home bbs files messages ]

Forums before death by AOL, social media and spammers... "We can't have nice things"

   can.military-brats      Those who grew up in military families      5,286 messages   

[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]

   Message 4,766 of 5,286   
   MI5Victim@mi5.gov.uk to Andrew Nichols   
   MI5 Persecution: Striking out action 10/   
   20 Aug 07 17:01:31   
   
   XPost: nl.roze, pl.soc.dekadentyzm, alt.abuse.recovery   
   XPost: alt.fan.jai-maharaj   
      
   Subject: "Scandalous, Frivolous or Vexatious"   
   Newsgroups: uk.misc,uk.legal   
   Organization: Toronto Free-Net   
   Summary:   
   Keywords:   
      
      
   A couple of weeks ago I issued a summons against the BBC in my local county   
   court, for the tort of private nuisance caused by the spying by their   
   newsreaders on my home. My argument was that their spying had prevented me   
   watching the news at home, and therefore interfered with my normal use of my   
   home.   
      
   The BBC's Litigation Dept at White City have replied not with a defence, but   
   with an application for my claim to be struck out because;   
      
   (a) it discloses no reasonable cause of action; and/or   
   (b) it is scandalous, frivolous or vexatious.   
      
   Their application will be heard next week. They have not made any affidavit in   
   support of their application, nor have they given particulars as to why they   
   consider my summons to be unarguable in law, which would be a necessary   
   condition for there to be no reasonable cause of action.   
      
   I am more worried about point (b). Allegations are scandalous (says Stuart   
   Sime's book) if they impute dishonesty against another party; which my   
   allegations do, against the BBC's newsreaders. As for frivolous or vexatious, I   
   think that will be up to me to make a good argument for the effect the BBC's   
   spying has had on my life, and up to the district judge's opinion of my case.   
      
   Apparently seeking to have a claim struck out in this way is common practice   
   when the plaintiff is a litigant-in-person. Even if it is struck out, there is   
   always the opportunity to appeal. I think we could be in for a fight next week.   
   ..........................................................................   
   Sun, 02 Mar 1997 20:38:59              uk.legal                   Thread   52   
   of   54   
   Lines 13             Re: "Scandalous, Frivolous or Vexatious"     Respno   1   
   of   1   
   Kate@carterce.demon.co.uk                                                      
   KKKKatie   
      
   In article    
              andy@solicit.demon.co.uk "Andrew Nichols" writes:   
      
   > Well, that'll liven up the dear old District Judge. Almost worth taking   
   > the day off to see how Mike fares.   
      
   almost worth taking a day off to see if he exists   
      
   Kate   
   --   
   Just back from the US - you've got to love a country that puts   
             "Vertical Clearance Impeded" for "Low Bridge"   
   ..........................................................................   
   Subject: Re: "Scandalous, Frivolous or Vexatious"   
   Newsgroups: uk.misc,uk.legal   
   References:  <8$   
   Organization: Toronto Free-Net   
   Distribution:   
      
   burridge@osiris.win-uk.net (Paul Burridge) wrote:   
   >Almost worthwhile taking the day off to go and punch him in the   
   >face for all abuse he's given us on these groups. Which court is it?   
      
   Thank you for your kind thought.   
      
   I'm not telling you which court it is. I don't want to be hounded by irate   
   uk-miscreants!   
      
   As for raising eyebrows, the member of staff who took the summons form didn't   
   change their facial expression at all. Seen it all before, no doubt.   
   ..........................................................................   
   In article <857597450snz@adams.demon.co.uk>,   
   Derek Tidman  wrote:   
   >In article    
   >           bu765@torfree.net "Mike Corley" writes:   
   >   
   >-I'm not telling you which court it is. I don't want to be hounded by irate   
   >-uk-miscreants!   
   >-   
   >-As for raising eyebrows, the member of staff who took the summons form didn't   
   >-change their facial expression at all. Seen it all before, no doubt.   
   >   
   >Take no notice Mike, some people are like that. I hope   
   >you finally get this matter into court.   
      
   I'm not so fond of the threats of violence against the persistent (yet   
   quiet for a bit, and probably soon to restart..) spammer that is Mike   
   Corley. Yet, encouraging the fantasies of the mentally ill isn't   
   exactly healthy either. Do you go up to homeless mad people as say   
   things like: "They're coming to get you", or "Look out behind you?".   
      
   	Smid	   
   ..........................................................................   
   Quite the contary Mike.  Your recent posts have been no problem.  By   
   explaining things rationally, and not spamming us, you have made more   
   friends than you know.   
      
   I hope that you sort out your problem, sincerely.   
   --   
   ***********************************************************************   
   I'm Alan Packer and I move in a very mysterious way.  If replying to me   
   ..........................................................................   
   In article <857686006snz@adams.demon.co.uk>,   
   Derek Tidman  wrote:   
   >In article <5fmdc7$gga$1@ftel.ftel.co.uk>   
   >           J.J.Smith@ftel.co.uk "John J Smith" writes:   
   >   
   >I think it's good for Mike to vent his anger and frustration on   
   >these two newsgroups. Consider it to be part of your duty to   
   >the comunity in general.   
      
   Yep. Just not, the, I think 180 posts, one week, when his illness   
   got really bad. Oh yeah, and there was only three real posts,   
   just repeated 60 times.   
      
   >Mike does a first class job of drawing out the real personality   
   >of the person hiding behind a node name. The way people react   
   >to Mike gives it all away.   
      
   Erm, explain this rather dubious statement.   
      
   >As for you. Don't you think it's a trifle condescending to refer   
   >to people as mad. I know they are homeless and without internet   
   >access, but maybe they are just eccentric.   
      
   Congratulations. This is my first real flame for about a year.   
      
   I try to control my anger when I come across another uninformed   
   naive idiot on usenet, but sometimes it goes free. We've had Corley   
   for well over three years now, and his constant spams of various degrees   
   have killed a couple of usenet groups I really rather lied. uk.media,   
   to name but one. I gets my goat to read another useless fucker   
   thinking he is a harmless eccentric.   
      
   Mike is mentally ill. He is unwilling to deal with it. He seems to   
   think that uk.misc is some sort of forum that MI5 reads. And it   
   should be avenged. He's mailbombed a large quantity of people,   
   because they opposed his spamming.   
      
   	1. He thinks MI5 watches him through his television   
   	2. He thinks all references to mad people, refer to him   
   	3. He thinks all people shouting, are shouting at him.   
   	4. He's been diagnosed as mentally ill, just not a paranoid   
   	schizophrenic.   
   	5. He gives not a shit about any newsgroups he abuses.   
   	6. He goes through quiet periods, then _very_ nasty periods.   
   	7. All evidence of this great conspiracy is laughable, to say the   
   	least.   
   	8. He gives internet/usenet a bad name to the media. Including   
   	mailbombing Chris Tarrant and faxing various celebrities.   
      
   I do not condescend to him. I actually know what he does, and has done   
   in the past, and am frankly not too respectful of him. He can be openly   
   referred to as "mad" because he is. Let's check my mailbox saves:   
      
   Repost of when I thought I'd seen the last of loopy mike:   
      
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)   

[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]


(c) 1994,  bbs@darkrealms.ca