XPost: alt.sailing.asa, alt.usenet.kooks, alt.fan.art-bell   
   XPost: alt.fucknozzles, rec.arts.poems, alt.fluff-girl.pinku-sensei   
   From: nimue@databasix.com   
      
   miguel wrote:   
   > On Sat, 7 Mar 2009 08:16:17 -0500, "atlas bugged"   
   >  wrote:   
   >   
   >> "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   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)