🚀 go-pugleaf

"Tom Moore" <email_for_tom_knickers@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:Xns94ED17E84F929emailfortomknickersy@127.0.0.1...
> "PTRAVEL" <ptravel88-usenet@yahoo.com> wrote :
>
> > I have heard only you attacking them,
> > and attacking Jews as a group.
>
> To the extent that you comment without distancing yourselves,

"Yourselves"?  What in the world do you think I have in common with these
solicitors who, supposedly, have done you this terrible wrong?  Twenty
years, a UK citizen was rude to me in Los Angeles.  When should I expect my
apology from the Queen?

> and your
> religion,

"My religion"?  What do you know of my religion?  Here's something that you
simply do not seem capable of understanding: "Jew" does not imply an
homogenous group of people all having similar beliefs, traits or appearance.
You haven't the slightest idea about my religious beliefs.  All you know of
me is what I have written here, just as all I know of you is what you have
written here and on your website.  You have proven yourself a closed-minded
antisemite many times over in this thread.

> from these bent Jewish solicitors Clifford Cohen & Foster aka
> GLP solicitors aka the Clifford Pfeffer Group - then you deserve censure.

I act on proof, not the accusations of a bigot.  I've looked at your
website.  I saw nothing which indicated anything other than a lot of people
trying to help you.

>
> >> Unless a Jew - just one - would like to distance themselves from
> >> the unsavoury activities of bent Jewish solicitors Clifford Cohen
> >> & Foster - GLP solicitors - The Clifford Pfeffer Group?
> >
> > Why should a Jew do this?
>
> Works like this:  first they came for the Jews, but I wasn't a Jew, so I
> did not say anything; . . . Trade Unionists . . . Communists . . . then
> they came for me, but there was no one left to speak for me.  That's one
> reason.

You've completely misunderstood your paraphrase of that famous quote.  It
encourages individuals to speak out against bigotry and prejudice,
particularly when it is directed at others.

>
> > To prove something to you,
> > who condemn all Jews [ . . . ].
>
> I don't.  That's not true.

You just did. Here's what you said:

"> > I have heard only you attacking them,
 > > and attacking Jews as a group.

>To the extent that you comment without distancing yourselves. . ."

>
> > What do you think Shindler learned from
> > his experiences as presented in the film?
>
> That he was better at saving lives, than he was a husband.  He was
> apparently a little arrogant over his achievement:  waiting for everyone
> to be seated, before entering at the annual reunion.

You may have seen the film enough to memorize it, but you clearly need to
see it again -- you've learned nothing from it.  Do you think that is what
Spielberg wanted you to take away from it -- "Do what you're best at, and
try not to be too arrogant"?


>
> Having said, I wish I had the chance to do as he did,

Hmmm, yes.  Fortunately, Shindler's Jews didn't have to rely on you.  We'd
have had a very different movie, wouldn't we?  "You Jews won't condemn the
Jew that I don't like -- off the camps with you!"

>and I hope if I
> ever do, that I will take it (not likely, given the short time I have
> left).

Then may I suggest that rather than being abusive to the doctors and medical
staff trying to help you, that you cooperate and make a nominal effort to be
pleasant.  If you do die, it won't be because there weren't doctors trying
to help you.

Or are they evil Jewish Doctors?

>
> > I can tell you this -- no US judge would
> > show the patience and sympathy
> > evinced by the judge at January hearing.
>
> No US Judge, I hope, would waste time, describing the prospect of sending
> an unelected Mayor - councillors get their turn to be Mayor for a year if
> they keep their council membership for long enough - to prison, as fun?
> I cannot comment too much.

Because you don't seem clear on what you're commenting.  That's not what the
judge did.

>
> He seems to have dismissed the committal application, in order to deprive
> me of legal representation.

He dismissed the committal application because it was in YOUR interest to do
so -- he was HELPING you by getting opposing counsel to agree to voluntary
dismissal so that YOU would avoid prison.

>  What Tetlow does not tell me, though I try
> to ask, is what to do when solicitors disregard my instructions.  He
> describes the mechanism, it's not relevant, or helpful, or a sensible use
> of public time and money.

I don't know UK law, though I assume it's not terribly different from law in
the US.  In the US, you complain to the appropriate Bar Association, which
will investigate the complaint and, if valid, take action as appropriate, up
to and including disbarring the lawyer and referring the matter to the
Attorney General's office for criminal prosecution.  What you don't
understand, and what the judge tried to explain to you, is that solicitors
have ethical and legal obligations and cannot follow instructions from a
client that require them to violate the law or the canons of ethics.

>
> > Well, I'm not the only one who thinks otherwise, am I?
>
> Meaning?

Despite your cross-posting to a lot of unrelated newsgroups, including at
least one which is routinely besieged by antisemites on a daily basis, you
have been uniformly characterized as an antisemite and a kook by everyone
who has responded in this and your other threads.

>
> > The fact that one or more of
> > them is Jewish has nothing to do with anything,
> > something that you do not appear to understand.
>
> I do not agree with you.

I know that you do.  Which is why I'm convinced that you are an antisemite.

>  Hypocrisy is wrong.

It is, indeed.  However, the only hypocrisy that I have seen in this thread
has come from you.

> Murder is wrong.

No one is being murdered.

> I do not
> believe anyone should ever even walk past on the other side of the
> street.

Perhaps not, but don't expect anyone to look very closely when requests for
help are presented as antisemitic diatribes.

>
> It is relevant.  They preach standards,

Who preaches standards?  Who is "they"?  I'll try this one more time:
"Jews" is not a monolithic, homogenous group.  All Jews do not believe the
same thing.  There are religious Jews and secular Jews, orthodox Jews and
reformed Jews, black Jews and white Jews and, responding to something you
wrote earlier, Jews that are more Anglo-Saxon, both in heritage and
appearance, than you.   The only thing that all Jews have in common is the
antipathy of antisemites.

> and they do not abide by those
> standards.

Then I'll spell this out, too:  Jews, any Jews, all Jews, have no special
obligation to you because you believe you were wronged by some lawyers who
may (or may not) be Jewish.  Jews, any Jews, all Jews, bear no
responsibility for what happened to you because you believe some lawyers who
may (or may not) be Jewish were responsible.

There is no such thing as "group guilt" or "group responsibility" (which,
incidently, was one of the messages of Shindler's List).

>
> > There is nothing particularly "Jewish" about being
> > a bad lawyer (or, for that matter, a good one).
> > "Jew" is a religous and/or cultural identification,
> > nothing more nor less.
>
> Judaism sets standards, by which, for the most part, we should all abide.

Really?  Which standards would those be?  The ones followed by Chasids?
Felasha Jews from Ethopia?  Secular Sabras from Israel?  Reform Jews in Los
Angeles?  Sephardim from Spain?  Ashkenazis from Europe?

How about kosher laws?  Lots of Jews follow those standards.  Should you
abide by those standards?

> I cannot draw attention to those who are not Jews, bringing Judaism into
> disrepute; I can only do that when Jews misbehave.

How about when Englishmen misbehave?  Why is YOUR responsibility for these
solicitors, as an Englishmen, somehow less than Jews in other countries who
have no say whatsoever in your justice system?

> Same for Christians,
> et al.

So the Pope should atone for Jonestown?

>
> > To ascribe negative characteristics to all individuals
> > who identify as Jewish based on your experience of one
> > or two is stereotyping and the act of a bigot.
>
> I don't think I have.

Yes, you have.

> You have not criticised bent Jewish solicitors -
> Clifford Cohen & Foster aka GLP solicitors aka the Clifford Pfeffer Group
> - for declining my instructions, then using subsequent event to justify
> earlier events.

I haven't heard anything that they've done which merits criticism.  And, no,
I'm not spending the rest of my evening wading through all of your website.
I've read enough of it to know that your allegations are not well-taken and,
as respects those particular solicitors, almost certainly wrong.

>
> Is that okay by you lot?

"You lot"?  I don't speak for any "lot."

> Seems to me it is.

And THAT is why you are an antisemite.

>
> > Your ability to express yourself suggests that you
> > are not a stupid or uneducated man.  However, the
> > content of your expression suggests otherwise.
>
> I do not express myself very well, that is true.

Well, you misunderstood my comment, as well.  My point was that you do
express yourself very well.  I just find what you have to say appallingly
offensive.

>
> > Nor do I.  However, I saw nothing on your website
> > which suggests that anyone wants to murder you.
>
> They are not going to state it explicitly, are they?  Be realistic.

So the very absence of evidence supports your allegation.  You are already
far down a very slippery slope.

>
> If you think they approve of having any of their activities exposed,
> including their letters to others, look at the bottom of page of the
> letter at http://www.defamation.broomleigh.org/frameset3.html - where
> they clearly try to imply publishing letters sent to one is a breach of
> the writer's copyright.

I'll tell you this: in the US, as a matter of law it is a breach of the
writer's copyright. In the US, publicly accusing someone of murder is
defamation per se.


>
> You may also read the remarks about True Christian Child Spanking, and
> notice that letter is supposed to be for Thomas Moore, that's me, Patron
> Saint of Politicians, and Ireland's National Poet.  Stretches things a
> bit:  the letter is to give the web site host an excuse for closing my
> site.

I'm sorry, but I don't follow any of this.  Are you Saint Thomas Moore,
Ireland's National Poet and the patron saint of politicians?

>
> Clearly, it is marked Private and Confidential - which means something in
> England - yet sent by fax to those web site hosts the days after sending
> it to me.

I doubt it.  Marking something "Private and Confidential" means nothing in
the United States unless you have a non-disclosure agreement.

>  These are not decent tactics, are they?

In the US, they are both decent and legal.

>
> Death comes from making me homeless.

As best as I could tell from the hodge-podge of documents on your website,
your landlord wanted you out of your flat so that repairs could be made,
after which time you could return.  In the US, the landlord would be liable
for the cost of interim housing.  I find it impossible to believe that in
Britain, which has a much broader social safety net than in the US, this
would not be the case as well.

>  I have a machine I need to breathe
> at night.
>
> > Quite the contrary, as best as I can discern,
> > all that has happened is that your landlord
> > has attempted to make repairs to your flat,
>
> and I have offered them a key, because they claim they cannot get access.

The documents indicated otherwise.

> Once you've made a couple of appointments, they've not attended, then
> claimed access was denied, you're not likely to bother with further
> appointments, are you?

You are if you wish to preserve your rights.

>
> > and some doctors have tried to assist with
> > your apena problem.  You have been combative,
> > belligerent and rude to all, just as you
> > have been combative, belligerent and rude here.
>
> Actually, rudeness is symptomatic of sleep apnea.

Oh, please.  One of my closest friends has severe sleep apnea -- severe
enough to require multiple surgeries to correct.  He's neither rude, nor an
antisemite.

>  If you read it
> properly, you will see the reason for refusing me the dental device, is
> complete rubbish.

Not being a doctor, I have no idea.  However, you've admitted to the
rudeness, and that is reason enough for refusing to treat you.

>
> Of course I am blamed:  you don't expect the doctor to admit giving way
> to threats from the Jewish (and gay) solicitor Mr Christopher Bernard of
> Croydon solicitors Cook and Partners, do you?

And the significance of Mr. Bernard's sexual orientation is . . .what?

Once again, the absence of evidence proves the conspiracy -- is that right?
Perhaps you can extend your cross-posts to the homosexual newsgroups -- the
Jews, atheists, autists and lawyers appear to have failed you.

>  Either you end up blaming
> me for more than is possible, or try to look behind for the truth.

I don't blame you for anything other than being possessed of offensive and
virulent bigotries.

>
> This is not easy for me to describe, and demonstrate to others:  I know
> the truth:  I've seen it happen, time and time again.  The rudeness
> allegation is untrue, irrelevant, and would not amount to anything
> because he is supposed to be treating a condition that causes rudeness.

Does it also make one antisemitic and homophobic?

>
> > Because I'm in the US, there's nothing I could do,
>
> That's not true.  If I may put it like this, it circumscribes your
> abilities, but it also circumscribes the threats you could get for
> trying.

I would consider the threat of liability for practicing law without a
license a rather weighty one.

>
> > even if I was inclined to assist.
>
> A matter for you.

Exactly!  Now you've got it!  It's a personal matter -- _my_ choice.  And my
choice, based on a lifetime of experience, is that there are many people who
could benefit from my assistance in this world, so that I must pick and
choose where I direct my charitable energies.  And, given this mammoth
cornucopia of need, it is highly unlikely that I (or anyone else reading
this thread) would place an unrepentant antisemite at the head of the list.

>
> > However, that doesn't matter as I would not be
> > so inclined because, as I said at the onset, you
> > are an offensive, antisemitic cross-poster.
>
> The cross-posting is to get into search engines.

It's also a violation of netiquette and, most probably, the Terms of Service
of your ISP.  Is that also due to your apnea?

> I hope some of this
> survives me.  I deny anti Semitism.

Your posts boast of it.

>
> This sort of thing is increasing, especially in Russia where they talk
> about companies being subject to abusive take overs.  Judges are bribed
> and/or threatened into handing a business over to someone other than its
> rightful owner.

Are you now saying that that kindly judge, who showed so much patience and
forbearance, is corrupt?

>
> We've had it - I think - in the UK, for some time, because I gather Irish
> Republicans always had difficulty getting representation.  This was
> resolved, to an extent, after years of IRA suspects refusing to speak in
> UK Courts, owing to the block place of legal representation if IRA
> suspects by the Royal Ulster Constabulary.

And now it is your turn to speak over my head.  I not sufficiently familiar
with these subjects to have an opinion.

>
> Now they are doing it to others.  Soon, it will be common.
>
>
> --
> http://www.tom-moore.com