XPost: alt.sailing.asa, alt.usenet.kooks, alt.fan.art-bell   
   XPost: alt.fucknozzles, rec.arts.poems, alt.fluff-girl.pinku-sensei   
   From: greghall@home.fake   
      
   "atlas bugged"  wrote in message   
   news:2kqhkb.2h6.19.1@news.alt.net...   
   > "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   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)