The Hypocrite has spoken

Project Serpo related discussion

Moderators: ryguy, chrLz, Zep Tepi

The Hypocrite has spoken

Postby Zep Tepi » Fri Oct 13, 2006 8:45 pm

Actually, typed would be more accurate...

The false prophet of the UFOlogy world today sent this to his list members:

Blogs and Forums! A jury awards $11.3M over defamatory Internet posts!

NOTE: If you continue to call someone "a known convicted felon" and
they're NOT, watch out ... you might NOT be able to continue to hide in
the comfort, safety and anonymity that cyberspace has afforded you
anymore! Have a legal representative on retainer! –
Excerpt from
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/200 ... case_x.htm

Jury awards $11.3M over defamatory Internet posts
By Laura Parker, USA TODAY

A Florida woman has been awarded $11.3 million in a defamation lawsuit
against a Louisiana woman who posted messages on the Internet accusing her
of being a "crook," a "con artist" and a "fraud."

Legal analysts say the Sept. 19 award by a jury in Broward County, Fla. —
first reported Friday by the Daily Business Review — represents the largest
such judgment over postings on an Internet blog or message board. Lyrissa
Lidsky, a University of Florida law professor who specializes in
free-speech issues, calls the award "astonishing."

BEWARE OF BLOGS: Courts are asked to crack down on bloggers, websites
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2006- ... urts_x.htm


Can you believe this guy?!
This from the freak who called me a sick rapist, this from the freak who routinely abuses the members of this site, this from the freak who supports a forum whose moderators think nothing of spreading lies and innuendo against the admins of this site, this from the freak who accused Shawnna of having ties to Al-Qaeda and otherwise lying about her past and sending her personal details all over the Internet! Like I said:
Can you believe this guy?!

The thing is, we already know what is acceptable and what isn't. He should have thought about what is acceptable AND legal before pressing enter on his keyboard all those times.

Remember I mentioned consequences not too long ago?

Cheers,
Zep
.
Image
User avatar
Zep Tepi
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 2150
Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2006 12:59 pm


Postby ryguy » Fri Oct 13, 2006 9:50 pm

From Expertlaw:

Public Figures

Under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, as set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1964 Case, New York Times v Sullivan, where a public figure attempts to bring an action for defamation, the public figure must prove an additional element: That the statement was made with "actual malice". In translation, that means that the person making the statement knew the statement to be false, or issued the statement with reckless disregard as to its truth. For example, Ariel Sharon sued Time Magazine over allegations of his conduct relating to the massacres at the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps. Although the jury concluded that the Time story included false allegations, they found that Time had not acted with "actual malice" and did not award any damages.

The concept of the "public figure" is broader than celebrities and politicians. A person can become an "involuntary public figure" as the result of publicity, even though that person did not want or invite the public attention. For example, people accused of high profile crimes may be unable to pursue actions for defamation even after their innocence is established, on the basis that the notoriety associated with the case and the accusations against them turned them into involuntary public figures.

A person can also become a "limited public figure" by engaging in actions which generate publicity within a narrow area of interest. For example, a woman named Terry Rakolta was offended by the Fox Television show, Married With Children, and wrote letters to the show's advertisers to try to get them to stop their support for the show. As a result of her actions, Ms. Rakolta became the target of jokes in a wide variety of settings. As these jokes remained within the confines of her public conduct, typically making fun of her as being prudish or censorious, they were protected by Ms. Rakolta's status as a "limited public figure".



I'd say Shawnna, however, has a great case against Victor for defamation....

-Ry
---
"Only a fool of a scientist would dismiss the evidence and reports in front of him and substitute his own beliefs in their place." - Paul Kurtz

The RU Blog
Top Secret Writers
User avatar
ryguy
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 4920
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 3:49 am
Location: Another Dimension

Postby Zep Tepi » Fri Oct 13, 2006 10:52 pm

Good post Ry, it won't make a difference to the people who worship him though. It is very difficult to gete through to people with such a strong desire to believe.

Let's go back to the beginning of August for a perfect example of this. We posted official documents outlining Victor's unsavoury criminal records. The sole purpose of this was to show that if disclosure truly were happening, the PTB would certainly NOT choose someone of his standing to help disseminate this important message.

Around the same time this was posted, JakeReason posted a message from Victor at the Open Minds forum here. Rather than check the facts for themselves, they simply take his word for it and carry on as if nothing has happened. At the same time however, they attempt to detract from the reality of the situation and begin posting highly defamatory and false statements about my own private life. If anything were needed to show that these people have no conscience and absolutely zero moral fibre, that particular episode was it.

Reminder:
My last case -- the petty theft & assault -- was DISMISSED on Monday, April 17, 2006! Yes, that's right, read it again! It was DISMISSED on 4-17-06.

I was unable to find this document, so I called my attorney this morning and his sec'y reminded me that I had secured it in my safety deposit box at Citibank which is where I just came back from. Here is the MINUTE ORDER reproduced VERBATIM:
Case #02NM02196 MA

People vs Martinez, Victor G

Hearing held on 4-17-06 at 9 a.m. in Dept N7 for Chambers Work.

Officiating Judge: D Hatchimonji, Judge

Clerk: C J Turk

Bailiff: Present

Court Reporter: None

Petition for Relief under Penal Code Section 1203.4 is GRANTED.

Defendant has complied with terms of probation, Plea of Nolo Contendre set aside, plea of NOT GUILTY ENTERED and CASE DISMISSED as to counts
(2) pursuant to provisions of Penal Code 1203.4.

Order for Relief under Penal Code 1203.4 signed and filed.

LARRY: Wow! That's important to know! So this means that ....

VICTOR: This means two (2) things, Larry:

a) I do NOT have a conviction for theft or assault;

b) In a strictly legal sense, if I am ever asked on an employment
application whether I have a conviction(s) for theft or assault, I can LEGALLY answer, "NO."


Let's look at the facts shall we. Victor's comments above relate to "Relief under Penal Code Section 1203.4"

From the California Criminal Lawyer website: California Penal Code Section 1203.4
(a) In any case in which a defendant has fulfilled the conditions of probation for the entire period of probation, or has been discharged prior to the termination of the period of probation, or in any other case in which a court, in its discretion and the interests of justice, determines that a defendant should be granted the relief available under this section, the defendant shall, at any time after the termination of the period of probation, if he or she is not then serving a sentence for any offense, on probation for any offense, or charged with the commission of any offense, be permitted by the court to withdraw his or her plea of guilty or plea of nolo contendere and enter a plea of not guilty; or, if he or she has been convicted after a plea of not guilty, the court shall set aside the verdict of guilty; and, in either case, the court shall thereupon dismiss the accusations or information against the defendant and except as noted below, he or she shall thereafter be released from all penalties and disabilities resulting from the offense of which he or she has been convicted, except as provided in Section 13555 of the Vehicle Code. The probationer shall be informed, in his or her probation papers, of this right and privilege and his or her right, if any, to petition for a certificate of rehabilitation and pardon. The probationer may make the application and change of plea in person or by attorney, or by the probation officer authorized in writing. However, in any subsequent prosecution of the defendant for any other offense, the prior conviction may be pleaded and proved and shall have the same effect as if probation had not been granted or the accusation or information dismissed. The order shall state, and the probationer shall be informed, that the order does not relieve him or her of the obligation to disclose the conviction in response to any direct question contained in any questionnaire or application for public office, for licensure by any state or local agency, or for contracting with the California State Lottery.


Note the emboldened sections in the quote above and Victor's comments:
a) I do NOT have a conviction for theft or assault;

b) In a strictly legal sense, if I am ever asked on an employment
application whether I have a conviction(s) for theft or assault, I can LEGALLY answer, "NO."


Did he tell the truth? Come on, this is Victor we are talking about here. He is clearly trying to leave the impression that the conviction for theft and assault have been erased forever, when the actual section above shows this is clearly not the case.

From the same post at OM:
LARRY: Oh, OK. What was the "Disturbing the Peace" case all about? We know about the first one ... the "Birthday Card" case!

VICTOR: This was even more of a JOKE than the birthday card case. This is exactly what happened: I gave a 'care package' of teen-oriented magazines to a female student who had asked for them ... that was it!
HONEST!

As in the B-Day card case, there was NEVER ANY PHYSICAL CONTACT OF ANY KIND BETWEEN MYSELF AND THE STUDENT.


The first case, or as Victor calls it, the "B-Day card case" is a guilty conviction under the California Penal Code section 313.1(A) - Giving Harmful Matter to a Minor. Victor claims that all he did was give someone a "astrology-themed" birthday card. Ok, let's have a look at the California Penal Code section 313.1(A) in detail then:
CALIFORNIA PENAL CODE
313. As used in this chapter:

(a) "Harmful matter" means matter, taken as a whole, which to the average person, applying contemporary statewide standards, appeals to the prurient interest, and is matter which, taken as a whole, depicts or describes in a patently offensive way sexual conduct and which, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors.

(1) When it appears from the nature of the matter or the circumstances of its dissemination, distribution or exhibition that it is designed for clearly defined deviant sexual groups, the appeal of the matter shall be judged with reference to its intended recipient group.


Those two sections above are the relevant sections for the conviction. Remember, Victor claims it was nothing more than a birthday card.

Sub-Section (a) clearly states "...depicts or describes in a patently offensive way sexual conduct..."
Sub-section (1) tells us: "...designed for clearly defined deviant sexual groups..."

Someone please explain how that can be explained away with an Astrology-based birthday card?!

The information is available for anyone to verify for themselves. Not only has Victor committed these acts, he is attempting to portray them as innocent transgressions when that is quite clearly not the case!

I won't mention the other times section 313 has entered into Victor's life, there really isn't any need to, is there?

Smoke? Fire?

Cheers,
Zep
.
Image
User avatar
Zep Tepi
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 2150
Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2006 12:59 pm

Postby dankk » Sat Oct 14, 2006 12:38 am

One would have to assume that little news article was sent for a good reason in the mind of the person sending the information.

Is that to send a warning out to the staff at RU? Was that meant as way to have people digging into the past of certain individuals to tread lightly; Be very careful of what you say?

If this is the case, I highly recommend that the sender take his own advice as that would seem to be the case in point here. If one knowingly sends out false information about an individual to a blog, forum, email CC list, etc., it can certainly come back to bite them. If anything, I would think that this person has just done a great dis-service to himself and the others that continue to spread lies and falsehoods about the people that run the forum here and anyone else in the future that tries to seek the truth.

Let there be no doubt in what the RU forum is doing when it comes to the Serpo story. In summary of what I have found to be true of the RU forum:

To take an objective approach in what the facts of the story regarding are; show them to the people that have the sense to make order of the material; prove beyond a resonable doubt that the serpo story is indeed a falsehood concocted by persons that would stand to make a monetary gain by whatever means necessary at the expense of hopefuls out there that have a need to believe a story at any cost.

Believe me when i say this. I WANT VERY BADLY to know that there is real evidence out there somewhere that will indeed prove that we are not alone in this universe. But I will NOT sit back and just believe anything that crosses my path, ESPECIALLY when there is so much more evidence that proves the contrary. I am taking all of this in with an unbiased eye. That helps quite a bit when looking into these things. Remaining objective is the only way to truly see things for what they are in this complex and seemingly unending line of twists that are put out by those that want us to believe the serpo story no matter what.

I do have issues with the OM forum and its staff. I wont deny that for a moment. But when it comes to evidence, it's pretty hard to toss all that aside to help me sleep at night believing serpo is real. Real in any sense of the story at all. It is the evidence that the RU forum has come up with (that can be checked out and verified by anyone that cares to take the time) that has since forced the OM forum staff members to now say. The "core" of the story is what we pay attention to. Even the core of the story has its problems as well. Disclosure does NOT come through a chain of people that are known disinformationists and people with anger issues and convictions stemming from unlawful behavior to boot. It just does not happen this way. If this is how disclosure is going to be. Then it is no wonder that we have so many in doubt today.

I suggest that one look at the FACTS. Take a GOOD LONG HARD look. Understand what is said. Ask questions. Be objective. And by all means, be polite in doing so. The facts alone will give you all you need to make your decision of what is what. The objectivity factor and respect of others will take you even further in getting the help you need regarding this story.

Regards,

Dankk

ps. I like people on both sides of this story. More on the side that has provided evidence that shows the serpo story to be a hoax, but I also like BR very much as well. He is there to answer my questions and remains even tempered and polite to me. I find him to be quite a genteman.
dankk
Banned
 
Posts: 415
Joined: Sun Sep 24, 2006 2:22 am

Postby Zep Tepi » Tue Dec 12, 2006 1:03 am

(That original ruling Victor posted to his list has been overturned - I'll look for the link)

Victor continues to post absolute drivel to certain people. I was forwarded a message of his by a couple of friends.

Get this:

*****:

1) Regarding last weekend's series of semi-private e-mails between our small group, the OM Moderators and myself determined that the ONLY way Broadbent could have read them was if Bob was bcc'ing some people; he said he did: ***** and *****.

2) Immediately, we all thought that ***** was forwarding all of Bob's e-mails to Broadbent. Bob publicly skewered ***** and I was PISSED to say the least.

3) After a careful review and analysis by the crack team at OM, they have in fact determined that it was YOU who forwarded all of our e-mails to Broadbent, NOT *****.

4) Earlier, when we wondered if you did, you explained and justified your actions by saying that "I talk to a lot of people who call me names," and "I'm in ********** so I talk to people all of the time who may not like me and call me names."

5) This evening I arrived home to find that you were telling Bob that you hardly had the time to communicate with Broadbent and "why would I anyway?"

Contradiction?

6) You also stated that Broadbent was on the original "cc" list, so you simply had hit "Reply All." As everyone can see for themselves in the attached e-mail, that is PATENTLY FALSE where you start with:

"Steve I have no axe to grid with you." dated on 11-29-2006. If you view the list of people in the "cc" column, there is NO e-mail address for Broadbent.

7) What this reveals -- at least to Bob and myself and perhaps others -- is that you have an ongoing dialogue w/ Broadbent WHO IS FIERCELY ANTI-DISCLOSURE [and contrary to what YOU stand for] and ATTACKS THE PERSONAL LIVES OF THOSE involved in disclosure.

8) In my view, this CROSSES THE LINE when one starts attacking the people trying to bring forth information that was provided to them to disseminate.

Also, your ***** are muck-raking, PRO-disclosure *****, so WHY would you even want to communicate with human trash like Broadbent when he's working AGAINST your/our goals?!

Are Bob and I missing something here 'cause we don't get "it" ... we really don't!

9) Stan Friedman wrote a highly critical piece on SERPO, but he went after the INFORMATION, NOT the individuals bringing the information to a world stage in good faith! Stan doesn't run around running background checks on the people w/ whom he disagrees with, now does he?!

10) For HS AP seniors and college kids, Bar Charts puts out a series of what are called "Quick Study Guides." They're just the BEST and something I've given many students over the years. They're printed on 60lb cover stock paper and then laminated for long term use/abuse.

One that applies here is entitled "Business Ethics" which I'm giving to Sylvia T [Class of '98] on Monday. I'm holding and reading from it right NOW and Broadbent violates so many of the criteria on ethics in these four (4) pages that I don't even know where to start!

For starters, how 'bout....

– The Question of Responsibility: makes wild, outrageous, UNsubstantiated claims on issues he lacks clear prior knowledge about;

– The Question of Allegiance: this is for YOU to ponder; are you NOT working against YOUR best interests by even having a conversation with him?!

– Conflict of Interest: self-explanatory;

– Honesty and Fairness: concepts that Broadbent hasn't the faintest clue about;

– PRIVATE and Public MORALITY: Broadbent at age 38 + intercourse w/ 16-year-old girl while still married + had a child with her = leaves his wife and 3 kids = NO laws broken, BUT most people in THIS country -- about 99.99% -- would be OUTraged if their daughters brought a man 22
YEARS her SENIOR dance/prom/homecoming at her HS!

QUESTION: "Gee whiz ... who's that ... your dad?! Where's your boyfriend?!"

ANSWER: "This IS my boyfriend!"

Your business partner ***** spent many years on Wall Street in finance ... certainly he KNOWS that Broadbent crosses the line constantly and SHOULD BE ISOLATED.

11) I certainly don't want you guys to tell me who I can and can't communicate with and vice versa, BUT if someone went after YOU GUYS ON A PERSONAL LEVEL and tried to find out what you guys were up to 40-50 YEARS ago -- and the information was NOT RELEVANT TO WHAT YOU'RE DOING TODAY -- I would have NOTHING to do with them ... EVER.
I'll still FULLY SUPPORT ******** disclosure efforts which includes ***** your ********, BUT both Bob and myself from this day forward will be VERY careful what we say to you keeping in mind that it MIGHT be forwarded to Broadbent ... that makes my skin crawl and makes me feel VERY UNcomfortable.

I'm very sorry for your poor eyesight, but LOOK at the attached e-mail:
You wrote it to Steve Broadbent, BUT sent it to US! NO hard feelings, but please see where I/we are coming from, OK?

12) I don't think I've ever done this before since coming online, and even though I didn't skewer ***** like Bob did, I will PUBLICLY APOLOGIZE TO ***** for accusing him of forwarding our e-mails.
His action on forwarding ***** IT analysis to the RU forum freaks was outrageous to say the least, BUT in THIS case, he's NOT guilty.
I KNOW what it's like to be FALSELY ACCUSED of something, so I was way out of line accusing ***** before all the evidence was in. POOP ON ME!

And yes, there was one (1) other time I did apologize to someone -- Bill Ryan -- but that was done in person at Maggiano's Little Italy ... too embarrassed to do it online! –


Nice, eh? Well, I responded to Vicky boy but it seems he has me set to auto-delete. That would probably explain why he didn't answer a certain email I sent him a few weeks ago either... He might be in for a surprise sometime soon if that's the case ;)

Anyway, here's my response to the above nonsense (My replies are in orange)

3) After a careful review and analysis by the crack team at OM, they have in fact determined that it was YOU who forwarded all of our e-mails to Broadbent, NOT *****.

Haha! Case closed. Not.

7) What this reveals -- at least to Bob and myself and perhaps others -- is that you have an ongoing dialogue w/ Broadbent WHO IS FIERCELY ANTI-DISCLOSURE [and contrary to what YOU stand for] and ATTACKS THE PERSONAL LIVES OF THOSE involved in disclosure.

Your lies grow more outrageous by the day. I am FIERCELY ANTI-BULLSHIT you pathetic excuse of a man. Your background was investigated precisely because of your claimed position in the disclosure effort. The fact we told the truth appears lost on you and you alone. Look in a mirror before you next make such an outrageous claim. Your allies are dwindling Victor, I wonder why?

8) In my view, this CROSSES THE LINE when one starts attacking the people trying to bring forth information that was provided to them to disseminate.

So Sherlock, wasn’t we doing the same thing? Think about it.

Also, your ***** are muck-raking, PRO-disclosure *****, so WHY would you even want to communicate with human trash like Broadbent when he's working AGAINST your/our goals?!

Are you really that stupid? My goal is to find the truth where ever that may lead.

Are Bob and I missing something here 'cause we don't get "it" ... we really don't!

Now there’s a surprise! Not.

9) Stan Friedman wrote a highly critical piece on SERPO, but he went after the INFORMATION, NOT the individuals bringing the information to a world stage in good faith! Stan doesn't run around running background checks on the people w/ whom he disagrees with, now does he?!

At least we don’t FAKE our background checks. We provide the truth as it stands – unlike your “good” self.

One that applies here is entitled "Business Ethics" which I'm giving to Sylvia T [Class of '98] on Monday. I'm holding and reading from it right NOW and Broadbent violates so many of the criteria on ethics in these four (4) pages that I don't even know where to start!

I am extremely surprised you know how to even spell “ethics”.

For starters, how 'bout....

– The Question of Responsibility: makes wild, outrageous, UNsubstantiated claims on issues he lacks clear prior knowledge about;

Wrong. You appear to have spelled substantiated incorrectly.

– The Question of Allegiance: this is for YOU to ponder; are you NOT working against YOUR best interests by even having a conversation with him?!

You can’t influence everyone Victor. I’m surprised ANYONE gives any credence to ANYTHING you say.

– Conflict of Interest: self-explanatory;

Conflict of YOUR interest.

– Honesty and Fairness: concepts that Broadbent hasn't the faintest clue about;

Au contraire, I know all about honesty and fairness my lying little friend.

– PRIVATE and Public MORALITY: Broadbent at age 38 + intercourse w/ 16-year-old girl while still married + had a child with her = leaves his wife and 3 kids = NO laws broken, BUT most people in THIS country -- about 99.99% -- would be OUTraged if their daughters brought a man 22
YEARS her SENIOR dance/prom/homecoming at her HS!

You poor, pathetic, deluded, nasty excuse of a human being. I would tell you we have a very loving relationship but that is not what you want to hear. The fact that YOU choose to continually highlight my personal relationship in a “dirty” way shows exactly how YOU think and operate. You disgust me.


QUESTION: "Gee whiz ... who's that ... your dad?! Where's your boyfriend?!"

ANSWER: "This IS my boyfriend!"

Haha, that actually made me laugh. 6ft 2”, 210lbs and in the same shape I was when in the military. Don’t fool yourself Victor, YOU may look your age but I know I don’t.

Your business partner ***** spent many years on Wall Street in finance ... certainly he KNOWS that Broadbent crosses the line constantly and SHOULD BE ISOLATED.

Transference, that’s the name for it Victor. Look it up and get help.

11) I certainly don't want you guys to tell me who I can and can't communicate with and vice versa, BUT if someone went after YOU GUYS ON A PERSONAL LEVEL and tried to find out what you guys were up to 40-50 YEARS ago -- and the information was NOT RELEVANT TO WHAT YOU'RE DOING TODAY -- I would have NOTHING to do with them ... EVER.

40-50 years ago??? Do you know when to STOP lying?

I'll still FULLY SUPPORT The ***** disclosure efforts which includes ***** your ********, BUT both Bob and myself from this day forward will be VERY careful what we say to you keeping in mind that it MIGHT be forwarded to Broadbent ... that makes my skin crawl and makes me feel VERY UNcomfortable.

And so you should. You have many so called “friends” that are not what they appear to be. You would be extremely surprised exactly what has been forwarded and by whom. Your continual despicable behavior is the only reason for this.


Victor simply has no idea exactly how many people he has pissed off in the last year. I must commend them for feigning friendship - it isn't something I would be able to do - NOT where this despicable creature is concerned.

Btw, the above email Victor wrote is typical of many he writes in an attempt to turn people away from the work here. One day he will realise only the extremely gullible believe a word he says.

Cheers,
Zep
.
Image
User avatar
Zep Tepi
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 2150
Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2006 12:59 pm

Postby ryguy » Tue Dec 12, 2006 1:15 am

Victor wrote:After a careful review and analysis by the crack team at OM...


BWWAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[smilie=to funny.gif]
---
"Only a fool of a scientist would dismiss the evidence and reports in front of him and substitute his own beliefs in their place." - Paul Kurtz

The RU Blog
Top Secret Writers
User avatar
ryguy
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 4920
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 3:49 am
Location: Another Dimension

Postby Zep Tepi » Tue Dec 12, 2006 1:20 am

What made that even funnier was the fact they were blind WRONG!

Maybe they should look a little closer to home.... ;)

LOL
.
Image
User avatar
Zep Tepi
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 2150
Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2006 12:59 pm

Postby Springer » Tue Dec 12, 2006 2:25 am

Gad... Poor Victor... I thought he had given it all up after his last foray into the realm of RU and was burned so badly. I haven't heard a peep about him (until this) since September... :o

Alas, it seems he still hasn't figured it out, his paraphrenic belief of self importance is self-destructive at best.

S...
Never argue with an idiot. He'll only take you DOWN to his level and beat you with experience!
Springer
Member
 
Posts: 404
Joined: Tue May 30, 2006 10:36 pm
Location: Indian Territory


Google

Return to Project Serpo

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests

cron