Questions for Mame

Thanks, Spade. Nedra wasn't backward at coming forward.

 

Great Tricia

Okay, I'll start the pot..
The day the "surprise" will hit FFJ is........NEVER, or iow WHEN HELL FREEZES

The surprise (or miracle rather) is.....drumroll pls................THEY'LL FINALLY TAKE THIS CASE TO COURT AND HOLD THE RAMSEY'S ACCOUNTABLE FOR JBR'S MURDER! I can dream can't I?

Feel free to invest the winnings in the Oreo factory, I hear Oreo's are getting more and more popular hehehe

 

Shirley Brady's ideas show that she is a fruitloop. What boy or young man wants to be an anteater in this day and age.

I don't know about "cream", but most parents are advised to apply vaseline to their baby's circumcision to protect it from diaper rash.

 

I think Jams is just trying to distance herself from the Krebs stuff so that she can't be connected to perpetuating the lies. As icing on the cake, she will infuriate Mame and then Jameson will have her good and legit reasons for kicking her off the forum like she did with Candy.

You do realize that there can't be TWO top dogs with super duper secret info and sources and info that hasn't been made public. (I swear, betweent the two of them claiming secret sources, it's a wonder the public knows anything at all) :cheerful:

There can be only ONE :queen: with the most superest, duperest, secretest information that can't be shared. With all their reliable secret sources contradicting one another, only one super duper secret source can be it and it is after all, Jams' forum

Adios :mame:

 

Well, if miss maim's attorneys want to collect every post on this topic, then perhaps we should oblige. We have all the threads at JW where maim carried on her personal and voracious attacks on Fleet White. Is it time to REPOST them?

Why did maim get attacked so? Simple: she brought ill-conceived accusations and allegations against entire families to a forum and then attacked anyone who asked for EVIDENCE or PROOF. She didn't wait to find out if Krebs was credible. She simply met the woman, got caught up in thinking she had found A CHILD SEX RING related the the Ramsey murder, and she never looked back. No amount of reasoning nor logic nor lack of evidence would persuade maim to even slow down. Maim participated not only in one of the most damaging sideshows to the case, but she led the way.

And NOW she's blaming US for the backlash? How Ramsey of her.

Plenty of people had THEIR FAMILIES ATTACKED during the maim-led debacle at JW. I'm one of them, and I wasn't even a MEMBER at the time. But the only person maim cared about in the mob-frenzy SHE CREATED was...of course, MAIM HERSELF. Again, how Ramsey of her.

You want posts, maim? We've got 'em, in all their ugliness.

You made yourself a public person, maim, not us. You are the architect of your own downfall. Not us. Maybe you should grow up and face that. You want to continue to ACCUSE and MALIGN the Whites, even in the face of CLEAR AND IRREFUTABLE EVIDENCE that your "honored woman" is NOT credible in her accusations against DOZENS of people, then YOU are the one who should be sued. Fleet White has been cleared more times than ANYONE in the Ramsey murder, and in the Krebs scandal. But you don't want to acknowledge that. Because you can't simply admit YOU ARE WRONG.

If Nancy Krebs didn't want to be dragged into the public eye, then I'd say YOU should have thought about that before YOU DRAGGED HER onto the forums, with all your years of innuendoes and accusations, your "interviews" with her. You PERSONALLY got her interview transcripts and POSTED THEM ONLINE BEFORE ANYONE ELSE.

You think YOU'RE being slandered? hahaha That's darn rich, maim. After all you've said about the Whites, that's truly rich.

Remember this: you are still maliciously lying about Fleet White online. And you're as much a public figure as he is, if not moreso. No statute of limitations expired on that, is there?

So be prepared to defend YOUR actions, maim. A judge and jury will be looking at those, as well. Do you REALLY think that you are blameless? If so, you're as deluded as ever.

 

Her big surprise is that she is going to have "her attorneys" mail out a few nasty letters.:deal: Maybe the envelopes will even contain itching powder.:nervous: Better look out Tricia, or we'll be changing your hat to "Scratchy"!

Does she ACTUALLY think she is so important that comments about her are a "conspiracy to sway the direction of this case"? How did this fruitloop get to be such a legend in her own mind? :floor:

 

LOL, BluesStrat, mame always did think we were part of a conspiracy to cover up the "truth" about FW. Yep, here we all are, most of us have never even met each other or FW, but we are in a conspiracy to protect him. Like, what would be our motive? I live in NYS. Tricia lives in Utah. RR lives in the deep deep south.

And mame lived in Boulder. Now, who would have the most opportunity to create a conspiracy but someone who actually lived in the same place as where the crime took place? None of us sponsored a mentally ill woman or put her up in our homes. None of us knew the notorious Lee Hill. None of us had her picture taken with Alex Hunter and that Wise guy.

Get a life, mame. You need serious help, and you're wasting your non-existant lawyer's time.

 

I live in NY and so does WhyNut. There might even be others......

We could start a consipiracy if we really really wanted to..... :floor:

 

Oh come on.....there has to be some Statute of Limitations escape for us as long as this has been going on.

She has threatened to sue me for as long as I can remember and even had Nancy Krebs calling my dear friend Tricia up with the lawsuit threats - naming BobC and I as the impending recipients of the still unserved paperwork. The ACLU was summoned. The poster Shalame stated that they wanted to put their hands around my throat and choke me. Suma has accused me of being in a conspiracy as a henchmen for a baby raping murderer......and she can't figure out why I care soooo much about this issue?!?!

 

Don't forget the posts on Purgatory where Maddie claimed she wasn't mame and then gave herself away ("Woops, forgot, I AM Mame!")

 

I'll be happy to write Mame a referal to any pharmaceutical company looking for candidates for psychological drug testing. :thumbsup:

 

Right about that time was the beginning of the an anti-circumcision movement...the opponents claimed it was unnecessary, painful, cruel, etc. It was all over the place - the debate could get very heated at times.

 

Here's a question for Mame

IF you believe that Fleet White, et al are pedophiles and did all those really horrible things to Krebs, ALONG WITH UNCLE JOHNNY,.................AND you feel the authorities have done nothing despite all these notes and sources and personal knowledge, DO SOMETHING!

WHAT HAVE YOU DONE "LEGALLY" to stop this from happening again? Why are you just being a vicious internet poster, sounding like a lunatic, ranting and raving about FW's pedophile behavior, and risking the well being of so many children he has been in contact with, and surely can be in contact with now and in the future?

Raving on the internet about sex rings and children and just plain old slandering the Whites only gets you the wrath of those like us here who say

PUT UP OR SHUT UP

Let's see what you are doing for all those children that FW may yet come into contact with or has previously come into contact with

How about going to the authorities UNDER YOUR REAL NAME and telling them that Fleet White is a danger to children and do it legally instead of internet ramblings that appear to derive from lunacy?

Just askin'....and don't forget that John Ramsey was also involved

Step up to the plate and do something productive, or just shut up

 

Jams Allows Mame to "let the won't Happen, Happen

How times change, JammySue is doing exactly what she stated in 2002 would never happen, letting her forum become a FW Lynch forum by allowing Mame to do exactly that! Why is she letting Mame get away with sooooo much, including this and the Nancy Krebs allegations posts? You've gotta wonder!

 

Shannon

Great find!!!! Thank you for bringing it to the forum.

 

jameson
unregistered user
Nov-22-02, 09:58 AM (EST)

44. "What will NOT happen"
In response to message #43

This forum will NOT become a "Lynch Fleet White" forum.
Nancy Krebs made her accusations. She got her 15 minutes of fame. The police looked into her accusations. There was no arrest. Nothing.

LP did some very detailed investigation, found Nancy Krebs has a history that makes her accusations suspect and determined for herself that NK is lying.

I believe LP did a good job. And i saw a few things myself when in Boulder.

I am of the belief that NK was a victim of abuse - - from others and from her own hand. I think she read about this case and had some theories that she was determined to share - and did. Her theories were not the true facts. She was discredited.

I think her therapist is sick - - yeah, I do.

NOW, members here who are registered with their own names and information take full responsibility for their posts. They are wwelcometo say what they want. But it is not right for anonymous posters using the public forum to libel Fleet White and set ME up for a lawsuit.

You want to talk about FW, find a chat area where it isn't my problem. I don't want any part of thie immoral lynching of Fleet White based on Nancy Krebs' delusions or lies."

:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

Let's all thank jameson for pointing out that the possibility exists for an anonymous poster to use a public forum to SET UP the Owner - and libel Fleet - which is immoral.

:clap:

 

jameson
Member since 5-8-02
11-10-06, 03:36 PM (EST)

2. "RE: Can Tricia be sued?"
In response to message #0

I still won't allow this forum to be the vehicle where any one is lynched, not the Ramseys or the Whites or the McReynolds - - but I am NOT going to tell posters they donot have a right to voice their opinions and theories.
I have no problem posting that I disagree.

And I have no problem insisting that people make it clear they are posting their theories - - I don't want any direct statements of guilt here unless the poster can prove it - - and if they can prove it, they need to - - stop posting and go to Boulder ASAP!

But that is not the reason for the thread.

I made it clear in that post that I believe the owners ARE responsible - just as the servers are. No one should be the victim of malicious lies or harassment. The servers all have TOS - - so do the forums. And when the posters refuse to follow the rules - - I think it is only common sense that the owner needs to step in and make sure the forum is NOT a platform for zealots and fools.

That is not to say no one can be discredited or embarassed - - they sure can. I have not been sued by Foster because he knows what I posted is all truth - and I have the documents to prove it!

It is not to say that an individual can't be exposed - - we sure have exposed Karr!

But we should all have to answer to the laws. And the owner of... well, let's be crude. The owner of a whore house, the person who runs the place - - they are not innocent people. They run a houseof ill repute and it is illegal. Why should a forum owner be held in a different light - - if the forum is one of ill repute - - I think they SHOULD own some of the responsibility.





Alert | IP Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top


Mame
Member since 8-20-06
11-10-06, 03:39 PM (EST)

3. "RE: Can Tricia be sued?"
In response to message #2

Jameson sounds like you got a threat? You sound scared.

 

jameson
Member since 5-8-02
11-10-06, 03:22 PM (EST)

1. "PBWIKI's Input"
In response to message #0

LAST EDITED ON 11-10-06 AT 03:24 PM (EST)

PBWiki was asked to dismantle the entire JonBenet Ramsey Case Encyclopedia because it included links to Radar's theory at Topix.net.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


We have received your message concerning your request to have us: remove an entire wiki hosted by us, bar the wiki’s creator from further activity on PBwiki, and to return to you personally identifiable information concerning the wiki’s users and creator, per your claim that the wiki contained a hyperlink to material you allege to be libelious.

The Communications Decency Act of 1996 added as federal law Title 47 Part 230(c)(1), which provides:

“No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.â€

This federal provision protects online content providers from libel and defamation lawsuits concerning content posted by their members and has been rigorously upheld by the courts, per Batzel v. Smith, 333 F.3d 1018 (9th Cir. 2003), Carafano v. Metrosplash.com, 339 F.3d 1119 (9th Cir. 2003), Blumenthal v. Drudge, 992 F. Supp. 44, 49-53 (D.D.C. 1998), and Doe v. America Online, 783 So.2d 1010, 1013-1017 (Fl. 2001), cert. denied, 122 S.Ct. 208 (2000).

230(c)(1) would be sufficient to protect Coceve, Inc. from claims of libel or defamation for simply hosting content published by its members, and there exists no legal requirement under which we are bound for us to comply with a request for content removal on the grounds that it could potentially be libelious. Indeed, such a mechanism could be used to easily suppress free speech, since we – as a service provider and not a publisher – do not have the capacity to evaluate the correctness of the hundreds of thousands of pages of content posted by our users. While there exist mechanisms for requiring takedown of material on a copyright basis per the Digital Millenium Copyright Act, no equivalent mechanism exists for claims of libel.

Likewise, no law under which we are bound compels us to disclose our users’ personally identifiable information by simple request or to restrict users’ use of our service, short of an order by a court of law, such as a subpoena from an applicable jurisdiction. PBwiki is proud to protect the privacy of its users to encourage free speech and open content collaboration.

Therefore, we find the claims against our company to have no grounds in California or Federal law. As such, we will not be taking any action.

Furthermore, you should be aware that these actions represent to us an attempt to stifle free and open discussion of issues by our members and, more broadly, by the Internet community as a whole. If online service providers had to worry about what their users linked to, it’s unlikely that the rich, hyperlinked environment of the Internet could have come to fruition. This is exactly why online providers like PBwiki were granted protection by Congress from suits like this in the form of the Communications Decency Act. If you continue along your current course, we may explore other options available to us, e.g., OPG v Diebold.

Sincerely,

___________________
David E. Weekly
CEO of Coceve, Inc.


repeating this part:
"no law under which we are bound compels us to disclose our users’ personally identifiable information by simple request or to restrict users’ use of our service, short of an order by a court of law, such as a subpoena from an applicable jurisdiction.


Doesn't sound like they will be too difficult to deal with. Lin can handle getting a subpoena.





Alert | IP Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top


Evening2
Member since 7-7-03
11-10-06, 03:41 PM (EST)

2. "RE: PBWIKI's Input"
In response to message #1

Jameson, this is what I was talking about regarding a possible counter-claim by Tricia, et al - the free speech issues. She (they) might even get an offer to be represented pro-bono on THAT issue.



Alert | IP Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top



Evening2
Member since 7-7-03
11-10-06, 03:43 PM (EST)

3. "RE: PBWIKI's Input"
In response to message #2

It's not as simple as just getting a subpoena, which is, btw, premature. At this point, he has merely filed an action. I think the first thing he has to do is get past summary judgment.

 

And here is OPG v Diebold. for those who don't know what theyre refer to
http://copyfight.corante.com/archives/024385.html

September 30, 2004
Free Speech Vindicated in OPG v. Diebold
Posted by Wendy Seltzer
In a victory for free speech and transparency in electronic voting debates, Judge Jeremy Fogel has ruled that Diebold should pay damages and attorneys' fees for its knowing misuse of the DMCA's takedown provisions. Decision here.

No reasonable copyright holder could have believed that the portions of the email archive discussing possible technical problems with Diebold's voting machines were proteced by copyright.
...
The fact that Diebold never actually brought suit against any alleged infringer suggests strongly that Diebold sought to use the DMCA’s safe harbor provisions—which were designed to protect ISPs, not copyright holders—as a sword to suppress publication of embarrassing content rather than as a shield to protect its intellectual property.


Last October, Diebold threatened dozens of ISPs with lawsuits if they allowed users to post or link to a Diebold email archive documenting flaws in the company's e-voting technology. Online Policy Group, IndyMedia, and two Swarthmore students, Nelson Pavlosky and Luke Smith, didn't want to cave in, so EFF and the Stanford Cyberlaw Clinic sued Diebold on their behalf instead.

Today, that action was vindicated. Judge Fogel ruled that "there is no genuine issue of material fact that Diebold, through its use of the DMCA, sought to and did in fact suppress publication of content that is not subject to copyright protection." He further held that sending claims of copyright infringement to ISPs when their users are not infringing violates the DMCA's Section 512(f) prohibition on "knowingly materially misrepresent[ing]" infringement. Because Diebold "actually knew, should have known if it acted with reasonable care or diligence, or would have had no substantial doubt had it been acting in good faith, that it was making misrepresentations," it was liable to the OPG and Swarthmore student plaintiffs under 512(f).

Along with opening up the e-voting archives, I hope this decision will give new strength and new weapons to other online speakers and ISPs against the chill of aggressive, improper copyright claims.


Category: IP Abuse


COMMENTS

There are no comments posted yet for this entry.




TRACKBACKS
TrackBack URL: http://www.corante.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/4803
Free Speech Vindicated! from SIVACRACY.NET: Siva Vaidhyanathan's Weblog
Biggest public-interest copyright victory in years!: In a victory for free speech and transparency in electronic voting debates, Judge Jeremy Fogel has ruled that Diebold should pay damages and attorneys' fees for its knowing misuse of the DMCA's taked... [Read More]
Tracked on October 9, 2004 03:38 PM

 

Just that Time of the Year again.... irate: