Subject: "Scandalous, Frivolous or Vexatious"
Newsgroups: uk.misc,uk.legal
Organization: Toronto Free-Net
Summary:
Keywords:


A couple of weeks ago I issued a summons against the BBC in my local county
court, for the tort of private nuisance caused by the spying by their
newsreaders on my home. My argument was that their spying had prevented me
watching the news at home, and therefore interfered with my normal use of my home.

The BBC's Litigation Dept at White City have replied not with a defence, but
with an application for my claim to be struck out because;

(a) it discloses no reasonable cause of action; and/or
(b) it is scandalous, frivolous or vexatious.

Their application will be heard next week. They have not made any affidavit in
support of their application, nor have they given particulars as to why they
consider my summons to be unarguable in law, which would be a necessary
condition for there to be no reasonable cause of action.

I am more worried about point (b). Allegations are scandalous (says Stuart
Sime's book) if they impute dishonesty against another party; which my
allegations do, against the BBC's newsreaders. As for frivolous or vexatious, I
think that will be up to me to make a good argument for the effect the BBC's
spying has had on my life, and up to the district judge's opinion of my case.

Apparently seeking to have a claim struck out in this way is common practice
when the plaintiff is a litigant-in-person. Even if it is struck out, there is
always the opportunity to appeal. I think we could be in for a fight next week.
.................................................. .........................
Sun, 02 Mar 1997 20:38:59 uk.legal Thread 52 of 54
Lines 13 Re: "Scandalous, Frivolous or Vexatious" Respno 1 of 1
Kate@carterce.demon.co.uk KKKKatie

In article <NQoVQiAnHgGzEwl3@solicit.demon.co.uk>
andy@solicit.demon.co.uk "Andrew Nichols" writes:

> Well, that'll liven up the dear old District Judge. Almost worth taking
> the day off to see how Mike fares.

almost worth taking a day off to see if he exists

Kate
--
Just back from the US - you've got to love a country that puts
"Vertical Clearance Impeded" for "Low Bridge"
.................................................. .........................
Subject: Re: "Scandalous, Frivolous or Vexatious"
Newsgroups: uk.misc,uk.legal
References: <E6FEFJ.IE7.0.bloor@torfree.net> <NQoVQiAnHgGzEwl3@solicit.demon.co.uk><8$
Organization: Toronto Free-Net
Distribution:

burridge@osiris.win-uk.net (Paul Burridge) wrote:
>Almost worthwhile taking the day off to go and punch him in the
>face for all abuse he's given us on these groups. Which court is it?

Thank you for your kind thought.

I'm not telling you which court it is. I don't want to be hounded by irate
uk-miscreants!

As for raising eyebrows, the member of staff who took the summons form didn't
change their facial expression at all. Seen it all before, no doubt.
.................................................. .........................
In article <857597450snz@adams.demon.co.uk>,
Derek Tidman <Derek@adams.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <E6JAxt.EFK.0.bloor@torfree.net>
> bu765@torfree.net "Mike Corley" writes:
>
>-I'm not telling you which court it is. I don't want to be hounded by irate
>-uk-miscreants!
>-
>-As for raising eyebrows, the member of staff who took the summons form didn't
>-change their facial expression at all. Seen it all before, no doubt.
>
>Take no notice Mike, some people are like that. I hope
>you finally get this matter into court.

I'm not so fond of the threats of violence against the persistent (yet
quiet for a bit, and probably soon to restart..) spammer that is Mike
Corley. Yet, encouraging the fantasies of the mentally ill isn't
exactly healthy either. Do you go up to homeless mad people as say
things like: "They're coming to get you", or "Look out behind you?".

Smid
.................................................. .........................
Quite the contary Mike. Your recent posts have been no problem. By
explaining things rationally, and not spamming us, you have made more
friends than you know.

I hope that you sort out your problem, sincerely.
--
************************************************** *********************
I'm Alan Packer and I move in a very mysterious way. If replying to me
.................................................. .........................
In article <857686006snz@adams.demon.co.uk>,
Derek Tidman <Derek@adams.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <5fmdc7$gga$1@ftel.ftel.co.uk>
> J.J.Smith@ftel.co.uk "John J Smith" writes:
>
>I think it's good for Mike to vent his anger and frustration on
>these two newsgroups. Consider it to be part of your duty to
>the comunity in general.

Yep. Just not, the, I think 180 posts, one week, when his illness
got really bad. Oh yeah, and there was only three real posts,
just repeated 60 times.

>Mike does a first class job of drawing out the real personality
>of the person hiding behind a node name. The way people react
>to Mike gives it all away.

Erm, explain this rather dubious statement.

>As for you. Don't you think it's a trifle condescending to refer
>to people as mad. I know they are homeless and without internet
>access, but maybe they are just eccentric.

Congratulations. This is my first real flame for about a year.

I try to control my anger when I come across another uninformed
naive idiot on usenet, but sometimes it goes free. We've had Corley
for well over three years now, and his constant spams of various degrees
have killed a couple of usenet groups I really rather lied. uk.media,
to name but one. I gets my goat to read another useless ----er
thinking he is a harmless eccentric.

Mike is mentally ill. He is unwilling to deal with it. He seems to
think that uk.misc is some sort of forum that --- reads. And it
should be avenged. He's mailbombed a large quantity of people,
because they opposed his spamming.

1. He thinks --- watches him through his television
2. He thinks all references to mad people, refer to him
3. He thinks all people shouting, are shouting at him.
4. He's been diagnosed as mentally ill, just not a paranoid
schizophrenic.
5. He gives not a ---- about any newsgroups he abuses.
6. He goes through quiet periods, then _very_ nasty periods.
7. All evidence of this great conspiracy is laughable, to say the
least.
8. He gives internet/usenet a bad name to the media. Including
mailbombing Chris Tarrant and faxing various celebrities.

I do not condescend to him. I actually know what he does, and has done
in the past, and am frankly not too respectful of him. He can be openly
referred to as "mad" because he is. Let's check my mailbox saves:

Repost of when I thought I'd seen the last of loopy mike:

>>J.J.Smith@ftel.co.uk (John J Smith) wrote:
>>Actually, I see uk.misc as a source of occasional interesting information,
>>and I like jokes. Some people can laugh, you see.
>>
>>And as for you spams, exactly how much good have they done so far?
>
>Not much. I thought they might, but the realization has arrived that this
>particular avenue of exploration is at a dead end.
>
>WTGROMT (well that's got rid of me then!)

Have you actually visited his web page, and read the massive conspiracy
that is supposed to be against him? Apparently --- watch him, but for
no reason. They do it for a laugh. Because they can. It costs them a lot
of money, but they still do it. Reality is but a memory for this man.

>Anyway I understood the UKMTC members upset Mike Corely , but
>I could be wrong.

Heaven forbid.

Smid
.................................................. .........................
From: burridge@osiris.win-uk.net (Paul Burridge)

In article <33207CAA.1097@sos.bangor.ac.yuk>, David Roberts (oss108@sos.bangor.ac.yuk) writes:
>Derek Tidman wrote:
>
>> Anyway I understood the UKMTC members upset Mike Corely , but
>> I could be wrong.
>
>There was a pitched battle between MC and "the artist formerly
>known as Big Ears" but that was before the UMTC by which time
>MC had seen the light and stopped spamming.

He hadn't seen the light at all. His level of spamming had got to
such outrageous proportions that we had to mount a concerted
attempt to get his account(s) closed. The reason for the lack of
spam lately is that Mike has been furiously swotting up on Law so
he can bring an action as a LIP against the BBC (all solicitors
having quite rightly and honourably declined to act for him). When
this course of action is exhausted without result, I confidently
predict that we will once again be the innocent victims of his ire
and the spamming will commence again.
.................................................. .........................

11990


--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access