"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.