Filing a Libel action.

The Courts system and Court forms don't work the way you think they do, and
the words used don't mean what you think they do. For example, 5EX90059
against the three individual defendants was thrown out as an "abuse of
process". What this means is that Courts have a way of working, a Standard
Operating Procedure if you like, and if you stray too far outside of their
SOP, you get canned as an abuse of process.

5EX00597 was not an abuse of process, because the whole case fit into a
cardboard A4 folder, 5EX90059 was, because you need a fork lift truck to
move all the paperwork.

There were two basic areas where I strayed outside the SOP.

1.. Verbiage, the Courts don't want it, basically if the case can be pared
down and made more concise it must be, even if this means excluding facts,
you must cut it down to the absolute bare minimum. The time to put flesh on
the bones is at the hearing, not in pre-trial correspondence. This is a REAL
problem if you wish to express yourself to the Court, you must choose one
path or the other, and hope that if you choose the path I did the Court will
give you leave to file again, after you have gotten everything off your
chest. I was lucky, it worked for me, caveat emptor.

2.. Quantity, I was faced with 3 individual Defendants who between them
had posted literally tens of thousands of libellous, defamatory, untrue,
harassing, abusive and threatening publications. Despite this, the correct
course of action is to limit yourself to between one and three publications
per defendant. Keep it concise.
In 5EX90059 if we went to court with EVERYTHING that the defendants had
published, we would have had a trial that lasted maybe a year. When you
consider that there are only about 60 Libel actions in the entire UK each
year, you will see that this is excessive, especially where one private
individual is suing another private individual.

Judges are not stupid, they are very very very clever, and the Law is what
they do, they do not need any more than 1 to 3 sample publications, nor does
a Jury, and this means the entire case can be heard in a day, or less. One
day versus several weeks or months, which is a waste of resources, this is
where abuse of process comes in.

So, points to watch;

a.. There is no Legal Aid for defamation actions.
b.. Keep it as short and concise as humanly possible.
c.. Watch out for opponents trying to push you into an abuse of process.
d.. The instant you file, stop interacting with your opponents, if this
means quitting Usenet for the duration, so be it.
e.. Accept that you opponents will use every means at their disposal,
including trolling you and impersonating you, in every group or forum that
you have ever used.
f.. Accept that each case can take a year from filing to come to trial.
g.. Most of all, do things in the correct order, the ONE mistake I made in
5EX90059 was putting the cart before the horse and attempting to sue for
libel without first disarming my opponents by silencing them... this will
not happen in the re-run.
Most important of all, know yourself. I took a huge chance in 5EX90059 by
using it as a soap box and an opportunity to tell the Judges what it feels
like to be the target of such behaviour. I did it because I'm that kinda
person, I don't go quietly into the night etc. I wanted to make sure that as
many people as possible within the system had a fly-on-the-wall view of what
it is like, because these are the people that make future policy and set
legal precedents. I achieved that, and I was enormously fortunate that four
separate High Court Judges all took the view that I should be allowed to
proceed against these individuals.

Knowing myself and having gotten what I wanted to off my chest, I am now at
liberty to proceed. We have established IN LAW that no ISP or Service
Provider is ever going to be responsible for what their customers do, ergo
no customer can now hide behind their ISP as an avenue of defence.

From here, having established that the customer cannot hide behind the ISP,
having gotten everything off my chest, having been done a huge favour by the
Courts in both being given leave to re-file while at the same time wiping
the table clean of the horribly convoluted and complex mess that 5EX90059
had evolved into, we are free to proceed anew, and handle things exactly the
same as in the earlier and simpler days of 5EX00597...

Simple, clear, concise, the bare bones only, and most importantly proceeding
in the correct order, e.g. denying your opponents the thing that they crave
the most, the public forum, before addressing the issue at hand.

Above all, patience. these things take time, lots of time, so get on with
your life in the meantime.



baldrick bunt

This is very interesting, but how much Tomorite do you have to add and can
you put it on the compost heap afterwards?

Nick
www.pennix.co.uk

"ken" www.surfbuad.co.uk wrote in message ...
Filing a Libel action.

The Courts system and Court forms don't work the way you think they do,
and
the words used don't mean what you think they do. For example, 5EX90059
against the three individual defendants was thrown out as an "abuse of
process". What this means is that Courts have a way of working, a Standard
Operating Procedure if you like, and if you stray too far outside of their
SOP, you get canned as an abuse of process.

5EX00597 was not an abuse of process, because the whole case fit into a
cardboard A4 folder, 5EX90059 was, because you need a fork lift truck to
move all the paperwork.

There were two basic areas where I strayed outside the SOP.

1.. Verbiage, the Courts don't want it, basically if the case can be
pared
down and made more concise it must be, even if this means excluding facts,
you must cut it down to the absolute bare minimum. The time to put flesh
on
the bones is at the hearing, not in pre-trial correspondence. This is a
REAL
problem if you wish to express yourself to the Court, you must choose one
path or the other, and hope that if you choose the path I did the Court
will
give you leave to file again, after you have gotten everything off your
chest. I was lucky, it worked for me, caveat emptor.

2.. Quantity, I was faced with 3 individual Defendants who between them
had posted literally tens of thousands of libellous, defamatory, untrue,
harassing, abusive and threatening publications. Despite this, the correct
course of action is to limit yourself to between one and three
publications
per defendant. Keep it concise.
In 5EX90059 if we went to court with EVERYTHING that the defendants had
published, we would have had a trial that lasted maybe a year. When you
consider that there are only about 60 Libel actions in the entire UK each
year, you will see that this is excessive, especially where one private
individual is suing another private individual.

Judges are not stupid, they are very very very clever, and the Law is what
they do, they do not need any more than 1 to 3 sample publications, nor
does
a Jury, and this means the entire case can be heard in a day, or less. One
day versus several weeks or months, which is a waste of resources, this is
where abuse of process comes in.

So, points to watch;

a.. There is no Legal Aid for defamation actions.
b.. Keep it as short and concise as humanly possible.
c.. Watch out for opponents trying to push you into an abuse of process.
d.. The instant you file, stop interacting with your opponents, if this
means quitting Usenet for the duration, so be it.
e.. Accept that you opponents will use every means at their disposal,
including trolling you and impersonating you, in every group or forum that
you have ever used.
f.. Accept that each case can take a year from filing to come to trial.
g.. Most of all, do things in the correct order, the ONE mistake I made
in
5EX90059 was putting the cart before the horse and attempting to sue for
libel without first disarming my opponents by silencing them... this will
not happen in the re-run.
Most important of all, know yourself. I took a huge chance in 5EX90059 by
using it as a soap box and an opportunity to tell the Judges what it feels
like to be the target of such behaviour. I did it because I'm that kinda
person, I don't go quietly into the night etc. I wanted to make sure that
as
many people as possible within the system had a fly-on-the-wall view of
what
it is like, because these are the people that make future policy and set
legal precedents. I achieved that, and I was enormously fortunate that
four
separate High Court Judges all took the view that I should be allowed to
proceed against these individuals.

Knowing myself and having gotten what I wanted to off my chest, I am now
at
liberty to proceed. We have established IN LAW that no ISP or Service
Provider is ever going to be responsible for what their customers do, ergo
no customer can now hide behind their ISP as an avenue of defence.

From here, having established that the customer cannot hide behind the
ISP,
having gotten everything off my chest, having been done a huge favour by
the
Courts in both being given leave to re-file while at the same time wiping
the table clean of the horribly convoluted and complex mess that 5EX90059
had evolved into, we are free to proceed anew, and handle things exactly
the
same as in the earlier and simpler days of 5EX00597...

Simple, clear, concise, the bare bones only, and most importantly
proceeding
in the correct order, e.g. denying your opponents the thing that they
crave
the most, the public forum, before addressing the issue at hand.

Above all, patience. these things take time, lots of time, so get on with
your life in the meantime.



baldrick bunt

That is the view of the UKs leading expert on defamation law, and certainly
merits careful condsideration by anyone likely to become involved in
defamation action.

k


"Nick Byford" wrote in message
o.uk...
This is very interesting, but how much Tomorite do you have to add and can
you put it on the compost heap afterwards?

Nick
www.pennix.co.uk

"ken" www.surfbuad.co.uk wrote in message ...
Filing a Libel action.

The Courts system and Court forms don't work the way you think they do,
and
the words used don't mean what you think they do. For example, 5EX90059
against the three individual defendants was thrown out as an "abuse of
process". What this means is that Courts have a way of working, a
Standard
Operating Procedure if you like, and if you stray too far outside of
their
SOP, you get canned as an abuse of process.

5EX00597 was not an abuse of process, because the whole case fit into a
cardboard A4 folder, 5EX90059 was, because you need a fork lift truck to
move all the paperwork.

There were two basic areas where I strayed outside the SOP.

1.. Verbiage, the Courts don't want it, basically if the case can be
pared
down and made more concise it must be, even if this means excluding
facts,
you must cut it down to the absolute bare minimum. The time to put flesh
on
the bones is at the hearing, not in pre-trial correspondence. This is a
REAL
problem if you wish to express yourself to the Court, you must choose one
path or the other, and hope that if you choose the path I did the Court
will
give you leave to file again, after you have gotten everything off your
chest. I was lucky, it worked for me, caveat emptor.

2.. Quantity, I was faced with 3 individual Defendants who between them
had posted literally tens of thousands of libellous, defamatory, untrue,
harassing, abusive and threatening publications. Despite this, the
correct
course of action is to limit yourself to between one and three
publications
per defendant. Keep it concise.
In 5EX90059 if we went to court with EVERYTHING that the defendants had
published, we would have had a trial that lasted maybe a year. When you
consider that there are only about 60 Libel actions in the entire UK each
year, you will see that this is excessive, especially where one private
individual is suing another private individual.

Judges are not stupid, they are very very very clever, and the Law is
what
they do, they do not need any more than 1 to 3 sample publications, nor
does
a Jury, and this means the entire case can be heard in a day, or less.
One
day versus several weeks or months, which is a waste of resources, this
is
where abuse of process comes in.

So, points to watch;

a.. There is no Legal Aid for defamation actions.
b.. Keep it as short and concise as humanly possible.
c.. Watch out for opponents trying to push you into an abuse of
process.
d.. The instant you file, stop interacting with your opponents, if this
means quitting Usenet for the duration, so be it.
e.. Accept that you opponents will use every means at their disposal,
including trolling you and impersonating you, in every group or forum
that
you have ever used.
f.. Accept that each case can take a year from filing to come to trial.
g.. Most of all, do things in the correct order, the ONE mistake I made
in
5EX90059 was putting the cart before the horse and attempting to sue for
libel without first disarming my opponents by silencing them... this will
not happen in the re-run.
Most important of all, know yourself. I took a huge chance in 5EX90059 by
using it as a soap box and an opportunity to tell the Judges what it
feels
like to be the target of such behaviour. I did it because I'm that kinda
person, I don't go quietly into the night etc. I wanted to make sure that
as
many people as possible within the system had a fly-on-the-wall view of
what
it is like, because these are the people that make future policy and set
legal precedents. I achieved that, and I was enormously fortunate that
four
separate High Court Judges all took the view that I should be allowed to
proceed against these individuals.

Knowing myself and having gotten what I wanted to off my chest, I am now
at
liberty to proceed. We have established IN LAW that no ISP or Service
Provider is ever going to be responsible for what their customers do,
ergo
no customer can now hide behind their ISP as an avenue of defence.

From here, having established that the customer cannot hide behind the
ISP,
having gotten everything off my chest, having been done a huge favour by
the
Courts in both being given leave to re-file while at the same time wiping
the table clean of the horribly convoluted and complex mess that 5EX90059
had evolved into, we are free to proceed anew, and handle things exactly
the
same as in the earlier and simpler days of 5EX00597...

Simple, clear, concise, the bare bones only, and most importantly
proceeding
in the correct order, e.g. denying your opponents the thing that they
crave
the most, the public forum, before addressing the issue at hand.

Above all, patience. these things take time, lots of time, so get on with
your life in the meantime.



baldrick bunt

"ken" www.surfbuad.co.uk wrote in message ...
That is the view of the UKs leading expert on defamation law, and
certainly merits careful condsideration by anyone likely to become
involved in defamation action.

k

I cannot think of any cases where it is worth bringing a defamation action.
Ever.

The damages are never worth the effort. The publicity from the case can be
worse than the original defamation.

GB wrote:

I cannot think of any cases where it is worth bringing a defamation action.
Ever.

The damages are never worth the effort. The publicity from the case can be
worse than the original defamation.

There are some instances where it may be worthwhile. For example in
New Zealand a radio personality said on air that the Prime Minister's
son had been busted by the police for drugs. There was not a grain of
truth in the statement. Daddy made sure the son sued and he got an out
of court settlement and the personality's scalp. As a staff member of
the broadcaster said to me privately, what can you do in such cases but
sack the person and settle the best you can.

There are cases where the defamation may be so gross (ie completely
false and harmful) as to cause serious potential harm to the person
defamed, that there may almost be no option for the victim to sue, or
at least to take some form of legal action even if it is merely to seek
a retraction, apology and a donation to charity.

"peterwn" wrote in message
oups.com...

GB wrote:

I cannot think of any cases where it is worth bringing a defamation
action.
Ever.

The damages are never worth the effort. The publicity from the case can
be
worse than the original defamation.

There are some instances where it may be worthwhile. For example in
New Zealand a radio personality said on air that the Prime Minister's
son had been busted by the police for drugs. There was not a grain of
truth in the statement. Daddy made sure the son sued and he got an out
of court settlement and the personality's scalp. As a staff member of
the broadcaster said to me privately, what can you do in such cases but
sack the person and settle the best you can.

How much is the damages for falsely saying a teenager had been busted for
drugs? Not much, because there's a presumption these days that most
teenagers have tried some sort of drugs. The former president of the USA
admitted that he had!

And there's always the possibility the radio station defends the action by
bringing in a whole host of people to say they have seen the lad smoking
dope, but agreeing he had not actually been arrested for it. Damage to the
Prime Minister almost as bad as the original libel/slander.

It was a high risk strategy, but he got away with it.


There are cases where the defamation may be so gross (ie completely
false and harmful) as to cause serious potential harm to the person
defamed, that there may almost be no option for the victim to sue, or
at least to take some form of legal action even if it is merely to seek
a retraction, apology and a donation to charity.


I don't agree. It's nearly always better simply to issue a denial. As an
example, the NOW apparently libelled a certain Scottish MP, but:
1. Most people didn't read the NOW article, whereas virtually everyone in
the country heard about the evidence in the libel action he brought
2. He only won by a small majority verdict of the jury
3. Many people are not convinced about the verdict.

Quite frankly he's not cleared his name at all, just fanned the smoke around
a bit, so more people think there's some flames there than before. Despite
his bravado about the verdict, I thought it was an own goal.

He spent several weeks of his life in court and God knows how many months
beforehand preparing the case. That's a personal toll for him.

In my view, he should have just issued a denial or ignored it.

The trouble with legal proceedings is that it just gives the libeller a
second chance to repeat the claims in court, backed up with evidence. The
damage to reputation is never mended by legal action, and the damages are
rarely worth the effort.

GB wrote:
"peterwn" wrote in message


How much is the damages for falsely saying a teenager had been busted for
drugs? Not much, because there's a presumption these days that most
teenagers have tried some sort of drugs. The former president of the USA
admitted that he had!

This was 25 years ago and the defamatory statement did not reflect well
on father or son.


And there's always the possibility the radio station defends the action by
bringing in a whole host of people to say they have seen the lad smoking
dope, but agreeing he had not actually been arrested for it. Damage to the
Prime Minister almost as bad as the original libel/slander.

But this does not get round the 'sting' of the defamation - whether or
not he was smoking pot had nothing to do with it. The defendant would
have had to state a defence that the statement was true to avoid
summary judgement.


It was a high risk strategy, but he got away with it.

Low risk in this case - it was settled out of court. In any case the
broadcaster had no stomach to defend an indefensible defamation nor to
support an employee who had lied on air. Moreover it was dealt with by
the smartest defamation barrister in the business.
There are cases where the defamation may be so gross (ie completely
false and harmful) as to cause serious potential harm to the person
defamed, that there may almost be no option for the victim to sue, or
at least to take some form of legal action even if it is merely to seek
a retraction, apology and a donation to charity.

I don't agree. It's nearly always better simply to issue a denial. As an
example, the NOW apparently libelled a certain Scottish MP, but:
1. Most people didn't read the NOW article, whereas virtually everyone in
the country heard about the evidence in the libel action he brought
2. He only won by a small majority verdict of the jury
3. Many people are not convinced about the verdict.

Agreed to the extent that if there is 'smoke'. If however no smoke -
no fire, the victim can safely sue as in a case I had in mind (a
prominent harness racing personality was the victim of false and
unfounded allegations, and was awarded damages at the 'top end').

On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 06:57:18 +0100, "ken" www.surfbuad.co.uk wrote:

snip


Knowing myself and having gotten what I wanted to off my chest, I am now at
liberty to proceed. We have established IN LAW that no ISP or Service
Provider is ever going to be responsible for what their customers do,

You have established no such thing.

What has been re-affirmed (it had already *been* established, although
you wouldn't listen when told so) is that ISPs are only responsible
for material they carry after they have been notified of it, and will
only be held liable for libel if they do not take reasonably prompt
action in removing anything they are notified of.


ergo
no customer can now hide behind their ISP as an avenue of defence.

What on earth you mean by this, I just don't know.

Whether a customer can "hide behind" their ISP has nothing whatsoever
to do with whether the ISP is likely to be found liable for libel.



From here, having established that the customer cannot hide behind the ISP,
having gotten everything off my chest, having been done a huge favour by the
Courts in both being given leave to re-file while at the same time wiping
the table clean of the horribly convoluted and complex mess that 5EX90059
had evolved into, we are free to proceed anew, and handle things exactly the
same as in the earlier and simpler days of 5EX00597...

Simple, clear, concise, the bare bones only, and most importantly proceeding
in the correct order, e.g. denying your opponents the thing that they crave
the most, the public forum, before addressing the issue at hand.


All that makes sense, so why announce it here?
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
I'm not dead. I'm electroencephelographically challenged.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

Alex Heney wrote:
On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 06:57:18 +0100, "ken" www.surfbuad.co.uk wrote:

snip


Knowing myself and having gotten what I wanted to off my chest, I am now at
liberty to proceed. We have established IN LAW that no ISP or Service
Provider is ever going to be responsible for what their customers do,

You have established no such thing.

What has been re-affirmed (it had already *been* established, although
you wouldn't listen when told so) is that ISPs are only responsible
for material they carry after they have been notified of it, and will
only be held liable for libel if they do not take reasonably prompt
action in removing anything they are notified of.


ergo
no customer can now hide behind their ISP as an avenue of defence.

What on earth you mean by this, I just don't know.

Whether a customer can "hide behind" their ISP has nothing whatsoever
to do with whether the ISP is likely to be found liable for libel.



From here, having established that the customer cannot hide behind the ISP,
having gotten everything off my chest, having been done a huge favour by the
Courts in both being given leave to re-file while at the same time wiping
the table clean of the horribly convoluted and complex mess that 5EX90059
had evolved into, we are free to proceed anew, and handle things exactly the
same as in the earlier and simpler days of 5EX00597...

Simple, clear, concise, the bare bones only, and most importantly proceeding
in the correct order, e.g. denying your opponents the thing that they crave
the most, the public forum, before addressing the issue at hand.


All that makes sense, so why announce it here?
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
I'm not dead. I'm electroencephelographically challenged.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom
Pay attention Alex and dont post shit

"Alex Heney" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 06:57:18 +0100, "ken" www.surfbuad.co.uk wrote:

snip


Knowing myself and having gotten what I wanted to off my chest, I am now
at
liberty to proceed. We have established IN LAW that no ISP or Service
Provider is ever going to be responsible for what their customers do,

You have established no such thing.

What has been re-affirmed (it had already *been* established, although
you wouldn't listen when told so) is that ISPs are only responsible
for material they carry after they have been notified of it, and will
only be held liable for libel if they do not take reasonably prompt
action in removing anything they are notified of.


ergo
no customer can now hide behind their ISP as an avenue of defence.

What on earth you mean by this, I just don't know.

Whether a customer can "hide behind" their ISP has nothing whatsoever
to do with whether the ISP is likely to be found liable for libel.



From here, having established that the customer cannot hide behind the
ISP,
having gotten everything off my chest, having been done a huge favour by
the
Courts in both being given leave to re-file while at the same time wiping
the table clean of the horribly convoluted and complex mess that 5EX90059
had evolved into, we are free to proceed anew, and handle things exactly
the
same as in the earlier and simpler days of 5EX00597...

Simple, clear, concise, the bare bones only, and most importantly
proceeding
in the correct order, e.g. denying your opponents the thing that they
crave
the most, the public forum, before addressing the issue at hand.


All that makes sense, so why announce it here?
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
I'm not dead. I'm electroencephelographically challenged.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom


It doesnt make sense..............the **** owes £38k legal costs, hasnt
posted on here since his crap was struck out on the 27th July, and is moving
away to avoid legal action from those he owes!

k

ken wrote:
"Alex Heney" wrote in message
It doesnt make sense..............the **** owes £38k legal costs, hasnt
posted on here since his crap was struck out on the 27th July, and is moving
away to avoid legal action from those he owes!


The FACT remains that John Stuart Bunt *IS* a fraud, he *DOES* abuse
women and kids, he openly admits getting an erection by looking at
children, he openly admits selling illegal CLASS A drugs which he
bought from the police and downloading kiddie porn and has perjured
himself by entering MANY affirmed LIES to a court.

Bunt has no "good name" to uphold. His name is absolute shite!

I'd say that Bunty is probably very sorry he started this ******** in a
DELIBERATE ATTEMPT TO DEFRAUD several ISPs by emulating the Dr Godfrey
case and in which
he failed miserably. Like everything else the tosser touches it turned
to shit in his hands.

"peterwn" wrote in message


And there's always the possibility the radio station defends the action
by
bringing in a whole host of people to say they have seen the lad smoking
dope, but agreeing he had not actually been arrested for it. Damage to
the
Prime Minister almost as bad as the original libel/slander.

But this does not get round the 'sting' of the defamation - whether or
not he was smoking pot had nothing to do with it. The defendant would
have had to state a defence that the statement was true to avoid
summary judgement.


Well, there's clearly room for a pyrrhic victory here. The defamation was
that the son had been busted for drugs. If the radio station proved he had
been taking drugs but had not been busted, then maybe Daddy's influence had
been unfairly used ....

It was a high risk strategy, but he got away with it.

Low risk in this case - it was settled out of court.

It worked out well, but can you really risk starting these sorts of
proceedings on the basis that you have no intention of going to court and
will give up if the other side show any fight?

In any case the
broadcaster had no stomach to defend an indefensible defamation nor to
support an employee who had lied on air.

I wonder what persuaded the employee to say what he did? It might have been
purely malicious, or maybe there was something there but he could not quite
pin it down?