protective order scam

The FACT is mikey, that truth IS variable, depending on each individuals
perspective and personal belief structure. What you may believe to be the
"truth" I may find to be unsupportable and therefore not a fact.

Hi, Ron!

What you find to be not a fact has nothing whatsoever to do with how a judge
weighs the facts and applies the law in a libel action, which is what we
were talking about. In law, truth has a very specific meaning. And the law
says, "truth is an absolute defense to libel."

Its the
reason there are two different words and two different definitions.
"Truth" is a product of an individuals belief structure and may or may not
be based on the available facts.

....Truth is also an absolute defense to libel.

"Truth" is a leap of faith, the belief that what
you hold as being the truth may or may not be supported by what is.

....Truth is also an absolute defense to libel. A statement that is true is
not libel.

"Fact" on the other hand, is. Its provable, supportable, immutable. It
can be interpreted in different ways by different people, but it still
remains as it was found. Our perceptions of the meaning of the fact is
what changes, not the fact itself.

Perhaps. Perhaps not. But in libel litigation, truth is an absolute
defense.

Truth is a matter of philosophy. Fact is a matter of what IS, or IS NOT.
Facts cannot be changed, Truth can.

....Truth is also an absolute defense to libel, which is what Michael said.

I hope this was helpful for you. I have taken the time to attempt to
enlighten you to a simple but difficult concept.

I appreciate your time and effort explaining your simple yet complex
concept. Nonetheless, your concept simply has nothing to do with libel
litigation.

Even if you are not capable of comprehending the concepts involved I do not
consider it a waste of effort for several reasons. 1. Others read here as
well, and they may be able to understand what you fail to.

My guess is that readers understood Michael's post from the beginning --
that truth is an absolute defense to libel.

2. You may indeed have that little
light bulb inside your head flash on with the comprehension of a difficult
concept and thereby have realized one of the basic constants of the
universe.

The foundational concept behind libel law is that a statement of the truth
cannot be libel.
Therefore, as Michael said, truth is an absolute defense to libel.

3. Even if you cannot find it in yourself to expand your understanding of
the universe, its been kind of fun poking holes in your belief structure,
even if just for a second.

Michael was not sharing his beliefs, but the facts about libel law --
principal among them that truth is an absolute defense.

"Doug" wrote in message
...
If there is one thing you should have learned in posting to this news
group for as long as you have Doug, "Truth" is a matter of perspective.

Hi, Ron!

Interesting concept. Nonetheless, outside of the newsgroup, in matters of
law, truth is an absolute defense to libel actions. A libel is, by legal
defination, a false statement. So, if the statement is true, regardless
of whether the truth is inflamatory or defames the subject of the
statement, the statement is not libel.

British law -- and to some degree Canadian law -- holds that a statement
that is true but damages the subject of the statement is libelous. This
led our Founding Fathers to reject the obvious danger to freedom of
speech/press in this doctrine, since, in theory, the greater the truth the
greater the damage done to the subject. In the United States of America,
truth is an absolute defense to any libel action.

You also miss the point Doug. Truth and True are NOT the same thing. True
is a fact. Truth is a perception.

True IS an "absolute defense to libel actions." Truth may or may not be,
depending on if that persons perceptions are an accurate representation of
the facts. We both know that witness's are the weakest part of any case,
but they can also be the deciding factor.

As it should be.

Because of our country's tradition of freedom of speech and of the press,
libel laws even protect false statements under certain circumstances. For
instance, members of this newsgroup may be, arguably, public figures in
that they have thrust themselves into the public eye by nature of their
contributions to the forum. It's a gray area. If they were to be ruled
public figures, then a FALSE statement, would still not result in a
judgement of libel if the defendant could prove a lack of malice in making
the false statement. (In libel law, malice is defined as a statement
written "with reckless disregard for the truth.")

For libel to occur, the statement:

1) Must be false.
2) Must be done with malice (in the case of public figures, only)
3) Must be directed toward someone who is identified (an anonymous poster
would not have the recourse of libel action because they are not
identifable)
4) Must cause damage to reputation or other damages....professionals or
others who depend on their reputation would be more likely to prevail.

The requirement for a showing of malice exists partially because of the US
Supreme Court's recognition of deadline pressure experienced by newspaper
reporters. They often escape a libel judgment because their FALSE
statement was made under deadline pressure, where they claimed they did
not have the time to verify the truth. A monthly magazine, however, would
not have the same defense.

For instance, Kane's retraction in another thread in this newsgroup would
only mitigate charges of malice in a libel lawsuit. It presupposes that
the one bringing the libel lawsuit would be ruled a public figure and
therefore required to prove malice. If the trial court ruled the target
of the libel to be a private citizen, then the retraction would have no
legal weight. A retraction does not eliminate the libel, it can only be
weighed when considering malice.

There are also absolute privledges in libel statutes -- again, because of
our country's dedication to freedom of speech and of the press. For
instance, if a FALSE statement about someone is made in a courtroom that
untrue statement can be published without the subject of the false
inflamatory statement having recourse for libel.

Libel law is very complex and often changes through case by case
decisions. However, some elements remain fundamental and absolute.
However. the requirement that the statement be false -- thereby
establishing truth as an absolute defense -- remains fixed and absolute.

Fact, on the other hand, is what is the ultimate defense.

Not in libel lawsuits. The USSC chose the word "truth" in defining the
absolute defense to libel. The word, "absolute" itself, like "truth," has
specific meaning in law.

Michael is correct. Truth is an absolute defense in libel suits. That
the truth happens to cause detriment to the plaintiff does not in any
manner, shape or form mitigate the absolute defense of truth.

No Doug, its not. Fact is. Truth is variable.

No, Ron, truth is an absolute defense to libel lawsuits.

I cannot agree. Fact will beat the "truth" in a court every single time,
specially if they are at odds. Truth is a perception, accurate or not.
Fact is. Therefore truth cannot be an absolute anything since it is
variable. Fact is not variable, it is an absolute.

Ron

How many times has a Judge held a "fact finding hearing" and gotten the
"facts" wrong?

It's not ZERO!!!

They'd be lucky if it was substantially less than half.

Kane wrote
Now go ahead and show what a coward and weakling you are and call me Don
again, stupid.

Whatsamatta Don?

My truthful, factual and true statement makes me a coward and weakling?

Your truthful statements could be scribbled on a grain of rice.

....
If I told someone that was hunting you where you were it might be
truthful and still cowardly of me.

I would not do that. You have demonstrated you will and did.

How could THAT be, Don? If the info is wrong?

You have linked my name to his, then you put his wife's name up here.

Donald Fisher posted his name and business venture in newsgroups.
He wanted to sell his services as an agent to facilitate adoption
for a mixed race couple. Ironically the couple seemed to be
a fake intended to "chum" or bait others to contact him.
The identical bait message and response message were posted
in another year.

His e-mail address prominently featured Don's middle initial L in 1997.

Various ****ants here have tried to put up his address by claiming I am
him and claiming I'm in Hood River.

I said BEND.

But the other address is in WA.
....
I'm not but it serves me to have people think I am.

Did they get your at home computer email address?

He publicly posted his name and other details in 1997
as part of a sales pitch trying to sell his services
for multi-racial adoption.

Did you know him when he was d'geezer?

He has posted my SO's name dozens of times.

Michael© wrote:
Don Fisher is playing the part of Kane and simply
doesn't like it that others know.

I'd say he more than doesn't like it.
He's probably crapping his drawers.

His hiding behind the duck blind of anonymity to
harass people takes a certain kind of sick individual.

Just the opposite of heroism, ethicality and morality.

I think he is a creature of extreme contradiction.

Much of what he says is fairly obvious as
attempts to compensate for real weakness.

His talk about his strength, fortress, firearms, etc..

Greegor wrote:
....'I'm desperate for friends and supporters, reeeeal desperate.'....

Michael© wrote:

Don Fisher is playing the part of Kane and simply
doesn't like it that others know.

I'd say he more than doesn't like it.
He's probably crapping his drawers.

No, your dinner is not ready yet. 0:-

His hiding behind the duck blind of anonymity to
harass people takes a certain kind of sick individual.

bobb, KillCPS, DestoryCPS, Michael©, Fern5827, et al, and the many many
socks that come here, such as Dennis' recent family reunion.

Just the opposite of heroism, ethicality and morality.

Aren't I, using a nym, in good company?

What's "ethicality" by the way?

I think he is a creature of extreme contradiction.

How would you know?

Much of what he says is fairly obvious as
attempts to compensate for real weakness.

Such as? Obvious how?

His talk about his strength, fortress, firearms, etc..

I don't recall Don ever posting here. Except to tease me.

As for myself, I note that Michael© made quite a point about being a
sworn LEO at one time, and keeping special dogs that were Police Academy
"trained to kill." Didn't you make fun one time of a police officer that
carries a gun objecting to a citizen doing so?

Michael©'s more likely to have the problem you think I do. What with his
various connotations of "bring it on." Isn't that just the silliest
macho exclamation though?

Of course for anyone other than me, such comments don't indicate any
compensation "for real weakness." RR R R R R

Boys you are a laugh riot. 0:-

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&l...&btnG= Search
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&l...& btnG=Search

Why do you think I chose this name as a false trail, boys .. Greg?

"Bill Smith" would have been a little too obvious, don't you think, and
Michael© is taken, don'tchakkknow -- by copyright.

Kane

Greegor wrote:
Kane wrote
Now go ahead and show what a coward and weakling you are and call me Don
again, stupid.

Whatsamatta Don?

My truthful, factual and true statement makes me a coward and weakling?

Your truthful statements could be scribbled on a grain of rice.

....
If I told someone that was hunting you where you were it might be
truthful and still cowardly of me.

I would not do that. You have demonstrated you will and did.

How could THAT be, Don? If the info is wrong?

You have linked my name to his, then you put his wife's name up here.

Donald Fisher posted his name and business venture in newsgroups.

What business venture?

He wanted to sell his services as an agent to facilitate adoption
for a mixed race couple.

Not the Don Fisher I knew.

Ironically the couple seemed to be
a fake intended to "chum" or bait others to contact him.
The identical bait message and response message were posted
in another year.

Post your proof.

How could the couple be "chum," or bait, if he was soliciting for
couples of mixed race? He wouldn't be putting up the name of the couple.

He was, according to you, looking for couples. Not peddling a couple.

His e-mail address prominently featured Don's middle initial L in 1997.

What was it, exactly? Could it have had a state suffix? I don't recall
him having a state business.

I do recall him maintaining a website for waiting children of color FOR
the state of Oregon for a time though. Seeking couples interested in
adopting.

Various ****ants here have tried to put up his address by claiming I am
him and claiming I'm in Hood River.

I said BEND.

Then you'd be one of a plural, "****antS" stupid.


But the other address is in WA.

"Donald L. Fisher" has addresses all over the U.S.

In fact, quite a few in Iowa.

....
I'm not but it serves me to have people think I am.
Did they get your at home computer email address?

He publicly posted his name and other details in 1997
as part of a sales pitch trying to sell his services
for multi-racial adoption.

Oh, and you have proof of this?

Don Fisher that maintained a state website for Oregon, claimed to have a
business, provided his phone number, and home address?

Did you know him when he was d'geezer?

He has posted my SO's name dozens of times.

From your own posted information, Greg.

And neither I, nor Don ever posted his wife's name.

YOU posted Lisa's with your testimony to the HW&MC hearing.

And Don's wife's out of the blue.

Show where he posted her name here first.

0:-

Greegor wrote:
Kane wrote
Now go ahead and show what a coward and weakling you are and call me Don
again, stupid.

Whatsamatta Don?

My truthful, factual and true statement makes me a coward and weakling?

Your truthful statements could be scribbled on a grain of rice.

...
If I told someone that was hunting you where you were it might be
truthful and still cowardly of me.

I would not do that. You have demonstrated you will and did.

How could THAT be, Don? If the info is wrong?

You have linked my name to his, then you put his wife's name up here.

Donald Fisher posted his name and business venture in newsgroups.
He wanted to sell his services as an agent to facilitate adoption
for a mixed race couple. Ironically the couple seemed to be
a fake intended to "chum" or bait others to contact him.
The identical bait message and response message were posted
in another year.

His e-mail address prominently featured Don's middle initial L in 1997.

Various ****ants here have tried to put up his address by claiming I am
him and claiming I'm in Hood River.

I said BEND.

But the other address is in WA.
...
I'm not but it serves me to have people think I am.

Did they get your at home computer email address?

He publicly posted his name and other details in 1997
as part of a sales pitch trying to sell his services
for multi-racial adoption.

Did you know him when he was d'geezer?

He has posted my SO's name dozens of times.

Interesting how many lies you can post in a single post to this ng,
Greg.

I don't see Don Fisher's wife's name in his postings. Not even the ones
you've featured in your bull**** before. YOU posted the following, with
attributions to a post by Don Fisher.

Can you explain to us where his wife's name is featured, where he sells
his services for his 'business" and where he has some fictitous couple
he is touting for?

This below is YOUR post of Jan 8, 2004 referring to a post of Fisher's
of Jan 98.

What do you make of it, lie wise? On your part?

Donald L Fisher
Greegor 31 December 2004 05:19:47
On January 8 1998,
in a thread called
Oregon waiting children announcement,
in a newsgroup called alt.adoption,

Don Fisher wrote:

Quotation:
There is a new web page just up for the state
of Oregon ACT program.
This is a new adoptive familiy recruiting
effort for waiting, free for adoption minority
children in the state of Oregon. They place
more and more of their waiting children out
of state. New practices of child welfare is
bringing about placement of younger children
than previously.
The state has over 500 waiting children at any time.
The ACT website has photos with narratives
and online inquiry forms.
take a look. df
http://adoptions.sc*f.hr.state.or.us/wel*come.htm
df - World Wide Web Site Development
http://www.teleport*.com/~dlfisher
http://adoptions.sc*f.hr.state.or.us/wel*come.htm
http://www.teleport*.com/~fpa
http://www.outofthe*boxpublishing.com/
fn: Don Fisher
n: Fisher;Don
org: DTI
email;internet: *om

Any thoughts, Greg?

As for "BEND" I suggest you write the gentleman there named Donald L.
Fisher and see if he is or was an Oregon CPS worker, Greg. And the one
in Washington too.

You and your crew are confused. You have, for instance, no such person
in Hood River but it's claimed I post out there..my IP traces to there.
This become curiouser and curiouser, doesn't it?

I doubt anyone as far away as Bend is from Hood River would bother to
have a service provider in Hood River. And the same goes for the Fisher
in Washington.

HR wouldn't even be in the dialing code for either location. All trans
river calls, for instance, are Long Distance across the Columbia River
to my knowledge. A different phone company serves each side.

I had that problem when I did business in Portland. As soon as I
crossed the river, LD. Of course with cell service now I can call from
anywhere in the US with my service.

Did it ever occur to you that I might use this same service from just
about anywhere?

Neither you nor your dummy knows who I am, pal.

I'm not Don Fisher. But I do like the name.

Ask your friend to tell you what a Honey Pot is.

0:-

Kane wrote
What's "ethicality" by the way?

Chuckle Isn't in your dictionary is it?


Greg wrote
I think he is a creature of extreme contradiction.

Kane wrote How would you know?

See below!

Greg wrote
Much of what he says is fairly obvious as
attempts to compensate for real weakness.

Kane wrote Such as? Obvious how?

See below!

Greg wrote His talk about his strength, fortress, firearms, etc..

Kane wrote
As for myself, I note that Michael© made quite a point about being a
sworn LEO at one time, and keeping special dogs that were Police Academy
"trained to kill." Didn't you make fun one time of a police officer that
carries a gun objecting to a citizen doing so?

Can we compare what I actually said to your characterization of it?

Kane wrote
Michael©'s more likely to have the problem you think I do. What with his
various connotations of "bring it on." Isn't that just the silliest
macho exclamation though?

That you would think so is ...interesting.

Kane wrote
Of course for anyone other than me, such comments
don't indicate any compensation "for real weakness." RR R R R R

Has Michael posted profuse and gratuitous profanity for over a year?
Has Michael called a grandma a [c-word] over and over?
Has Michael insulted families in a weakened/vulnerable state?
Has Michael bragged on himself at great length?
Has he ever earned the nickname "McBrag" for that?

Kane wrote
Why do you think I chose this name as a false trail, boys .. Greg?

So you're not Don, just some other person who deliberately
left a false trail to an innocent Don?

That sure was a nice thing for you to do! (sic)

I don't buy it, Don, you weasel.

I don't see Don Fisher's wife's name in his postings.

The book site was in the signature on your old posts.
Isn't advertising wonderful?

Ask your friend to tell you what a Honey Pot is.

That kind of comment long ago revealed you have a web site.
Your McBragging about running a business also.

Facilitating adoptions, you bragged that up.
Homeschooling, you talked that up...