Today, Sun, 2 Nov 2003 21:00:39 -0600, Two Buddha read a post from
"informant" <xxx@yyy.zzz> , Wicked Pete starting telling fibs about
hacking
SPNAK SPNAK
Oh and:

"Richard" <anonymous@informant.sux> wrote in messagenews:bo3kgn029iq@enews2.newsguy.com... wg bradley wrote: "Just Taylor" <taylor@wilhelp.com> wrote in message news:3fb0377b.214212170@wilhelp.com...> On Sun, 2 Nov 2003 09:30:56 -0700, "Chas" <chas@chasclements.com> wrote:> What will the courts require of the person above in order to satisfy his> request for personal information on other people? Are there no> safeguards to insure that the person above is not just abusing the> courts for personal gain? I would assume that to get the order on the ISP he would have to satisfy the court on sworn affidavit evidence that he has a prima facie case against the defendant with a reasonable likelihood of success (or something like that). I doubt very much you would be able to just file suit and automatically get the disclosure. His claims: 1) I am a pedophile. 2) I post child pornography. 3) I live in a rotted out trailer. 4) Claimed I had been arrested in cincinnati using the alias "donald johnson" and used my true SSN which is how I was busted.Uh, that wasn't me, St00pid. You going to make a great trial lawyer. He has made numerous other claims which he knows he can't back up. To him and his witch hunting buddies, pornography is nudity regardless of content.You can't even gibber your boilerplate anymore, Fukkkhead. To him, a pedophile is a person who looks at nude images of children.Tell it to the Judge, imbecile. I'm sure he'll be astonished that anyonewould believe that. He claims I own or possess child pornography, yet can not prove it. I have asked a thousand times, "where is the proof?". Not once has he replied with a solid answer.None that would suit you, dumbass, but Usenet is not a courtroom. And you'reGUILTY in the eyes of Usenet. If Actor/mayor clint eastwood can sue a tabloid for stating he was at a meeting when no such meeting took place, and there was no monetary damage done to the actor's well being, can one not sue another simply because the statements being made are false?Prove you're not a Pedophile, Bullis. I don't care about becoming rich off the deal,Why not, St00pid? Beats working or begging for a living. Begging Harvey,begging Florence, begging Larry, it's a lifestyle!!1! I just want his *** in a court where he has to explain how it is he knows all of these things about me and claims them to be true.I just know, St00pid. I subscribe to auk. It's already been done a few times, and at least a few people have gone to jail for libel using the internet or usenet.Bring it on, Fukkkhead.


LOL. That line has to be for the faq.

Jail for libel? Gee, when did libel become a misdeamenor or a felony?
I always thought libel was considered a civil matter.

I'm not a lawyer, but I've cc'd the lawyers.

Can someone explain this to me? I want to make sure I don't go to jail
for calling Bullis a pedophile even though he is a pedophile.











Path:sn-us!sn-xit-06!sn-xit-09!supernews.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news.he.net! cyclone-sf.pbi.net!129.250.175.17!pln-w!spln!dex!extra.newsguy.com!newsp.newsguy.com!ene ws2From: "Richard" <anonymous@informant.sux>Newsgroups: misc.legalSubject: Re: Seriously considering filing lawsuit.....not a joke.Date: Sun, 2 Nov 2003 13:04:32 -0600Organization: http://extra.newsguy.comLines: 50Message-ID: <bo3kgn029iq@enews2.newsguy.com>References: <bo1u78022q7@enews3.newsguy.com><bo357p$173f16$1@ID-75195.news.uni-berlin.de><t42dnZOmU9DdrDiiRVn-gg@comcast.com> <3fb0377b.214212170@wilhelp.com><xfcpb.261084$pl3.253159@pd7tw3no>NNTP-Posting-Host: p-033.newsdawg.comX-Priority: 3X-MSMail-Priority: NormalX-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106X-No-Archive: yesFL-Build: Fidolook 2002 (SL) 6.0.2600.78 - 24/10/2002 21:18:29Xref: sn-us misc.legal:465678

"Rikijo II" <Rikijo2@hotmail.foo> wrote in message
news:4hhbqvcbpmpdl7dkve791iuu2vg7jrt4pe@4ax.com... Today, Sun, 2 Nov 2003 21:00:39 -0600, Two Buddha read a post from "informant" <xxx@yyy.zzz> , Wicked Pete starting telling fibs about hacking SPNAK SPNAK Oh and:"Richard" <anonymous@informant.sux> wrote in messagenews:bo3kgn029iq@enews2.newsguy.com... wg bradley wrote: > "Just Taylor" <taylor@wilhelp.com> wrote in message > news:3fb0377b.214212170@wilhelp.com... >> On Sun, 2 Nov 2003 09:30:56 -0700, "Chas" <chas@chasclements.com> > wrote: >> What will the courts require of the person above in order to satisfy > his >> request for personal information on other people? Are there no >> safeguards to insure that the person above is not just abusing the >> courts for personal gain? > I would assume that to get the order on the ISP he would have to > satisfy the court on sworn affidavit evidence that he has a prima > facie case against the defendant with a reasonable likelihood of > success (or something like that). I doubt very much you would be able > to just file suit and automatically get the disclosure. His claims: 1) I am a pedophile. 2) I post child pornography. 3) I live in a rotted out trailer. 4) Claimed I had been arrested in cincinnati using the alias "donald johnson" and used my true SSN which is how I was busted.Uh, that wasn't me, St00pid. You going to make a great trial lawyer. He has made numerous other claims which he knows he can't back up. To him and his witch hunting buddies, pornography is nudity regardless
of content.You can't even gibber your boilerplate anymore, Fukkkhead. To him, a pedophile is a person who looks at nude images of children.Tell it to the Judge, imbecile. I'm sure he'll be astonished that anyonewould believe that. He claims I own or possess child pornography, yet can not prove it. I have asked a thousand times, "where is the proof?". Not once has he replied with a solid answer.None that would suit you, dumbass, but Usenet is not a courtroom. And
you'reGUILTY in the eyes of Usenet. If Actor/mayor clint eastwood can sue a tabloid for stating he was at a meeting when no such meeting took place, and there was no monetary
damage done to the actor's well being, can one not sue another simply because
the statements being made are false?Prove you're not a Pedophile, Bullis. I don't care about becoming rich off the deal,Why not, St00pid? Beats working or begging for a living. Begging Harvey,begging Florence, begging Larry, it's a lifestyle!!1! I just want his *** in a court where he has to explain how it is he knows all of these things
about me and claims them to be true.I just know, St00pid. I subscribe to auk. It's already been done a few times, and at least a few people have gone
to jail for libel using the internet or usenet.Bring it on, Fukkkhead. LOL. That line has to be for the faq. Jail for libel? Gee, when did libel become a misdeamenor or a felony? I always thought libel was considered a civil matter. I'm not a lawyer, but I've cc'd the lawyers. Can someone explain this to me? I want to make sure I don't go to jail for calling Bullis a pedophile even though he is a pedophile.

I think that if there's a libel case and Bullis is involved, someone's going
to jail.

/me whistles/>

In article <4hhbqvcbpmpdl7dkve791iuu2vg7jrt4pe@4ax.com>, Rikijo II
<Rikijo2@hotmail.foo> wrote:Jail for libel? Gee, when did libel become a misdeamenor or a felony?I always thought libel was considered a civil matter.I'm not a lawyer, but I've cc'd the lawyers.Can someone explain this to me? I want to make sure I don't go to jailfor calling Bullis a pedophile even though he is a pedophile.


There are some jurisdictions that criminalize libel and/or slander in some
circumstances.