"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