f227a9b7   
   From: dawgface@ten.hut   
      
    wrote in message   
   news:fdfcec4e-87bf-4b33-913e-a4129caca1a9@j1g2000prb.googlegroups.com...   
   >Let me resubmit this because I made a mistake   
      
   No problem.   
      
   >On Jul 26, 5:50 pm, diananapol...@gmail.com wrote:   
   >   
   >> OK, let me rephrase that somewhat. A "false report" would be   
   >> difficult   
   >> to prove as an intentionally false report. One report made whether   
   >> false   
   >> or not is normally accepted unless blantantly obvious as   
   >> harrassement,   
   >> etc.. One would have to prove malicious intent.in order to gain   
   >> recompense. Of course you could file against her for any cause which   
   >> you   
   >> have already established with your multiple complaints.   
   >   
   >Most of my "multiple complaints" can be objectively proven   
   >and evidence of malicious intent is overwhelming.   
   >   
      
   Not being privy to your complaints, has the objectiveness of it all been   
   reviewed by a dis-interested 3rd party? I say this because sometimes we   
   feel the case is all locked up based on our private interpretations   
   (which sometimes we might regard as a sneak attack/twist in court) but   
   in reality it was just wishfull thinking that made perfect sense to us   
   at the time.   
      
      
   >>I doubt you have the grounds available to you to prove malisciousness   
   >>but dare I say that based on your previous testimony and current   
   >>actions   
   >>with a brief interlude of psychological counseling your cases would be   
   >>made weak and perhaps easliy dismissed based on your priors.   
   >   
   >Well, the beauty of this is that I can be crazier than bat shit,   
   >and it doesn't matter. If someone made allegations against me that   
   >are provably false, (libel), my own "mental state" has nothing to   
   >do with the libelous actions of another, when the libel is in black   
   >and white.   
   >   
      
   Generally speaking libel is libel. :)   
      
   >For instance, taking a more serious crime as an example, let's   
   >pretend that "sally" has been diagnosed with paranoid personality   
   >disorder, whether that was a valid diagnosis or not. Sally then   
   >has her face bashed in while in the park by a mugger. Sally has a   
   >perfect right to go to the police, and file a complaint. The   
   >defense might bring up the argument that Sally is "mentally ill,"   
   >and try to insinuate that Sally hit herself in the head   
   >with a brick, but that is really a stretch and, in general, I   
   >believe the court takes a dim view of the defense trying to   
   >revictimize the victim. That's a cheap shot, and is easily seen   
   >through.   
   >   
      
   That is a physical crime and usually easy to prosecute with outside   
   evidence. She can file a criminal complaint but the DA has to do the   
   prosecution, there is no recompense in this case. She must file a civil   
   complaint on her own. Mental capabilities would be taken into account in   
   this case to enhance the punishment, and well it should be.   
      
   >> In Michelle Devereaux's case, she filed a false police report in San   
   >> Francsico which was then instrumental in having SDSU identify me,   
   >> based on that false police report. That is fraud, yet again. As a   
   >> result of that identification, I suffered real damages. I did attempt   
   >> to   
   >> have the SF prosecutor file a criminal charge against her   
   >> (misdemeanor)   
   >> based on that false report but I couldn't due to the statute of   
   >> limitations.   
   >   
   >> I don't understand, did you file after Michelle filed her report?   
   >   
   >No, Frank, I filed a claim about a false report before she filed it.   
   >   
      
   I don't understand. How can you file a complaint about a false report   
   before the alledged false report was filed?   
      
   >>I am also missing something here as to your point of fraud. Normally   
   >>there is a hearing which would preclude actions on a fraudulent report   
   >>at which point the filing party could be in trouble.   
   >   
   >This makes no sense whatsoever which is why I usually don't respond   
   >to you.   
      
   Rather simple really, I file a complaint, it is reviewed and found to be   
   either irrelevant, fraudulent (based on known evidence), harassement   
   (multiple filings all similar, with rather weak support) so that when   
   reviewed I could be in big trouble with the Judge since he could   
   admonish me or in case of prior warnings fine me, etc.   
   >   
   >>Are you able to prove fraudulent behavior with intent?   
   >   
   >I think I can. Michelle is a satanist and satanist rarely have   
   >good motives, especially when stalking is occuring.   
   >   
      
   I don't know if she is or not, and I have no use for satanists in any   
   event, but to state that satanic motives are the real culprit is to put   
   aside personal motives. One would have to prove a person was brainwashed   
   as in the Jones Cult or similar which would be a whole case in itself.   
      
   >   
   >> To be honest, if I were in such a position I would make the other   
   >>person work for it and work it hard, especially if I knew I would be   
   >>exonerated but would have to go through the expense of court,   
   >>filings, loss of employment, food, lodging, and all the aggravation   
   >>associated with such an event.then I would make sure it cost the   
   >>offending party hard monies and time.   
   >   
   >Many people try to avoid legal service, but a default judgement   
   >can  be made against them if it is provable that they are avoiding   
   >service. On the other hand, Ms. Devereaux could transform her slimy   
   >actions against me into those of a heroine, and come forth, reveal   
   >her part in the plot, implicate the others involved, and I might   
   >settle for a very small amount with her.   
   >   
   >Diana Napolis   
      
   You are assuming they are all related in some way. On the Net people   
   often appear to be of the same mind and cause but have no real interests   
   in others life's, only the subject matter at hand. It is a bit like mob   
   rule. No one knows the other yet they all appear of one mind when   
   attacking. They would have no personal knowledge of anyone there, nor   
   any particular interest in starting a relationship.   
      
   It is a bit like the crap going on with Linda, a well known kook. There   
   have been many over the years who tired of her behaviors brought it to   
   her attention. She classifies most of them as people in cahoots with   
   each other and also acts as if they know each other even to the point of   
   calling them a group. Yet I doubt any of them know another in real life.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)