|
|
Deb
Joined: 04 Oct 2001
Posts: 163
Location: Plainfield, Indiana USA |
A Flight Explorer Study (Reynolds and Deb Libel...)
 Wed Apr 03, 2002 1:15 pm
|
 |
|
I didn't know where to place this post in order not to offend anyone.
http://www.dreamwater.net/edu/chemjournal/expressb.html
And many more to come as time allows. |
| |
|
|
Thermit
Joined: 08 Jul 2000
Posts: 3136
Location: Texas |
|
Wed Apr 03, 2002 5:23 pm
|
|
|
quote:
Despite repeated requests, Mark Steadham has refused to identify the flights she calls "The 4:30 express". His silence shows that he knows exactly what flight she reports as such, and his culpability in covering up the facts is as great as Lori Kramer's.
Since you think there is some conspiracy to this, I no longer have a Flight Explorer subscription, and haven't for quite a while so I couldn't do this, even if I was aware of some request somebody made on some crap board somewhere.
These false and baseless accusations accusing me of a "cover up" demonstrate that Jay Reynolds is willing to lie and fabricate to achieve his goals, one of which appears to be attacking my character.
Since you participated in this report and have seen fit to post it here, you are no longer a member. Should have stuck to the facts, and not the libel.
[Edited 2 times, lastly by Thermit on 04-03-2002] |
| |
|
|
Thermit
Joined: 08 Jul 2000
Posts: 3136
Location: Texas |
|
Wed Apr 03, 2002 9:11 pm
|
|
|
quote:
From: lo_the_seektress
Date: Wed Apr 3, 2002 1:04 am
Subject: The bs article about the 4:30 express
I am formally asking the "editor" of the so-called
"The International Journal of Chemtrail Research" to remove the false
article referring to my calling a regularly observed plane or already
sprayed trails at or about 4:30 in Houston an identified plane.
Something I am "aware" of and are somehow hiding info about. Gad!
This explains an email I received earlier today.
I will repost my reply to that person, since it was in response to
that article directly.
I am not kidding. I do not stand by those statements at all and want
the article either corrected or removed.
Any further reference to your so called chemtrail research website
will be removed as debunking.
Here is my reply to some one who wrote earlier today and asked
"What's this all about?" and copied the article to me.
Here is my reply
"basically it's $#@#!
sounds like Jay Reynolds $#@#! to be precise, although I see no
name attached to it
I call the frequent sprayings that I and many other Houstonians see
the "4:30 express" because they are often observed "at or around" 4:30
the name was coined by my friend, the late Chuck Shramek because we
were trying to determine patterns to what we were observing. This was
in 1999 when we first started trying to figure out chemtrails.
it is an "expression" between friends, that I use on the CTTUSA board
with other friends
I have never identified those planes as Mexicana.
One time, and one time only, chuck and I photographed a plane which
was later identified as a mexicana plane by someone on a chemtrail
board
I have never used flight explorer, that's Mark thing
I know it's no regulary air traffic because the flight patterns vary
tremendously
I have tons of photos to document that (shrug)
Jay Reynolds is a known , probably paid debunker
no one spends 3 years of their life on something they don't think is
real
I wouldn't spend another three seconds on this if I haven'tproved it
to MYSELF that it's real
I am nothing special
I have normal good powers of observation and enough intelligence to
investigate, educate myself and make reasonable conclusions
that's all I ask anyone else to do regarding chemtrails
then they will see for themselves
Jay and the rest of them who go by Jay can take a flying leap
they don't exsist as far as I'm concerned
they are a waste of time and way too much negative energy
~~~~~
I don't have the available time to mess with flight explorer.
Mark and other are much better suited and they are doing fine without
me.
I will add that no, I don't call up Mark and say "pull out the Flight
Explorer and find this plane." By the time he would it'd be gone
anyway so that's pretty stupid. Half the time I'm at work when I see
it.
The planes/trails I see go in all directions. Not the same plane the
same way everyday. What caca.
Why don't "they" start watching their own skies and do the flight
explorer thing on them? They'll see for themselves.
|
| |
|
|
3T3L1
Joined: 08 Mar 2001
Posts: 1344
Location: Lubbock, Texas |
|
Wed Apr 03, 2002 9:48 pm
|
|
|
Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary:
libel:2 a : a written or oral defamatory statement or representation that conveys an unjustly unfavorable impression b (1) : a statement or representation published without just cause and tending to expose another to public contempt (2) : defamation of a person by written or representational means (3) : the publication of blasphemous, treasonable, seditious, or obscene writings or pictures (4) : the act, tort, or crime of publishing such a libel
Not too long ago, Jay sent libelous letters about me to the country's top 40 activists interested in aviation pollution. He has now libeled Thermit and Lo as well. Are there any lawyers on this board?
[Edited 1 times, lastly by 3T3L1 on 04-07-2002] |
| |
|
|
Deborah
Joined: 30 Jul 2000
Posts: 731
Location: East Coast |
|
Fri Apr 05, 2002 6:41 am
|
|
|
Re: Jay "Mr. Spiritual Purity" Reynolds:
Mr. Reynolds has devoted a great deal of energy over the past two years to the creation of individual webpages on various servers, the sole purpose of which have been to viciously libel what is now, to my personal knowledge, a total of six people.
Ms. Phalen appears to have fully cooperated with Mr. Reynolds in the preparation of this most recent "project."
Frankly, I cannot believe Ms. "I Think For Myself" Phalen would be so STUPID as to post this here, with a comment, no less, that that implies her concern over "offending people." Absolutely incredible.
On the subject of lawyers, there may not be any on this forum at present, but I can tell you that more than a few bright 4th-year law students are not only very knowledgable regarding the ever-evolving status of legislation involving Internet Privacy, etc., but they are also very interested in consulting on cases which directly involve the use of the Internet to unjustly damage the reputations of private citizens.
I'd suggest calling your local university law department, for starters. I have gotten some very useful information from a few law students and intend to stay in contact with them.
And yes, 3T3L1, Mr. Reynolds is also into activity of a bit more "personal" nature - like unsolicited e-mail "communication" and activity similar to what you describe above. Many of us are very familiar with his behavior in this regard and have positioned ourselves accordingly.
[Edited 1 times, lastly by Deborah on 04-04-2002] |
| |
|
|
mark sky
Joined: 14 Oct 2000
Posts: 3616
Location: SW coast of Oregon |
|
Fri Apr 05, 2002 6:50 am
|
|
|
wHatZ goIng On HeaR ?
|
| |
|
|
3T3L1
Joined: 08 Mar 2001
Posts: 1344
Location: Lubbock, Texas |
|
Fri Apr 05, 2002 1:50 pm
|
|
|
Mr. Reynolds and Miss Deb, claiming to be concerned about mankind (whom they don't know), seem to think that a good tactic would be to publish lies about individual people whom they do know, including Thermit, Lauri Kramer and me. If objective observers need proof of who holds the low moral ground, it's right here.
[Edited 1 times, lastly by 3T3L1 on 04-06-2002] |
| |
|
|
3T3L1
Joined: 08 Mar 2001
Posts: 1344
Location: Lubbock, Texas |
|
Fri Apr 05, 2002 1:59 pm
|
|
|
I was born a Yankee, but have lived in the South for 15 1/2 years. Good Southern men do not attack women and most certainly do not send letters to 40 people telling them that a particular woman is not to be trusted. I am ashamed for the debunkers that they allow themselves to be associated with a man who hurts the reputations of women.
Thanks for the advice, Deborah. I think I'll contact the lawyer who handles my husband's work. It will be worth the extra money. |
| |
|
|
hitech_46253
Joined: 16 May 2001
Posts: 499
Location: Indianapolis, IN U.S. |
|
Fri Apr 05, 2002 4:33 pm
|
|
|
Hey! Who attached the music here and how can I get a copy of it??? Sounds a lot like Tangerine Dream. If this is a MIDI file that can be sent, send me a copy to: hitech@smithville.net PLEASE??! |
| |
|
|
3T3L1
Joined: 08 Mar 2001
Posts: 1344
Location: Lubbock, Texas |
|
Fri Apr 05, 2002 5:13 pm
|
|
|
Just click on the "edit" button above mark sky's post and you'll see where it came from.  |
| |
|
|
WiseQuakker
Joined: 21 Aug 2000
Posts: 141
Location: Wherever I happen to be at the time |
|
Sat Apr 06, 2002 8:21 am
|
|
|
I still have on file a collection of the clearly libelous posts that Reynolds published about me at the old DOT’s board. They’re not quite two years old. Anyone know what the statute of limitations is for libel...??? If nothing else, I would be more than happy to appear at his trial as a character witness.
In case the little man doesn’t recall his own words, it began:
This article exposes the hack-hoax perpetrated by Don Johnson, which he devised to promote paranoia among chemtrail believers who he easily led to believe were being targeted by a great conspiracy of hackers trying to peer into their computers.
According to an interesting article in the April 2000 issue of Smart Computing:
The Article
Watch Your Mouth
Real-World Defamation Laws Apply Online
People say the darndest things online, but sometimes those keystrokes can come back to haunt them.
Whether it’s making fun of the boss in an e-mail to a co-worker, “getting even” with a merchant who provided poor service by detailing the experience online, or devoting an entire Web site to blasting some company that seems “evil,” the Internet provides a soapbox to anyone with a gripe, real or imagined. The things people would never say out on the street are happily published on a newsgroup that is accessible to millions.
However, the objects of online flames may not take these comments lying down. Today’s Internet is a widely read medium, and insinuations found there have a real effect on business and reputations. A disgruntled employee posting false accusations about his or her firm can turn away hundreds or thousands of customers. As noted Internet columnist Matt Drudge is finding, publishing damaging rumors can lead to damaging lawsuits (see the “Drudging For Dirt & Dollars” sidebar to this story).
When a person starts adding up the potential legal consequences, making statements online can start to seem pretty expensive. Although the average Joe probably isn’t going to find himself caught up in the high-stakes game of big-time lawsuits, it’s always a good idea to think before you type regardless of the setting.
You’re Not Alone
The first thing to understand about online privacy is that, generally speaking, there isn’t any. Most of the Internet is as public as a street corner downtown, with all the advantages and disadvantages that entails. What you say in most online venues can have the same practical and legal consequences as saying it to passersby in the real world.
Most obviously public are the Web pages, newsgroups, bulletin boards, and other forums designed to be readily accessible to just about anyone at any time. Not only can others read what you have written, they can also disclose what you said to others. Other restrictions, such as copyright law, may apply to keep others from wholesale redistributions of something such as your Web page, but in general your comments are not private.
For example, take posting a message to a newsgroup. Depending on the configuration of the software at your end and at your Internet service provider (ISP), information such as your name and address may be attached to every post you send and thus publicly accessible. In fact, because most discussion forums are archived in different ways, your name and what you said could resurface years from now.
Some online forums may include features that make them seem less public than other places. For instance, they may use passwords or user IDs to limit a forum to a certain group of people. Chat rooms contain only a certain number of people at any one time and don’t appear to be quite the same as a wide-open forum. However, the limited nature of these online hangouts does not keep other participants from recording what you say and telling others. Again, a public place is still public regardless of its size.
Many ISPs force users to actually agree in advance that anything they say in any generally accessible location can be redisplayed in any space at any time. For instance, America Online’s (AOL) Terms Of Service make explicit that anything you say on AOL-controlled forums is not really yours anymore. “Once you post content on AOL,” it says at Keyword: TOS, “you expressly grant AOL the complete right to use, reproduce, modify, distribute, etc. the content in any form, anywhere.”
Is Anything Private?
One thing that AOL and other ISPs cannot do whenever they want is read your personal e-mail. E-mail falls into a different category than Web pages, forum postings, and chat content, in that it is intended as private conversation between specific people rather than a blanket posting to the whole world. Nevertheless, e-mail is not quite as private as it seems. The federal government’s Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) allows others to peek into your e-mail under certain conditions.
First, an online service can read e-mail if it suspects you’re trying to harm the system or another user. Second, the ISP can also read any e-mail if either the sender or recipient agrees, making your privacy rights a kind of attachment to any message you send. Third, and perhaps most importantly, the ECPA allows employers to read employee e-mail on employer-owned systems. That means no e-mail you send or store at work is private.
Another e-mail loophole gets mentioned frequently in news reports concerning criminal investigations. ISPs can hand over e-mail and other electronic communications to law enforcement agents who have a valid search warrant. As with any search warrant, investigators have to follow certain procedures, and they must have more than a crazy hunch they might find something.
For those who have sensitive information to convey, the only way to be assured of a substantial level of privacy online is to use an encryption system. By definition, however, any scheme to keep out prying eyes also keeps out just about everyone else. Encrypted e-mail works, but an encrypted newsgroup posting doesn’t do anyone much good. Therefore, the best solution is to learn which kinds of statements can get you into trouble and avoid them.
Defamation & You
Defamation is nothing new in the law; the concept has been around in various forms for centuries. Defamation includes both libel, which involves the publishing of false words, and slander, which applies to speech.
Although the exact components of defamation vary according to the laws of different states, a plaintiff must generally show a false statement was published to a third party, causing damage to the plaintiff’s reputation or tending to dissuade others from dealing with that person. It doesn’t matter exactly which forum the speaker chooses, so any nook of the Internet where a third party can read the statements is good enough.
Moreover, some states consider certain statements to be “defamation per se,” which means plaintiffs don’t have to prove they actually suffered damage. For example, saying someone is guilty of a crime or incompetent in his or her profession may be assumed by the court to damage that person’s reputation.
In fact, your posting may make you liable for libel even if you didn’t know it was untrue.
Free speech doctrine says public figures must have a tough skin and prove defamatory comments were made with a reckless disregard to the truth. But a private citizen suing over a private matter usually doesn’t have to prove any fault on the part of the defendant.
Historically, these legal notions surrounding defamation have proven remarkably adaptable as new mediums crop up with advancing technology. Defamation successfully made the transition to telephone, radio, television, and other technologies, and there’s no reason why the basic principles will not stand on the Internet, as well.
However, the Internet poses a few definitional problems that figure prominently in particular cases. Most of these have to do with ISPs and other services that could be seen as the “publisher” of information. For instance, should ISPs be treated more like a phone company, which has no responsibility whatsoever for things transmitted between callers, or like a book publisher, which exercises control over its authors’ content and can be sued for falsehoods? What if an online service promotes a particular author’s work as appearing on pages accessible from its server? If an ISP retains the right to remove certain content from bulletin boards, then is that ISP responsible for everything it doesn’t remove?
Recent court decisions have resolved many of these questions based on broad federal legislation protecting ISPs, but the field is not yet completely ironed out. The subject is terribly important for service providers, who seek to limit liability stemming from the yahoos who use their computers. For individuals who don’t run publicly accessible electronic services but merely post their own thoughts on Web sites, bulletin boards, through e-mails, or other means, all the legal rigmarole boils down to a pretty simple rule of thumb: What you say online can make you liable for libel.
On the plaintiff side of the field, rules that protect ISPs cut off the road to deep-pocketed defendants. The Internet gives everyone the ability to reach a worldwide audience, which was a privilege once reserved for rich publishers and broadcasters who could afford to pay defamation damages. Today’s basement provocateurs of cybersmear tactics usually have no money to pay court judgments, leaving damaged plaintiffs in the lurch.
Another problem plaintiffs often face is finding out exactly who defamed them in the first place. It isn’t difficult to post anonymous comments on the World Wide Web, where cryptic user IDs appear more often than first names and surnames. Expert users erase their tracks almost completely. Once this is accomplished, there’s nobody left to sue. Perhaps one consolation for those who have been defamed is that anonymous comments generally don’t influence readers as much as those by people who stand up for what they say.
In other cases, it is possible to find potential wrongdoers with a little cooperation from the speaker’s ISP. Service providers can and will give up user name and address information when faced with a legal order. AOL, for instance, states in its Privacy Policy (part of the Terms Of Service to which all members must agree) that the service “will release specific information about your account only to comply with valid legal process such as a search warrant, subpoena or court order, or in special cases such as a physical threat to you or others.”
Play It Safe
Just because the normal rules of society apply to the online world doesn’t mean you have to type on eggshells, fearful that each new sentence opens up yet another door to a lawsuit. Merely unflattering or annoying statements will not meet the definition of “defamatory,” and hyperbole that can’t really be proven false, such as “that store has the highest prices in the world,” doesn’t make the grade either. Truth is often called the best defense to a charge of defamation. If a potential plaintiff cannot prove what you said was false, the libel argument won’t stick.
Although not as absolute, opinion also grants a certain amount of protection. Defamation is concerned with facts, not ideas, so saying you think something is true rather than saying something really is true is not generally sufficient to create a cause of action. However, court opinions make it clear that merely sticking an “I think” in front of a statement is not enough to automatically shield the speaker from liability.
Given these hazy boundaries, Internet users should realize posting comments to a newsgroup or putting up a Web site is a little more serious than gossiping with a neighbor. Although spreading malicious rumors about someone over the backyard fence could technically be defamation, it would probably be difficult to trace the defamatory statements back to you. When you tack something up on the Internet, the words are there for all to search, document, and record for years to come.
The best way to keep yourself in line might be to pretend that every potentially offensive thing you say on the Internet could be splashed across the front page of the local newspaper. If you aren’t comfortable with that thought, consider what it is you are writing, who you’re writing it to, and why.
Defamation isn’t the only thing to watch out for online, but it is one of the most common lines the average person might accidentally cross. Other “speech crimes” that can get you in trouble in the real world are also bad news in the electronic world. For example, laws against threatening conduct can and have been brought to bear on people who used their computers to intentionally frighten others. State and federal rules regarding misrepresentation apply, as well. If you’re selling products or services over the Web, don’t mislead people into thinking their money buys something it doesn’t, so be sure to make claims about your product that are absolutely true.
The Internet may be a new frontier, but it’s no wild, lawless land. What you say in the digital domain has the potential to ripple over to those you least expect. That is no reason to be paranoid, but it is reason to be careful.
by Alan Phelps
_____________________________
“When walking amongst predators, never lose awareness of your surroundings. By itself, science tells us what should be. Only tempered with clinical observation and common sense, does it tell us what really is......”
[Edited 1 times, lastly by WiseQuakker on 04-06-2002] |
| |
|
|
3T3L1
Joined: 08 Mar 2001
Posts: 1344
Location: Lubbock, Texas |
|
Sat Apr 06, 2002 2:40 pm
|
|
|
Thanks, WiseQuakker!
quote:
Although the exact components of defamation vary according to the laws of different states, a plaintiff must generally show a false statement was published to a third party, causing damage to the plaintiff’s reputation or tending to dissuade others from dealing with that person. It doesn’t matter exactly which forum the speaker chooses, so any nook of the Internet where a third party can read the statements is good enough.
Fortunately for me, the false statements were sent through the U.S. Mail.
Correction: I just corresponded with one of the recipients, and he said he received his letter via e-mail. So WiseQuakker, Thermit, Lo and I will be able to pursue this together as an Internet issue.
[Edited 2 times, lastly by 3T3L1 on 04-07-2002] |
| |
|
|
Lulu
Joined: 22 Dec 2000
Posts: 2501
Location: right here |
|
Sat Apr 06, 2002 3:56 pm
|
|
|
It would appear that Mr. Reynolds feels threatened by Thermit, 3T3L1, Lo, and WiseQuakker (excellent post BTW!), thus the libelous false statements in order to try to discredit you four (and how many more?). A compliments of sorts I suppose. Why does Jay feel threatened? Because he knows you are in a position to make changes and wake people up!!! Jay doesn't want this happening IMO.
He can't stop it. It's happening. |
| |
|
|
Chem11
Joined: 21 Apr 2001
Posts: 1386
|
|
Sat Apr 06, 2002 7:27 pm
|
|
|
"This Agreement (the "Agreement") governs your access and use of ezboard facilities, bulletin boards and service (the "Service"). In consideration for your right to access and use the Service, you and ezboard agree as follows:
6. USER CONDUCT
You agree to not use the Service to:
c) upload, post, email or otherwise transmit any Content that
1) is unlawful, threatening, abusive, tortious, defamatory, obscene, libelous, or invasive of another's privacy;
(5) is the private information of another such as their addresses, phone number, Social Security number or credit card number;
If you learn of any unauthorized use of your account or password, you agree to notify ezboard immediately via email to legal@ezboard.com."
http://ezboard.com/about_terms.html
Obviously 'agreements' mean little or nothing to the AF employee who recently violated these simple rules and even less to the AF employee who lets this garbage (Lulu knows to what I am referring to) remain on his board. Men of honor,to be sure.
Once again, that email address is:
legal@ezboard.com |
| |
|
|
Lulu
Joined: 22 Dec 2000
Posts: 2501
Location: right here |
|
Sat Apr 06, 2002 8:27 pm
|
|
|
A very handy e-mail address Chem11. I just e-mailed them and FW to you. Thanks. |
| |
|
|
 
|
|
 Goto page
1, 2, 3, 4 Next
All times are GMT. The time now is Fri May 25, 2012 10:15 am
|
|
|
|
|
Login
