both Vinyl and Cd: Basic survey/poll,on the
>> Usenet Rec. Audio Opinion
>forum you falsely accused me of being a
>> pedophile. your accusation was a willful lie intended to damage my
>> reputation.
Arny said
>
>Whose reputation?
Asked and answered.
Arny said
>Sockpuppet "Wheel"
Personal attack noted.
Arny said
>You've been identifying yourself
>publicly as an anonymous AOL screeen ID that you made up.
>
I have been identifying myself by my e mail address. I have already explained
the law to you Arny. If you don't believe me get a legal opinion from some one
who knows the laws of libel.
Arny said
>
>Why don't you go back to misc.legal and ask the eggsperts there whether a
>lawsuit can be filed by a anonymous AOL screen name that you made up?
>
I think you are the one in need of advise Arny. Maybe you should ask them if
someone can be identified by their e mail address in a case of libel. You won't
like the answer though.
S888Wheel
>
>> If in thirty days
>> from today, 8/20/03 you have failed to comply with these demands I
>> will file a lawsuit for libel against you in the California Superior
>> Court. a copy of the complaint is enclosed in this letter.
>
Arny said
>
>Sokpuppet "Wheel",
Perssonal attack noted. All this time you have been obssessed with my real
name, now you have it and you don't use it. You are just making your task
harder to do.
Arny said
> your filing is illegal. You have to file against me in a
>court where I live or do business. Since I neither live nor do business in
>California, your filing is illegal .
Nope. Even if it is the wrong court it isn't illegal. But it isn't the wrong
court, the libel took place in California amoung other places via the internet.
Arny said
>
>BTW, here's the fee structure for filing in California superior court:
>
>http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org/fees/pdf/fee-schedule.pdf
>
>
>The thought of you paying $269.50 + other fees to file an obviously illegal
>case really does make my day!
If you let it get that far that will be 269.50 out of your pocket amoung other
expenses.
Arny said
>
>Oh and BTW have a nice day.
>
Thank you.
S888Wheel
> But, libel is very hard to prove.
Generally speaking yes.
> Not only do you have to
>show that someone said something that is untrue and malicious but you also
>have to prove damages.
Not in the case of libel that is "defamatory of the plantiff without the
necessity of explanitory matter." In that case i am free to seek general
damages and punitive damages. Of course money was never an issue. What I want
was laid out in my letter.
Phil said
>This isn't easy. the courts have allowed great
>latitude in freedom of speech.
I think in this case it will be easy to prove that Ary's accusation was both a
lie and malicious with intent to hurt my reputation. There is nothing subtle
about it and Arny's history on RAO wil IMO do the trick in proving malice and
intent to hut my reputation.
Phil said
>It is unlikely under California law that S888wheel can make a good enough
>case that the court will grant services of papers of Arny to be tried on
>libel.
We will see. So it seems.
Phil said
>
>The case is not illegal but it is most likely unviable.
How specifically would it be unviable?
Marc Phillips
The basis of your suit doesn't necessarily need to be about a damaged
reputation. Everyone seems to be focusing on this, especially Arny, who seems
to think that because you do not attach your real name to every post, you do
not have a case.
Quite simply, you can sue on the basis that what Arny said is hurtful to you,
or shocking, or upsetting, or humiliating. Arny called you a pedophile on a
public forum, and for many people this can be quite traumatizing. I have to
assume that because you have taken this as far as you have, you must have
experienced this. THAT, in and of itself, is the basis for damages.
Boon
Arny Krueger
> Arny said
>
>>
>> Why don't you go back to misc.legal and ask the eggsperts there
>> whether a lawsuit can be filed by a anonymous AOL screen name that
>> you made up?
> I think you are the one in need of advise Arny.
IOW you are afraid to ask the question because you fear that you won't like
the answer.
> Maybe you should ask
> them if someone can be identified by their e mail address in a case
> of libel. You won't like the answer though.
Asked and answered. On a really bad day you win $1 in a California court
that has zero jurisdiction in Michigan.
Arny Krueger
Arny Krueger
> Arny said
>
>> You've been identifying yourself
>> publicly as an anonymous AOL screeen ID that you made up.
>>
>
> I have been identifying myself by my e mail address.
So what? It's something that you made up. It's totally anonymous.
Hey, waste your money!
Arny Krueger
news:EiW0b.161071$Oz4.43602@rwcrnsc54
> Actually it is untrue that he has to file in the state of the
> accused, in this case Michigan. He can file in the state in which the
> damage happens, i.e. California.
Wrong. If that were true everybody would be filing in Fairbanks, Alaska, to
make it as hard as possible for the defendent to defend himself.
> But, libel is very hard to prove.
Especially libel of an anonymous screen name!
LOL!
> Not only do you have to show that someone said something that is
> untrue and malicious but you also have to prove damages.
Damage to the reputation of an anonymous screen name? LOL!
> This isn't easy. the courts have allowed great latitude in freedom of
speech.
> It is unlikely under California law that S888wheel can make a good
> enough case that the court will grant services of papers of Arny to
> be tried on libel.
Now there you've got things right.
> The case is not illegal but it is most likely unviable.
The essence of what I meant.
Arny Krueger
>
> If you let it get that far that will be 269.50 out of your pocket
> amoung other expenses.
And you will collect it how?
Leon North
supreme stupidity:
Turdy, judgments in California state's courts can be collected in
Michigan. This is not a criminal action. It is a civil action. An
asset search is done, a collection enforcement business is retained
and your assets go bye-bye. Just that simple. The process is so
refined that even rental deposits can be seized. You are about to be
another statistic known as 'suicide by ignorance and stupidity'.
Clubbing baby seals is more difficult to accomplish than what Scott is
about to do to you. Oh, BTW, the clerk doesn't decide if the case has
merit. That kroolegal thing is going to hurt you. Have you figured
out who Wheeler is yet? It is going to be entertaining watching you
eat it on this. You should reconsider posting an apology and
retraction. Check my sigfile. Tick-tock-tick-tock...
You remain suicidally* stupid.
I remain,
The Shadow
* variety
--
"There is no person who has not worked more frequently, honestly and
sincerely than I to mediate misunderstandings." - A. Dimbulb Krooger
demonstrating bad faith in its most concentrated form. Note the
double negative!
Arny Krueger
news:3F44BC73...@hotmail.com
>"Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote in message
>news:DsydnXq56rd...@comcast.com
>> "S888Wheel" <s888...@aol.com> wrote in message
>> news:20030820224808...@mb-m25.aol.com
>>> If you let it get that far that will be 269.50 out of your pocket
>>> amoung other expenses.
>> And you will collect it how?
> Turdy, judgments in California state's courts can be collected in
> Michigan.
By what legal means?
>This is not a criminal action. It is a civil action.
You're quite the brain trust, sockpuppet North. You actually figured this
out by yourself?
LOL!
> An asset search is done, a collection enforcement business is retained
> and your assets go bye-bye.
By what legal means?
> Just that simple. The process is so
> refined that even rental deposits can be seized. You are about to be
> another statistic known as 'suicide by ignorance and stupidity'.
Let's see sockpuppet North, you're now a legal expert? Last
misrepresentation you made like this related to your internet expertise, eh?
You said that you gave expert testimony in court based on your internet
expertise, right?
So where's that name and phone number of a prosecutor that has used your
services, sockpuppet North?
It's gone missing!
It never was?
LOL!
> Clubbing baby seals is more difficult to accomplish than what Scott is
> about to do to you.
LOL!
I seriouisly doubt that sockpuppet "Wheel" will be stupid enough to put up
the $269.50 plus possible additional fees for filing. Maybe he can beg
Atkinson for the money to file against me since Atkinson is too smart to
engage in this kind of futility under his own name. No matter what,
defamation of made-up anonymous alias is quite the laughing matter.
> Oh, BTW, the clerk doesn't decide if the case has
> merit. That kroolegal thing is going to hurt you. Have you figured
> out who Wheeler is yet?
No, sockpuppet North, who is Wheeler? Is he a sockpuppet like you? HOw many
of levels of sockpuppets do you hide behind?
> It is going to be entertaining watching you
> eat it on this. You should reconsider posting an apology and
> retraction.
You should consider standing behind your previous lies before you make up
new ones, sockpuppet "North".
Where's that name and phone number of a prosecutor that has used your
services, sockpuppet North? I'd like to talk to that person and tell him
about the quality of your *work*!
Leon North
> "Leon North" <leon_n...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:3F44BC73...@hotmail.com
>
> > Clubbing baby seals is more difficult to accomplish than what Scott is
> > about to do to you.
>
> LOL!
>
> I seriouisly doubt that sockpuppet "Wheel" will be stupid enough to put up
> the $269.50 plus possible additional fees for filing.
Not everybody is as financially challenged as you are, Turdy. And some, gasp,
feel that they're reputation is priceless (unlike your obvious self). $269.50
must be an intimidating sum for you. Gosh, you could almost buy a real MP3
player for that and get lots of revenge by living well. Bwahahahahahahaha
> > Oh, BTW, the clerk doesn't decide if the case has
> > merit. That kroolegal thing is going to hurt you. Have you figured
> > out who Wheeler is yet?
>
> No, sockpuppet North, who is Wheeler?
I have a feeling that you are about to find out. Good luck and bear in mind
that I delight in saying, "I told you so". This is fun because I would garner
even greater delight in watching you eat crow and post a retraction. Either
way, you lose. Again.
> Where's that name and phone number of a prosecutor that has used your
> services, sockpuppet North? I'd like to talk to that person and tell him
> about the quality of your *work*!
Thanks, but I don't need a reference. The last one for whom I worked is a
+she+ and +she+ is satisfied that the prosecution prevailed.
You remain astoundingly* stupid.
I remain,
The Shadow
* variety
--
"For every logical sane thing you say, Arnie will come back with at least one,
and usually two or three stark-raving tangential, illogical, insane
responses." mmg - psych
Arny Krueger
>> Where's that name and phone number of a prosecutor that has used your
>> services, sockpuppet North? I'd like to talk to that person and tell
>> him about the quality of your *work*!
> Thanks, but I don't need a reference. The last one for whom I worked
> is a +she+ and +she+ is satisfied that the prosecution prevailed.
So you're a no-show again, eh sockpuppet "North".
S888Wheel
> Arny said
>
>>
>> Why don't you go back to misc.legal and ask the eggsperts there
>> whether a lawsuit can be filed by a anonymous AOL screen name that
>> you made up? >>
I said
<<
> I think you are the one in need of advise Arny.
>>
Arny said
<<
IOW you are afraid to ask the question because you fear that you won't like
the answer.
>>
No Arny. IOW I've done my homework on the subject already. Obviously you have
not.
I said
<<
> Maybe you should ask
> them if someone can be identified by their e mail address in a case
> of libel. You won't like the answer though.
>>
Arny said
<<
Asked and answered. On a really bad day you win $1 in a California court
that has zero jurisdiction in Michigan.
>>
You really do need council.
Powell
"S888Wheel" wrote
> Mr. Krueger,
>
> On August 8 2003 at 22:13:11 PST in the following post,
> Message 62 in thread From: Arny Krueger...
> (ar...@hotpop.com) Subject: Re: People that have or
> do listen to both Vinyl and Cd: Basic survey/poll,on the
> Usenet Rec. Audio Opinion forum you falsely accused
> me of being a pedophile. your accusation was a willful lie
> intended to damage my reputation. By law this makes
> your post libelous.
>
"Makes your post libelous" Can we say, ‘No
cause for action’... that’s the reality.
> I am demanding that you post a response to this libelous
> post to retract it, admit that the post was libelous and
> apologize for it.
>
You’re giving notice via USEnet... you’re wasting
your time.
> I also demand that you do the same for every libelous
> and contentious post you have made regarding me
> since the post in question was made. If in thirty days
> from today, 8/20/03 you have failed to comply with
> these demands I will file a lawsuit for libel against you
> in the California Superior Court.
>
You can file, maybe, but your action will never get
in front of a judge, IMO. Please seen the council
of a competent attorney. I think you will find that
Arny’s inappropriate behavior will not meet the
legal standards for liable.
> Should you comply with these demands and
> then libel me again in the future, a new lawsuit
> will be filed for all incidents of libel by you
> against me.
>
You need to do what is right for you, Scott. If you
desire to get Arny off your back you might
consider hiring a Michigan attorney to look into
actions which will force Arny to spend money
on legal defense (Arny has no money). If Arny is
posting to USEnet on his employer’s dime you
may be able to exploit that vulnerability (actions
against employer) as well.
Anon E Mouse
Scott Wheeler is a pedophile.
--
Anon E. Mouse
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: N/A
fTgf9HjDLIA7qtYgCffXYtovXuy9ACFkhtxVBiQEVAwUBP0TZJUz45ivkds9xAQF
ScT3Xz9EVM5JioLzDEct/hmt8xaXcUveW+z9Buel03yzZ+DX6cjGCSt3KsKWV96D
zNvaw9MnJM/286vl1BMaPf/11htGOoseBkFuJIi/us8qaZfTTa5y9t5BHKlj6lys
04WHyoGHPnRpRvwbZKBukYHsg2WpnPcvv95UUjP24FsBu/8Xw2vP6gds6uw/gu/p
TJ2YZSpsx/Bx0bMDGsQpndIs8e5VatBJCmICuinSVWnZQEJn2YFA057yql/7BEK4
djtLAUpCzwcOvIkLYbq6Ki7cujtT+ebMjXJ7LRiyciK6WMl==
=6Mdy
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
S888Wheel
Anybody have the real name and address of Mr. Mouse?
Marc Phillips
>Anybody have the real name and address of Mr. Mouse?
His real name is Sebastien McIntyre. Can't help with you with the address, but
I've heard he's Canadian, so that may be an obstacle.
Boon
Sockpuppet Yustabe
"Marc Phillips" <boon...@aol.comm> wrote in message
It's only an obstacle for Sebastien.
----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
tor b
>Date: 8/21/2003 4:51 PM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: <20030821175137...@mb-m24.aol.com>
to serve Donald and Goofy, too. ;-)
Or is Goofy your attorney?
tor b
S888Wheel
>His real name is Sebastien McIntyre. Can't help with you with the address,
>but
>I've heard he's Canadian, so that may be an obstacle.
>
>Boon
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Thanks again. It is an obstacle save for the fact that I may be working a great
deal in Canada over the next year and a half if things fall into place.
George M. Middius
> >His real name is Sebastien McIntyre. Can't help with you with the address,
> >but I've heard he's Canadian, so that may be an obstacle.
> Thanks again. It is an obstacle save for the fact that I may be working a great
> deal in Canada over the next year and a half if things fall into place.
Rumor has it the little rat bastard has scurried over to the
continent, probably Germany.
McEowen
hundreds of dollars for interconnects . . .
dave weil
I think that recently he claimed to be living in Hamburg. A suitably
grey and humorless place for him.
Arny Krueger
news:20030821233307...@mb-m23.aol.com
> After reading all this nonsense I think I now understand why people
> pay hundreds of dollars for interconnects . . .
...lack of something worthwhile to do. Ironic, given that there's all that
music to listen to and enjoy.
Phil
> "Phil" <ph...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:EiW0b.161071$Oz4.43602@rwcrnsc54
>
> > Actually it is untrue that he has to file in the state of the
> > accused, in this case Michigan. He can file in the state in which the
> > damage happens, i.e. California.
>
> Wrong. If that were true everybody would be filing in Fairbanks, Alaska,
to
> make it as hard as possible for the defendent to defend himself.
Arny, you are wrong. If S888wheel resides in Calif. and the damage of the
message happens in Calif. then the suit can be brought in California. To be
sure of this I asked a judge of the Calif. superior court about this issue
and my understanding is correct.
Realize, the important issue as to venue, is, where the harm or damages take
place. If they happen in Calif. then the suit can be filed in Calif.
>
> > But, libel is very hard to prove.
>
> Especially libel of an anonymous screen name!
>
> LOL!
>
> > Not only do you have to show that someone said something that is
> > untrue and malicious but you also have to prove damages.
>
> Damage to the reputation of an anonymous screen name? LOL!
>
> > This isn't easy. the courts have allowed great latitude in freedom of
> speech.
>
> > It is unlikely under California law that S888wheel can make a good
> > enough case that the court will grant services of papers of Arny to
> > be tried on libel.
>
> Now there you've got things right.
I had things right all along. I am careful and check my comments and facts.
Realize, if S888wheel can show damages, regardless of the anonymous screen
name, a suit can take place. Note, the important issue is damages. For there
to be damages by the Arny's remarks then his screen name can not truly
anonymous. The question is, not the anonymous screen name, but is there any
damages. I know S888wheel claims that damages are not require but I've check
with a judge and other sources and this is not true, as far as I can find,
in California law.
>
> > The case is not illegal but it is most likely unviable.
>
> The essence of what I meant.
>
No, that isn't true. What you said was that S888wheel's, "your filing is
illegal." This is not true. It is not illegal, but it will be difficult to
prove, if not impossible, under Calif. law.
Phil
Arny Krueger
>> "Phil" <ph...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:EiW0b.161071$Oz4.43602@rwcrnsc54
>>> Actually it is untrue that he has to file in the state of the
>>> accused, in this case Michigan. He can file in the state in which
>>> the damage happens, i.e. California.
>> Wrong. If that were true everybody would be filing in Fairbanks, Alaska,
to
>> make it as hard as possible for the defendent to defend himself.
> Arny, you are wrong.
You've said that many times Phil, usually coming out against the laws of
physics and math. Now you're coming out against the legal law. It follows
in a perverted sort of way, doesn't it?
>If S888wheel resides in Calif. and the damage of
> the message happens in Calif. then the suit can be brought in
> California. To be sure of this I asked a judge of the Calif. superior
> court about this issue and my understanding is correct.
Wrong. Since Sockpuppet Wheel's alias was not tied to a state, he could as
easily make the same claim in Alaska.
> Realize, the important issue as to venue, is, where the harm or
> damages take place. If they happen in Calif. then the suit can be
> filed in Calif.
But at the time of the purported damages sockpuppet "Wheel" was (and still
is) an anonymous screen name, associated in the minds of the puplic with no
real person and no real location.
>>> But, libel is very hard to prove.
>> Especially libel of an anonymous screen name!
>> LOL!
>>> Not only do you have to show that someone said something that is
>>> untrue and malicious but you also have to prove damages.
>> Damage to the reputation of an anonymous screen name? LOL!
>>
>>> This isn't easy. the courts have allowed great latitude in freedom
>>> of speech.
>>
>>> It is unlikely under California law that S888wheel can make a good
>>> enough case that the court will grant services of papers of Arny to
>>> be tried on libel.
>>
>> Now there you've got things right.
> I had things right all along. I am careful and check my comments and
> facts.
Yeah, sure. I've proven you wrong so many times Phil, I'm surprised you even
bother to show your face here. You basically pander to the Middius/Phillips
clique but regrettably, you're no smarter than they are.
> Realize, if S888wheel can show damages, regardless of the
> anonymous screen name, a suit can take place.
You've never had an ounce of common sense, have you Phil? Actual damages to
an anonmous screen name that someone made up one night and used to keep his
true ID a secret?
>Note, the important
> issue is damages. For there to be damages by the Arny's remarks then
> his screen name can not truly anonymous.
It's takes more than that. He has to prove that there was something that
could be damaged and that there were actual damages.
>The question is, not the anonymous screen name, but is there any damages.
You're about as bad at the law as you are at verb-subject agreement, Phil.
>I know S888wheel
> claims that damages are not require but I've check with a judge and
> other sources and this is not true, as far as I can find, in
> California law.
>>> The case is not illegal but it is most likely unviable.
>>
>> The essence of what I meant.
> No, that isn't true.
Besides being unable to come up with proper verb forms, you also read minds,
Phil?
LOL!
> What you said was that S888wheel's, "your filing
> is illegal." This is not true. It is not illegal, but it will be
> difficult to prove, if not impossible, under Calif. law.
At this point the discussion is what I meant, not what I said. Any fool
could determine that, but Phil, you're not any fool, but a very special one.
S888Wheel
>
>I had things right all along. I am careful and check my comments and facts.
>Realize, if S888wheel can show damages, regardless of the anonymous screen
>name, a suit can take place. Note, the important issue is damages. For there
>to be damages by the Arny's remarks then his screen name can not truly
>anonymous. The question is, not the anonymous screen name, but is there any
>damages. I know S888wheel claims that damages are not require but I've check
>with a judge and other sources and this is not true, as far as I can find,
>in California law.
>
Check California civil code 45a. Then check California forms of pleadings and
practice, Mathew Bender Volume 30 page 30.6 regarding general damages in
regards to libel that meets the criteria in civil code 45a.
Arny Krueger
Irrelevant since they don't discuss libel of anonymous aliases.
Phil
OK, admittedly in the form for the pleading to get on record. In effect to
get the judge to listen to the to your case you do not need to list damages.
However, you will need to show that damages took place to get a writ against
Kruegar. The form is just to get on the calendar ,but once there is a
hearing, the damages must be shown. If you can not show damages the court
will reject the case and your lawyer should tell you so.
Phil
S888Wheel
>OK, admittedly in the form for the pleading to get on record. In effect to
>get the judge to listen to the to your case you do not need to list damages.
>However, you will need to show that damages took place to get a writ against
>Kruegar. The form is just to get on the calendar ,but once there is a
>hearing, the damages must be shown. If you can not show damages the court
>will reject the case and your lawyer should tell you so.
>
>Phil
>
>
>
>
>
>
O.K. take a look at 30.7
Arny Krueger
Irrelevant since it doesn't discuss libel of anonymous aliases.
S888Wheel
>>> OK, admittedly in the form for the pleading to get on record. In
>>> effect to get the judge to listen to the to your case you do not
>>> need to list damages. However, you will need to show that damages
>>> took place to get a writ against Kruegar. The form is just to get on
>>> the calendar ,but once there is a hearing, the damages must be
>>> shown. If you can not show damages the court will reject the case
>>> and your lawyer should tell you so.
>>>
>>> Phil
I said
>
>> O.K. take a look at 30.7
Arny said
>
>Irrelevant since it doesn't discuss libel of anonymous aliases.
>
Your point is irrelevant since that section does not discuss the identity of
the plaintiff one way or another. If you are really so ignorant of the laws on
this matter and the pleadings and practices then check out the following,
California Forms of pleading and practice volume 30 page 12; libel defined,
page 17and 18; Pleading requirements-publication,Colloquium, page 51,
coloquium, page 65; E. Essential Allegations of Complaint #4. There is more but
that should make things quite clear. If you let this get so far that I file a
lawsuit and your answer is based on this bizarre misunderstanding you have of
the law, don't expect the courts to be forgiving of your gross error,
especially when you have been told so. That is all the legal help you will get
from me from now on. I can lead you to the facts but I can't make you
understand them or believe them. I have tried to make this as easy as possible
for you to do the right thing. IMO it has been more than you deserve.
As for what Phil said either he and I have very different interpretations of
general damages as described on page 30.6 or he hasn't had the chance to read
up on it. So far it seems he thinks one needs to prove special damages in a
libel case. It is clear according to civil code 45a that I do not. as it
happens on 30.7 under Nominal damages, even if a judge feels I have not been
actually damaged so long as the libel meets the criteria of civil code 45a the
plantiff still can win the case and be given damages. It has never been about
money for me anyways. It has been about protecting my reputation. I have that
right under civil code 43.
Arny Krueger
> Phil said
>
> >>> OK, admittedly in the form for the pleading to get on record. In
> >>> effect to get the judge to listen to the to your case you do not
> >>> need to list damages. However, you will need to show that damages
> >>> took place to get a writ against Kruegar. The form is just to get on
> >>> the calendar ,but once there is a hearing, the damages must be
> >>> shown. If you can not show damages the court will reject the case
> >>> and your lawyer should tell you so.
> >>>
> >>> Phil
>
> I said
>
> >
> >> O.K. take a look at 30.7
>
> Arny said
>
> >
> >Irrelevant since it doesn't discuss libel of anonymous aliases.
> >
>
> Your point is irrelevant since that section does not discuss the identity
of
> the plaintiff one way or another.
In fact it presumes that the plaintiff has a legal identity, which this one
does not.
Phil
Phil
Phil
Fundamental to the idea of libel is, that to be libel the individual must be
injured in some way. This injury I called a damage. This was a bit
unfortunate, since the penalty to be paid to the victim is also called
damages, which is where the problem may lie. If S888wheel can claim injury
and prove it, then his case will be heard.
Now to Arny's claim of, "irrelevant since it doesn't discuss libel of
anonymous aliases." This is a defense of the claim of libel, not that the
case can not be heard by the court, the original contention.
Phil
Phil
> "Phil" <ph...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:35x1b.172005$cF.59468@rwcrnsc53
> > "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote in message
> > news:g0OdnUO3X8j...@comcast.com...
>
> >> "Phil" <ph...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> >> news:EiW0b.161071$Oz4.43602@rwcrnsc54
>
> >>> Actually it is untrue that he has to file in the state of the
> >>> accused, in this case Michigan. He can file in the state in which
> >>> the damage happens, i.e. California.
>
> >> Wrong. If that were true everybody would be filing in Fairbanks,
Alaska,
> to
> >> make it as hard as possible for the defendent to defend himself.
>
> > Arny, you are wrong.
>
> You've said that many times Phil, usually coming out against the laws of
> physics and math. Now you're coming out against the legal law. It follows
> in a perverted sort of way, doesn't it?
That you have to insult someone based only on your opinion is of coarse
typical of your limited intellectual capability and is hardily surprising to
anyone who seen your actions before. If you have an argument, make it, don't
claim it, as above, it is childish and foolish.
>
> >If S888wheel resides in Calif. and the damage of
> > the message happens in Calif. then the suit can be brought in
> > California. To be sure of this I asked a judge of the Calif. superior
> > court about this issue and my understanding is correct.
>
> Wrong. Since Sockpuppet Wheel's alias was not tied to a state, he could as
> easily make the same claim in Alaska.
The injury ties the action to a state. S888wheel only has to show that he
was injured by your statement in the state of California for the state to
have jurisdiction. Now the meaning of the word "injury" is part of your
problem of understanding. In this context "injury" must be something real.
It can not be hurt feelings, an example of injury, lost business, reputation
but all of these factors must be provable with physical or documentary
evidence.
Now, he doesn't have to prove it until the trial, thus your Sockpuppet claim
will work as defense not a proof that he can not get a writ for a trial on
libel, which is the original contention.
>
> > Realize, the important issue as to venue, is, where the harm or
> > damages take place. If they happen in Calif. then the suit can be
> > filed in Calif.
>
> But at the time of the purported damages sockpuppet "Wheel" was (and still
> is) an anonymous screen name, associated in the minds of the puplic with
no
> real person and no real location.
This is a defense to the issue of libel but it is immaterial to the my above
statement. The question of if Wheel's cause of libel is valid will be
decided at trial and it is at trial where this argument can be made.
>
> >>> But, libel is very hard to prove.
>
> >> Especially libel of an anonymous screen name!
>
> >> LOL!
>
> >>> Not only do you have to show that someone said something that is
> >>> untrue and malicious but you also have to prove damages.
>
> >> Damage to the reputation of an anonymous screen name? LOL!
> >>
> >>> This isn't easy. the courts have allowed great latitude in freedom
> >>> of speech.
> >>
> >>> It is unlikely under California law that S888wheel can make a good
> >>> enough case that the court will grant services of papers of Arny to
> >>> be tried on libel.
> >>
> >> Now there you've got things right.
>
> > I had things right all along. I am careful and check my comments and
> > facts.
>
> Yeah, sure. I've proven you wrong so many times Phil, I'm surprised you
even
> bother to show your face here. You basically pander to the
Middius/Phillips
> clique but regrettably, you're no smarter than they are.
>
Actually Arny I can't think of a time you've proven me wrong. You know why?
Because you don't know how to prove anything. Your method is simple. You
state an opinion as fact then you state a conclusion, there is no inference
that leads from "facts" to conclusion. This isn't proof, it is sophistry.
To make this a bit more clear let's take an example. If you look at the
beginning of this post I give a reason why the case can be brought in Calif.
based on, it is there where the injury happens. Arny replies, "Wrong. If
that were true everybody would be filing in Fairbanks, Alaska." Note, that
I set a criteria for filing venue, that the injury must take place in the
state of venue. Note, in Arny's argument he doesn't show how Wheel could be
injured in a state he isn't presently in. The statement is a conclusion
without the backup inference, sophistry once again.
You can this form of sophistry all through this post. That is just one
example.
> > Realize, if S888wheel can show damages, regardless of the
> > anonymous screen name, a suit can take place.
>
> You've never had an ounce of common sense, have you Phil? Actual damages
to
> an anonmous screen name that someone made up one night and used to keep
his
> true ID a secret?
To speak a second about common sense, if he can show injury then the
anonymous screen name can't be truly anonymous. If he can't show injury,
then the screen name is truly anonymous. Do you get the idea yet. If he can
prove injury caused by the post then the post is not anonymous. Simple
common sense, is it not?
>
> >Note, the important
> > issue is damages. For there to be damages by the Arny's remarks then
> > his screen name can not truly anonymous.
>
> It's takes more than that. He has to prove that there was something that
> could be damaged and that there were actual damages.
Damages in law have a different meaning than I'm using it here, so I'll use
the more correct term, injury. Now, if Wheel shows injury, the term means
actual injury. That means injury to his person, either of reputation or
monetarily. The term, as used, means that he must show that your posting
caused harm to him directly.
>
> >The question is, not the anonymous screen name, but is there any
damages.
>
> You're about as bad at the law as you are at verb-subject agreement, Phil.
Well, let's see. It is common to consider "damages" as a singular thing. In
many cases before this century "damages was always consider singular. But
admittedly it has been common practice now a days to treat it as a plural,
Blackwood uses both. So Arny, you're right and wrong. But then again you
don't know enough about the law to know that little fact do you Arny?
>
> >I know S888wheel
> > claims that damages are not require but I've check with a judge and
> > other sources and this is not true, as far as I can find, in
> > California law.
>
>
> >>> The case is not illegal but it is most likely unviable.
> >>
> >> The essence of what I meant.
>
> > No, that isn't true.
>
> Besides being unable to come up with proper verb forms, you also read
minds,
> Phil?
>
> LOL!
I'm sorry, I thought you meant what you said. When you used the word
"illegal", I thought you meant "illegal." There is little "essence" one can
find in such a definitive statement. But, as always, reading of minds is,
the requirement to get the true "essence" of any of your statements, since
the meaning apparently is not in the verbiage.
I must admit, this argument is most convenient. You are never wrong, it just
that one hasn't got the true "essence" of what you've written. Truly
amazing, not everyone can write in such a conveniently morphable manner.
>
> > What you said was that S888wheel's, "your filing
> > is illegal." This is not true. It is not illegal, but it will be
> > difficult to prove, if not impossible, under Calif. law.
>
> At this point the discussion is what I meant, not what I said. Any fool
> could determine that, but Phil, you're not any fool, but a very special
one.
Actually Arny, the above statement is a good example why people hate your
guts. Here, you've made an error. You made a statement that wasn't what you
meant. Now, you could have said, the statement isn't what I meant then
corrected it, but you didn't. What you did, was claim that the statement had
an obvious different meaning, an "essence," that was obviously implied and
you are not at fault. It is everyone else fault for not seeing the obvious
"essence." You couldn't admit, that you made an mistake and now, you had to
cover it up by insulting me. Now, you are doing it again. Instead of
handling this with a bit a grace, you attack again and again like nasty
little child. It is stupid and foolish and is why people dislike, even hate
you.
I know, you want to set yourself up as a martyr, but the cross you bear is
of your own construction.
Phil
Anon E Mouse
Call Sarah.
--
Anon E. Mouse
George M. Middius
Girth said:
> >LOL!
>
> Arnold has been saying "LOL" a lot, lately. It's nervous laughter,
> clearly - but why he would volunteer to articulate that nervousness in
> his usenet posts is beyond me.
Maybe Turdy is so enthused about all his "debating trade" victories
that he can't keep his glee to himself.
George M. Middius
Girth said:
> *How will Krueger's family feel about him being found guilty of
> falsely accusing somebody of being a peadophile?
>
> *How will Krueger's family feel about the media interest, the
> repercussions this will have on acquaintances and neighbours?
They won't feel anything if Krooger finishes his master plan in time.
Bruce J. Richman
>"Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:
>
>>LOL!
>
>Arnold has been saying "LOL" a lot, lately. It's nervous laughter,
>clearly - but why he would volunteer to articulate that nervousness in
>his usenet posts is beyond me.
>
>
Part of his compulsive need to try and deceive the people that post here, no
doubt. What else would you expect from him?
Bruce J. Richman, Ph.D.
Licensed Psychoilogist
(signed this way for legal reasons in view of pending libel suit against
Krueger and possibility of many people testifying or being deposed in support
of it).
>--
>S i g n a l @ l i n e o n e . n e t
>
>
>
>
>
>
Bruce J. Richman
That's a reasonable hypthesis. Since he routinely tries, but fails, to deceive
people on RAO, his tendencies to engage in self-deception are not surprising.
Bruce J. Richman, Ph.D.
Licensed Psychologist
(signed this way because of pending libel suit against Krueger, and strong
possibility that many on RAO may supply evidence in support).
Bruce J. Richman
Probably before the baseball season is over.
Bruce J, Richman, Ph.D.
Licnsed Psychologist
(signed this way for legal reasons due to pending libel suit against Krueger).
Arny Krueger
news:0vkkkvkuin0547kjq...@4ax.com
> "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:
>>> Maybe you should ask
>>> them if someone can be identified by their e mail address in a case
>>> of libel. You won't like the answer though.
>> Asked and answered. On a really bad day you win $1 in a California
>> court that has zero jurisdiction in Michigan.
> In the UK a court judgement against somebody can lead to further
> adverse consequences, above and beyond the negative sociological
> effects*, especially if fines are not quickly paid.
You really don't understand the difference between civil and criminal
actions, do you Dormer?
> *How will Krueger's family feel about him being found guilty of
> falsely accusing somebody of being a peadophile?
At least as bad as Marc Phillips' family does. Difference being that Marc
Phillips falsely called a real person with a legal name and address a
pedophile, while I've only called an anonymous alias without a name and
address a pedophile.
> *How will Krueger's family feel about the media interest, the
> repercussions this will have on acquaintances and neighbours?
Media interest? LOL!
tor 2 u
Arny Krueger wrote in message <PZednc0DQ5z...@comcast.com>:
> "Girth" <sig...@lineone.net> wrote in message
> news:0vkkkvkuin0547kjq...@4ax.com
> > "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:
>
> >>> Maybe you should ask
> >>> them if someone can be identified by their e mail address in a case
> >>> of libel. You won't like the answer though.
>
> >> Asked and answered. On a really bad day you win $1 in a California
> >> court that has zero jurisdiction in Michigan.
>
> > In the UK a court judgement against somebody can lead to further
> > adverse consequences, above and beyond the negative sociological
> > effects*, especially if fines are not quickly paid.
>
> You really don't understand the difference between civil and criminal
> actions, do you Dormer?
>
> > *How will Krueger's family feel about him being found guilty of
> > falsely accusing somebody of being a peadophile?
>
> At least as bad as Marc Phillips' family does. Difference being that Marc
> Phillips falsely called a real person with a legal name and address a
> pedophile, while I've only called an anonymous alias without a name and
> address a pedophile.
>
Marc is just plain mean to you, Arny. How does he know if I said it's
OK? I know what pedophile means now. The nurse at the hospital told me.
You still didn't tell me why you didn't come to my birthday party.
Here's what I want for my next birthday:
http://www.rbookshop.com/cooking/s/Sausage/The_Great_Book_of_Sausages_0879516828.htm
Arny is My Kroo-Daddy
tor b
<snipped>
>
> That's a reasonable hypthesis.
>
> Licensed Psychologist
My pooch has a "license", was yours as easy to obtain?
S888Wheel
<<
>
> That's a reasonable hypthesis.
>
> Bruce J. Richman, Ph.D.
> Licensed Psychologist
>>
Torb said
<<
My pooch has a "license", was yours as easy to obtain?
>>
I guess you think it is witty to attack psychology and all psychologists just
to get in a cheap shot at one individual. I guess I shouldn't have been
surprised that you thought false accusations of pedophilia were funny too.
Bruce J. Richman
He's one of the few cretins, Scott, that defends Krueger and his despicable
behavior. His ignorance has been proven many times here.
As the compulsive liar and libeler, Krueger, has said, "One dirty hand washing
another".
Bruce J. Richman, Ph.D.
Licensed Psychologist
(signed this way because of pending libel suit against Krueger, in anticipation
of many others providing evidence in support of this legal action).
P.S. It's always gratifying to expose the stupidity of one of Krueger's idiotic
defenders. The moronic torresists is about as predictable as one of Pavlov's
dogs.
Arny Krueger
> Bruce said
>> That's a reasonable hypothesis.
>> Bruce J. Richman, Ph.D.
>> Licensed Psychologist
> Torb said
> My pooch has a "license", was yours as easy to obtain?
> I guess you think it is witty to attack psychology and all
> psychologists just to get in a cheap shot at one individual.
That didn't happen, sockpuppet Wheel. You're delusional.
Just like the sorry delusional person who sent me a purported legal notice,
anonymously. Know who I am talking about?
LOL!
> I guess I shouldn't have been surprised that you thought false
accusations of
> pedophilia were funny too.
You must live in a world of your own, sockpuppet "Wheel".
Anon E Mouse
On Mon, 25 Aug 2003, Girth wrote:
> boon...@aol.comm (Marc Phillips) wrote:
>
> >>Anybody have the real name and address of Mr. Mouse?
> >
> >His real name is Sebastien McIntyre. Can't help with you with the address, but
> >I've heard he's Canadian, so that may be an obstacle.
>
> Chris Johnson kept a dossier on McIntyre.
Ce "Chris Johnson"?
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=199808232015.WAA17533%40replay.com&output=gplain
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=199808232034.WAA19347%40replay.com&output=gplain
On dirait un genre de "redneck" à la défense de la démocratie.
Le mixmaster de Obscura a longtemps été le serveur de sortie de la Souris Folle.
Je vérifie avec elle si elle a un dossier sur "Chris Johnson". Permanent ou autre.
--
Anon E. Mouse
Anon E Mouse
On Mon, 25 Aug 2003, Bruce J. Richman wrote:
> George M. Middius wrote:
>
>
> >Girth said:
> >
> >> *How will Krueger's family feel about him being found guilty of
> >> falsely accusing somebody of being a peadophile?
> >>
> >> *How will Krueger's family feel about the media interest, the
> >> repercussions this will have on acquaintances and neighbours?
> >
> >They won't feel anything if Krooger finishes his master plan in time.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> Probably before the baseball season is over.
>
>
> Bruce J, Richman, Ph.D.
> Licensed Psychopath
>
> (signed this way for legal reasons due to pending libel suit against Krueger).
Êtes-vous un gradué de la même université que Ghindi? >8->
--
Anon E. Mouse
tor b
> Bruce said
>
> <<
> >
> > That's a reasonable hypthesis.
> >
> > Bruce J. Richman, Ph.D.
> > Licensed Psychologist
> >>
>
>
> Torb said
>
> <<
> My pooch has a "license", was yours as easy to obtain?
>
>
> >>
>
>
> I guess you think it is witty to attack psychology and all psychologists just
> to get in a cheap shot at one individual.
>
years and see if you think he really is a "licensed psychologist".
Would you take your mental health issues to a someone like Richman? If
he is "licensed" do you think his online behavior indicates his
"license" should be revoked?
No "attack [on]psychology and all psychologists" was intended. The
intention was to skewer the pompous, puffed-up Dr. Quackenbush.
>
>I guess I shouldn't have been
> surprised that you thought false accusations of pedophilia were funny too.
>
Funny thing, Scott, but I didn't see you objecting when Middius,
Phillips and others were making "false accusations of pedophilia"
against another RAO poster. Did I miss it?
Arny Krueger
news:e1607be3.03082...@posting.google.com
> s888...@aol.com (S888Wheel) wrote in message
> news:<20030825233633...@mb-m06.aol.com>...
>> Bruce said
>>
>> <<
>>>
>>>
>>> Bruce J. Richman, Ph.D.
>>> Licensed Psychologist
>> Torb said
>> My pooch has a "license", was yours as easy to obtain?
>> I guess you think it is witty to attack psychology and all
>> psychologists just to get in a cheap shot at one individual.
As usual sockpuppet Wheel has gone off the deep end without his swim wings
stuck firmly in place. If the comment in question was a cheap shot, it was a
cheap shot at all licensed professionals just not all psychologists. In many
cases, so-called professional licensing does not necessarily prove
competence. Remember that every disbarred lawyer and doctor whose license
was pulled was at the time of their infraction, a licensed professional.
> Scott, why don't you read through Richman's posts over the past few
> years and see if you think he really is a "licensed psychologist".
Let's also remember that the licensing requirements for being a psychologist
are pretty loose.
> Would you take your mental health issues to a someone like Richman?
I can imagine Richman *treating* patients with a whip and/or a rack. I
wouldn't send my dog to him unless I really disliked the dog.
> If he is "licensed" do you think his online behavior indicates his
> "license" should be revoked?
I think it would be cool if his management and supervision were fully aware
of Richman's online behavior. I suppose that if they were sufficiently bored
bureaucrats they would dismiss it all.
> No "attack [on] psychology and all psychologists" was intended.
Of course. This is just another straw man, and typical of sockpuppet Wheel's
hysterical online behavior, which has now extended to using the U.S. Mail
for what seem to be fraudulent purposes - namely he mailed me an anonymous
threat in the form of registered mail with no return address!.
> The intention was to skewer the pompous, puffed-up Dr. Quackenbush.
Exactly.
>> I guess I shouldn't have been>> surprised that you thought false
accusations of pedophilia were
>> funny too.
> Funny thing, Scott, but I didn't see you objecting when Middius,
> Phillips and others were making "false accusations of pedophilia"
> against another RAO poster. Did I miss it?
Well, that's the point of the whole shtick. What we see is the
Middius/Phillips sense of *humor* in action. An anonymous sockpuppet is
trying to raise sympathy over a purported accusation of pedophilia which
ironically only related to the behavior of Middius and Phillips. Meanwhile
Middius and Phillips hide behind their anonymity and make very serious and
direct accusations of pedophilia against a very real person.
You've got to remember that the essence of high end audio is basically a
mind game. Phillips and Middius are clearly very devoted to this aspect of
the high end.
Marc Phillips
"what did it feel like to grope me in my coffin, daddy?"
Funny, I don't see anything false about that.
Boon
Marc Phillips
>Meanwhile
>Middius and Phillips hide behind their anonymity
I never knew I was anonymous. The very fact that you call me by my real name
seems to contradict this claim. At least you spelled it right this time,
dumbass.
Boon
George M. Middius
Marc Phillips said to Shit-for-Brains:
> >Middius and Phillips hide behind their anonymity
>
> I never knew I was anonymous. The very fact that you call me by my real name
> seems to contradict this claim. At least you spelled it right this time,
> dumbass.
I suspect this post of Turdy's was simply to remind us that he's the
Dumbest Shit On Usenet for the eighth year running.
Arny Krueger
news:20030826084834...@mb-m13.aol.com
> Arny said:
>
>> Meanwhile
>> Middius and Phillips hide behind their anonymity
>
> I never knew I was anonymous.
Who is Marc Phillips? What street does he live on? What is his zip code?
What address does his house have?
> The very fact that you call me by my
> real name seems to contradict this claim.
How do I know that this is your real name, Phillips?
>At least you spelled it right this time, dumbass.
AFAIK, it's just a name someone made up, without a valid address for your
legal residence, Phillips.
If you don't post the address of your legal residence immediately Phillips,
you're proving that you are far bigger coward than I am.
Arny Krueger
> "what did it feel like to grope me in my coffin, daddy?"
> Funny, I don't see anything false about that.
All this time I thought this was just something that was made up by Marc
Phillps or one of his associates. You mean that one of you really did this,
Marc?
Yeccch!
S888Wheel
<<
> My pooch has a "license", was yours as easy to obtain?
i said
<<
> I guess you think it is witty to attack psychology and all
> psychologists just to get in a cheap shot at one individual. >>
Arny said
<<
That didn't happen, sockpuppet Wheel. You're delusional.
>>
Personal attack noted
Arny said
<<
Just like the sorry delusional person who sent me a purported legal notice,
anonymously. Know who I am talking about?
LOL! >>
No Arny, i have no idea who may have sent you a "legal notice anonymously." I
do know who sent you a signed letter of intent to sue via registered mail
though.
dave weil
wrote:
Post your social security number first, Mr. Krueger.
S888Wheel
Scott, why don't you read through Richman's posts over the past few
years and see if you think he really is a "licensed psychologist".
Would you take your mental health issues to a someone like Richman? If
he is "licensed" do you think his online behavior indicates his
"license" should be revoked?
>>
Life is too shorrt to go over years of fueding. i got an idea while posting on
RAO of the nature of the fueds on RAO. Yes I think he really is a "licenced
psychologist." I think he is as tired of Arny as the rest of us.
<<
>
Funny thing, Scott, but I didn't see you objecting when Middius,
Phillips and others were making "false accusations of pedophilia"
against another RAO poster. Did I miss it?
>>
Nor did you see me objecting when Arny does the same to them. I leave their
fights to themselves. You might note that i have never made jokes about
anything they say about each other in those regards.
Arny Krueger
>
> No Arny, i have no idea who may have sent you a "legal notice
anonymously." I
> do know who sent you a signed letter of intent to sue via registered mail
> though.
Whoever did that, they're obviously delusional and/or criminal. No return
address - legally speaking it's anonymous harassment.
Arny Krueger
> Nor did you see me objecting when Arny does the same to them. I leave
their
> fights to themselves. You might note that i have never made jokes about
> anything they say about each other in those regards.
Except making a joke and criminal of yourself scokpuppet "Wheel" by sending
me anonymous harassing mail.
dave weil
I see that you can't spell in French either...
<chuckle>
George M. Middius
dave weil said to Shit-for-Brains:
> >If you don't post the address of your legal residence immediately Phillips,
> >you're proving that you are far bigger coward than I am.
>
> Post your social security number first, Mr. Krueger.
And the number of the long-term disability policy that keeps the
mortgage company at bay, please.
Bruce J. Richman
>news:<20030825233633...@mb-m06.aol.com>...
>> Bruce said
>>
>> <<
>> >
>> > That's a reasonable hypthesis.
>> >
>> > Bruce J. Richman, Ph.D.
>> > Licensed Psychologist
>> >>
>>
>>
>> Torb said
>>
>> <<
>> My pooch has a "license", was yours as easy to obtain?
>>
>>
>> >>
>>
>>
>> I guess you think it is witty to attack psychology and all psychologists
>just
>> to get in a cheap shot at one individual.
>>
>Scott, why don't you read through Richman's posts over the past few
>years and see if you think he really is a "licensed psychologist".
>Would you take your mental health issues to a someone like Richman? If
>he is "licensed" do you think his online behavior indicates his
>"license" should be revoked?
>
Obviously, the cowardly Krueger apologist who hides behind an alias continues
to display his ignorance. This despicable moron knows nothing about my
credentials nor does he care. His sole intent is to lie through his teeth and
promote his delusional rantings on an RAO public who has long recognized his
lacdk of contact with reality.
Subhuman cretins like Torresists, being failures in life, have no identity
(see the alias he uses), and poor contact with reality. This imbecile's
responses are simply based on tremendous jealousy and realization that their
idiotic and delusioinal
nonsense can't be substantiated by any credible evidence. Like his role model
and hero, the compulsive liar, Krueger, this coward's credibility is zero.
Bruce J. Richman, Ph.D.
Licensed Psycholgoist
(signed this way because of a pending libel suit against Arny Krueger, in
antricipation of a possible need to provide supportive evidence).
Arny Krueger
"Bruce J. Richman" <bjri...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030826111057...@mb-m20.aol.com...
> (signed this way because of a pending libel suit against Arny Krueger, in
> anticipation of a possible need to provide supportive evidence).
Obviously Richman can't tell the difference between anonymous harassment by
US mail (a potentially criminal offense) and civil legal action. But given
his posting history on RAO that's hardly the extent of his ignorance.
Bruce J. Richman
>tor b" <torre...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:e1607be3.03082...@posting.google.com
>> s888...@aol.com (S888Wheel) wrote in message
>> news:<20030825233633...@mb-m06.aol.com>...
>>> Bruce said
>>>
>>> <<
>>>>
>>>> That's a reasonable hypothesis.
>>>>
>>>> Bruce J. Richman, Ph.D.
>>>> Licensed Psychologist
>
<Krueger's deliberate snippage of reasons for my signature written in my post
duly noted. Not surprising that he is trying to avoid mention of his pending
legal problems?
>>> Torb said
>
>>> My pooch has a "license", was yours as easy to obtain?
>
>>> I guess you think it is witty to attack psychology and all
>>> psychologists just to get in a cheap shot at one individual.
>
>As usual sockpuppet Wheel has gone off the deep end without his swim wings
>stuck firmly in place. If the comment in question was a cheap shot, it was a
>cheap shot at all licensed professionals just not all psychologists.
Yet another lie from Krueger. His apologist, Tor's, idiotic comment was
directed specifically at pswychologists. As usual, the compulsive liar Krueger
is simply trying to misrepresent what other people have said. He is well known
for this type of distortion on RAO and other newsgroups.
In many
>cases, so-called professional licensing does not necessarily prove
>competence. Remember that every disbarred lawyer and doctor whose license
>was pulled was at the time of their infraction, a licensed professional.
>
Unfortunately, for compulsive liar Krueger, who has long history of libeling
myself and many other people on RAO and other newsgroups, none of his stupid
and false statements above apply to me. Licensing requirements for most
legitimate professions, including psychology, require meeting certain
educational and experiential requirements, passing state and/or natioinal board
examinations, and, in the case of psychologists, also working under the direct
supervision of a licensed psychologist for a certain minimal period of time on
a postdoctoral basis before obtaining a license.
Krueger, who has a long, documented history of libeling people through his
outrageous lies and character defamation on RAO, has long been despised and
hated by most RAO posters because of his obvious inability to tell the truth
about others. Just look at the type fo people who support him - the few that
remain, that is. A delusional moron and coward hiding behind an alias named
Torresists - ROFLMAO!!!!!
Once again, Krueger simply displays his stupidity in trying, unsuccessfully to
justify his long history of libel and character defamation against legitimate
professionals who 2 things he has never had and never will have - (1)
leigitimate qualifications in a profession they practice, and (2) credibility.
>> Scott, why don't you read through Richman's posts over the past few
>> years and see if you think he really is a "licensed psychologist".
>
>Let's also remember that the licensing requirements for being a psychologist
>are pretty loose.
>
Prove it, liar! As usual, Krueger simply does not know what he is talking
about. As usual, he is trying, without any supportive evidence, to lie through
his teeth about the licensing requirements for psychologists. And as usual, he
insults the intelligence of all RAO readers by actually thinking that anybody
believes his latest series of lies. Of course, we understand that he is
motivated by jealousy and handicapped by his own delusions.
Not that it's necessary, given compulsive liar Krueger's obvious inability to
present any factual evidence to support his lies and libel, here is a brief
description of what's required in virtually every state to be licensed as a
psychologist:
(1) Possession of an earned Ph.D. or Psy.D. degree from an accredited doctoral
program that meets a number of criteria established by the American
Psychological Association, the main professional group representing
psychologists in the USA.
(2) Completion of a one-year, full-time internship in Clinical Psychology at an
approved cliincal facility, which may be a hospital with psychiatric
facilities, a rotation through various clinical settings (e.g. adult,
pediatric, forensic, etc.) in either public or private agencies, or other
equivalent facilities. This internship generally has to be completed and a
report submitted to the student's supervisors at his/her school before any
doctoral degree is awarded. During this internship year, the intern must be
supervised on a regular basis by licensed psychologists.
(3) Taking and passing a state licensing examination that includes both a
"National" section (in which factual knowledge required of all psychologists is
tested) and a "State" section in which specific state statutes dealing with
such issues as ethics, confidentiality requirements, involuntary committment
procedures and other state-specific issues are featured.
(4) The completion of at least one year of postdoctoral, supervised full-time
experience under the direct supervision of a licensed psychologist. (In some
states, this requirement may be completed prior to actually obtaining the
degree, but the requirement generally - and more specifically at the time of my
licensure - requries that this be done AFTER receiving the degree, but before
being licensed).
(5) The ability to be allowed to sit for examination by a state licensing
board.
That ability is determined by the applicant's being able to meet the above
eduational and experiential requirements.
After obtaining one's license, one must be able to document the regular
accumulation of a certain number of Continuing Education Units (CEU's) on an
annual or semiannual basis. This is usually done by either attendance at
professional workshops or seminars, or through approved home study courses. In
Florida, the state law requires that at least 40 CEU's be obtained and
documented every two years. In addition, several of these CEU's, again as
specified by state law, must be obtained in specific topic areas - ethics,
domestic violence, AIDS prevention, and risk managment (dealing with private
practice issues). The CEU's must be obtained through programs/courses approved
by either the state or national psychological association.
All of the above requirements are generally spelled out quite specifically in
various state statutes.
As far as my own personal credentials are concerned, this issue has been
sufficiently covered in the past. It is a matter of public redord and can be
found at the following URL:
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=Richman+and+University+of+Texas&start=10
&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=20030203225629.07619.00000418%40mb-mg.aol.com&rnum=15
The above evidence directly contradicts and once again exhibts for all to see -
Krueger's obvious ignorance, outrageous and compulsive lies, and once again,
willingness to libel others.
His history on RAO of being its most widely hated and despised poster is based
on his long history of libel, character defamation, and above all, compulsive
lying and attempts to defraud the public. His comments above, in support of a
delusional coward named Torresists, who hides behind an alias, are just more
evidence of that fact.
>> Would you take your mental health issues to a someone like Richman?
>
>I can imagine Richman *treating* patients with a whip and/or a rack. I
>wouldn't send my dog to him unless I really disliked the dog.
>
I'm glad to hear that. Given that Krueger has been shown to be mentally
disturbed, delusional, and incapable of telling the truth. It's much easier to
treat people with insight about their pathology. Regrettably, Krueger, who has
been shown to meet many of the diagnostic criteria for Paranoid Personality
Disorder, as well as several other conditions, has been in denial for a long
time. All efforts by others to confront him concerning his delusional claims
on RAO and elsewhere have been either attacked or ignored. This provides
strong evidence that he is indeed quite divorced from reality and is
periodically psychotic.
>> If he is "licensed" do you think his online behavior indicates his
>> "license" should be revoked?
>
>I think it would be cool if his management and supervision were fully aware
>of Richman's online behavior. I suppose that if they were sufficiently bored
>bureaucrats they would dismiss it all.
>
If Krueger cares to try and find the "management and supervision" that exists
only in his delusional and diseased mind, he will be laughed at and ridiculed
even more than is now the case. I suppose one should cut this delusional liar
and libeler some slack, given his stupidity and poor reality contacts, but in
his case, it's much easier to just expose his chronic lying and libeling of
others. Licensed psychologists, including myself, are recognized and both the
state and national level as "independent health provideers" and have various
documentation to prove it. Since Krueger cannot distinguish between reality
and paranoid delusions unique to him, his ignorance re. this matter is
understandable.
Krueger has been challenged in the past to print his libel in an American print
publication. He is now challenged to bring any complaints he wishes to any
licensing board he can find. In reality, he won't because he has nothing to
say. In reality, he has been shown, over a mroe than seven year history on RAO
and other newsgroups, to be a compulsive liar, vicious practitioner of
character defamation, purveyor of libel against numerous individuals, etc. As
such, nobody with even the remotest common sense takes anything he has to say
seriously. When we respond to him at all, it is simply to expose his many
despicable personal weaknesses. It is this exposure that motivates delusional
misfits like Krueger and his very small band of misguided apologists (like the
retarded coward hiding behind the alias of Torresists) to continue ther
unprovoked personal attacks against many of us.
>> No "attack [on] psychology and all psychologists" was intended.
>
>Of course. This is just another straw man, and typical of sockpuppet Wheel's
>hysterical online behavior, which has now extended to using the U.S. Mail
>for what seem to be fraudulent purposes - namely he mailed me an anonymous
>threat in the form of registered mail with no return address!.
>
No doubt, another example of Krueger's attempts to distort the true facts in a
pending legal action. Krueger, as usual, offers no proof that Scott's actions
are (a) hysterical, (b) fraudulent, or (c) anonymous. All we have is
Krueger's discredited word for it. In light of his long history of lying on
RAO, why would anybody believe anything Krueger has to say about anybody?
>> The intention was to skewer the pompous, puffed-up Dr. Quackenbush.
>
>Exactly.
>
Another set of lies. The intention was to try and libel and defame a person,
who, unlike either Krueger or his sycophantic apologist, Torresists - a coward
who hides behind an alias while smearing others - practices a legitimate
profession and is quialified to do so.
>>> I guess I shouldn't have been>> surprised that you thought false
>accusations of pedophilia were
>>> funny too.
>
>> Funny thing, Scott, but I didn't see you objecting when Middius,
>> Phillips and others were making "false accusations of pedophilia"
>> against another RAO poster. Did I miss it?
>
>Well, that's the point of the whole shtick. What we see is the
>Middius/Phillips sense of *humor* in action. An anonymous sockpuppet is
>trying to raise sympathy over a purported accusation of pedophilia which
>ironically only related to the behavior of Middius and Phillips. Meanwhile
>Middius and Phillips hide behind their anonymity and make very serious and
>direct accusations of pedophilia against a very real person.
>
A set of laughable distortions and deliberate lies from Krueger. There is no
evidence provided by this compulsive liar and libeler that either George
Middius or Marc Phillips are hiding from anybody. Further, there is no
evidence that they are "anonymous" or concealing their identitities in any way.
Both have apparently been found quite easily via either phone, e-mail or other
methods to be not anonymous at all.
>You've got to remember that the essence of high end audio is basically a
>mind game. Phillips and Middius are clearly very devoted to this aspect of
>the high end.
>
>
>
What is much more worth remembering is that people like the compulsive liar
Krueger - with long histories of libel and character defamation against their
many "enemies" on RAO and other audio newsgroups - make statements on a daily
basis that consist of nothing more than disninformation and propaganda. They
are motivated by jealousy, class envy, paranoid distrust and hatred of high end
audio as both a hobby and a legitimate segment of the audio industry.
Bruce J. Richman, Ph.D.
Licensed Psychologist
(signed this way because of a pending libel suit against Arny Krueger, and the
need to supply supportive evidence in support ot his suit).
Bruce J. Richman
>On Mon, 25 Aug 2003, Bruce J. Richman wrote:
>
>> George M. Middius wrote:
>>
>>
>> >Girth said:
>> >
>> >> *How will Krueger's family feel about him being found guilty of
>> >> falsely accusing somebody of being a peadophile?
>> >>
>> >> *How will Krueger's family feel about the media interest, the
>> >> repercussions this will have on acquaintances and neighbours?
>> >
>> >They won't feel anything if Krooger finishes his master plan in time.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>> Probably before the baseball season is over.
>>
>>
>> Bruce J, Richman, Ph.D.
>> Licensed Psychopath
>>
The above is a forgerie from Sebastien McInturd aka Anon E. Mouse aka chronic
apologist for proven compulsive liar and libeler, Krueger.
>> (signed this way for legal reasons due to pending libel suit against
>Krueger).
>
> Êtes-vous un gradué de la même université que Ghindi? >8->
>--
>Anon E. Mouse
>
>
No - we are 2 separate individuals with documented, legitimate credentials. In
each case our credentials are a matter of public record.
You, on the other hand, have no identity, no credentials, and no credibility.
LOL!
Bruce J. Richman, Ph.D.
Licensed Psychologist
(signed this way because of pending libel suit against Arny Krueger, and strong
likelihood of need to provide supportive evidence in support to this suit)
Bruce J. Richman
He also is stupid enough to think that his deliberate attempts to engage in
forgery of another poster's signature will go unnoticed.
Bruce J. Richman, Ph.D.
Licensed Psychologist
(signed this way because of pending legal action against Arny Krueger for libel
- in anticipation of providing supportive evidence).
Bruce J. Richman
Bruce J. Richman
More lies from RAO's most widely despised and hated poster, as documented by
his history of lies, libel and character defamation on this and other audio
newsgroups.
Krueger has provided no evidence that he has been harassed by anybody. Quite
to the contrary. There is ample evidence that he has libeled Scott, myself,
and many others repeatedly. His his history of character defamation on RAO and
false claims about others is a matter of public record.
Bruce J. Richman, Ph.D.
Licensed Psychologist
(signed this way because of pending libel suit against Krueger, and need to
provide supportive evidence).
Marc Phillips
Don't be stupid.
Boon
Marc Phillips
You wrote it.
And you are definitely not "one of us."
Boon
Arny Krueger
> Arny said:
>
>> "Marc Phillips" <boon...@aol.comm> wrote in message
>> news:20030826084222...@mb-m13.aol.com
>>
>>> "what did it feel like to grope me in my coffin, daddy?"
>>> Funny, I don't see anything false about that.
>> All this time I thought this was just something that was made up by
>> Marc Phillps or one of his associates. You mean that one of you
>> really did this, Marc?
>> Yeccch!
> You wrote it.
Prove it.
Prove that you didn't write it, Phillips.
BTW, you're still a cowardly no-show re: posting your legal address.
> And you are definitely not "one of us."
Thank God!
Marc Phillips
>>>> "what did it feel like to grope me in my coffin, daddy?"
>
>>>> Funny, I don't see anything false about that.
>
>>> All this time I thought this was just something that was made up by
>>> Marc Phillps or one of his associates. You mean that one of you
>>> really did this, Marc?
>
>>> Yeccch!
>
>> You wrote it.
>
>Prove it.
>
>Prove that you didn't write it, Phillips.
Prove a negative?
>
>BTW, you're still a cowardly no-show re: posting your legal address.
Why in the world would I give a known pedophile my address? I have kids, you
know, and I don't want you hiding in the bushes, waiting for them to come
outside.
>
>> And you are definitely not "one of us."
>
>Thank God!
Thank God we're not pathological liars, hypocrites, and known pedophiles? I
guess you're right, for once!
Boon
>
S888Wheel
<<
> Nor did you see me objecting when Arny does the same to them. I leave
their
> fights to themselves. You might note that i have never made jokes about
> anything they say about each other in those regards.
>>
Arny said
<<
Except making a joke and criminal of yourself scokpuppet "Wheel" by sending
me anonymous harassing mail.
>>
Hmm, now you are calling me a criminal. That is also libelous. The letter was
not anonymous. I signed it. If you continue on this course of action you will
eventually have my mailing address attached to the service of a lawsuit. If you
have anything you wish to say to me in private you can always e mail me as you
did before.
Bruce J. Richman
Why are we not surprised that compulsive liar Krueger has lied again? For a
proven liar and libeler, it's significant that c-l-K didn't have the guts to
post your letter to prove it was, to quote his lying words, "anonymous
harassing mail".
Perhaps his buddy tor, an anonymous poster who tries in his own retarded way to
harass professionals on RAO with delusional false claims, can give him some
pointers. OTOH, he too seems to have been easily discredited.
Despite Krueger being conclusively proven to have lied about something on an
almost daily basis - e.g. about licensure of psychologists and your letter to
him today - he just keeps spewing more lies every day. And look at the
sterling "qualifications" of the few imbeciles that suppoort him like tor - an
anonymous coward who tries to smear people while hiding behind an alias and
McKelvey, who has libeled and defamed others in blind, robotic allegiance to
his role model and hero, Krueger. Of course, duh-Mikey is now regularly
getting his head handed to him as he tries to smear all Democrats and liberals
with his own poorly researched and unsubstantiated disinformation campaigns.
With a "team" like this, Krueger's descent into total madness is just a matter
of time. I'd say he's off to a good start.
LOL!
Bruce J. Richman, Ph.D.
Licensed Psychologist
(signed this way to provide supportive evidence for pending legal action
against Krueger for libel).
George M. Middius
S888Wheel said to Shit-for-Brains:
> If you have anything you wish to say to me in private you can always e mail me as you
> did before.
I assume you checked it for viruses.
Bruce J. Richman
the e-mail or the sender?
Arny Krueger
> Arny said:
>
>>>>> "what did it feel like to grope me in my coffin, daddy?"
>>
>>>>> Funny, I don't see anything false about that.
>>
>>>> All this time I thought this was just something that was made up by
>>>> Marc Phillps or one of his associates. You mean that one of you
>>>> really did this, Marc?
>>
>>>> Yeccch!
>>
>>> You wrote it.
>> Prove it.
>> Prove that you didn't write it, Phillips.
> Prove a negative?
Unecessary.
You're really a dumbass, aren't you Phillips? Simple logic: if I wrote it,
you didn't. If you prove that I wrote it, then you prove that you didn't.
>> BTW, you're still a cowardly no-show re: posting your legal address.
> Why in the world would I give a known pedophile my address?
Prove that I'm a pedophile, Phillips.
> I have
> kids, you know, and I don't want you hiding in the bushes, waiting
> for them to come outside.
Prove that such a thing has non-zero probability.
>>> And you are definitely not "one of us."
>> Thank God!
> Thank God we're not pathological liars, hypocrites, and known
> pedophiles? I guess you're right, for once!
Prove that I'm a pedophile, Phillips. Prove that you aren't a liar and a
hypocrite.
Arny Krueger
> Tor said
>
> <<
>> Nor did you see me objecting when Arny does the same to them. I leave
> their
>> fights to themselves. You might note that i have never made jokes
>> about anything they say about each other in those regards.
> >>
>
>
> Arny said
>
> <<
> Except making a joke and criminal of yourself scokpuppet "Wheel" by
> sending me anonymous harassing mail.
> Hmm, now you are calling me a criminal. That is also libelous.
I have proof that you have sent me harassing threatening anonymous mail.
You've even bragged about doing it. I can show that your action was
premeditated.
>The letter was not anonymous. I signed it.
No doubt a false name.
No return address. If there had been one it would have no doubt been false.
>If you continue on this course
> of action you will eventually have my mailing address attached to the
> service of a lawsuit.
If you continue to anonymously harass me sockpuppet "Wheel" I'll have your
local police knocking on your door. I'll subpoena your address from your ISP
and I'll take criminal legal action against your illegal behavior.
>If you have anything you wish to say to me in
> private you can always e mail me as you did before.
Irrelevant.
dave weil
wrote:
>"S888Wheel" <s888...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:20030826232658...@mb-m23.aol.com
>> Tor said
>>
>> <<
>>> Nor did you see me objecting when Arny does the same to them. I leave
>> their
>>> fights to themselves. You might note that i have never made jokes
>>> about anything they say about each other in those regards.
>> >>
>>
>>
>> Arny said
>>
>> <<
>> Except making a joke and criminal of yourself scokpuppet "Wheel" by
>> sending me anonymous harassing mail.
>
>> Hmm, now you are calling me a criminal. That is also libelous.
>
>I have proof that you have sent me harassing threatening anonymous mail.
No you don't.
>You've even bragged about doing it. I can show that your action was
>premeditated.
Oh yes, it's premeditated. But sending you a notice of intent to sue
isn't harassing mail. It's a legal way to inform someone of the intent
to sue you.
>>The letter was not anonymous. I signed it.
>
>No doubt a false name.
Well, I guess you'll find out in court. I've got plenty of libelous
posts from you saved on my computer that I will supply to MR. Wheeler
upon request. And he won't even have to subpoena me either. All he has
to do is ask. Mr. Wheeler should probably also notify your ISP that
he's going to sue as they might find their exposure to this sort of a
ction rather disturbing.
>No return address. If there had been one it would have no doubt been false.
>
>>If you continue on this course
>> of action you will eventually have my mailing address attached to the
>> service of a lawsuit.
>
>If you continue to anonymously harass me sockpuppet "Wheel" I'll have your
>local police knocking on your door. I'll subpoena your address from your ISP
>and I'll take criminal legal action against your illegal behavior.
So much for the idea that he's anonymous.
>>If you have anything you wish to say to me in
>> private you can always e mail me as you did before.
>
>Irrelevant.
Ohhhh, so you've been in contact with him privately...interesting.
Bruce J. Richman
>On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 05:19:09 -0400, "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com>
>wrote:
>
>>"S888Wheel" <s888...@aol.com> wrote in message
>>news:20030826232658...@mb-m23.aol.com
>>> Tor said
>>>
>>> <<
>>>> Nor did you see me objecting when Arny does the same to them. I leave
>>> their
>>>> fights to themselves. You might note that i have never made jokes
>>>> about anything they say about each other in those regards.
>>> >>
>>>
>>>
>>> Arny said
>>>
>>> <<
>>> Except making a joke and criminal of yourself scokpuppet "Wheel" by
>>> sending me anonymous harassing mail.
>>
>>> Hmm, now you are calling me a criminal. That is also libelous.
>>
>>I have proof that you have sent me harassing threatening anonymous mail.
>
>No you don't.
>
>>You've even bragged about doing it. I can show that your action was
>>premeditated.
>
>Oh yes, it's premeditated. But sending you a notice of intent to sue
>isn't harassing mail. It's a legal way to inform someone of the intent
>to sue you.
>
>>>The letter was not anonymous. I signed it.
>>
>>No doubt a false name.
>
No doubt another lie from Krueger.
>Well, I guess you'll find out in court. I've got plenty of libelous
>posts from you saved on my computer that I will supply to MR. Wheeler
>upon request. And he won't even have to subpoena me either. All he has
>to do is ask. Mr. Wheeler should probably also notify your ISP that
>he's going to sue as they might find their exposure to this sort of a
>ction rather disturbing.
>
Similarly, I' too have stored on my PC numerous very clear examples of
Krueger's blatant libelous claims against me and many others on RAO. It will
be my obligation and pleasure to provide those to Mr. Wheeler in support of his
libel suit against Krueger. I should add that I also have kept a careful
record of his lone identifiable defender and puppet, McKelvey's equally
libelous false claims.
It will be interesting to see what McKelvey has to say if/when asked to testify
about his libelous actions supporting Krueger.
>>No return address. If there had been one it would have no doubt been false.
>>
Another pathetic attempt to lie and deceive other readers.
>>>If you continue on this course
>>> of action you will eventually have my mailing address attached to the
>>> service of a lawsuit.
>>
>>If you continue to anonymously harass me sockpuppet "Wheel" I'll have your
>>local police knocking on your door. I'll subpoena your address from your ISP
>>and I'll take criminal legal action against your illegal behavior.
>
>So much for the idea that he's anonymous.
>
He's scared shitless and is simply tyring, unsucessfully as usual, to
intimidate other readers into laying off him. I'ts never worked for him before
and it won't work now.
When I first started posting on RAO, I received a totally unprovoked and
unsolicited e-mail from Krueger threatening to complain to my ISP about
"harassment". Needless to say, I had never sent this paranoid nutcase any
communication of any kind. Also, needless to say, his empty threats were never
acted upon.
>>>If you have anything you wish to say to me in
>>> private you can always e mail me as you did before.
>>
>>Irrelevant.
>
>Ohhhh, so you've been in contact with him privately...interesting.
>
>
>
>
Probably to threaten him with a complaint to his ISP. That's the type of
paranoid and delusional activity for which Krueger is well known.
Bruce J. Richman, Ph.D.
Licensed Psychologist
(Signed this way in full support and assistance re. pending libel suit against
Krueger. Required part of ongoing preparation to provide supportive evidence
and to encourage all of the many other libeled people on RAO to behave
similarly).
Bruce J. Richman
S888Wheel
>
> <<
>> Nor did you see me objecting when Arny does the same to them. I leave
> their
>> fights to themselves. You might note that i have never made jokes
>> about anything they say about each other in those regards.
> >>
> >>
<<
>
> Arny said
>
> <<
> Except making a joke and criminal of yourself scokpuppet "Wheel" by
> sending me anonymous harassing mail.
>>
I said
<<
I have proof that you have sent me harassing threatening anonymous mail.
You've even bragged about doing it. I can show that your action was
premeditated. >>
You have proof that i sent you basically the same letter that i posted on the
begining of this thread. It is courtesy letter. One does not need to warn some
one of a lawsuit and offer them an easy no cost resolution. I am simply being
very reasonable and patient.
I said
<<
>The letter was not anonymous. I signed it.
>>
Arny said
<<
No doubt a false name. >>
Ridiculous. It is mt real name and my signature.
Arny said
<<
No return address. If there had been one it would have no doubt been false.
>>
Yes, the return address was inadvertently left off. My mistake based on an
assumption about the proccess of sending registered letters. You could have
easily e mailed me as you did before and point out that the return address was
left off and you could have just as easily asked for it. If you had done that i
would have given it to you. But alas you seem to think you will get nothing but
a flase address so why bother? Maybe you could just e mail me again if you have
anything you wish to say in private.
I said
<<
>If you continue on this course
> of action you will eventually have my mailing address attached to the
> service of a lawsuit.
>>
Arny said
<<
If you continue to anonymously harass me sockpuppet "Wheel" I'll have your
local police knocking on your door. I'll subpoena your address from your ISP
and I'll take criminal legal action against your illegal behavior. >>
Arny, I can't prevent you from trying these things but you can be punished for
doing the wrong thing. Just think about the problem you have made for yourself
by falsely accusing me of being a pedophile.
I said
<<
>If you have anything you wish to say to me in
> private you can always e mail me as you did before.
>>
Arny said
<<
Irrelevant.
>>
Nope.
Arny Krueger
> <<
> I have proof that you have sent me harassing threatening anonymous
> mail. You've even bragged about doing it. I can show that your action
> was premeditated. >>
> You have proof that i sent you basically the same letter that i
> posted on the beginning of this thread. It is courtesy letter.
No, it has no return address. It is anonymous harassing mail.
> One
> does not need to warn some one of a lawsuit and offer them an easy no
> cost resolution. I am simply being very reasonable and patient.
No, sockpuppet "Wheel" your harassing mail has no return address. It is
anonymous harassing mail. It gives me no recourse against you but a criminal
complaint.
S888Wheel
<<
Well, I guess you'll find out in court. I've got plenty of libelous
posts from you saved on my computer that I will supply to MR. Wheeler
upon request. And he won't even have to subpoena me either. All he has
to do is ask. Mr. Wheeler should probably also notify your ISP that
he's going to sue as they might find their exposure to this sort of a
ction rather disturbing.
>>
I don't know anything about contacting ISPs. Would this really be productive in
any way? Thank you for the offer. I may take you up on it.
Dave said
<<
Ohhhh, so you've been in contact with him privately...interesting.
>>
Nah, it wasn't interesting.
dave weil
wrote:
>"S888Wheel" <s888...@aol.com> wrote in message
Yeah, like *that* will happen in our lifetime.
Maybe I should take you to court for *your* harassing false claims
about me.
dave weil
>Dave said
>
><<
>Well, I guess you'll find out in court. I've got plenty of libelous
>posts from you saved on my computer that I will supply to MR. Wheeler
>upon request. And he won't even have to subpoena me either. All he has
>to do is ask. Mr. Wheeler should probably also notify your ISP that
>he's going to sue as they might find their exposure to this sort of a
>ction rather disturbing.
> >>
>
>
>I don't know anything about contacting ISPs. Would this really be productive in
>any way?
I don't know. But you can try. You would basically send the offending
emails or message ideas to the complaint address in his headers.
I think that if enough people did this with legitimate complaints,
they might take some action.
> Thank you for the offer. I may take you up on it.
Anytime.
He's made some egregious false claims about me on this forum. And I've
saved quite a few of them (and I'm not talking about matters of
opinion but the accusation of criminal behavior, none of which is
substantiated - in that respect, he was just like Greg Singh).
>Dave said
>
>
>
>
><<
>
>Ohhhh, so you've been in contact with him privately...interesting.
>
> >>
>
>
>Nah, it wasn't interesting.
No, interesting that Arnold would do it in the first place.
Marc Phillips
>I don't know anything about contacting ISPs. Would this really be productive
>in
>any way? Thank you for the offer. I may take you up on it.
If you haven't noticed, Arny has had to switch ISPs a couple of times in the
last few years. So yes, it works, but no, it would not necessarily be
productive, since Arny has all the time in the world to shop for new ISPs. In
fact, he'd be thankful to have something to do.
Last year's troll, Jamie Benchimol,.eventually left the group because he was
getting kicked off ISPs almost daily. Arny's hopelessly addicted to RAO,
however, and it would take someone barging into his house and smashing his
computers with a baseball bat to actually get him to stop...for a while,
anyway.
Boon
Marc Phillips
>You're really a dumbass, aren't you Phillips? Simple logic: if I wrote it,
>you didn't. If you prove that I wrote it, then you prove that you didn't.
Oh, here you are, jumping up and down, excited that you once again have a
chance to employ the debating trade on RAO. But I've told you repeatedly that
I won't indulge someone who's mentally ill in the chance to further their
disease.
BTW, your "simple logic" is destroyed if NEITHER or BOTH of us wrote it.
Dumbass!
Boon
Arny Krueger
> Arny said:
>> You're really a dumbass, aren't you Phillips? Simple logic: if I
>> wrote it, you didn't. If you prove that I wrote it, then you prove
>> that you didn't.
> Oh, here you are, jumping up and down, excited that you once again
> have a chance to employ the debating trade on RAO.
Phhttt!
> But I've told you
> repeatedly that I won't indulge someone who's mentally ill in the
> chance to further their disease.
You rather obviously indulge yourself, Phillips. You're obviously one of the
sicker puppies around here,.
> BTW, your "simple logic" is destroyed if NEITHER or BOTH of us wrote it.
So you're changing your story now, eh Phillips? Now you're saying that
neither of us wrote it?
Of course that's an admission that you've been lying every time you said I
wrote it!
Would you please get your story straight, crazy man?
Arny Krueger
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>
>
>> "Bruce J. Richman" <bjri...@aol.com> wrote in message
>> news:20030826111057...@mb-m20.aol.com...
>>
>>> (signed this way because of a pending libel suit against Arny
>>> Krueger, in anticipation of a possible need to provide supportive
>>> evidence).
>> Obviously Richman can't tell the difference between anonymous
>> harassment by US mail (a potentially criminal offense) and civil
>> legal action. But given his posting history on RAO that's hardly the
>> extent of his ignorance.
> More lies from RAO's most widely despised and hated poster, as
> documented by his history of lies, libel and character defamation on
> this and other audio newsgroups.
As usual, this is very bad logic Richman. If you want to document that I'm
widely despised and hated, you find evidence that I am in fact despised and
hated. Evidence that I may have told lies, libelled people and defamed
people's chanters might explain why I would be despised and hated, but it
isn't evidence that I am in fact despised and hated.
> Krueger has provided no evidence that he has been harassed by
> anybody.
Sure I have. I have an anonymous threatening letter. It has no return
address.
> Quite to the contrary. There is ample evidence that he has
> libeled Scott, myself, and many others repeatedly.
Again, this is very poor logic. Any such evidence that you may have that
I've libeled you and sockpuppet "Wheel" does not make this harassing
anonymous letter go away. The two are irrelevant.
>His history
> of character defamation on RAO and false claims about others is a
> matter of public record.
Prove it, Richman. And oh BTW do try to employ a logical argument instead of
the confused thinking you have demonstrated here.
> Bruce J. Richman, Ph.D.
> Licensed Psychologist
"They license dogs, don't they?"
> (signed this way because of pending libel suit against Krueger, and
> need to provide supportive evidence).
Richman again shows his ignorance. For a suit to be pending it would have to
be filed. There's no evidence that sockpuppet "Wheel" has or will put up the
necessary $269.50 to file his purported suit. Indeed, I see no evidence
that he isn't a delusional homeless person with a different legal name
posting from a public library.
Marc Phillips
>"Marc Phillips" <boon...@aol.comm> wrote in message
>news:20030827123506...@mb-m29.aol.com
>> Arny said:
>
>>> You're really a dumbass, aren't you Phillips? Simple logic: if I
>>> wrote it, you didn't. If you prove that I wrote it, then you prove
>>> that you didn't.
>
>> Oh, here you are, jumping up and down, excited that you once again
>> have a chance to employ the debating trade on RAO.
>
>Phhttt!
>
>> But I've told you
>> repeatedly that I won't indulge someone who's mentally ill in the
>> chance to further their disease.
>
>You rather obviously indulge yourself, Phillips. You're obviously one of the
>sicker puppies around here,.
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.
>
>> BTW, your "simple logic" is destroyed if NEITHER or BOTH of us wrote it.
>
>So you're changing your story now, eh Phillips? Now you're saying that
>neither of us wrote it?
No, it's saying there are holes in your logic.
>
>Of course that's an admission that you've been lying every time you said I
>wrote it!
No, it's saying there are holes in your logic.
>
>Would you please get your story straight, crazy man?
Would you please stop with the IKYABWAIs?
Boon
Bruce J. Richman
>Bruce J. Richman" <bjri...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:20030826125334...@mb-m20.aol.com
>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>
>>
>>> "Bruce J. Richman" <bjri...@aol.com> wrote in message
>>> news:20030826111057...@mb-m20.aol.com...
>>>
>>>> (signed this way because of a pending libel suit against Arny
>>>> Krueger, in anticipation of a possible need to provide supportive
>>>> evidence).
>
>>> Obviously Richman can't tell the difference between anonymous
>>> harassment by US mail (a potentially criminal offense) and civil
>>> legal action. But given his posting history on RAO that's hardly the
>>> extent of his ignorance.
>
>> More lies from RAO's most widely despised and hated poster, as
>> documented by his history of lies, libel and character defamation on
>> this and other audio newsgroups.
>
>As usual, this is very bad logic Richman. If you want to document that I'm
>widely despised and hated, you find evidence that I am in fact despised and
>hated.
Your false analysis of my logic is just another lie. Your history of smearing
people, libeling people and defaming people is a matter of Google record. In a
classic thread entitled "Have You Had A Bad Krueger Experience", a large number
of the many people that you have personally attacked is listed. That thread
has been cited many times on RAO. Of course, since that thread was initiated
in 1999, many more people have been smeared, libeled and defamed by you. It is
quite logical to infer that the vast majority of them despise and detest you.
And if that were not enough evidence, and it is, one has only to look at the
number of separate individuals that have expressed their explicit disgust,
hatred, and/or despisal of your constant unprovoked personal attacks and lies
about them.
It's a fairly easy matter to simply compare thye number of people who have
expressed their negative opinions about your abnormal and despicable
behavior.......... versus the number that have expressed similar opinions about
any other RAO poster. A simple frequency count shows you to be the "winner" in
the "most despised, hated and disliked" category by a large margin.
LOL!
Evidence that I may have told lies, libelled people and defamed
>people's chanters might explain why I would be despised and hated, but it
>isn't evidence that I am in fact despised and hated.
>
No amount of circular reasoning on your part or transparent attempts at word
games can cover up your lies, libels and constantly growing list of people
that have explicitly expressed their intense dislike of you.
Don't try and insult the intelligence of RAO's readers by pretending, even in
your delusional state, Krueger, that people dislike you for no reason at all.
However, I do want to acknowledge your new-found willingness to admit above
that you have lied, libeled and engaged in character defamation. BTW, the use
of the phrase "may have" won't get you off the hook either. The Google record
documents quite clearly your history in this type of behavior.
>> Krueger has provided no evidence that he has been harassed by
>> anybody.
>
>Sure I have. I have an anonymous threatening letter. It has no return
>address.
>
As Mr. Scott Wheeler has already explained, he signed his legal name to the
letter sent to you. Therefore, it's not anonymous. The fact that it has no
return address does not lose to the conclusion that it is "threatening". It
would appear that your logic here is faulty. Before pretending to be a
self-serving, self-appointed expert in logical analysis, it would be requried
that you display some ability to use simple logic yourself,
As Dave Weil, another one of the many people you have libeled, would probably
say:
You lose. Again.
>> Quite to the contrary. There is ample evidence that he has
>> libeled Scott, myself, and many others repeatedly.
>
>Again, this is very poor logic. Any such evidence that you may have that
>I've libeled you and sockpuppet "Wheel" does not make this harassing
>anonymous letter go away. The two are irrelevant.
>
Actually your response is both irrelevant and a lie, since you did not receive
an anonymous letter. Repetiion of the same lie won't make it any more
credible.
>>His history
>> of character defamation on RAO and false claims about others is a
>> matter of public record.
>
>Prove it, Richman. And oh BTW do try to employ a logical argument instead of
>the confused thinking you have demonstrated here.
>
The Google record proves it, Krueger. Yhe long list of people given in the
"Bad Krueger Experience Thread" referenced above proves it, to say nothing of
the many people you continue to smear and libel on a daily basis on RAO. Your
inability to tell the truth is a matter of Google record as well. Since you
meet many of the criteria given in formal descriptions of Paranoid Personality
Disorder, your ability to evaluate others in an objective way is highly
questionable.
As to the issue of who is *currently* the most hated poster on RAO, I would
suggest we take a poll of the current readership. Would you like your name at
the top of the ballot?
>> Bruce J. Richman, Ph.D.
>> Licensed Psychologist
>
>"They license dogs, don't they?"
>
An irrelevant nonsequitur from RAO's most widely despised and hated liar,
libeler, and character assassin.
All he's got left is to parrot the psychotic ramblings of a cowardly anaonymous
poster whom he hypocsritically embraces and reveres. All that after
irrationally ranting and raving about being "harassed" by "anonymous" letters.
ROFLMAO!
It's just a matter of time before Krueger is involuntarily committed to a
psychiatric institutition. The longer he stays on RAO, the more psychotic he
becomes.
>> (signed this way because of pending libel suit against Krueger, and
>> need to provide supportive evidence).
>
>Richman again shows his ignorance. For a suit to be pending it would have to
>be filed.
Krueger lies again, and just adds another area in which we all can see how
stupid and misguided he is. When somebody announces their intention to file
legal action for libel, it is certainly fair and accurate to talk about that
person's future behavior as a pending law suit for libel.
Krueger's knowledge of legal matters is about as null and void as his knowledge
of the licensing laws re. psychologists. This moron couldn't respond to my
detailed post about licensing requirements for psychologists because he
couldn't refute a single fact I presented. Once again, he was shown to have
lied and to have attempted, unsuccessvfully, to defraud and mislead RAO
readers.
There's no evidence that sockpuppet "Wheel" has or will put up the
>necessary $269.50 to file his purported suit. Indeed, I see no evidence
>that he isn't a delusional homeless person with a different legal name
>posting from a public library.
>
What you see, through your delusionally obtunded remants of conscience thought,
is irrelevant. Nobody other than a few misguided fellow liars and libelers
like McKelvey and tor believe you anyhow.
More to the point, both in the legal world and in the world of public opinion
(in which you continue to fail on a daily bass), your credibility is the issue,
not your "thoughts".