|-|erc wrote:
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/03/08/1015365742538.html
The Age knows the police were setting me up.
They still quoted material to me that wasn't mine. I don't know if the right margin section here was made on 8 March or added later, but its a deliberate play on the article that suggests the quoted policeman as defaming me.

That article has nothing to do with your case.
The newspaper quoted material related by the police, not by you.
Sue the constable for slander.

Richard wrote:
|-|erc wrote: http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/03/08/1015365742538.html The Age knows the police were setting me up. They still quoted material to me that wasn't mine. I don't know if the right margin section here was made on 8 March or added later, but its a deliberate play on the article that suggests the quoted policeman as defaming me.

Unless you are Graham Andrew Cooper

Otherwise you are paranoid, or don't know who you are.

malachi

> Otherwise you are paranoid, or don't know who you are.

Strange article to have

INVESTIGATOR FOUND GUILTY OF DEFAMING

as the feature related story.
check the picture



I can't sue the police force, I CAN sue the newspaper.

"dlkdldlkjdlkjdk" said the police man.

"then this happened dslkjdslkjdsfkjdf jldkfsjdlkflkj dfsjkdflkj"

"dsfkjldslkj fdskjldskjd He said things such as 'REPLY OR PAY CONSEQUENCES... NOW I'M
GOING TO...'"


Since when does says SUCH AS get quotes? In a published newspaper?
You said things LIKE "Long live Satan" publish that! Prove that wrong!


You've got to be joking, the newspaper is taking resposibility that those statements are true.
It reads like the newspaper_is_speaking_factually for several paragraphs, it *alludes* to quoting
me
not the policeman. He is only mentioned 3 paragraphs earlier.

EVERYONE BELIEVES I wrote that. I didn't write one of those sentences. I didn't demand money
at all, only "you ripped me off" in the suggestion box.


They are not true. I have a photo copy of the evidence with me. It was

1.
Barry Williams
I have pleaded with your
society to reply for 3 WEEKS

REPLY ASAP
or face consequences.


2.
The actual 'extortion' I uploaded the whole email before he forged charges.
NNTP-Posting-Date: 4 Mar 2002 23:29:38 GMT

skeptics@kasm.com.au

why does every subscriber to

sci.logic
comp.theory
alt.sci.physics
rec.org.mensa
alt.politics.democrats
alt.science.paranet and 20 others

respect every word i say?

my claim is detailed in the post
'information theory' in sci.logic 7kb

your not qualified to debate my theory
on quantum entanglement, wake up, watch
the news, read the writing on the wall
TEST ME
for the love of god

Herc
Please reply in a day or two, I'm about to put ***** idle sarchastic threat here



1 + 2 = EXTORTION ???

Why not add the suggestion box "you ripped me off $100,000" and make the news!

1 + 2 get modified and said in the same sentence, everyone belives it, they were written a month
apart!

Its blatant slander, and the newspaper knew it.

HERC

|-|erc wrote:
Otherwise you are paranoid, or don't know who you are.
Strange article to have
INVESTIGATOR FOUND GUILTY OF DEFAMING
as the feature related story. check the picture


I can't sue the police force, I CAN sue the newspaper.


No. You sue the constable. He's the one who is responsible for making those
statements.
Who says you can't sue the newspaper? If they printed knowingly false
statements, or did not back up the statements, they are liable.

----------------------------- <^> <(·¿·)> <^> -----------------------------

"Richard" <anonymous@127.000> wrote |-|erc wrote: Otherwise you are paranoid, or don't know who you are. Strange article to have INVESTIGATOR FOUND GUILTY OF DEFAMING as the feature related story. check the picture I can't sue the police force, I CAN sue the newspaper. No. You sue the constable. He's the one who is responsible for making those statements. Who says you can't sue the newspaper? If they printed knowingly false statements, or did not back up the statements, they are liable.


The newspaper made a technically correct document that was deliberately
misleading, they were quoting material and broadcasting it as if it was
factual. Everyone who reads the paper assumes I commited extortion.
That is utter rubbish, I made an obviously sarchastic but threatening
personal remark. Everything else was tagged together. Supreme court
threw it out. Policemen don't have money, the newspaper does. Slander
was commited. There are quotes around forged text by the newspaper.
They had a lot of different ways they could have presented the facts but
they chose to sensationalise and lead into the story and lull the reader into
following the article and policemans statements AS IF WRITTEN BY THE NEWSPAPER.

Putting a " somewhere up the top page of a newspaper and "said so and so"
does not entitle you to broadcast to the entire world on a major publishing
network lies and EFFECTIVELY attribute "Reply or PAY consequences....
these are the consequences!" at the end of the page.

I wrote "You failed to reply for 3 weeks previously, reply ASAP or face consequences".

I wrote "TEST ME for the love of god, please reply in a day or two, IDLE threat in personal email"

That is not an extortion threat, its a sarchastic insult plus something I wrote I month before
AND MODIFIED from FACE to PAY.


If everyone who read the article calls me a crimial because of the things I wrote,
then they have EFFECTIVLY misquoted me.

They used every trick in the book to make people believe I wrote that forgery.
They put single quotes inside the policemans words so people interpreted the
quotes as belonging to me. The majority of the population doesn't even know
that

He said "she said 'stuff that'"

is attributed to HIM. People READ IT as her!!

The newspaper effectively, decietfully and literally quoted me.

Anyway, do you have any advice on starting a 'notice from legal advice' letter that
I can mail to theage? .... I have received legal advice to notify you the matter will
be referred to court if not settled.... like that. I will go that far for now, that's free
and worth a shot.

Herc

On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 01:14:25 GMT, malachi <malachi@ot.com> wrote:
Richard wrote: |-|erc wrote:> http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/03/08/1015365742538.html The Age knows the police were setting me up. They still quoted material to me that wasn't mine. I don't know if the right margin section here was made on 8 March or added later, but its a deliberate play on the article that suggests the quoted policeman as defaming me.Unless you are Graham Andrew Cooper

BINGO!!!!


You got him. That indeed is Herc.
Otherwise you are paranoid, or don't know who you are.malachi

--

Find out about Australia's most dangerous Doomsday Cult:
http://users.bigpond.net.au/wanglese/pebble.htm

"You can't fool me, it's turtles all the way down."

On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 12:30:26 +1000, "|-|erc"
<trymyform@wwwadamskingdom.com> wrote:
Otherwise you are paranoid, or don't know who you are.Strange article to have INVESTIGATOR FOUND GUILTY OF DEFAMINGas the feature related story.check the pictureI can't sue the police force, I CAN sue the newspaper. "dlkdldlkjdlkjdk" said the police man. "then this happened dslkjdslkjdsfkjdf jldkfsjdlkflkj dfsjkdflkj" "dsfkjldslkj fdskjldskjd He said things such as 'REPLY OR PAY CONSEQUENCES... NOW I'M GOING TO...'"Since when does says SUCH AS get quotes? In a published newspaper?You said things LIKE "Long live Satan" publish that! Prove that wrong!You've got to be joking, the newspaper is taking resposibility that those statements are true.It reads like the newspaper_is_speaking_factually for several paragraphs, it *alludes* to quotingmenot the policeman. He is only mentioned 3 paragraphs earlier.EVERYONE BELIEVES I wrote that. I didn't write one of those sentences. I didn't demand moneyat all, only "you ripped me off" in the suggestion box.They are not true. I have a photo copy of the evidence with me. It was1. Barry Williams I have pleaded with your society to reply for 3 WEEKS REPLY ASAP or face consequences.2.The actual 'extortion' I uploaded the whole email before he forged charges.

Nobody forged anything. You got caught, and you neded a psychiatrist.
You still do. Go and see your doctor, please. No-one wants to see you
fall apart on Usenet.




--

Find out about Australia's most dangerous Doomsday Cult:
http://users.bigpond.net.au/wanglese/pebble.htm

"You can't fool me, it's turtles all the way down."

"|-|erc" <trymyform@wwwadamskingdom.com> wrote in message news:<_aSHb.167$hU2.6259@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au>... ----------------------------- <^> <(·¿·)> <^> ----------------------------- "Richard" <anonymous@127.000> wrote |-|erc wrote:> Otherwise you are paranoid, or don't know who you are.> Strange article to have INVESTIGATOR FOUND GUILTY OF DEFAMING as the feature related story. check the picture I can't sue the police force, I CAN sue the newspaper. No. You sue the constable. He's the one who is responsible for making those statements. Who says you can't sue the newspaper? If they printed knowingly false statements, or did not back up the statements, they are liable. The newspaper made a technically correct document that was deliberately misleading, they were quoting material and broadcasting it as if it was factual. Everyone who reads the paper assumes I commited extortion. That is utter rubbish, I made an obviously sarchastic but threatening personal remark. Everything else was tagged together. Supreme court threw it out. Policemen don't have money, the newspaper does. Slander was commited. There are quotes around forged text by the newspaper. They had a lot of different ways they could have presented the facts but they chose to sensationalise and lead into the story and lull the reader into following the article and policemans statements AS IF WRITTEN BY THE NEWSPAPER.

Much blather deleted

Since you believe that the newspaper has libelled you why are you not
engaging the services of a barrister and serving all the correct
documentation on them rather than blather on in here about it..

But, and I reinforce the but, if you are not right and lose the case
most newspapers have enough clout to demand costs from an
unsuccessfully bought court case....
And reporting on evidence presented in an open court case is not a
libel

----------------------------- <^> <(·¿·)> <^> -----------------------------

"George" <gblack@hnpl.net> wrote in
> INVESTIGATOR FOUND GUILTY OF DEFAMING > as the feature related story. > check the picture > I can't sue the police force, I CAN sue the newspaper. No. You sue the constable. He's the one who is responsible for making those statements. Who says you can't sue the newspaper? If they printed knowingly false statements, or did not back up the statements, they are liable. The newspaper made a technically correct document that was deliberately misleading, they were quoting material and broadcasting it as if it was factual. Everyone who reads the paper assumes I commited extortion. That is utter rubbish, I made an obviously sarchastic but threatening personal remark. Everything else was tagged together. Supreme court threw it out. Policemen don't have money, the newspaper does. Slander was commited. There are quotes around forged text by the newspaper. They had a lot of different ways they could have presented the facts but they chose to sensationalise and lead into the story and lull the reader into following the article and policemans statements AS IF WRITTEN BY THE NEWSPAPER. Much blather deleted Since you believe that the newspaper has libelled you why are you not engaging the services of a barrister and serving all the correct documentation on them rather than blather on in here about it..

AHA, so there's your problem, you have to read to the end of each post.

Anyway, do you have any advice on starting a 'notice from legal advice' letter that
I can mail to theage? .... I have received legal advice to notify you the matter will
be referred to court if not settled.... like that. I will go that far for now, that's free
and worth a shot.

My brother just spent $20,000 on a divorce hearing, and he wrote his own
affidavits to save money. misc.legal can be helpful to people who wish to pursue things
themselves. I've taken people to small claims court just following the pamphlets,
I was the only one without a lawyer but the judge nodded at all my paperwork
and the clerk grunts and ahhs at what answer you should give the judge.
But, and I reinforce the but, if you are not right and lose the case most newspapers have enough clout to demand costs from an unsuccessfully bought court case.... And reporting on evidence presented in an open court case is not a libel


They quoted the "evidence" as if it was factual.
They put quotes around forged words with no NEARBY reference it was
actually written by the skeptic suckup pig.

Effectively noone believed that was police transcript but MY WORDS.
They were misleading. They 1st quoted the policemans words that sounded like
a newspaper commentary so people were lured into the statements as
being factual, even though referenced to the pig earlier_on.

Wake up George, the age basically gave it the title
INVESTIGATOR FOUND GUILTY OF DEFAMING

Another exhibit that media know I am the Truman.

Herc