🚀 go-pugleaf

On 23 Dec 1997 16:14:26 GMT, ak955@chebucto.ns.ca (Barbara Amero)
wrote:

>IOW after my post on what constitutes defamation/libel, you talked to 
>your lawyer and now understand that you have been libeling me, that what
>you call your "opinion" is libel.

Nope. Want to try another guess.


In the past when I confronted you about
>these issues, you retreated as you are doing now. 

No retreat. Please wait for the other shoe to drop.


As I noted, I had 
>"expert" advice, i.e. a lawyer, IRT to your persistent libel and pursued
>(elsewhere) the issue of the personal information you posted about me and
>another poster, which could have been obtained from gov't records. 

Now your saying "could have"? Whose back-tracking here anyway. Are
younow afraid to say "George"? Feel free, makes no never mind now.

Based
>on your above comments, I gather you will not be making further libelous
>posts about me, at least for a while.

"Further"? How about none, past or present. Of course I will not say
much now as it is out of my hands. I don't want to blow a bunch of
cash at this point.

>IRT your allegations of "threats, if you've not contacted the police,
>that is who you should contact, not a lawyer. 

First things first!! I thought you had gone this route yourself, you
should know better then that. Is that what you think the procedure is?

>f the police think
>I have committed a criminal offence, then I would need a lawyer. You
>could, of course, take the private prosecution route, in which case
>you would be wise to have a lawyer.

Your/you're not going to charge for this advise are you? I think that
I would be better advised by a professional, don't you? By the looks
of things you might want to look at an incoming law-suit from another
quarter. Unless your having problems understanding the posts in this
ng.

>Barbara A. Amero

Buzz aka Frank