|
noring@netcom.com (Jon Noring):
[snip]
>>>Whip, your constant harassment of henry is libelous, vindicative,
spiteful, and shows only hatred.
Diane Richardson <referen@bway.net>:
>>And yet you don't consider Rob Clark's
constant harassment of Keith Spurgeon, or any of dozens of others who have been subjected to
anon2c9e@nyx10.cs.du.edu (henry):
>i have never harassed keith spurgeon in any
legal sense of that word, and i defy you to provide evidence to the contrary.
Let me introduce you to Black's Law Dictionary. Under "harassment,"
it states:
[snip]
"Term is used in a variety of legal contexts to describe
words, gestures and actions which tend to annoy, alarm and abuse (verbally) another person; e.g., the use of 'obscene or
profane language or language the natural consequence of which is to abuse the hearer or reader'. . . ."
"A person commits a petty misdemeanor if, with purpose
to harass another, he: . . (2) insults, taunts or challenges
another in a manner likely to provoke violent or disorderly response; (3) makes repeated communications . . . in offensively coarse language. . . ." Model Penal Code, Section 250.4
>or are you redefining 'harassment' again, so that my
public statements about keith spurgeon's duplicity as evidenced on this newsgroup as well as in real life, somehow by some bizarre magic become 'harassment' while the bast operation *wasn't*.
Your "public statements" regarding Keith Spurgeon are both
harassment and actionable libel, Rob.
Provided below is just a sampling of the harassive posts you have
directed at Keith Spurgeon over recent weeks. Keith did his best
to ignore your harassment for over a month, which did not deter you
from directing your filthy spew at him. Most others sat by silently
while you mischaracterized him, lied about his actions, and
misrepresented his interactions with others. Through it all you have
done your best to goad, taunt, and prod Keith into reacting. When
Keith did reply, you went scurrying away, crying "victim" at the top
of your lungs.
You have stated either to him or about him:
================================
. . . i'd like to hose him down with mace and piss in his face.
=====
keith seems unwilling to discuss his sleazy actions, and for good
reason.
=====
it's not surprising you soon afterward stopped to lying to courts.
=====
why is keith incapable of referring to me by name? he has been
implying i am a liar every time he refers to the sleaze which has
become synonymous with the name 'spurgeon.'
=====
nobody forced keith spurgeon to deceive a court, or to continue to
be a fake friend while dishing out dirt in the backchannels.
=====
prepare to enjoy it, cocksucker.
=====
. . . point out an inaccuracy, with the exception of the slavering
and cowering bit, which only applied to keith spurgeon.
=====
i've seen the behavior of all parties involved in this spat at first
hand, and keith spurgeon has acted like a sleazy weasel, not just
to paulette but to others.
=====
so? i've seen him *act* like a sleazy weasel.
i'd rather resort to calling him a sleazy weasel a sleazy weasel
than resort to being one.
=====
you two-faced fuck.
h
=====
please, do correct me motherfucker keith.
=====
notwithstanding that dickhead's only response is one line of
nonresponsive gibberish, i'll just get to martin's part of this.
=====
oh, he can call me rob. i'm sure he'll have no objection to me
calling him "mr. Brrr-rrrr-awk BRRRRRAWK big old non-confront
chickenshit pussy-whipped weasel-boy."
=====
material confidential to keith spurgeon:
nothing. jack-shit. any damn word this weasel ever said to me
is fair game. i owe him nothing.
=====
i also think she was pretty foolish to say what she did to keith
spurgeon in confidence, when he is an untrustworhy liar who will
gladly stab you in the back for a filthy pfennig.
=====
not that i'm objective, but paulette. keith is a liar.
he deceived the court in waltham. he is not an "up front" kind of
person.
=====
until then, shut the fuck up with your pathetic libels, you
backstabbing, verminous little viper.
=====
now, if you choose to continue to libel this person by calling them
a liar, i'm sure the court and the person who saw you when you were
at waltham may be interested in defending themselves from
sleazeballs lying about their statements on the internet.
=====
i wonder what contortions DiBi will go into to explain this seeming
lie to the court at waltham.
=====
nobody forced keith spurgeon to deceive a court, or to continue to
be a fake friend while dishing out dirt in the backchannels.
=====
it's not surprising you soon afterwards stooped to lying to courts.
=====
[the vicious libels and low, crass statements which issue from this
pathetic liar, keith spurgeon, never cease to astound me with their
intellectual bankruptcy and invidious evasiveness.]
=====
trust me, keith, i may not actually be quite so rude in public, but i
will not apologize for a damn thing i said to you, to your face, and
will gladly autograph any copies of my posts you keep around in
your 'pearl harbor' files. in fact, you continue to disgust me more
with your utter lack of decency and humanity.
=====
and that being a lying, weaselling scumbag who pumps everyone
for secrets and then blackmails them--is usually a SHITTY ploy for
advantage. and that's you, keith.
=====
you'd make a great OSA agent--or a great two-penny cocksucker.
=====
-- mary sue spurgeon
=====
. . . the vicious cruelty of keith spurgeon and diane richardson, the
lowest scumbags, backstabbing traitors and benedict arnolds i have had
the misfortune ever to trust--well, i trusted diane, anyway.
=====
that way maybe people won't notice the man behind the curtain, in this
case keith spurgeon--who has the gall to call me a coward from hiding
behind a skirt.
=====
any more blackmail, scumbag?
=====
hence, you are a fucking idiot.
=====
i take full responsibility for calling you a weaselling sack of shit,
spurgeon. you still are one, and any fool with a speck of sense
can see it.
======================
I could, of course, expand the list of abuse you've heaped
upon Keith Spurgeon--this is merely a sampling of what you've
spewed in the past few weeks.
The posts you have directed at Keith on this newsgroup meet
the legal definition of harassment. If spoken in his presence,
many of these statements would constitute "fighting words,"
which are not legally protected speech. Additionally, much of
what you have said about him constitutes defamation, since
you have made false statements about him with malicious intent
and reckless disregard as to whether these statements are
true or not.
Diane Richardson
referen@bway.net
|
