 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Alternative / November 2005Libel Case Could Chill Speech Online
Libel Case Could Chill Speech Online http://www.linuxelectrons.com/article.php/20041129212359249 Tuesday, November 30 2004 @ 07:00 AM Contributed by: Tommy Last week the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California (ACLU) filed a friend-of-the-court brief in a case that could undermine a federal statute protecting the free speech of bloggers, Internet service providers, and other individuals who use the Internet to post content written by others. The case in question is a libel suit filed against women's health advocate Illena Rosenthal after she posted a controversial opinion piece on a Usenet news group. The piece was written not by Rosenthal, but by Tim Bolen, a critic of plaintiff Terry Polevoy. In their brief, EFF and the ACLU argue that Section 230 of the federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 protects Internet publishers from being held liable for allegedly harmful comments written by others. Similar attempts to eliminate the protections created by Section 230 have almost universally been rejected, until a California Court of Appeals radically reinterpreted the statute to allow lawsuits against non-authors. The case is being reviewed by the California Supreme Court. Lawyers for the plaintiffs argue that Rosenthal is liable because posting the comments makes her a "developer" of the information in question, and she therefore becomes the legal equivalent of its creator for the purposes of the lawsuit. If the court finds in favor of the plaintiffs, the implications for free speech online are far-reaching. Bloggers could be held liable when they quote other people's writing, and website owners could be held liable for what people say in message boards on their sites. The end result is that many people would simply cease to publish or host websites. In its brief, EFF argues that "the specter of civil liability chills the speech" of Internet service providers and users, and will inevitably lead to "protective self-censorship." "Every other jurisdiction addressing Section 230 has given effect to Congress' broad protections and Internet speech has flourished as a result," said EFF Staff Attorney Kurt Opsahl. "The Court of Appeals upset this settled law and we are simply asking the California Supreme Court to set things right." "Section 230 protects the ordinary people who use the Internet and email to pass on items of interest written by others, free from the fear of potentially ruinous lawsuits filed by those who don't like what was said about them," said ACLU staff attorney Ann Brick. "The vitality of the Internet would quickly dissipate if the posting of content written by others created liability. The impulse to self-censor would be unavoidable." hfbg "Ilena Rose" <ilena@san.rr.com> in her official capacity as the DOMINATING Directorix of the FDA DE-listed, San Diego DE-licensed, and apparently DE-funct Humantics Foundation,wrote in message news:a32vq01e10qcda16hjhr1p03pdavas6uml@4ax.com... > Libel Case Could Chill Speech Online Sort of like when you contact spouses, etc. Right? > http://www.linuxelectrons.com/article.php/20041129212359249 > [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] > self-censor would be unavoidable." > hfbg On Thu, 2 Dec 2004 17:04:43 -0500, "Mark Probert" <Mark Probert@lumbercartel.com> dribble deleted ... www.humanticsfoundation.com/quacklibelsuit.htm "Ilena Rose" <ilena@san.rr.com> in her official capacity as the DOMINATING Directorix of the FDA DE-listed, San Diego DE-licensed, and apparently DE-funct Humantics Foundation,wrote in message news:bs5vq0lr8uo14kbj5geqk5ompne83vrf9b@4ax.com... > On Thu, 2 Dec 2004 17:04:43 -0500, "Mark Probert" <Mark > Probert@lumbercartel.com> dribble deleted ... Ilena removes what she cannot deal with, thus demonstrating that she is a intellectually bankrupt intellectual coward. > www.humanticsfoundation.com/quacklibelsuit.htm I restore what she could not deal with: "Ilena Rose" <ilena@san.rr.com> in her official capacity as the DOMINATING Directorix of the FDA DE-listed, San Diego DE-licensed, and apparently DE-funct Humantics Foundation,wrote in message news:a32vq01e10qcda16hjhr1p03pdavas6uml@4ax.com... > Libel Case Could Chill Speech Online Sort of like when you contact spouses, etc. Right? > "Ilena Rose" <ilena@san.rr.com> in her official capacity as the > DOMINATING > Directorix of the FDA DE-listed, San Diego DE-licensed, and apparently > DE-funct Humantics Foundation,wrote in message > news:bs5vq0lr8uo14kbj5geqk5ompne83vrf9b@4ax.com... http://www.onlinerummaging.com/asbi/a8.jpg On Fri, 3 Dec 2004 06:41:05 -0800, "Coleah" <coleah@pacifier.com> has reposted many libelous statements about me and the Humantics Foundation ... www.humanticsfoundation.com/andysposse.htm Coleah with Corporate Lobbyists, Med device Shills and Silicone Manufacturers "Ilena Rose" <ilena@san.rr.com> in her official capacity as the DOMINATING Directorix of the FDA DE-listed, San Diego DE-Licensed, and apparently DE-funct Humantics Foundation, wrote in message news:oq01r013ar3geva8uun6kfos71l3ujhtqu@4ax.com... > On Fri, 3 Dec 2004 06:41:05 -0800, "Coleah" <coleah@pacifier.com> has > reposted many libelous statements about me and the Humantics > Foundation ... Ilena, as you know, such postings, if they are libelous, are protected speech under a certain courst decision which you are most familiar with. In fact, I think that you should be given the full protection that any public person has, which would require an even higher standard of proof in any case you may bring for defamation. > www.humanticsfoundation.com/andysposse.htm > Coleah with Corporate Lobbyists, Med device Shills and Silicone > Manufacturers BTW, I still have not seen your comment, or Jan's comment, or Timmy Bolen's comment on the total repudiation of Hulda Clark's quackery by the FTC. > Libel Case Could Chill Speech Online > http://www.linuxelectrons.com/article.php/20041129212359249 [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] > of content written by others created liability. The impulse to > self-censor would be unavoidable." ********************* Let's take a look at the ACLU attorney's statement: ****** "The vitality ...... (lively and animated character) ****** of the Internet would quickly dissipate.... (break up and scatter or vanish) ****** if the posting of content written by others created liability. ****** The impulse to self-censor..... (supervise one's own conduct and morals) ****** would be unavoidable." So, basically it would require an individual to 1. Self-monitor what they communicate. 2. Be responsible for what they communicate. 3. Check the facts before re-posting something written by others. 4. Totally agree with the facts before re-posting. 5. Present the facts as something you would put your money where your mouth is. The affect upon the "Internet" would: 1. Lessen the 'lively' spontaneous posting by individuals of harmful certain information. 2. Bring dignity and personal responsibility to each and every individual.....equally. As Charles Manson might say....it would be like trying to tame "Helter Skelter". Should be interesting to see how far to the left we as a species have bent. On Thu, 2 Dec 2004 15:08:12 -0800, "Coleah" <coleah@pacifier.com> has re-posted many libelous statements about me ... www.humanticsfoundation.com/andysposse.htm www.humanticsfoundation.com/quacklibelsuit.htm Of note, the original postings that led to this lawsuit have been taken off Google ... Not by me ... the poster ... but by whom? That is one of the issues of this case ... who put pressure on Google to remove these postings? I binna' tryin' to figuer this out fer ma'self! 'Lemme no, iffin' ya heer! Here's the way I look at it. If one slanders or libels someone on the street, in print in the news media, or any other public forum, they can be held accountable and made responsible (unless they are hiding out in Costa Rican folliage). As much as the internet and especially newsgroups are the wild wild west of civiliation right now, the laws regarding slander, defamation, and libel should be every much as valid in this arena, as it is anywhere else in society. It has nothing to do with "FREE SPEECH" issues. . .We already have those in society, and having them apply to the internet, newsgroups and other on-line stages, should be handled no differently. . .That's common sense! Individuals are free to say anything they wish, both here and elsewhere! And, accountability and responsibility should be no different, here or elsewhere! The internet is no more sacred than the wild west, and eventually even there it needed to be tamed to an extent to bring civilization to the territory. By the way - it is my belief that Ilena is in the breast implant issue not only because she can slam for funds from those harmed by breast implants, but because she is likely also pushing the envelope of an agenda she thinks is the "FREE SPEECH" issue for those that are enticing her to do so. . .Remember Larry Flynt was big on this about the time she started pushing this agenda heavily a couple of years ago. Now, it appears the ACLU is involved in this too! Sadly, she's trying to pass herself off as an advocate, while she has webpages up that openly lie about, slander, and defame those harmed by breast implants, and other advocates. I have wondered why she'd be so idiotic and misguided to do such a thing, the FREE SPEECH agenda makes the pieces fit together perfectly. Even more sad is the fact that Ilena clearly doesn't believe in FREE SPEECH for anyone other than herself. . .(evidence: Her calls to family members, employers, etc. to try and silence people). She doesn't hold herself to the same standard she mandates of others. How much are the breast implant manufacturers, plastic surgeons, PR flacks, and Free Speech agenda people paying you Ilena, to do what you do??? We all wish to know! > Here's the way I look at it. If one slanders or libels someone on the > street, in print in the news media, or any other public forum, they can [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > here and elsewhere! And, accountability and responsibility should be > no different, here or elsewhere! I agree in part, and dissent in part. I do not beleive that there should be two sets of rules which depend on the forum. AFAIAC, the free marketplace of ideas, as countenanced by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, equally exists everywhere there is a thought that a person wishes to share. However, I mostly disagree with the entire idea of defamation. AFAIAC, the best way to respond to defamatory words is to use more words in the free marketplace, and show the defamer for what they are. I am aware of the argument where it is claimed that some defamation can cause irreparable harm, and that the defamer should be held accountable. However, AFAIAC, this is currently way too broadly defined. In Ilena's case, there is no question that she was willfully defamatory, since, IIRC, she had been warned by one or more of her targets and she persisted in reposting BolenBilge. Once she did that, the words and ideas became her own, and she opened herself up to whatever criticism that the free marketplace can offer. HOWEVER, *none* of the plaintiffs in the matter have ever shown any degree of damage. Granted, they were called nasty names, etc., and Polevoy was falsely and repeatedly accused of a crime. However, they have yet to show any evidence of an injury to other than their pride. Frankly, I have been called much worse, e.g., at O'Hare in Chicago in June 1969 when I was called a baby killer by a jerk who said he was anti-war and tried to rip my ribbons and uniform (resulted in a leg fracture, not mine), or a f*ucking Yankee Jew Boy by a fellow in Florida when I drank from a "colored" water fountain (resulted in my nose being broken). Like I have said, use words and ideas to counter words and ideas. > The internet is no more sacred than the wild west, and eventually even > there it needed to be tamed to an extent to bring civilization to the [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > We all wish to know! > HOWEVER, *none* of the plaintiffs in the matter have ever shown any degree > of damage. Granted, they were called nasty names, etc., and Polevoy was > falsely and repeatedly accused of a crime. However, they have yet to show > any evidence of an injury to other than their pride. There is a line. Criminal defamation is deemed to have caused damage when it steps over the line of utter incivility. The conditions of CD were; loathesome disease, inchastity in a woman, failure at professional endeavor, and unfounded accusation of a crime/conviction/turpitude (damn- there's one more, but memory fails <g>) > Frankly, I have been called much worse, e.g., at O'Hare in Chicago in June > 1969 when I was called a baby killer by a jerk who said he was anti-war [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > or a f*ucking Yankee Jew Boy by a fellow in Florida when I drank from a > "colored" water fountain (resulted in my nose being broken). So you understand how some 'words' are considered more significant than others, neh? > Like I have said, use words and ideas to counter words and ideas. Truely- but the things that you were subjected to crossed that line of civility. You know, as well as I, about that interview/insult period before the fight- the fight's started, everything else is just jockeying for position <g> Chas > > HOWEVER, *none* of the plaintiffs in the matter have ever shown any degree > > of damage. Granted, they were called nasty names, etc., and Polevoy was [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > and unfounded accusation of a crime/conviction/turpitude (damn- there's one > more, but memory fails <g>) I agree that there is a line. However, I want the line at actual, demonstrable damage, not just insults make me feel bad. > > Frankly, I have been called much worse, e.g., at O'Hare in Chicago in June > > 1969 when I was called a baby killer by a jerk who said he was anti-war [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > So you understand how some 'words' are considered more significant than > others, neh? Let's see...At O'Hare I responded to an actual touching of my person....in Florida I was 9 years old.... > > Like I have said, use words and ideas to counter words and ideas. > > Truely- but the things that you were subjected to crossed that line of > civility. You know, as well as I, about that interview/insult period before > the fight- the fight's started, everything else is just jockeying for > position <g> The line that was crossed was the word/action line. I have stepped back many times to avoid that line being crossed. If the other party still wishes to cross that line, then it becomes their problem. > Chas > I agree that there is a line. However, I want the line at actual, > demonstrable damage, not just insults make me feel bad. That's the point; being defamed criminally *is* demonstrable damage. If someone associated your name with cannibalism, for example, that is demonstrable damage. Who knows what that association might mean in your life. Why should a corporation be able to sue you, and not a private citizen- considering that the private citizen probably suffers more intense damage than a legal fiction chartered for doing business? > Let's see...At O'Hare I responded to an actual touching of my person....in > Florida I was 9 years old.... Ahh; I was an adult when insults were sufficient provocation to punch someone in their pie-hole. There was a certain restraint in public discourse that was enforced on one's person if crossed. > The line that was crossed was the word/action line. I have stepped back > many > times to avoid that line being crossed. If the other party still wishes to > cross that line, then it becomes their problem. That's the nature of the medium- the line of incivility can be crossed with electrons as well as a punch in the snoot. Sticks and stones can break your bones- and so can words attack you. People should be responsible for what comes out of their 'mouths'. Chas > > I agree that there is a line. However, I want the line at actual, > > demonstrable damage, not just insults make me feel bad. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > demonstrable damage. Who knows what that association might mean in your > life. I would deny it, and demand proof. If no proof is forthcoming, then the person who asserted that is shown to be a liar. > Why should a corporation be able to sue you, and not a private citizen- > considering that the private citizen probably suffers more intense damage > than a legal fiction chartered for doing business? If a claim is made about a corporation, and they can show that there was actual, measurable, damage, I have no problem with that, or vice versa. However, "they said something bad about me and I think that someone may not do business with me" is not an actionalbe claim, AFAIAC. I think you would understand it when I ask, Where's the beef? > > Let's see...At O'Hare I responded to an actual touching of my person....in > > Florida I was 9 years old.... > > Ahh; I was an adult when insults were sufficient provocation to punch > someone in their pie-hole. There was a certain restraint in public discourse > that was enforced on one's person if crossed. Like I said, I take a step backwards to give the other party a chance to reflect. > > The line that was crossed was the word/action line. I have stepped back > > many [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > bones- and so can words attack you. People should be responsible for what > comes out of their 'mouths'. Agreed. However, they should be shown to be abusive, nasty, liars, etc. I do that with Rosenthal all the time, usually by knowing what she will say in advance, i.e., something nasty, devoid of factual proof. > I would deny it, and demand proof. If no proof is forthcoming, then the > person who asserted that is shown to be a liar. Where is this court to whom you'd present your proofs against such a charge? Or would exact some sanction against this proven Liar? And how do you prove that you're not a 'babykiller'? > If a claim is made about a corporation, and they can show that there was > actual, measurable, damage, I have no problem with that, or vice versa. They use abstracts, like 'good will' and so on to figure damages- why not you? > However, "they said something bad about me and I think that someone may > not > do business with me" is not an actionalbe claim, AFAIAC. I think you would > understand it when I ask, Where's the beef? The 'beef' is people thinking you're a 'babykiller' and making decisions on that information that you never even know about. Why do you think it's the first choice of weapons by some people? >> Ahh; I was an adult when insults were sufficient provocation to punch >> someone in their pie-hole. There was a certain restraint in public > discourse >> that was enforced on one's person if crossed. > Like I said, I take a step backwards to give the other party a chance to > reflect. A commendable charity on your part, and not an expectation. People will intrude and insult you feeling that they can get away with it- a little frisson of incivility that they'll never have to pay for. Your choice to forgive shouldn't be the only option for everyone. Chas > > I would deny it, and demand proof. If no proof is forthcoming, then the > > person who asserted that is shown to be a liar. > > Where is this court to whom you'd present your proofs against such a charge? Like I said the the fellow, prove I am a baby killer. When he could not, I called him an a.s. Youhave to remember, I consider the source, and the source was meaningless to me. > Or would exact some sanction against this proven Liar? Letting him know he was an a.s was sufficient. > And how do you prove that you're not a 'babykiller'? That is not how it is done. He had to prove I was. > > If a claim is made about a corporation, and they can show that there was > > actual, measurable, damage, I have no problem with that, or vice versa. > > They use abstracts, like 'good will' and so on to figure damages- why not > you? Like I said, demonstrable damage. If they can show a link between the statements and a loss of business, I have no problem. > > However, "they said something bad about me and I think that someone may > > not [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > The 'beef' is people thinking you're a 'babykiller' and making decisions on > that information that you never even know about. Frankly, who cares? If anyone makes such a decision based on that, then it is their loss. > Why do you think it's the first choice of weapons by some people? Because they have no other. > >> Ahh; I was an adult when insults were sufficient provocation to punch > >> someone in their pie-hole. There was a certain restraint in public [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > intrude and insult you feeling that they can get away with it- a little > frisson of incivility that they'll never have to pay for. Oh, they do pay for it. Look at Ms. Rosenthal. She has been providing tons of the speech that the First Amendment is designed to protect. Her Foundation seems to be on its last legs. I do beleive that time wounds all heels. > Your choice to forgive shouldn't be the only option for everyone. I do not forgive. When I take a step back, I suggest that they reconsider their actions. I did not post to Ms. Rosenthal for over a year. She was unrelenting in her attacks on me. Finally I had enough, and decided to dish it back. She cannot handle it as evidenced by her ranting and raving. At one time, she initiated a thread where she asked if I were my long dead uncle. http://tinyurl.com/3mye6 In the course of her responding, she admitted that she did not even bother to read it, thus acknowledging that she is an abusive moron. I do have a very tough skin. She has no credibility with anyone who means anything to me. > Like I said, demonstrable damage. If they can show a link between the > statements and a loss of business, I have no problem. Why confine it only to 'business'? Our courts generally judge for 'damages' in money, neh? If money is your only recompense, it is certainly completely valid to sue for monetary damages for abstract concepts- 'loss of consortium', 'intentional infliction of emotional distress', 'false light of privacy'.... There's certainly plenty of precedent for such damages. >> The 'beef' is people thinking you're a 'babykiller' and making decisions > on >> that information that you never even know about. > Frankly, who cares? If anyone makes such a decision based on that, then it > is their loss. Oh please! Look at what just happened to John Kerry for having his integrity impeached- the 'truth' (whatever it is) is immaterial at this point. Losing the Presidency was a professional hit, but his personal reputation is shot as well. >> Why do you think it's the first choice of weapons by some people? > Because they have no other. No sh.t. Does that make the hit any less painful? The fact that weasels fight by snapping at your a.s doesn't make it any less threatening or hazardous to your butt cheeks. >> Your choice to forgive shouldn't be the only option for everyone. > I do not forgive. When I take a step back, I suggest that they reconsider > their actions. A better choice of word would have been 'forbear'. > I did not post to Ms. Rosenthal for over a year. She was unrelenting in > her > attacks on me. That's the way women fight. Little people have to come at you from an angle- they can't face up, it's inherent in the gender. Women have always fought from the base of evasion, deception, deceit and trickery- it's good stuff for any martial artist to learn. > Finally I had enough, and decided to dish it back. Ain't it always the way? They think the name-calling *is* the fight <g> > She cannot handle it as evidenced by her ranting and raving. If you play rough, you're going to take a bump- > I do have a very tough skin. That's why they use needling- and they know your soft parts. Chas >> I did not post to Ms. Rosenthal for over a year. She was unrelenting in >> her >> attacks on me. > >That's the way women fight. I wouldn't believe Marla about that Chas ... he is the Queen of Fake Names and Alliases ... and used them to attack me ... regardless of his denials. www.humanticsfoundation.com/quacklibelsuit.htm www.humanticsfoundation.com/PropagandistProbert.html >>That's the way women fight. > I wouldn't believe Marla about that Chas I have no idea of ya'll's fight- I'm far more interested in the abstract legal principles involved in internet defamation. I see this in 'misc.legal', so my interest is very circumscribed. Chas >>>That's the way women fight. >> I wouldn't believe Marla about that Chas [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >Chas Cool! www.humanticsfoundation.com/quacklibelsuit.htm www.humanticsfoundation.com/PropagandistProbert.html >>I have no idea of ya'll's fight- I'm far more interested in the abstract >>legal principles involved in internet defamation. >>I see this in 'misc.legal', so my interest is very circumscribed. > www.humanticsfoundation.com/quacklibelsuit.htm Thank you, ma'am; precisely my area of interest. Hadn't even been aware of the controversy in quite that context- very best of luck to you. Chas > >>I have no idea of ya'll's fight- I'm far more interested in the abstract > >>legal principles involved in internet defamation. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Hadn't even been aware of the controversy in quite that context- very best > of luck to you. And, I have told her the same thing. >Subject: Re: Libel Case Could Chill Speech Online >From: Ilena Rose ilena@san.rr.com [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > >www.humanticsfoundation.com/PropagandistProbert.html I predict Orac will be along soon to do a 180 and try tp protect his buddy Mark, as he is : |"I am not interested in trying to compensate | for your amazing lack of observation." LOL. Jan >Subject: Re: Libel Case Could Chill Speech Online >From: "Chas" chasclementsSPOOF@comcast.net [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] >>> Your choice to forgive shouldn't be the only option for everyone. >> I do not forgive. What a shame. I suggest Mark take a private retreat with GOD. God forgives us as we forgive others. >When I take a step back, I suggest that they reconsider >> their actions. There you have it. Mark does not forgive, but he talks about Others' actions. It doesn't get any clearer than that. Jan >A better choice of word would have been 'forbear'. > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > >Chas > >Subject: Re: Libel Case Could Chill Speech Online > >From: "Chas" chasclementsSPOOF@comcast.net [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > > God forgives us as we forgive others. And, I have forgiven you and Ilena for what you have done to my family. If you read the email you received from my wife, which you posted to Usenet after being told that she considered it private and that she did not want to participate in Usenet, you would see that I asked her not to follow-up and file complaints with RoadRunner, Hotmail and GoDaddy. That is a form of forgiveness that YOU did not show when other people did something that you did not like. YOU reported them to their providers. IOW, Jan, by your own words, actions and deeds, you once again prove that you are a hypocrite. > >When I take a step back, I suggest that they reconsider > >> their actions. > > There you have it. Mark does not forgive, but he talks about Others' actions. > > It doesn't get any clearer than that. See above for a valid comparison for your actions and my actions. Note who the hypocrite is. BTW, taking a step back and asking someone to reconsider their actions IS a form of forgiveness. If anyone responds to this message, please re-post in its entirety, as Ms. Drew killfiles me, but takes pot shots anyway. >Subject: Re: Libel Case Could Chill Speech Online >From: "Mark Probert" MarkProbert@lumbercartel.com [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] > >And, I have forgiven you and Ilena for what you have done to my family. *I* have done nothing to your family. Jan > >Subject: Re: Libel Case Could Chill Speech Online > >From: "Mark Probert" MarkProbert@lumbercartel.com [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] > > *I* have done nothing to your family. YOU posted my wife's private email to you which identifies where she works. Posting private email is considered to be against Netiquette. Also, you complained when someone posted a link to a search engine which displayed your home phone number and address. Thus, you have demonstrated that you are sensitive to the concept of privacy. See: http://randomnetstuff.com/netiquette.html where it says: "Any private message you receive, keep that way. There was a reason the person contacted you in private and did not address the entire board." My wife clearly stated in the beginning that she did not wish to go public. You failed to respect her request for privacy. http://www.chowan.edu/acadp/computer/netetiquette/rule8.html > >Subject: Re: Libel Case Could Chill Speech Online > >From: "Mark Probert" MarkProbert@lumbercartel.com [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] > > *I* have done nothing to your family. YOU posted my wife's private email to you which identifies where she works. Posting private email is considered to be against Netiquette. Also, you complained when someone posted a link to a search engine which displayed your home phone number and address. Thus, you have demonstrated that you are sensitive to the concept of privacy. See: http://randomnetstuff.com/netiquette.html where it says: "Any private message you receive, keep that way. There was a reason the person contacted you in private and did not address the entire board." My wife clearly stated in the beginning that she did not wish to go public. You failed to respect her request for privacy. http://www.chowan.edu/acadp/computer/netetiquette/rule8.html >> > HOWEVER, *none* of the plaintiffs in the matter have ever shown any > degree [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > one >> more, but memory fails <g>) > I agree that there is a line. However, I want the line at actual, > demonstrable damage, not just insults make me feel bad. Do you mean like Person A putting up a public webpage advertising that Person B was underhandedly 'bought off' and involved in a mafia style, secret 'cartel'? And how the false accusations and statements by Person A then affected Person B from gaining future employment with a position of 'trust' ? Probably more like Terry "Vera Polevoy" hiring Ted Nidiffer to lie to the public by putting up defamatory webpages about me ... lying that we have used funds from the Humantics Foundation to pay for legal fees ... and other lies that we have used Tax ID numbers from other entities. Maybe your lies that NSIF head Martha Murdock gave $2500 to the Humantics Foundation for books ... as well as your lies (and hers) that she paid for 2 airfares that she didn't would be grounds. > >> > HOWEVER, *none* of the plaintiffs in the matter have ever shown any > > degree [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > statements by Person A then affected Person B from gaining > future employment with a position of 'trust' ? If you can actually prove that someone was so stupid as to believe her webpages, then do you want to work that that person? Actually, if you can prove it, yes. > > HOWEVER, *none* of the plaintiffs in the matter have ever shown any degree > > of damage. Granted, they were called nasty names, etc., and Polevoy was > > falsely and repeatedly accused of a crime. However, they have yet to show > > any evidence of an injury to other than their pride. > > There is a line. Criminal defamation I have never heard of defamation being a crime in the US. is deemed to have caused damage when it > steps over the line of utter incivility. The conditions of CD were; > loathesome disease, inchastity in a woman, failure at professional endeavor, [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Chas >> There is a line. Criminal defamation > I have never heard of defamation being a crime in the US. Google it. Chas > >> There is a line. Criminal defamation > > I have never heard of defamation being a crime in the US. > > Google it. I did. Very interesting. bookmarked for more reading. > I did. Very interesting. bookmarked for more reading. I think this is Colorado's statute- 18-13-105. Criminal libel. (1) A person who shall knowingly publish or disseminate, either by written instrument, sign, pictures, or the like, any statement or object tending to blacken the memory of one who is dead, or to impeach the honesty, integrity, virtue, or reputation or expose the natural defects of one who is alive, and thereby to expose him to public hatred, contempt, or ridicule, commits criminal libel. (2) It shall be an affirmative defense that the publication was true, except libels tending to blacken the memory of the dead and libels tending to expose the natural defects of the living. (3) Criminal libel is a class 6 felony. Chas > > I did. Very interesting. bookmarked for more reading. > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > expose the natural defects of the living. > (3) Criminal libel is a class 6 felony. More chilling than Ilena Rosenthal who emails spouses to get them to tell their husbands off. > More chilling than Ilena Rosenthal who emails spouses to get them to tell > their husbands off. Yeah; and that sh.t about a note to your Mommy in your lunchbox is just intolerable. I'm sorry buddy, but that's on a level of being annoyed by ducks. Chas > > More chilling than Ilena Rosenthal who emails spouses to get them to tell > > their husbands off. > > Yeah; and that sh.t about a note to your Mommy in your lunchbox is just > intolerable. > I'm sorry buddy, but that's on a level of being annoyed by ducks. When one posts the work address of a person who is not a participant in usenet it is wrong. Period. As for being annoyed by ducks, I do happen to live in a fouled water fowl area. Unless you do, you have no idea. >Subject: Re: Libel Case Could Chill Speech Online >From: "Mark Probert" MarkProbert@lumbercartel.com [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >When one posts the work address of a person who is not a participant in >usenet it is wrong. Period. The usual twist dance. When one sends private e-mail, ignoring the requests as YOU have done several times, it is RUDE with an insane need to be heard. > >Subject: Re: Libel Case Could Chill Speech Online > >From: "Mark Probert" MarkProbert@lumbercartel.com [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > The usual twist dance. No twsiting, as we were discussing Ilena, not you. Not every negative word here is about you. > When one sends private e-mail, ignoring the requests as YOU have done several > times, it is RUDE with an insane need to be heard. No, it reflects annoyance at you taking shots at me from behind your killfile. If you IGNORED me, and never mentioned me, than there would have been no need. Taking shots from behind a killfile is rude, and you got what you asked for. > More chilling than Ilena Rosenthal who emails spouses to get them to tell > their husbands off. =================== Hmmmm.......funny thing is I don't recall whining, 'tattle tail' Ilena ever confronting someone's 'husband' ..... could be she knows she'd be knocked right on her 'Terrorizing Activist' a.s. >> I did. Very interesting. bookmarked for more reading. > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > >Chas I don't know how rare it is in the US, but as far as I know there has only ever been one case of criminal libel brought before the courts in Australia. It was brought against author Frank Hardy over the book Power Without Glory, a (very) thinly-veiled fictionalised biography of one of Melbourne's most flamboyant and well-known criminals. I think that Hardy's line of defence was that the book was very closely based on fact but the plaintiffs were free to prove that events did not happen as described. Much as I loved Frank Hardy when he was alive, I do have to admit that his idea of an accurate biography seemed to be one where the page numbers were in sequence and all the words were spelled correctly. It probably only got started as a criminal rather than civil action because the crook had enough cops on the payroll to get it started and enough judges to cause him to believe that he would prevail. PS - Spooky Note. When I ran a spell check on this message before sending it, the error "they wre free" was picked up. One of the suggestions for the word "wre" was "wren". The fictional crook in PWG was John West. The real-life crook was John Wren. Explain that, skeptics.  SignaturePeter Bowditch The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com >> There is a line. Criminal defamation > >I have never heard of defamation being a crime in the US. Didn't they try that down in Texas, going after Oprah for defaming beef? Or was that a civil case? -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct. "If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants were standing on my shoulders." (Hal Abelson, MIT) >Didn't they try that down in Texas, going after Oprah for defaming >beef? Or was that a civil case? It was a SLAPP suit ... just like the one Barrett and Grell lost to me. www.humanticsfoundation.com/quacklibelsuit.htm Thanks Davey for the reminder ... I'll use that on my website about the Quacks losing to me. > >Didn't they try that down in Texas, going after Oprah for defaming > >beef? Or was that a civil case? > > It was a SLAPP suit ... It was defaming beef, and, was the basis for my original question, What's Your beef? Has nothing to do with you. >> >Didn't they try that down in Texas, going after Oprah for defaming >> >beef? Or was that a civil case? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >Has nothing to do with you. As I was saying, when Marla Probert here got her pantyhose in a wad ... is that the suit against Oprah Winfrey that she WON ... was a classic SLAPP suit ... just as when Pharmaceutical shill Barrett and his Malicious Prosecutor Chris Grell sued me for "libel." www.humanticsfoundation.com/quacklibelsuit.htm > >> >Didn't they try that down in Texas, going after Oprah for defaming > >> >beef? Or was that a civil case? [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > As I was saying, > www.humanticsfoundation.com/quacklibelsuit.htm In this case, your sole contribution was providing the nasty attitude that the First Amendment protects. > www.humanticsfoundation.com/quacklibelsuit.htm > >In this case, your sole contribution was providing the nasty attitude that >the First Amendment protects. Says you ... and like your Handler Barrett ... you are biased and unworthy of credibillity. www.humanticsfoundation.com/PropagandistProbert.html The case is not over ... www.humanticsfoundation.com/quacklibelsuit.htm So far: LOL ... DisinfoAgent Ted Nidiffer is still publicizing his handlers opinions about what is ... and what is not ... quackery ... as facts. They are not. One of the outcomes of Barrett & Gang vs Ilena Rosenthal was the ruling of the Courts that calling someone a "quack" was NOT the dominion of Stephen Barrett, Terry "Vera Teasdale" Polevoy the Healthfrauds, quackwatch.com, Barrett's Ragtag Posse, or anyone else who has so claimed to know. www.humanticsfoundation.com/quacklibelsuit.htm www.humanticsfoundation.com/andysposse.htm#RagtagPosse Here is Barrett's opinion on quackery ... which has some interesting points: http://www.reall.org/newsletter/v05/n10/quackery.html EXCERPT: Quackery is also involved in misleading advertising of dietary supplements, homeopathic products, and some nonprescription drugs. In many such instances no individual "quack" is involved -- just deception by manufacturers and their advertising agencies. ~~~~~~~~~ Note how Barrett has conveniently left out PRESCRIPTION drugs ... as if deception by the Pharmaceutical manufacturers and their advertising agencies was acceptable by these Healthfrauds. Again, this is just a highly promoted viewpoint, funded by the chemical / pharmaceutical / med device etc. corporations through front groups like ACSH, CEI, and their splintery, quacky offshoots. "Ilena Rose" <ilena@san.rr.com> in her official capacity as the DIVERTING, DEFAMING, Dominating Directorix of the FDA DE-listed, San Diego DE-licensed, and apparently DE-funct Humantics Foundation, wrote in message news:f1uur01p7bis91asfbfthdfk75e6fkot29@4ax.com... > > www.humanticsfoundation.com/quacklibelsuit.htm > > > >In this case, your sole contribution was providing the nasty attitude that > >the First Amendment protects. > > Says you ... Says any intelligent person who understands the First Amendment, the rule of law, and you. > www.humanticsfoundation.com/quacklibelsuit.htm > >In this case, your sole contribution was providing the nasty attitude that >the First Amendment protects. Says you ... and like your Handler Barrett ... you are biased and unworthy of credibillity. www.humanticsfoundation.com/PropagandistProbert.html The case is not over ... www.humanticsfoundation.com/quacklibelsuit.htm So far: LOL ... DisinfoAgent Ted Nidiffer is still publicizing his handlers opinions about what is ... and what is not ... quackery ... as facts. They are not. One of the outcomes of Barrett & Gang vs Ilena Rosenthal was the ruling of the Courts that calling someone a "quack" was NOT the dominion of Stephen Barrett, Terry "Vera Teasdale" Polevoy the Healthfrauds, quackwatch.com, Barrett's Ragtag Posse, or anyone else who has so claimed to know. www.humanticsfoundation.com/quacklibelsuit.htm www.humanticsfoundation.com/andysposse.htm#RagtagPosse Here is Barrett's opinion on quackery ... which has some interesting points: http://www.reall.org/newsletter/v05/n10/quackery.html EXCERPT: Quackery is also involved in misleading advertising of dietary supplements, homeopathic products, and some nonprescription drugs. In many such instances no individual "quack" is involved -- just deception by manufacturers and their advertising agencies. ~~~~~~~~~ Note how Barrett has conveniently left out PRESCRIPTION drugs ... as if deception by the Pharmaceutical manufacturers and their advertising agencies was acceptable by these Healthfrauds. Again, this is just a highly promoted viewpoint, funded by the chemical / pharmaceutical / med device etc. corporations through front groups like ACSH, CEI, and their splintery, quacky offshoots. >> www.humanticsfoundation.com/quacklibelsuit.htm >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Says you ... and like your Handler Barrett ... you are biased and > unworthy of credibillity. In Ilena's head, people have 'Handler's'.....except for her. Obviously she fancy's herself to BE some kind of almighty 'Handler'. Self-proclaimed Terrorizing Activist (insert any issue here). Barf. www.humanticsfoundation.com/andysposse.htm#Coleah/Polevoy Coming soon Google me this: 1) "YOU DISGUSTING FAT, UGLY PIGFACE"--Ilena Rosenthal sending messages of love thru email to an implant survivor. http://groups.google.com/groups?q=UGLY+PIGFACE+group:alt.support.breast-implant& hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&safe=active&as_drrb=b&as_mind=12&as_minm=5&as_miny=1981&as_ma xd=14&as_maxm=6&as_maxy=2004&selm=ilena-1204021607460001%40dt011n65.san.rr.com&r num=26 2) "That wasn't "love" I was sending to your fellow disgusting fellow Networker friend, [implanted woman] ... the ugliest, most vile creature God ever created, Traitor to the Implanted Women."--Ilena Rosenthal http://groups.google.com/groups?q=That+wasn%27t+%22love%22+I+was+sending++group: alt.support.breast-implant&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&safe=active&scoring=d&selm=ilena-2 901020759070001%40dt011n65.san.rr.com&rnum=9 3) "Previous to telling her to "F*CK OFF" "--Ilena Rosenthal expressing loving thoughts about a breast implant woman. http://groups.google.com/groups?q=Previous+to+telling+her+to++group:alt.support. breast-implant&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&safe=active&scoring=d&selm=9713e020.0312201220 .513cc070%40posting.google.com&rnum=9 4) "The morning I sent her the F*CK off message ..."--Ilena Rosenthal, Director of The Humantics Foundation. http://groups.google.com/groups?q=The+morning+I+sent+her+the+group:alt.support.b reast-implant&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&safe=active&scoring=d&selm=19faaec.0312 191034.6138c21d%40posting.google.com&rnum=15 5) "The quotes I did say were not with "love'"--Ilena Rosenthal, Director of The Humantics Foundation. http://groups.google.com/groups?q=The+quotes+I+did+say+were+not+with++group:alt. support.breast-implant&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&safe=active&scoring=d&selm=9713e020.03 12201220.513cc070%40posting.google.com&rnum=9 6) "I believe if more men could fulfill their own sexual needs there would be less sexual predators around."-- Ilena Rosenthal pushing her mentor, Anthony Zaffuto's book, "Solo Male Ecstasy" (A guide to masturbation techniques). http://groups.google.com/groups?q=I+believe+if+more+men+could+fulfill+their+own+ sexual+group:alt.support.breast-implant&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&safe=active&scoring=d &selm=20031218123456.22081.00002589%40mb-m17.aol.com&rnum=2 7) ".....while doing a Circle Jerk Congratulations to each other on how smart they are."-- More Ilena Roshenthal thoughts of masturbation techniques. http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=ilena-1407011252350001%4024-25-201-231.san. rr.com 8) "THE WORSE THING THAT DR DOBKE EVER DID WAS KEEP YOU ALIVE"--Ilena Rosenthal, sensitive and caring director of Humantics Foundation. http://groups.google.com/groups?q=THE+WORSE+THING+THAT+DR+DOBKE+EVER+DID+WAS&hl= en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&safe=active&selm=ilena-0509010902340001%4024-25-201-231.san.rr.c om&rnum=15 9) "One more of these Missives with your lies and i'll call David and the rest of your sons "-- Ilena Rosenthal, in a fit of humanitarianism. http://groups.google.com/groups?q=One+more+of+these+Missives+with+your+lies&hl=e n&lr=&ie=UTF-8&safe=active&selm=ilena-2108011523540001%4024-25-201-231.san.rr.co m&rnum=83 10) "Everyone got to see that you have the fashion sense of a blind, homeless, beggar"--Ilena Rosenthall commenting on the appearance of a breast implant survivor, shortly after Ilena herself, wore the same "flower child" dress for two consecutive days, at the Institute of Medicine (IOM) hearings at the National Academy of Sciences in Washington DC. http://groups.google.com/groups?q=see+that+you+have+the+fashion+sense+of+a+blind +group:alt.support.breast-implant&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF8&safe=active&selm=ilena-25050 02224430001%40dt012na9.san.rr.com&rnum=5 11) "Your husband has to wake up to you every morning ~ Blech!"--Ilena Rosenthal, in the midst of a tirade with a breast implanted woman. http://groups.google.com/groups?q=see+that+you+have+the+fashion+sense+of+a+blind +group:alt.support.breast-implant&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&safe=active&selm=ilena-2505 002224430001%40dt012na9.san.rr.com&rnum=5 12) "f.ck OFF"--Ilena Rosenthal in a "possible" quote from her mentor, Anthony Zafuto's books & videos, "Solo Male Ecstasy," and/or "The Complete Guide to Oral Lovemaking." 13) "i never used vulgar language on Trash Talk"--Ilena Rosenthal in the midst of forgetfulness, or having a 'senior' moment. http://groups.google.com/groups?q=i+never+used+vulgar+language+on+Trash+Talk+gro up:alt.support.breast-implant&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&safe=active&selm=20000627011650 .15983.00005025%40nso-fk.aol.com&rnum=2 14) "Place me in the company of those who seek the Truth, and deliver me from those who have found it." -- Ilena Rose (talk.atheism 1995) http://groups.google.com/groups?q=those+who+have+found+it+group:alt.support.brea st-implant&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&safe=active&as_drrb=b&as_mind=12&as_minm=5&as_miny =1981&as_maxd=14&as_maxm=6&as_maxy=2004&selm=20010716030030.04179.00001213%40nso -fp.aol.com&rnum=2 15) "Thank God I'm an atheist."--Ilena Rose http://groups.google.com/groups?q=Thank+God+I%27m+an+atheist&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8& safe=active&as_drrb=b&as_mind=12&as_minm=5&as_miny=1981&as_maxd=14&as_maxm=6&as_ maxy=2004&selm=ilena-1608012252560001%4024-25-201-231.san.rr.com&rnum=2 16) "i don't want him, or his a$$ mooning me ~ does she really find this beneficial to the women harmed by implants?"--Ilena Rosenthal in the midst of fantacizing about the husband of a breast implanted woman. http://groups.google.com/groups?q=mooning+me+group:alt.support.breast-implant&hl =en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&safe=active&as_drrb=b&as_mind=12&as_minm=5&as_miny=1981&as_maxd =14&as_maxm=6&as_maxy=2004&selm=ilena-1806000212140001%40dt011n39.san.rr.com&rnu m=2 17) "O'Leary too, couldn't control his outbursts about me ... even in the sexual realm."--Ilena Rosenthal believing she is hearing sweet nothings, whispered in her ear. http://groups.google.com/groups?q=couldn%27t+control+his+outbursts+about+me+grou p:alt.support.breast-implant&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&safe=active&as_drrb=b&as_mind=12 &as_minm=5&as_miny=1981&as_maxd=14&as_maxm=6&as_maxy=2004&selm=ilena-17060115062 10001%4024-25-201-231.san.rr.com&rnum=2 18) "They both have spouses ... yet they can't stop their obsessions of me."--Ilena Rosenthal enraptured by a spell of Narcissism. http://groups.google.com/groups?q=yet+they+can%27t+stop+their+obsessions+group:a lt.support.breast-implant&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&safe=active&as_drrb=b&as_mind=12&as _minm=5&as_miny=1981&as_maxd=14&as_maxm=6&as_maxy=2004&selm=ilena-17060115062100 01%4024-25-201-231.san.rr.com&rnum=1 19)"...they can spend 6 years snooping into my life, making up lies about me, telling everyone I am a fraud and ripping off women I love, posting vast amounts of Propaganda..."--Ilena Rosenthal, Dating services; bar maid; Pepper Spray salesperson; counterfit bill detector salesperson; timeshare slammer; business partner of Anthony Zaffuto (founder of Calvary Boys Ranch/which became Teens in Trouble/which became Humantics Foundation), and the author of books & videos, "Solo Male Ecstasy," and/or "The Complete Guide to Oral Lovemaking." http://groups.google.com/groups?q=they+can+spend+6+years+snooping+group:alt.supp ort.breast-implant&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&safe=active&as_drrb=b&as_mind=12&as_minm=5 &as_miny=1981&as_maxd=14&as_maxm=6&as_maxy=2004&selm=ilena-1706011047470001%4024 -25-201-231.san.rr.com&rnum=3 20) "Show the world how brilliant the "Implanted Leaders" better known as Toads on Ritalin are ..." Ilena Rosenthal, best damned advocate on the planet. http://groups.google.com/groups?q=Show+the+world+how+brilliant+the+group:alt.sup port.breast-implant&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&safe=active&as_drrb=b&as_mind=12&as_minm= 5&as_miny=1981&as_maxd=14&as_maxm=6&as_maxy=2004&selm=ilena-0909011256590001%402 4-25-201-231.san.rr.com&rnum=8 21) "I have never asked a penny for information ... and have provided freely for all ... even to rich bitches who never sent me a penny"--Ilena Rosenthal, sensitive and caring director of Humantics Foundation. http://groups.google.com/groups?q=even+to+rich+bitches+who+never+sent+me+a+group :alt.support.breast-implant&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&safe=active&as_drrb=b&as_mind=12& as_minm=5&as_miny=1981&as_maxd=14&as_maxm=6&as_maxy=2004&selm=ilena-060901201814 0001%4024-25-201-231.san.rr.com&rnum=1 22) "calling the SS (Susan Schaezler)"an implant survivor" is like describing Hitler as a vegetarian."--Ilena Rosenthal, sensitive 'self-appointed' advocate for breast implant victims. http://groups.google.com/groups?q=describing+Hitler+as+a+vegetarian+group:alt.su pport.breast-implant&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&safe=active&as_drrb=b&as_mind=12&as_minm =5&as_miny=1981&as_maxd=14&as_maxm=6&as_maxy=2004&selm=ilena-0809011941430001%40 24-25-201-231.san.rr.com&rnum=7 23) "sounds like Schaezler / O'Leary donkey feces!"--Ilena Rosenthal, while cleaning out her ears, and attempting to wake up and smell the coffee. http://groups.google.com/groups?q=sounds+like+Schaezler+group:alt.support.breast -implant&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&safe=active&as_drrb=b&as_mind=12&as_minm=5&as_miny=1 981&as_maxd=14&as_maxm=6&as_maxy=2004&selm=ilena-2901021013290001%40dt011n65.san .rr.com&rnum=13 24) "you represent the lowest, most greedy and selfish, bought off mouths for the silicone cartel."--Ilena Rosenthal speaking of breast implant victims who had settled with the manufacturers for low amounts, and had apparently not sent in a portion to answer the pandering needs of Ilena. 25) "You think that gives you the right to be a nosey porker and meddle into other people's lives."--Ilena Rosenthal responsing to questions about the finances of her Foundation. 26) "ask for the 90th time ... none of my finances is YOUR busy body business."--Ilena Rosenthal again refusing to answer questions surrounding the finances of her Foundation. http://groups.google.com/groups?q=ask+for+the+90th+time+group:alt.support.breast -implant&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&safe=active&as_drrb=b&as_mind=12&as_minm=5&as_miny=1 981&as_maxd=14&as_maxm=6&as_maxy=2004&selm=20040220002342.09437.00000055%40mbm12 .aol.com&rnum=2 27) "God help the implanted women when they have bought off busybody nosey porkers like Moral Guardian Myrl to lead them."--Ilena Rosenthal in total confusion over what advocacy is all about. http://groups.google.com/groups?q=implanted+women+when+they+have+bought+off+busy body+group:alt.support.breast-implant&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&safe=active&as_drrb=b&a s_mind=12&as_minm=5&as_miny=1981&as_maxd=14&as_maxm=6&as_maxy=2004&selm=ilena-30 01021926170001%40dt011n65.san.rr.com&rnum=1 28) "thanks ... better than you "implanted support leaders" who show your colours as greedy, selfish, lying, deceitful, Porno Posting Nutcases!"--Ilena Rosenthal smearing all implant support leaders (again), because they continue to read about and post Humantics Foundation, CEO, Anthony Zaffuto's masturbation self-help literature. http://groups.google.com/groups?q=greedy,+selfish,+lying,+deceitful,+Porno+Posti ng+group:alt.support.breast-implant&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&safe=active&as_drrb=b&as_ mind=12&as_minm=5&as_miny=1981&as_maxd=14&as_maxm=6&as_maxy=2004&selm=ilena-0102 021152040001%40dt011n65.san.rr.com&rnum=2 29) "You look like another crazy implant woman now"--Ilena Rosenthal enhancing the Nutz & Sluts image of BI women. http://groups.google.com/groups?q=You+look+like+another+crazy+implant+woman+grou p:alt.support.breast-implant&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&safe=active&as_drrb=b&as _mind=12&as_minm=5&as_miny=1981&as_maxd=14&as_maxm=6&as_maxy=2004&selm=ilena -0302022112390001%40dt011n65.san.rr.com&rnum=3 30) "you never have had the courtesy of donating even one penny for all my time with you"-- Ilena Rosenthal wondering why she gets so few donations. http://groups.google.com/groups?q=had+the+courtesy+of+donating+even+one+penny+fo r+group:alt.support.breast-implant&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&safe=active&as_drrb=b&as_m ind=12&as_minm=5&as_miny=1981&as_maxd=14&as_maxm=6&as_maxy=2004&selm=ilena-05020 21348110001%40dt011n65.san.rr.com&rnum=5 31) "looking hot & sexy isn't right around these women who are so messed up."--Ilena Rosenthal (Gaia20000) blaming BI women for her dowdy appearance. http://groups.google.com/groupsq=sexy+isn27t+right+around+these+women+who++group :alt.support.breastimplant&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF8&safe=active&as_drrb=b&as_mind=12&as _minm=5&as_miny=1981&as_maxd=14&as_maxm=6&as_maxy=2004&selm=ilena240500153857000 140dt012na9.san.rr.com&rnum=7 32) "I will continue to try to find someone in her family who has some control over her."--Ilena Rosenthal threatens harrassment. http://groups.google.com/groups?q=will+continue+to+try+to+find+someone+in+her+fa mily+who+group:alt.support.breast-implant&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&safe=active&as_drrb =b&as_mind=12&as_minm=5&as_miny=1981&as_maxd=14&as_maxm=6&as_maxy=2004&selm=ilen a-2406002312080001%40dt011n39.san.rr.com&rnum=2 33) "here ... this is something you can relate to ... filthy websites with augmented women that have EVERYTHING to do with you and Schaezler and NOTHING to do with me or anyone that I know."--Ilena Rosenthal saying "filthy" and "augmented" are connected. http://groups.google.com/groups?q=augmented+women+that+have+EVERYTHING+to+do+wit h+you+group:alt.support.breast-implant&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&safe=active&as_drrb=b& as_mind=12&as_minm=5&as_miny=1981&as_maxd=14&as_maxm=6&as_maxy=2004&selm=ilena-0 404020940360001%40dt011n65.san.rr.com&rnum=1 34) "... may you rot in Hell covered in leaked out silicone for that."--Ilena Rosenthal to a implant survivor. http://groups.google.com/groups?q=may+you+rot+in+Hell+covered+in+leaked+out+sili cone+group:alt.support.breast-implant&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&safe=active&as_drrb=b&a s_mind=12&as_minm=5&as_miny=1981&as_maxd=14&as_maxm=6&as_maxy=2004&selm=19faaec. 0312180749.2d10cd55%40posting.google.com&rnum=2 35) "Disgusting liar you are."--Ilena Rosenthal (favorite word=Liar) http://groups.google.com/groups?q=Disgusting+liar+you+are+group:alt.support.brea st-implant&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&safe=active&as_drrb=b&as_mind=12&as_minm=5&as_miny =1981&as_maxd=14&as_maxm=6&as_maxy=2004&selm=19faaec.0312181017.3501b279%40posti ng.google.com&rnum=4 36) "You idiot ditz ... in your zeal to make more threats against me ... you exposed your Pantie Liners"--More from Ilena Rosenthal posting in her offical capacity of Director of a Non-profit organization. http://groups.google.com/groups?dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&safe=active&threadm=9vv8d 011vj5ii0kchtoiamd6r3o6d0v1nt%404ax.com&prev=/groups%3Fq%3Dalt.support.breast-im plant%26ie%3DUTF-8%26hl%3Den 37) "He makes more in a day than I'll probably ever make in this issue total." Ilena Rosenthal speaks of her expectation to 'make money' off the silicone breast implant issue. http://groups.google.com/groups?q=He+makes+more+in+a+day+than+I%27ll+probably+ev er+make+in+this+issue+total+group:alt.support.breast-implant+author:coleah%40pac ifier.com&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=LJ0zc.84063%243x.31911%40attbi_s54&rnum=1 38) "There were many, many, many other women whose lives were very harmed by breast implants who were NOT married, NOT insured, and not so well known ... but Kathi was used because of her association with me in the past ... not because she was the most in need." Ilena Rosenthal belittling Kathi's 'need' and entangling herself as the 'reason' for others helping Kathi. http://groups.google.com/groups?dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&threadm=20040706025040.29 761.00001060%40mb-m18.aol.com&prev=/groups%3Fq%3Dalt.support.breast-implant%26ie %3DUTF-8%26hl%3Den%26btnG%3DGoogle%2BSearch >In Ilena's head, Coleah ... you are not in my head. Apparently ... where your head is keeps you filling Usenet with your Polevoy Adverts and PR ... and your lies about me. www.humanticsfoundation.com/andysposse.htm#Coleah&Polevoy Coming Soon >>In Ilena's head, > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > www.humanticsfoundation.com/andysposse.htm#Coleah&Polevoy > Coming Soon Your lips to my a.s ! Nutcase........ Does insanity run in your family? http://www.humanticsfoundation.com/maan.html http://www.humanticsfoundation.com/threats.htm http://www.humanticsfoundation.com/Matrix.html http://www.humanticsfoundation.com/myrl.html#Nana http://www.humanticsfoundation.com/AEI-PNAC.htm http://www.humanticsfoundation.com/KayKnedlik.htm http://www.humanticsfoundation.com/defamation.htm http://www.humanticsfoundation.com/quacklibelsuit.htm http://www.humanticsfoundation.com/myrl.html#nidiffer http://www.humanticsfoundation.com/PropagandistProbert.html http://www.humanticsfoundation.com/myrl.html#BarrettsParrot http://www.humanticsfoundation.com/KayKnedlik.htm#joyce http://www.humanticsfoundation.com/KayKnedlik.htm#Sharynn http://www.humanticsfoundation.com/quack-suppdeclaration.html http://www.humanticsfoundation.com/andysposse.htm#PamsScam http://www.humanticsfoundation.com/andysposse.htm#WebofDeceit http://www.humanticsfoundation.com/QUACK-QW-HF-ACSH.html www.humanticsfoundation.com/PropagandistProbert.html#losesLawLicense http://www.humanticsfoundation.com/PropagandistProbert.html#BustedAgain http://www.humanticsfoundation.com/PropagandistProbert.html#CowardBeyondMeasure http://www.humanticsfoundation.com/PropagandistProbert.html#ProbertLiesAboutDrop pingAOL http://www.humanticsfoundation.com/myrl.html http://www.humanticsfoundation.com/myrl.html#yahoo http://www.humanticsfoundation.com/Myrl.html#Networks http://www.humanticsfoundation.com/myrl.html#DaveyDow http://www.humanticsfoundation.com/myrl.html#LovesTeddy http://www.humanticsfoundation.com/myrl.html#GoddessofGooglingNana http://www.humanticsfoundation.com/WithoutSin.htm http://www.humanticsfoundation.com/WithoutSin.htm#MurdockPlagarizes http://www.humanticsfoundation.com/WithoutSin.htm#MyrlFlirtswithPlant http://www.humanticsfoundation.com/WithoutSin.htm#ServingJunkScientistO'leary http://www.humanticsfoundation.com/WithoutSin.htm#MyrlGushesOverPlant http://www.humanticsfoundation.com/WithoutSin.htm#PlantsStalkingFantasies http://www.humanticsfoundation.com/DisinfoAgents.htm http://www.humanticsfoundation.com/DisinfoAgents.htm#articles http://www.humanticsfoundation.com/DisinfoAgents.htm#SnoopysBack http://www.humanticsfoundation.com/DisinfoAgents.htm#Plantsqueaks http://www.humanticsfoundation.com/DisinfoAgents.htm#PlantPushes http://www.humanticsfoundation.com/DisinfoAgents.htm#BarrettsParrott http://www.humanticsfoundation.com/DisinfoAgentsFAQ.htm "http://www.humanticsfoundation.com/DisinfoAgentsFAQ.htm#WrongerThanWright http://www.humanticsfoundation.com/DisinfoAgents.htm#plant http://www.humanticsfoundation.com/DisinfoAgents.htm#fuzzyandy http://www.humanticsfoundation.com/DisinfoAgentsFAQ.htm#WrongerThanWright http://www.humanticsfoundation.com/Disinfoagents.htm#PlantLiesAgain http://www.humanticsfoundation.com/DisinfoAgents.htm#ProbertTheCoward http://www.humanticsfoundation.com/DisinfoAgents.htm#DentalDeityfromSatan http://www.humanticsfoundation.com/DisinfoAgentsFAQ.htm#Wrongerthanwright http://www.humanticsfoundation.com/DisinfoAgents.htm#ProbertFoolingOnlyHimself http://www.humanticsfoundation.com/DisinfoAgents.htm#snoopy&myrltogetheragain http://www.humanticsfoundation.com/DisinfoAgents.htm#ProbertFoolingHimselfOnly http://www.humanticsfoundation.com/DisinfoAgents.htm#MyrlTheInterrogatorRidesAgain http://www.humanticsfoundation.com/ss.html http://www.humanticsfoundation.com/SS.html#CrotchFantasies http://www.humanticsfoundation.com/SS.html#ObsessionContinues http://www.humanticsfoundation.com/coleah.htm http://www.humanticsfoundation.com/BM.html http://www.humanticsfoundation.com/BM.html#Moron http://www.humanticsfoundation.com/BM.html#TantrumThrower http://www.humanticsfoundation.com/BM.html#ObsessedNutter http://www.humanticsfoundation.com/BM.html#ImpotentHarasser http://www.humanticsfoundation.com/BM.html#ImpotentDictator http://www.humanticsfoundation.com/BM.html#AnimalPerversions http://www.humanticsfoundation.com/BM.htm#ObsessionContinues http://www.humanticsfoundation.com/BM.html#ImpotentIdiotDictator http://www.humanticsfoundation.com/BM.html#ImpotentIgnorantDictator >and Polevoy was >falsely and repeatedly accused of a crime. Says you! LOL ... typical Quack Flack ... making a premature and inaccurate conclusion to a non yet decided issue! I believe that Polevoy did stalk Ms McPhee ... and I believe that thru Ted Nidiffer and others on your team also obsessed with my whereabouts ... he is stalking me. Remember he affected disguises ... exactly like Ms McPhee described ... and then attacked me and others he is suing. Nice attempt at PR Marla! www.humanticsfoundation.com/quacklibelsuit.htm "Ilena Rose" <ilena@san.rr.com> in her official capacity as the DOMINATING Directorix of the FDA DE-listed, San Diego DE-licensed, and apparently DE-funct Humantics Foundation, DISPATCHED from her secret hideaway in the steamy jungles of Costa Rica, posted in message news:ggejr0pij9tmm65rj5hhh5mlono2heb2hn@4ax.com... > >and Polevoy was > >falsely and repeatedly accused of a crime. > > Says you! No, says reality. IIRC, McPhee accused him of stalking, the police investigated and found no evidence, and the accusations continued, with no basis in fact. If you have actual proof that he was guilty as charged, please post it. I am always willing to change my opinion. Just note that I still do not think that your actions should have resulted in a suit. They should have used MORE WORDS, just like I do. On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 10:57:49 -0500, "Mark Probert" <Mark Probert@lumbercartel.com> who no longer is allowed to "practice" law in NY State ... has made inaccurate legal conclusions to an ongoing case: www.humanticsfoundation.com/quacklibelsuit.htm "Ilena Rose" <ilena@san.rr.com> in her official capacity as the DOMINATING Directorix of the FDA DE-listed, San Diego DE-licensed, and apparently DE-funct Humantics Foundation, DISPATCHED from her secret hideaway in the steamy jungles of Costa Rica, wrote in message news:1fljr05rv4ot24aq3ps0ef2pfqs6haq98c@4ax.com... > On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 10:57:49 -0500, "Mark Probert" <Mark > Probert@lumbercartel.com> who no longer is allowed to "practice" law > in NY State ... You have never proven that the person you are referring to is me. Even the state of Virginia has two people with my name. has made inaccurate legal conclusions to an ongoing > case: > > www.humanticsfoundation.com/quacklibelsuit.htm Can you precisely point out what my errors are? I am always willing, in fact, eager, to learn. >> On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 10:57:49 -0500, "Mark Probert" <Mark >> Probert@lumbercartel.com> who no longer is allowed to "practice" law >> in NY State ... > >You have never proven that the person you are referring to is me. Even the >state of Virginia has two people with my name. Doesn't matter if there are 50 poor souls with your moniker ... the Mark S Probert who lost his law license and who lives in Merrick NY is YOU ... although you have lied about it for years. > Doesn't matter if there are 50 poor souls with your moniker ... the > Mark S Probert who lost his law license and who lives in Merrick NY is > YOU ... although you have lied about it for years. Nah; if Mark were that guy, he'd wear that banner as proudly as he should. He'd be up for a medal for moral survival- looking into the maw of the Beast and all that. Chas >Nah; if Mark were that guy, he'd wear that banner as proudly as he should. Can't agree with you there Chas ... I opine that Marla having 6 clients p'ed off enough to go to the NY Bar for his fraudulent behavior ..for less than $500 each ... didn't give him any of his required ego or professional satisfaction. www.humanticsfoundation.com/quacklibelsuit.htm > >Nah; if Mark were that guy, he'd wear that banner as proudly as he should. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Bar for his fraudulent behavior ..for less than $500 each ... didn't > give him any of his required ego or professional satisfaction. I get my ego and professional satisfaction in many ways. Right now, I am looking at a nice check that I received from a new client who you helped me to get. No, I will not send you a dime. > > Doesn't matter if there are 50 poor souls with your moniker ... the > > Mark S Probert who lost his law license and who lives in Merrick NY is > > YOU ... although you have lied about it for years. > > Nah; if Mark were that guy, he'd wear that banner as proudly as he should. > He'd be up for a medal for moral survival- looking into the maw of the Beast I have looked in the belly of the beast and have beaten the dogs of war. To me, Ilena is nothing more than a dried zit on the rear of a hourse fly. "Ilena Rose" <ilena@san.rr.com> in her official capacity as the DOMINATING Directorix of the FDA DE-listed, San Diego DE-licensed, and apparently DE-funct Humantics Foundation, DISPATCHED from her secret hideaway in the steamy jungles of Costa Rica, wrote in message news:1krjr056rasvq54stho8mk4lsrv0kgsbnf@4ax.com... > >> On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 10:57:49 -0500, "Mark Probert" <Mark > >> Probert@lumbercartel.com> who no longer is allowed to "practice" law [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Doesn't matter if there are 50 poor souls with your moniker ... You are greatly mistaken, since the "proof" you have used to allege that I am the Mark Probert you rant about is that we have the same name an dlive in the same area. Now, I recall doing a statistical analysis showing that, based on the fact that there are two MPs in Virginia, thee has got to bne around 10 or so in NY. Not everyone has a listed telephone. So, your "proof" is inherently specious. the > Mark S Probert who lost his law license and who lives in Merrick NY is > YOU ... although you have lied about it for years. An allegation that you have yet to prove to the satisfaction of an intelligent person. An, of course, I refused to answer your inquisitional questions. No one should. >> On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 10:57:49 -0500, "Mark Probert" <Mark >> Probert@lumbercartel.com> who no longer is allowed to "practice" law >> in NY State ... > >You have never proven that the person you are referring to is me. Even the >state of Virginia has two people with my name. Doesn't matter if there are 50 poor souls with your moniker ... the Mark S Probert who lost his law license and who lives in Merrick NY is YOU ... although you have lied about it for years. I also found out more from the NY Law Fund about the 6 disgruntled clients ... appears that although the amounts were piddling (less than $500 each) ... that the payouts were because of fraud. www.humanticsfoundation.com/PropagandistProbert.html#LosesLawLicence "Ilena Rose" <ilena@san.rr.com> in her official capacity |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message