Kwestion for the Krooborg [Archive]

Arny Krueger

August 10th 03, 07:04 PM

"George M. Middius" > wrote in message

> Arnii, the group wants to know what you do with all those recordings
> you make of church music. Do you dupe a bunch of CDs and them give
> them away so you can pretend it's a deductible donation?

Nahh, I just given them away and forget about what they cost me.

Besides, George you must be from some other universe where duping CDs costs
a serious amount of money. Not in this one!

> Do you blackmail Reverend Wickee somehow so he'll coerce the flock to buy
> the CDs off you?

What's unclear about "give them away"? George, between the pedophilia, teh
attention deficit disorder and the senile dementia you're even forgetting
what you wrote in the previous paragraph.

>Or maybe the two of you are just running a scam
> together, where the Rev. tells people that playing back last
> Sunday's music will make their prayers more potent, and you kick him
> back some of the swag.

More confirmation of George's senile dementia.

> What's the deal?

As you said George, I give them away free.

S888Wheel

August 30th 03, 10:23 PM

The funny thing is. It was just a courtesy letter. I offered him an easy way to
avoid a lawsuit. An option Arny still has. Why Arny chose to make a federal
case out of my leaving the return address off of the envelope is bizarre.
Especially given the fact that I did so because I assumed the paperwork
involved in sending a registered letter would include my return address, which
it did. He won't have the option to turn down thing he gets in the mail
regarding this matter should he let it get that far. Oh,and it will have my
mailing address on it.

Arny Krueger

August 31st 03, 03:26 AM

"S888Wheel" > wrote in message

> The funny thing is. It was just a courtesy letter. I offered him an
> easy way to avoid a lawsuit. An option Arny still has. Why Arny chose
> to make a federal case out of my leaving the return address off of
> the envelope is bizarre.

Well problem number one is that it isn't a federal case. Any lawsuit you try
to file against me in California is fake. When you file, you're going to
have to admit to the court that I don't live in California and have no
business presence in California. The court is going to reject your filing. I
hope they take your money first.

I think your current conundrum is totally rich, sockpuppet Wheel. Your
letter is totally anonymous and untraceable just like your Usenet persona
is. The name it mentions is untraceable. It's exactly what you sent me,
nothing more and nothing less.

You planned it that way sockpuppet Wheel because you are a total fake. I
suspect you finally talked to someone who knows something about the law and
he told you since you are a total fake, that also makes your letter moot.

S888Wheel

August 31st 03, 05:50 AM

I said

<<
> The funny thing is. It was just a courtesy letter. I offered him an
> easy way to avoid a lawsuit. An option Arny still has. Why Arny chose
> to make a federal case out of my leaving the return address off of
> the envelope is bizarre.
>>

Arny said

<<
Well problem number one is that it isn't a federal case. >>

I was speaking figuretively about your reaction to the letter I sent you.
Obviously if I sue you it won't be a Federal case. It will be in California
Superior Court.

Arny said

<< Any lawsuit you try
to file against me in California is fake. >>

No. If you let it come to that it will be very real. It will also be the right
court. If you had done the research on jurisdiction and understood it you would
already know this.

Arny said

<< When you file, you're going to
have to admit to the court that I don't live in California and have no
business presence in California. >>

Yes I will have to state your place of residence.

Arny said

<< The court is going to reject your filing. I
hope they take your money first.
>>

Wrong.

Arny said

<<
I think your current conundrum is totally rich, sockpuppet Wheel. >>

Unfortunately for you, your opinions are irrelevant to the courts.

Arny said

<< Your
letter is totally anonymous and untraceable just like your Usenet persona
is. >>

My letter is signed. It would be interesting to see you try to convince a judge
in court that it was anonymous With me sitting there. It would be even more
interesting to see you try to pursuade a judge that it was relevant. It will be
even more interesting still to see you try to convince a judge to ignore all
established civil codes regarding personal identity and indentifiablity in
regards to libel. I have cited everything you need to read on the subject.
Ignorance will not work as an excuse. You have been told over and over again.

Arny said

<< The name it mentions is untraceable. It's exactly what you sent me,
nothing more and nothing less. >>

I think it would be interesting to see you try to pursuade a judge I don't
exist so long as you say I don't exist while I am sitting in the room. My
existance and legal standing does not rely on what you know or think or
imagine.

Arny said

<<

You planned it that way sockpuppet Wheel because you are a total fake. >>

I planned what? You chose to accuse me of being a pedophile. i didn't plan
anything. You created this mess now you have to fix it or let the courts fix
it.

Arny said

<< I
suspect you finally talked to someone who knows something about the law and
he told you since you are a total fake, that also makes your letter moot. >>

You will do yourself a great service by talking to a lawyer IMO. You are basing
your choices on eroneous opinions about me and about the law. By the way the
letter was only a courtesy letter to give you an easy way to resolve a problem
you created.

S888Wheel

August 31st 03, 05:01 PM

I said

<<
> You will do yourself a great service by talking to a lawyer IMO. You
> are basing your choices on eroneous opinions about me and about the
> law. By the way the letter was only a courtesy letter to give you an
> easy way to resolve a problem you created.
>>

Arny said

<<
First prove to me that you exist as a real person, sockpuppet Wheel.
>>

It looks like you are bent on being unreasonable about this. Your choice.

John Atkinson

August 31st 03, 05:36 PM

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>...
> Any lawsuit you try to file against me in California is fake. When you
> file, you're going to have to admit to the court that I don't live in
> California and have no business presence in California. The court is
> going to reject your filing.

You keep writing this or something like it, Mr. Krueger, but with
respect you are wrong. In a defamation suit, the court that has
jurisdiction is the one in the state where the purported damage was
suffered. In this case, as Scott Wheeler resides in California, any
suit he files for damage to his reputation will be correctly and
appropriately filed in California. The fact that you reside in Michigan
is irrelevant when the supposed defamation has occured on a nationally
distributed medium.

This why an increasing number of defamation cases are being filed in
1st-Amendment-free England, even the defamation has occurred in an
American magazine against an American citizen or corporation (provided
the defamee can show some kind of legal residence or presence in the UK).

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Arny Krueger

August 31st 03, 06:38 PM

"S888Wheel" > wrote in message

> I said

> <<
>> You will do yourself a great service by talking to a lawyer IMO. You
>> are basing your choices on eroneous opinions about me and about the
>> law. By the way the letter was only a courtesy letter to give you an
>> easy way to resolve a problem you created.
> >>

> Arny said

> First prove to me that you exist as a real person, sockpuppet Wheel.

> It looks like you are bent on being unreasonable about this. Your
> choice.

You're a no-show again, sockpuppet Wheel.

It takes a real fool to claim that as an anonymous person, you were
slandered! But, you qualify sockpuppet Wheel.

Arny Krueger

August 31st 03, 06:43 PM

"John Atkinson" > wrote in message
m
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> >...
>> Any lawsuit you try to file against me in California is fake. When
>> you file, you're going to have to admit to the court that I don't
>> live in California and have no business presence in California. The
>> court is going to reject your filing.

> You keep writing this or something like it, Mr. Krueger, but with
> respect you are wrong.

You obviously have no respect for me Atkinson, so that pretty well voids
everything you say that follows.

>In a defamation suit, the court that has
> jurisdiction is the one in the state where the purported damage was
> suffered. In this case, as Scott Wheeler resides in California, any
> suit he files for damage to his reputation will be correctly and
> appropriately filed in California.

I don't know who this purported Scott Wheeler person is, and I see no
evidence that he lives in any state, let alone California.

Show me a sucessful case of this kind where an anonymous person was
slandered.

>The fact that you reside in
> Michigan is irrelevant when the supposed defamation has occurred on a
> nationally distributed medium.

The fact that no real person was slandered figures heavily in this case. If
what you claim were true Atkinson, there would be a lot of filings of this
kind in Nome, Alaska.

> This why an increasing number of defamation cases are being filed in
> 1st-Amendment-free England, even the defamation has occurred in an
> American magazine against an American citizen or corporation (provided
> the defamee can show some kind of legal residence or presence in the
> UK).

There's always been a lot of ego involved in cases like this.

tor 2 u

August 31st 03, 06:43 PM

Arny Krueger wrote in message >:

> "S888Wheel" > wrote in message
>
>
> > The funny thing is. It was just a courtesy letter. I offered him an
> > easy way to avoid a lawsuit. An option Arny still has. Why Arny chose
> > to make a federal case out of my leaving the return address off of
> > the envelope is bizarre.
>
> Well problem number one is that it isn't a federal case. Any lawsuit you try
> to file against me in California is fake. When you file, you're going to
> have to admit to the court that I don't live in California and have no
> business presence in California. The court is going to reject your filing. I
> hope they take your money first.
>

You are so right. This clown is just tryin to intimidate you Arny. You
don't have to apologize. Look what mean stuff everybody says to you on
R.A.O. Its like they think they can provoque you over and over and your
never allowed to say anything back because they will sue you. LOL!

> I think your current conundrum is totally rich, sockpuppet Wheel. Your
> letter is totally anonymous and untraceable just like your Usenet persona
> is. The name it mentions is untraceable. It's exactly what you sent me,
> nothing more and nothing less.
>

Right again Arnye. Nobody needs a lawyer to tell them that. This guy is
probably an inmate in a mentle hospittle. He probably got his mother to
send you that letter. You should sue him! LOL!

> You planned it that way sockpuppet Wheel because you are a total fake. I
> suspect you finally talked to someone who knows something about the law and
> he told you since you are a total fake, that also makes your letter moot.
>
>

His letter is moot? Is that why you keep arguing about it? That's a good
strategy Arny. LOL!

Arny is My Kroo-Daddy

S888Wheel

August 31st 03, 09:56 PM

>> I said
>
>> <<
>>> You will do yourself a great service by talking to a lawyer IMO. You
>>> are basing your choices on eroneous opinions about me and about the
>>> law. By the way the letter was only a courtesy letter to give you an
>>> easy way to resolve a problem you created.
>> >>

>
>> Arny said
>
>> First prove to me that you exist as a real person, sockpuppet Wheel.
>

I said

>
>> It looks like you are bent on being unreasonable about this. Your
>> choice.

Arny said

>
>You're a no-show again, sockpuppet Wheel.
>
>It takes a real fool to claim that as an anonymous person, you were
>slandered! But, you qualify sockpuppet Wheel.

You are going to have a lawsuit on your hands because you have convinced
yourself that I am not a real person and you are calling me a fool?

John Atkinson

August 31st 03, 11:19 PM

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message >...
> "John Atkinson" > wrote in message
> m
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> > >...
> >> Any lawsuit you try to file against me in California is fake. When
> >> you file, you're going to have to admit to the court that I don't
> >> live in California and have no business presence in California. The
> >> court is going to reject your filing.
>
> > You keep writing this or something like it, Mr. Krueger, but with
> > respect you are wrong.
>
> You obviously have no respect for me Atkinson, so that pretty well
> voids everything you say that follows.

Not at all, Mr. Krueger. The "with respect" usage is merely to show that
the following correction is not meant personally, but is purely intended
to set the record straight.

> > In a defamation suit, the court that has jurisdiction is the one in
> > the state where the purported damage was suffered. In this case, as
> > Scott Wheeler resides in California, any suit he files for damage to
> > his reputation will be correctly and appropriately filed in California.
>
> I don't know who this purported Scott Wheeler person is, and I see no
> evidence that he lives in any state, let alone California.

You have me puzzled, Mr. Krueger. Have you not been communicating with
Mr. Wheeler both on Usenet and via private e-mail? Didn't you just
receive a registered letter from Mr. Wheeler?

> Show me a sucessful case of this kind where an anonymous person was
> slandered.

I think you need tyo read up on your law, Mr. Krueger. Because a
person is not named by a defamer is no defense if third parties are
left in no doubt about the identity of the defamee.

> > The fact that you reside in Michigan is irrelevant when the supposed
> > defamation has occurred on a nationally distributed medium.
>
> The fact that no real person was slandered figures heavily in this case.
> If what you claim were true Atkinson, there would be a lot of filings
> of this kind in Nome, Alaska.

Why? Even when the purported defamer is not mentioned by name, as long as
people are still able to identify him he can file a case in the state where
he resides and where the purported damage took place.

Scott Wheeler has a threefold burden of proof, however: 1) That the
defamation actually happened. Your protestations that you didn't mention
his real name notwithstanding, I would have thought the Google record
clearly shows that the defamation took place. 2) Mr. Wheeler has to prove
that you acted with malice. Usually, this is almost impossible to prove,
but your own postings, preserved in the Google record, appear to give Mr.
Wheeler what he needs. And 3) Mr. Wheeler has to prove that he has
suffered actual financial damage. This is something that is difficult or
not depending on each case. However, if, say, Mr. Wheeler lost a contract
because someone did a Google search and found his identity associated
with pedophilia in a message you posted, then he can show damages.

I note you keep usimng the phrase "LOL," Mr. Krueger, but I fail to see
the humor. You are in effect putting your fate in the hands of someone
who has no reason to take pity on you. Which is hardly a smart thing to do.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

John Atkinson

August 31st 03, 11:28 PM

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>...
> Show me a sucessful case of this kind where an anonymous person was
> slandered.

A postscript to my previous response: You misunderstand the nature of
law suits, Mr. Krueger. None of the points you raise will prevent someone
from filing suit against you. There is no burden of proof required when a
suit is filed. They _are_ matters for you to raise in your defense at the
preliminary hearing and iit is aways possible that yopu will prevail at
that point. However, by then you will already have been forced to spend
several hundred dollars on legal advice and representation, -- as well
as on travel to California.

As I asked, why you would want deliberately to put yourself in that
vulnerable a position merely to avoid having to admit you were wrong when
you publicly accused someone of being a pedophile?

As I also, said, you should really get legal advice, Mr. Krueger.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Arny Krueger

August 31st 03, 11:39 PM

"S888Wheel" > wrote in message

>>> I said
>>
>>> <<
>>>> You will do yourself a great service by talking to a lawyer IMO.
>>>> You are basing your choices on eroneous opinions about me and
>>>> about the law. By the way the letter was only a courtesy letter to
>>>> give you an easy way to resolve a problem you created.
>>> >>
>>> Arny said
>>
>>> First prove to me that you exist as a real person, sockpuppet Wheel.
>>
>
> I said
>
>>
>>> It looks like you are bent on being unreasonable about this. Your
>>> choice.
>
> Arny said
>
>>
>> You're a no-show again, sockpuppet Wheel.
>>
>> It takes a real fool to claim that as an anonymous person, you were
>> slandered! But, you qualify sockpuppet Wheel.
>
> You are going to have a lawsuit on your hands because you have
> convinced yourself that I am not a real person and you are calling me
> a fool?

No sockpuppet Wheel it is obvious you that know that you are not a real
person.

Arny Krueger

August 31st 03, 11:49 PM

"John Atkinson" > wrote in message
m
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> >...
>> "John Atkinson" > wrote in message
>> m
>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>>> >...
>>>> Any lawsuit you try to file against me in California is fake. When
>>>> you file, you're going to have to admit to the court that I don't
>>>> live in California and have no business presence in California. The
>>>> court is going to reject your filing.
>>
>>> You keep writing this or something like it, Mr. Krueger, but with
>>> respect you are wrong.
>>
>> You obviously have no respect for me Atkinson, so that pretty well
>> voids everything you say that follows.
>
> Not at all, Mr. Krueger. The "with respect" usage is merely to show
> that the following correction is not meant personally, but is purely
> intended to set the record straight.
>
>>> In a defamation suit, the court that has jurisdiction is the one in
>>> the state where the purported damage was suffered. In this case, as
>>> Scott Wheeler resides in California, any suit he files for damage to
>>> his reputation will be correctly and appropriately filed in
>>> California.
>>
>> I don't know who this purported Scott Wheeler person is, and I see no
>> evidence that he lives in any state, let alone California.
>
> You have me puzzled, Mr. Krueger. Have you not been communicating with
> Mr. Wheeler both on Usenet and via private e-mail? Didn't you just
> receive a registered letter from Mr. Wheeler?
>
>> Show me a sucessful case of this kind where an anonymous person was
>> slandered.
>
> I think you need tyo read up on your law, Mr. Krueger. Because a
> person is not named by a defamer is no defense if third parties are
> left in no doubt about the identity of the defamee.
>
>>> The fact that you reside in Michigan is irrelevant when the supposed
>>> defamation has occurred on a nationally distributed medium.
>>
>> The fact that no real person was slandered figures heavily in this
>> case. If what you claim were true Atkinson, there would be a lot of
>> filings of this kind in Nome, Alaska.
>
> Why? Even when the purported defamer is not mentioned by name, as
> long as people are still able to identify him he can file a case in
> the state where he resides and where the purported damage took place.
>
> Scott Wheeler has a threefold burden of proof, however: 1) That the
> defamation actually happened. Your protestations that you didn't
> mention his real name notwithstanding, I would have thought the
> Google record clearly shows that the defamation took place.

Anonymous persons don't have any civil rights because they are whole
imaginary. Therefore they can't file lawsuits, vote, own property, etc.

> 2) Mr. Wheeler has to prove that you acted with malice. Usually, this is
> almost impossible to prove, but your own postings, preserved in the
> Google record, appear to give Mr. Wheeler what he needs.

How does one have malice towards anonymous imaginary creations of someone's
mind, Atkinson. I understand that you don't really appreciate how the real
world deals with such creations of the imagination given that you've made a
fortune out of getting people to spend money on imaginary differences
between audio products.

? And 3) Mr.
> Wheeler has to prove that he has suffered actual financial damage.
> This is something that is difficult or not depending on each case.

How can an anonymous imaginary person suffer actual damage?

> However, if, say, Mr. Wheeler lost a contract because someone did a
> Google search and found his identity associated with pedophilia in a
> message you posted, then he can show damages.

Atkinson, at this time and for all time until sockpuppet "Wheel" shows proof
that he is an actual person, real damages are impossible. Given his efforts
to continue to conceal his true identity, there can be no real damages at
this time or any time in the past.

Again Atkinson, it is understandable that you would be confused about the
difference between imaginary things and real things given the fortune you've
amassed by selling collections stories about imaginary audible differences.
However, assembling a journal of imaginary happenings and selling it is not
the same as showing real damages.

> I note you keep using the phrase "LOL," Mr. Krueger, but I fail to
> see the humor.

That Atkinson is probably because you are so confused about the difference
between reality and wholly imaginary things.

>You are in effect putting your fate in the hands of
> someone who has no reason to take pity on you. Which is hardly a
> smart thing to do.

What's pathetic is people such as yourself Atkinson, who obviously confuse
imagination with reality or try to browbeat other people into believing that
fiction is fact.

John Atkinson

September 1st 03, 04:49 AM

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>...
> How does one have malice towards anonymous imaginary creations of
> someone's mind, Atkinson. I understand that you don't really appreciate
> how the real world deals with such creations of the imagination given
> that you've made a fortune out of getting people to spend money on
> imaginary differences between audio products.
>
> Again Atkinson, it is understandable that you would be confused about
> the difference between imaginary things and real things given the
> fortune you've amassed by selling collections stories about imaginary
> audible differences. However, assembling a journal of imaginary
> happenings and selling it is not the same as showing real damages.
>
> That Atkinson is probably because you are so confused about the
> difference between reality and wholly imaginary things.
>
> What's pathetic is people such as yourself Atkinson, who obviously
> confuse imagination with reality or try to browbeat other people into
> believing that fiction is fact.

A truly astonishing set of responses, given that everything I told you,
Mr. Krueger, was true, was to your benefit, and was acquired the hard
way, through my own involvement in lawsuits. (Defamation lawsuits are
part of the territory for magazine editors who don't spike negative
reviews.) Oh well, Mr. Krueger, I guess the die is cast. You should
offer a prayer to St. Jude that none of the people you have defamed
will ever be able to point to proof of actual damages suffered.

With regret
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

S888Wheel

September 1st 03, 04:00 PM

I said

<<
> arny's "fate" on this matter is still in his own hands until such
> time after the 20th of September should he choose not to do the right
> thing and the smart thing and simply comply with the demands made in
> my letter of intent to sue. Once a lawsuit is filed there is no such
> easy resolution left and Arny's "fate" will be in the hands of the
> court here in California.
>>

Arny said

<<
First prove your legal identity. If you can't or won't do that, you can't go
to court.
>>

I will have no trouble proving my legal identity to the court. I see no point
in trying to prove anything to you. If your inability to apply logic to facts
is so intense that you would conclude that I am homeless because you failed to
read the return address on the receipt of a registered letter, I see trying to
prove anything to you is a waste of time. If you were being reasonable about
this it would be obvious to you that I am a real person as it seems to be
obvious to just about everyone else. I suspect that if I were to e mail you a
picture of myself with my drivers licence, passport and school records you
would claim they could all be someone else. I will save my efforts for the
courts.

Arny Krueger

September 2nd 03, 02:00 AM

"S888Wheel" > wrote in message

> I said
>
> <<
>> arny's "fate" on this matter is still in his own hands until such
>> time after the 20th of September should he choose not to do the right
>> thing and the smart thing and simply comply with the demands made in
>> my letter of intent to sue. Once a lawsuit is filed there is no such
>> easy resolution left and Arny's "fate" will be in the hands of the
>> court here in California.
> >>
>
>
> Arny said
>
> <<
> First prove your legal identity. If you can't or won't do that, you
> can't go to court.
> >>
>
>
> I will have no trouble proving my legal identity to the court.

However, that's not where you claim you were defamed, sockpuppet "Wheel".
It's difficult for you to even prove that you were in fact the person who
was posting on rec.audio.opinion when the alleged libel took place. You have
even more difficulties establishing who was actually posting when the
alleged post from me (which you repeatedly misrepresent) was made.

>I see no point in trying to prove anything to you.

Until you prove to me that you are a legal entity, why should I take your
legal claims seriously, sockpuppet "Wheel"?

>If your inability to
> apply logic to facts is so intense that you would conclude that I am
> homeless because you failed to read the return address on the receipt
> of a registered letter, I see trying to prove anything to you is a
> waste of time.

Sockpuppet Wheel, I was prevented by an official of the U.S. Post Office
from reading that information. You had one opportunity to represent yourself
as a credible individual which you blew when you failed when you failed to
put any return address on the envelope. You basically just ****ed your
money away when you failed to put a return address on that envelope.

> If you were being reasonable about this it would be
> obvious to you that I am a real person as it seems to be obvious to
> just about everyone else.

What is obvious sockpuppet Wheel is that you are a liar and a fool many
times over.

(1) The purported libel took place on a newsgroup where every post is
"opinion".

(2) The entity that was purportedly being libeled had and has no legal
standing, being an anonymous figment of your imagination.

(3) The purported libel never took place, and all of your representations of
what was actually said are false.

>I suspect that if I were to e mail you a
> picture of myself with my drivers license, passport and school
> records you would claim they could all be someone else.

Obviously true.

>I will save my efforts for the courts.

The courts don't protect the rights of anonymous sockpuppets because they
have none.

Oily Tartlet

September 2nd 03, 02:39 AM

On Mon, 1 Sep 2003 21:00:04 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>"S888Wheel" > wrote in message

>> I said
>>
>> <<
>>> arny's "fate" on this matter is still in his own hands until such
>>> time after the 20th of September should he choose not to do the right
>>> thing and the smart thing and simply comply with the demands made in
>>> my letter of intent to sue. Once a lawsuit is filed there is no such
>>> easy resolution left and Arny's "fate" will be in the hands of the
>>> court here in California.
>> >>
>>
>>
>> Arny said
>>
>> <<
>> First prove your legal identity. If you can't or won't do that, you
>> can't go to court.
>> >>
>>
>>
>> I will have no trouble proving my legal identity to the court.
>
>However, that's not where you claim you were defamed, sockpuppet "Wheel".
>It's difficult for you to even prove that you were in fact the person who
>was posting on rec.audio.opinion when the alleged libel took place. You have
>even more difficulties establishing who was actually posting when the
>alleged post from me (which you repeatedly misrepresent) was made.
>
>>I see no point in trying to prove anything to you.
>
>Until you prove to me that you are a legal entity, why should I take your
>legal claims seriously, sockpuppet "Wheel"?
>
>>If your inability to
>> apply logic to facts is so intense that you would conclude that I am
>> homeless because you failed to read the return address on the receipt
>> of a registered letter, I see trying to prove anything to you is a
>> waste of time.
>
>Sockpuppet Wheel, I was prevented by an official of the U.S. Post Office
>from reading that information. You had one opportunity to represent yourself
>as a credible individual which you blew when you failed when you failed to
>put any return address on the envelope. You basically just ****ed your
>money away when you failed to put a return address on that envelope.
>
>> If you were being reasonable about this it would be
>> obvious to you that I am a real person as it seems to be obvious to
>> just about everyone else.
>
>What is obvious sockpuppet Wheel is that you are a liar and a fool many
>times over.
>
>(1) The purported libel took place on a newsgroup where every post is
>"opinion".
>
>(2) The entity that was purportedly being libeled had and has no legal
>standing, being an anonymous figment of your imagination.
>
>(3) The purported libel never took place, and all of your representations of
>what was actually said are false.
>
>
>>I suspect that if I were to e mail you a
>> picture of myself with my drivers license, passport and school
>> records you would claim they could all be someone else.
>
>Obviously true.
>
>>I will save my efforts for the courts.
>
>The courts don't protect the rights of anonymous sockpuppets because they
>have none.

This is *so* hilarious. If you weren't such an evil ****, you'd be
very popular, you know! You seem to have no idea how *hilarious* it is
to see you claiming your postman prevents you from reading your own
mail! The lengths to which you'll go to 'save face' (when, everyone
can see, your face was shorn off long ago, by your own manic fingers,
to be carried away in the gales from your stupidly yelling gob-hole).

Oh, wait. Maybe Mr Postman knows you well enough to realise that, were
you to be *given* your mail as normal people are given *their* mail,
there stands the very real possibility of you decapitating yourself
with the most unbelievable paper cut in the history of trees.

Yes, I'm getting it now. Just as normal people find no difficulty
reading a document or form to which they must put their signature,
normal people don't have any trouble opening a letter! But how could
any normal person know what a nightmare that task must be to someone
like *you*? (You do clean your teeth with an electric can-opener,
right?)

No, actually, that can't be it. If Mr Posty knew you well enough to
foresee you decapitating yourself with a letter of intent to sue, he'd
be giving you reams of legal paper for your birthday.

Ok, so what's the deal on this postman? Make something else up. It'll
be great!

--
Oily Tartlet

George M. Middius

September 2nd 03, 02:40 AM

dave weil said:

> >Sockpuppet Wheel, I was prevented by an official of the U.S. Post Office
> >from reading that information.
>
> No you weren't.

Maybe the mailman pulled a gun on Arnii. That would suit duh-Mikey
just fine, I'll bet.

S888Wheel

September 2nd 03, 07:44 AM

<< I said
>
> <<
>> arny's "fate" on this matter is still in his own hands until such
>> time after the 20th of September should he choose not to do the right
>> thing and the smart thing and simply comply with the demands made in
>> my letter of intent to sue. Once a lawsuit is filed there is no such
>> easy resolution left and Arny's "fate" will be in the hands of the
>> court here in California.
> >> >>

<<
>
> Arny said
>
> <<
> First prove your legal identity. If you can't or won't do that, you
> can't go to court.
> >>
>
> >>
I said

>I will have no trouble proving my legal identity to the court.

Arny said

<<
However, that's not where you claim you were defamed, sockpuppet "Wheel". >>

Court is where one proves their case Arny. When I say I can easily prove my
identity in court I am not saying I was defamed in court.

Arny said

<<
It's difficult for you to even prove that you were in fact the person who
was posting on rec.audio.opinion when the alleged libel took place. >>

Nope. It's ridiculously easy.

Arny said

<< You have
even more difficulties establishing who was actually posting when the
alleged post from me (which you repeatedly misrepresent) was made. >>

Nope. It's easy. I never misrepresented your post.

I said

<<

>I see no point in trying to prove anything to you.
>>

Arny said

<<
Until you prove to me that you are a legal entity, why should I take your
legal claims seriously, sockpuppet "Wheel"?
>>

Arny, you can do what you want to do. You are tiring. You know your deadline
and you know what you have to do to avoid a libel lawsuit. I have given you all
the help you need. Review my letter of intent to sue and decide for yourself
what to do.

I said

<<
>If your inability to
> apply logic to facts is so intense that you would conclude that I am
> homeless because you failed to read the return address on the receipt
> of a registered letter, I see trying to prove anything to you is a
> waste of time.
>>

Arny said

<<
Sockpuppet Wheel, I was prevented by an official of the U.S. Post Office
from reading that information. >>

IOW you didn't think to ask. As if that mattered one bit.

Arny said

<< You had one opportunity to represent yourself
as a credible individual which you blew when you failed when you failed to
put any return address on the envelope >>

Yeah right. As if a return address would have made you do the right thing. I am
not obligated to prove anything to you Arny. You ****ed and moaned for months
about not knowing my name, now you know it and you make wild claims that it is
a false name. I see no reason to believe you wouldn't have made the same claim
about my address too. think about it for a moment Arny. ,
Scott Wheeler. do you fail to see the connection? Do you think I have been
planning to sucker you into libeling a fake name so I can threaten a lawsuit
but not be able to carry it out? You know the deadline and you know what you
have to do to avoid a lawsuit from me, Scott Wheeler.

Arny said

<< You basically just ****ed your
money away when you failed to put a return address on that envelope. >>

Hardly. You got the letter. That was the point of sending it. I suggest you
review it.

I said

<<
> If you were being reasonable about this it would be
> obvious to you that I am a real person as it seems to be obvious to
> just about everyone else. >>

Arny said

<<

What is obvious sockpuppet Wheel is that you are a liar and a fool many
times over.
>>

More persoanl attacks. More mess for you to clean up by the 20th.

Arny said

<<
(1) The purported libel took place on a newsgroup where every post is
"opinion".
>>

Sadly, it becomes more and more clear that you have no idea what the california
civil codes say on libel. That is you problm not mine. your problem will become
much more complicated if you fail to do the right thing.

Arny said

<<

(2) The entity that was purportedly being libeled had and has no legal
standing, being an anonymous figment of your imagination.
>>

See above for the same comment on your ignorance of California civil codes.

Arny said

<<
(3) The purported libel never took place, and all of your representations of
what was actually said are false.
>>

Arny, I have a copy of the post in it's entirety. That will be the primary
exhibit in my complaint. I also have witnesses to the post who know me
personally and recognize me by my e mail address. Read the letter of intnet to
sue again. make note of what is asked of you and note the deadline given. After
that your easy out is off the table.

I said

<<

>I suspect that if I were to e mail you a
> picture of myself with my drivers license, passport and school
> records you would claim they could all be someone else.
>>

arny said

<<
Obviously true.
>>

Obviously why trying to prove anything to you is a waste of time.

i said

<<
>I will save my efforts for the courts.
>>

Arny said

<<
The courts don't protect the rights of anonymous sockpuppets because they
have none.

>>

You have until the 20th to clean up your mess Arny.

Arny Krueger

September 2nd 03, 11:37 AM

"dave weil" > wrote in message

> On Mon, 1 Sep 2003 21:00:04 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
>
>> Sockpuppet Wheel, I was prevented by an official of the U.S. Post
>> Office from reading that information.
>
> No you weren't.

More evidence that Weil is delusional and believes he is omniscient.

dave weil

September 2nd 03, 02:17 PM

On Tue, 2 Sep 2003 06:37:45 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>"dave weil" > wrote in message

>> On Mon, 1 Sep 2003 21:00:04 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Sockpuppet Wheel, I was prevented by an official of the U.S. Post
>>> Office from reading that information.
>>
>> No you weren't.
>
>More evidence that Weil is delusional and believes he is omniscient.

Nope. Just beset with an affliction called "common sense".

Here's how a rational individual would have handled the situation:

"Would you please sign for this letter"?

"Hmmm, no return address. Who is this from? I'm not sure if I want to
sign for this".

At this point, either two things can happen:

"If you want to know who it's from, look here and then sign".

"Oh, OK. - Hmmmm, Scott Wheeler, that name sounds familiar. But I have
no idea what this letter is for. No, I'm not going to sign for it.
Thank you anyway".

Or:

"If you want to know who it's from, look here and then sign".

"Oh, OK. - Hmmmm, Scott Wheeler, that name sounds familiar. Sure, I'll
sign for it".

Now, Mr. Krueger wants us to believe that something like *this*
happened:

"Would you please sign for this letter"?

"Hmmmm, no return address. Who is this from? I'm not sure if I want to
sign for this".

"Sorry, you MUST sign for it."

"How can I find out who it's from"?

"I'm not authorized to tell you. Sorry, now sign for it before I get
mad".

"I'm not signing for something from an unknown sender".

"Yes you are or you're going to jail".

"Oh, in that case, OK - give me the pen".

Then, as the postman gets into his vehicle, Mr. Krueger weakly shouts,
"Stop throwing garbage on my yard!"

Oily Tartlet

September 2nd 03, 02:26 PM

On Tue, 02 Sep 2003 08:17:21 -0500, dave weil >
wrote:

>>More evidence that Weil is delusional and believes he is omniscient.
>
>Nope. Just beset with an affliction called "common sense".
>
>Here's how a rational individual would have handled the situation:
>
>"Would you please sign for this letter"?
>
>"Hmmm, no return address. Who is this from? I'm not sure if I want to
>sign for this".
>
>At this point, either two things can happen:
>
>"If you want to know who it's from, look here and then sign".
>
>"Oh, OK. - Hmmmm, Scott Wheeler, that name sounds familiar. But I have
>no idea what this letter is for. No, I'm not going to sign for it.
>Thank you anyway".
>
>Or:
>
>"If you want to know who it's from, look here and then sign".
>
>"Oh, OK. - Hmmmm, Scott Wheeler, that name sounds familiar. Sure, I'll
>sign for it".
>
>Now, Mr. Krueger wants us to believe that something like *this*
>happened:
>
>"Would you please sign for this letter"?
>
>"Hmmmm, no return address. Who is this from? I'm not sure if I want to
>sign for this".
>
>"Sorry, you MUST sign for it."
>
>"How can I find out who it's from"?
>
>"I'm not authorized to tell you. Sorry, now sign for it before I get
>mad".
>
>"I'm not signing for something from an unknown sender".
>
>"Yes you are or you're going to jail".
>
>"Oh, in that case, OK - give me the pen".
>
>Then, as the postman gets into his vehicle, Mr. Krueger weakly shouts,
>"Stop throwing garbage on my yard!"

ROTFL!!!

--
Oily Tartlet

GeoSynch

September 7th 03, 02:59 AM

Arny Krueger wrote:

> S888Wheel wrote:

> > arny's "fate" on this matter is still in his own hands until such
> > time after the 20th of September should he choose not to do the right
> > thing and the smart thing and simply comply with the demands made in
> > my letter of intent to sue. Once a lawsuit is filed there is no such
> > easy resolution left and Arny's "fate" will be in the hands of the
> > court here in California.

> First prove your legal identity. If you can't or won't do that, you can't go
> to court.

This Google search returns 2 phone numbers for Scott Wheelers in CA,
one residing in Benicia and the other in Glendale:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=%22Scott+Wheeler%22+CA

Is either one of them you, Scott?

GeoSynch

GeoSynch

September 7th 03, 03:10 AM

I wrote:

> This Google search returns 2 phone numbers for Scott Wheelers in CA,
> one residing in Benicia and the other in Glendale:
> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=%22Scott+Wheeler%22+CA

> Is either one of them you, Scott?

There's even more Scott Wheelers, including a few attornies:

http://www.google.com/search?sa=X&oi=fwp&pb=f&q=%22Scott+Wheeler%22+CA

Looks like you may be in trouble here, Arny.

Even if Scott does not ultimately prevail in his lawsuit against you, it appears that you're
going to have to spend quite a bit of money to defend yourself, whereas Scott will be
getting all the legal advice he needs for free from his father.

GeoSynch

GeoSynch

September 7th 03, 03:12 AM

Pudge prattled:

> Pretty pathetic, I'd guess.

All your guesses are pretty pathetic.

GeoSynch

Arny Krueger

September 7th 03, 11:33 AM

"GeoSynch" > wrote in message
k.net...
> I wrote:
>
> > > This Google search returns 2 phone numbers for Scott Wheelers in CA,
> > > one residing in Benicia and the other in Glendale:
> > >
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=%22Scott+Wheeler%22+C
A
>
> > > Is either one of them you, Scott?
>
> > There's even more Scott Wheelers, including a few attornies:
> > http://www.google.com/search?sa=X&oi=fwp&pb=f&q=%22Scott+Wheeler%22+CA
>
> > Looks like you may be in trouble here, Arny.
>
> > Even if Scott does not ultimately prevail in his lawsuit against you, it
appears that you're
> > going to have to spend quite a bit of money to defend yourself, whereas
Scott will be
> > getting all the legal advice he needs for free from his father.

Nahh.

> Holy guacomole, even more Scott Wheelers, 21 in total:
> http://www.google.com/search?sa=X&oi=rwp&pb=r&q=%22Scott+Wheeler%22+CA

You just came up with another reason why any suit filed by any of the 21 or
more Scott Wheeler's would be laughed out of court were he stoopid enough to
waste his money filing.

Libel is harm to a specific individual or legal entity or legal class
thereof.

Since the most I can possibly know is that "Scott Wheeler" is one of 21 or
more different people in California (none of them have specifically
identified themselves to me), it's impossible for any of the 21 or more
Scott Wheelers to prove in court that I specificially libelled him.

Because I am well-known on RAO to be a very specific person (one with a
proper address and published picture) it comes down to the ironic fact that
sockpuppet wheel can libel me, but until he properly establishes his
identity, he can't properly be libelled.

IOW there's a lot more reasons why I can sue Greg Singh, Marc Phillips or
George Middius, than reasons why sockpuppet Wheel can sue me. Obviously,
Greg Singh is the easiest target since he lives so close, and is so easy to
trace down through his new business.

Come to think of it, this would be public service I could perform. I could
sue Greg for libel, and save lots of people from wasting their money on his
speakers.

LOL!

dave weil

September 7th 03, 03:06 PM

On Sun, 7 Sep 2003 06:33:56 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>IOW there's a lot more reasons why I can sue Greg Singh, Marc Phillips or
>George Middius, than reasons why sockpuppet Wheel can sue me. Obviously,
>Greg Singh is the easiest target since he lives so close, and is so easy to
>trace down through his new business.

Actually, this sort of points out that *I* have good reason to sue you
if I ever chose to. Of course, my info about your libels of me will be
made available to Mr. Wheeler if he needs it to support his case.

And I'd be careful about libelling Mr. Singh from this point on, since
he's now in business in audio and it would be fairly easy to prove
personal and business damage.

George M. Middius

September 7th 03, 03:32 PM

dave weil said to The Big ****:

> >IOW there's a lot more reasons why I can sue Greg Singh, Marc Phillips or
> >George Middius, than reasons why sockpuppet Wheel can sue me. Obviously,
> >Greg Singh is the easiest target since he lives so close, and is so easy to
> >trace down through his new business.

> And I'd be careful about libelling Mr. Singh from this point on, since
> he's now in business in audio and it would be fairly easy to prove
> personal and business damage.

OTOH, I encourage ****-for-Brains to sue me. I have the worst possible
opinion of him for anybody who's not locked up in prison. (Or in a
mental hospital.) The list of horrid things Turdy has said and done
would fill a notebook. Starting with his comparatively innocuous
practice of calling everybody on earth a "proven liar", sliding
through his theft of the code of a testing application, and
crescendoing with his disgraceful attempts to use the death of his son
for "debating trade" points. And let's not forget the shameful things
he's said about his alleged wife, including labeling her a "back alley
whore" and revealing that she gives blowjobs for $5 a pop.

If I were motivated, such as by having to support a counter-suit
against Mr. ****, I would go to Google and dig up the thousands of
posts in which Turdy has spontaneously attacked individuals'
character, intelligence, lineage, audio knowledge, education, and
vocation. There are literally hundreds of Kroo-victims who have simply
chosen to ignore Mr. **** over the years. Taken together, that
behavior would be a massive counterweight to any lawsuit this
pathetic, craven head-case might file.

Of course we know Kroo**** will never actually sue anybody. He'd never
get a lawyer interested. And without a lawyer, as we've seen from his
pathetic attempts to deal with Wheeler's allegations by relying on his
"debating trade" crapola, Krooger is incapable of even understanding
what the standards for libel are, let alone drafting a complaint that
a judge would accept.

So go ahead and stroke your sausage, Kroo**** -- nobody believes for a
second that a diseased twit with **** for brains (i.e. you) will ever
make good on such a threat.

I'd also like to use this occasion to remind you of two things: first,
you are forbidden to reply directly to any of my posts; second, we are
still waiting for you to outline your plan for doing yourself in. Get
on it already. We can't wait for nature to run its course.

S888Wheel

September 7th 03, 05:21 PM

<<
There's even more Scott Wheelers, including a few attornies:
>>

There are a lot of Scott Wheelers in this world. Many very acomplished people
by that name. I am the only one with the e mail address .

S888Wheel

September 7th 03, 05:30 PM

<<

You just came up with another reason why any suit filed by any of the 21 or
more Scott Wheeler's would be laughed out of court were he stoopid enough to
waste his money filing.

Libel is harm to a specific individual or legal entity or legal class
thereof.

Since the most I can possibly know is that "Scott Wheeler" is one of 21 or
more different people in California (none of them have specifically
identified themselves to me), it's impossible for any of the 21 or more
Scott Wheelers to prove in court that I specificially libelled him.

Because I am well-known on RAO to be a very specific person (one with a
proper address and published picture) it comes down to the ironic fact that
sockpuppet wheel can libel me, but until he properly establishes his
identity, he can't properly be libelled.

IOW there's a lot more reasons why I can sue Greg Singh, Marc Phillips or
George Middius, than reasons why sockpuppet Wheel can sue me. Obviously,
Greg Singh is the easiest target since he lives so close, and is so easy to
trace down through his new business.

Come to think of it, this would be public service I could perform. I could
sue Greg for libel, and save lots of people from wasting their money on his
speakers.

LOL!

>>

You know what you have to do to avoid a lawsuit and you know the deadline. Sept
20th.

George M. Middius

September 7th 03, 05:40 PM

S888Wheel said to ****-for-Brains:

> You know what you have to do to avoid a lawsuit and you know the deadline. Sept 20th.

As all RAO regulars know, Michigander Arnii Krooger accused
Californian Scott Wheeler of being a pedophile, and Wheeler took such
offense that he threatened to sue Krooger for libel unless the
accusation is retracted. So far, Krooger has attempted to ply his
"debating trade" garbage rather than comply. This has consisted of
impugning the legal knowledge of everybody who has offered an informed
opinion of libel law, making up alleged "legal principles" out of thin
air, and (as usual) twisting what people say and throwing in a
generous helping of meaningless lies. In short, Krooger has been
unable to recognize that Wheeler is not just playing the RAO game as
usual, but apparently intends to pursue his claim to a court in the
real world. Wheeler gave Krooger until Sept. 20 to retract the post
and apologize for it.

My prediction: On Sept. 19 or 20 -- but not before -- Krooger will
comply in a half-assed way. He will claim that he consulted a lawyer
or lawyers earlier, but the lawyers lied to him. He'll also claim he
did voluminous research on libel law in Michigan, California, and the
U.S., but the books he read lied to him. He'll further claim that
although he made the post, it wasn't really his fault, because
Wheeler's "teammates" or "co-conspirators" or "fellow paid character
assassins" have made the same accusation against Krooger. Or because
RAO has been a nasty little playground for years. Or because Wheeler
"insulted" Krooger at some point. Or some other flimsy excuse. In
short, the apology will be unsatisfactory because Krooger will avoid
taking responsibility for what he said.

Lionel Chapuis

September 7th 03, 05:59 PM

George M. Middius a écrit :
>
> S888Wheel said to ****-for-Brains:
>
>
>>You know what you have to do to avoid a lawsuit and you know the deadline. Sept 20th.
>
>
>
> As all RAO regulars know, Michigander Arnii Krooger accused
> Californian Scott Wheeler of being a pedophile, and Wheeler took such
> offense that he threatened to sue Krooger for libel unless the
> accusation is retracted. So far, Krooger has attempted to ply his
> "debating trade" garbage rather than comply. This has consisted of
> impugning the legal knowledge of everybody who has offered an informed
> opinion of libel law, making up alleged "legal principles" out of thin
> air, and (as usual) twisting what people say and throwing in a
> generous helping of meaningless lies. In short, Krooger has been
> unable to recognize that Wheeler is not just playing the RAO game as
> usual, but apparently intends to pursue his claim to a court in the
> real world. Wheeler gave Krooger until Sept. 20 to retract the post
> and apologize for it.
>
> My prediction: On Sept. 19 or 20 -- but not before -- Krooger will
> comply in a half-assed way. He will claim that he consulted a lawyer
> or lawyers earlier, but the lawyers lied to him. He'll also claim he
> did voluminous research on libel law in Michigan, California, and the
> U.S., but the books he read lied to him. He'll further claim that
> although he made the post, it wasn't really his fault, because
> Wheeler's "teammates" or "co-conspirators" or "fellow paid character
> assassins" have made the same accusation against Krooger. Or because
> RAO has been a nasty little playground for years. Or because Wheeler
> "insulted" Krooger at some point. Or some other flimsy excuse. In
> short, the apology will be unsatisfactory because Krooger will avoid
> taking responsibility for what he said.
>
>
>
>

Unfortunatly Georg "Nostradamus" Middious' predictions are never very
useful for himself.
If yes, he would immediatly stop posting on RAO... CQFD !
I've already told you that Middious you should turn your thumb 1,000
times in your ass before typing anything...
Caution : I suggest you to suppress all spaces in you futur texts (LOL)