XPost: alt.sailing.asa, alt.usenet.kooks, alt.fan.art-bell   
   XPost: alt.fucknozzles, rec.arts.poems, alt.fluff-girl.pinku-sensei   
   From: atlasbuggedbyspam@gmail.com   
      
   "miguel"  wrote in message   
   news:3c23r4h5a2kn0c8glhhk8go42darevf0vp@4ax.com...   
   > On Fri, 6 Mar 2009 08:23:02 -0500, "atlas bugged"   
   >  wrote:   
   >   
   >>"miguel"  wrote in message   
   >>news:jid1r49ku14fequpult9494kn1qsijj0jm@4ax.com...   
   >>> On Thu, 5 Mar 2009 23:42:03 -0500, "atlas bugged"   
   >>>  wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>>"John "C""  wrote in message   
   >>>>news:N6KdnY0rzdS1CC3UnZ2dnUVZ_rvinZ2d@centurytel.net...   
   >>>>> "ah", do you eat anything that doesn't come from Deco's zipper ??   
   >>>>   
   >>>>I'm actually worried about Vince.   
   >>>   
   >>> You should be, although not in the sarcastic, taunting way you are   
   >>> suggesting.   
   >>>   
   >>> For obvious reasons I hold no regard for Vince. In fact it wouldn't   
   >>> bother me an awful lot if he received some come-uppance, to tell you   
   >>> the truth. Your posts suggest to me anyway that you consider yourself   
   >>> some invincible litigation force, and at the outset it would appear   
   >>> that you've stacked the deck in your favor as much as possible. You   
   >>> filed in New Jersey, and you can represent yourself and force your   
   >>> opponents to hire NJ lawyers to represent them, so you've got the   
   >>> upper hand in the economic warfare aspect of this. Some of the people   
   >>> you've named aren't the brightest folks you might meet. But they'll   
   >>> hire lawyers who are bright enough. If they have the money and the   
   >>> desire to see this through to the end, it will not end well for you.   
   >>>   
   >>> You've filed a frivolous and baseless lawsuit against a number of   
   >>> parties. It has been obvious for some time that you are using the   
   >>> threat of litigation as a tool to try to bully people into showing you   
   >>> more respect than they have. But your motives are worse than that.   
   >>> Vince can make a good case now that your litigation is motivated by   
   >>> the improper purpose of attempting to get him fired. Perhaps in the   
   >>> end he may even thank you for providing so much evidence for him to   
   >>> make his case.   
   >>>   
   >>> Another thing he may feel compelled to thank you for, in the end, is   
   >>> naming his employer. If you hadn't named his employer, he would no   
   >>> doubt have to fund his defense on his own, or in concert with other   
   >>> defendants. But because you've named his employer, perhaps the deputy   
   >>> AG they assign to the case will provide Vince his defense as well.   
   >>>   
   >>> It would be ironic, don't you agree, if in your continuing attempts to   
   >>> cause Vince employment harm you in fact did him the great favor of   
   >>> persuading the state to provide his defense?   
   >>>   
   >>> I note also that you've issued warnings about causing Rhonda's future   
   >>> employment efforts harm as well.   
   >>>   
   >>> Frankly, that is so indistinguishable from extortion at gunpoint that   
   >>> it sickens me to know there are lawyers like you out practicing. I can   
   >>> only hope that when your bar association finds out about everything   
   >>> you've done they'll yank your ticket.   
   >>>   
   >>>>I doubt his employers are going to like the lawsuit - I'm including the   
   >>>>college (they inadvertently admitted he's Pinku) - and while service to   
   >>>>Michigan will take another week or two, he's next up for a burst of   
   >>>>previously unpublished info.   
   >>>   
   >>>>One thing I've learned about info is that it's like the bell that you   
   >>>>cannot   
   >>>>un-ring.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>Haven't seen him around for a while.  Uhhh, I mean her.  Or,   
   >>>>whatever...I've   
   >>>>got the "person's" info qued up to go public Monday night...ding!   
   >>>>   
   >>>>Giving *me* a "ring" might just be a good idea sometime during biz hours   
   >>>>Monday.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>This would be a Hell of a time for anyone to lose their job.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>County colleges are more popular now than ever, but also more broke.  I   
   >>>>wonder what tips the scales when they decide who to cut?   
   >>>>   
   >>>>I'm depressed too, though.  Miguel is going to beat me up.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>And Rhonduh thinks a lawyer suing to protect the integrity of his   
   >>>>business   
   >>>>is going to be disciplined by....the bar association.   
   >>>   
   >>> Please note, once again, that your inability to grasp the irony and   
   >>> hypocrisy of your statement borders on insanity. You claim to be   
   >>> litigating to protect the integrity of your business, but your style   
   >>> of litigation is to attempt to destroy your opponents' employment.   
   >>>   
   >>>>Honest One, I know you're BFF's with Pinky-Sue and Rhonda, so you might   
   >>>>want   
   >>>>to check to make sure they're well.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>I sense tension between you and Art Deco, however.  Or not, that's just   
   >>>>the   
   >>>>impression I have.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>Oh, well, TTFN!   
   >>>   
   >>> Here's in interesting thought -- just an aside. I notice you didn't   
   >>> name Gary Burnore personally in your lawsuit. Instead, you named   
   >>> Databasix.   
   >>>   
   >>> Let's suppose that Mr. Burnore were to decide to file a claim against   
   >>> you for defamation in New Jersey, and that his lawyer seeks to have it   
   >>> combined with the lawsuit you brought.   
   >>>   
   >>> That would certainly add context to the actions of a number of other   
   >>> defendants.   
   >>>   
   >>> What do you think?   
   >>   
   >>I think you aren't a lawyer.  I never take any action without   
   >>understanding   
   >>the law and the facts.   
   >   
   > Objection: lack of foundation. Presumes facts not in evidence.   
   >   
   > Sustained.   
   >   
   >>It looks as if you have read my complaint, but not a single New Jersey   
   >>case   
   >>or statute.   
   >   
   > You are disproving Lincoln's adage about self-representation. Lincoln   
   > should have said "a man who represents himself has a raving, insane   
   > lunatic for a client."   
   >   
   >>Moreover, are you representing you've read all the posts of all the   
   >>defendants?   
   >   
   > I've probably read everything that's relevant to the frivolous claims   
   > you've raised. Why don't you stop playing hide the ball and just post   
   > the message IDs of articles you believe are actionable?   
   >   
   >>Do you have knowledge of any aspect of any economic circumstance of my   
   >>firm?   
   >   
   > I've heard you're doing well enough to employ two secretaries who by   
   > your reports are extremely hot and sexy. Is that still the case?   
   >   
   >>Saying as a matter of fact or law that my suit is in bad faith is by   
   >>itself   
   >>an arrogant and ignorant conclusion.   
   >   
   > Time will certainly tell whether I'm right. However, I note that you   
   > haven't typed a single word to refute my arguments that you're waging   
   > economic warfare here to try to bring people to the table and give you   
   > the respect you think you deserve.   
   >   
   > That you believe you are entitled to such respect, in the face of your   
   > own posting history, suggests a certain disconnection with reality on   
   > your part.   
   >   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)