Re: [ga-abuse] M2 against Russ Smith

[k@widgital.com (Kristy McKee)]

At 02:16 PM 8/23/2001 +0200, Alexander Svensson wrote:

>M1: Alexander Svensson
>Against: Russ Smith ("admin"), admin@consumer.net
>Complainants:  (a+b) William S. Lovell, wsl@cerebalaw.com;
>(c) William X. Walsh, william@userfriendly.com
>
>Complainant Comments:
>(a) "The following is yet another
>email by Russ Smith containing gross name calling about
>which I wish to complain."
>(b) "Another complaint against Russ Smith (admin).  This
>one happens to involve me personally, and I believe it does
>constitute "slander" -- actually libel.  (Opinion cannot
>be defamatory (which includes both slander and libel);
>expressing something as actual fact can be.)."
>(c) "Personal attack, and uncalled for."
>
>Date:  17-22-Aug-01
>Message:
>(a) http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc08/msg00547.html
>(b) http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc08/msg00715.html
>(c) http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc08/msg00767.html
>
>Grounds: Personal attack, insults, slander
>Recommendation: Suspension, two weeks.
>
>M1 Comment:
>
>This is the relevant part of message (a) by Russ Smith:
> > Mr. Lynn is just another of a long line of stooges, crooks,
> > liars, frauds, (and their associated  cheerleaders like who you)
> > that I dislike.
>
>"Stooge" and "fraud" are certainly personal attacks,
>"liar" and "crook" are strong attacks and slanderous
>in addition. Russ Smith had just been warned against
>personal attacks ("You are such an unbelivable liar and
>a fraud."). There's no minimum of decorum here.
>
>This is the relevant part of message (b) by Russ Smith:
> > Fraud, deception, and intentionally misrepresenting
> > the law is the norm in the Intellectual Property legal community.  The
> > corruption is so engrained into the system that it has turned into the
> > normal way of doing business.  The attorneys who make these excuses or
> > pretend that it doesn't happen are just as bad, and just as responsible, as
> > the attorneys who have actually engaged in the practices.  While it is not
> > every single on, it is the majority.
> > [...]
> > This is not "slander," it is FACT and every single trademark lawyers knows
> > it.
>
>"Fraud, deception, and intentionally misrepresenting
>the law" and "corruption" are strong accusations. Here,
>it was said in direct response to William Lovell, who
>said that he as member of the Intellectual Property
>legal community took strong exception to Paul Cotton's
>sweeping judgement (which was toned down afterwards).
>According to Russ Smith, William Lovell's defence of
>his legal community is not the truth (since every
>single trademark lawyers "knows" that "it is FACT"
>that Russ Smith's allegations are correct).
>
>William Lovell calls this "libel"
>http://dictionary.law.com/definition2.asp?selected=1153&bold=||||
>(the more precise term in the U.S. legal
>terminology), which is equivalent to "slander" for
>the purposes of list monitoring.
>
>These are relevant parts of message (c) by Russ Smith:
>http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc08/msg00767.html
> > Cade is also involved in ensuring that corporations like AT&T have
> > unfettered access to the personal information for individuals.  Cade 
> lobbies
> > to make sure that no laws get passed that will place any restrictions 
> on how
> > personal information is used by companies such as AT&T.
> >
> > I have seen Cade in action here in Washington.  You should see how these
> > people operate.  You cannot believe anything these people say ... and I 
> mean
> > anything.  Their allegiance is to their corporation and their stockholders.
> > They don't care about anybody or anything else.  Many of them know 
> little or
> > nothing about what they are talking about.  All they know is how to suck up
> > to those who have some power.  Lobbying, policy development and 
> advocacy are
> > exactly the same thing.  let's just say you lie on behalf of your parent
> > company.
> >
> > [...]
> > Why should anyone believe anything said by an AT&T lobbyist is beyond me.
> > How can anyone be so stupid as to believe these people?
> >
> > But hey, if you have something to sell give ole Marilyn a call as I am sure
> > she loves telemarketing calls
>
>This is a personal attack on Marilyn Cade, from the point
>on when the word "lie" is introduced and those who believe
>"an AT&T lobbyist" (Marilyn Cade being the only AT&T
>lobbyist on this list) are called stupid.
>
>
>Proposal for a message to the GA:
>-------------------------------------------------------
>The list monitors note that the posting rights of
>Russ Smith, admin@consumer.net, have been suspended
>for two weeks, effective immediately.
>
>The list monitors find that postings by Russ Smith
>contained personal attacks, some of them slanderous.
>"You are such an unbelivable liar and a fraud."
>http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc08/msg00341.html;
>"just another of a long line of stooges, crooks, liars, frauds"
>http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc08/msg00547.html;
>"I have seen Cade in action here in Washington.  You should see
>how these people operate.  You cannot believe anything these
>people say ... and I mean anything."
>"Why should anyone believe anything said by an AT&T lobbyist
>is beyond me. How can anyone be so stupid as to believe
>these people?"
>http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc08/msg00767.html;
>"Fraud, deception, and intentionally misrepresenting
>the law is the norm in the Intellectual Property legal community."
>"The attorneys who make these excuses or pretend that it
>doesn't happen are just as bad, and just as responsible, as
>the attorneys who have actually engaged in the practices."
>"This is not 'slander,' it is FACT and every single trademark
>lawyers knows it."
>http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc08/msg00715.html
>(posted as an answer to a member of that legal community;
>claiming that it is not an opinion, but a fact)
>
>The GA posting rules are laid down in
>http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2000.GA-ga-rules.html:
>
>- The messages must be relevant to the business of the GA
>- The messages must observe a minimum of decorum, including:
>   - Not indulging in personal attacks, insults or slander
>   - Not using offensive language
>- If the GA Chair or a list monitor asks for a limit to the number
>   of posts per person per day, this must be respected
>- The size of messages should be kept reasonable (there should be
>   a VERY good reason to send a message of more than 10 Kbytes).
>
>The list monitors note that Russ Smith has been
>previously warned against making personal attacks and
>have therefore now decided to suspend the posting rights
>of Russ Smith for two weeks. This decision can be
>appealed to the GA Chair.
>--------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>M2:  Kristy McKee
>M2 Comment:  What Russ states about Ms. Cade and Mr. Lynn is true and 
>there is evidence to support his comments; however, his posts obviously 
>lack a minimum of decorum and include personal attacks neither of which 
>are acceptable or appreciated within our forum.  Mr. Lynn understands this 
>and apologized for his decect to the list very soon after posting and was 
>therefore relieved from warnings or suspensions on the matter.  Ms. Cade 
>has been easy to communicate with and positive in the face of comments 
>that might frighten others, she most certainly has not indulged in 
>breaking any of the rules.  Russ replied with inappropriate language to 
>our warning which to me creates the feeling another warning will not be 
>helpful.
>Action: Suspension (this is his first, so two weeks)