"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.

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.

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.

"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.

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?

"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" 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

"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.

"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" 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.

"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

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" 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 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