RS Radford, Pacific Legal Foundation

[William P. Reaves]

RS Radford, Pacific Legal Foundation, wrote:


From: rorik - view profile
Date: Mon, May 8 2006 7:34 am
Email: "rorik" <***@yolo.com>
Groups: alt.religion.asatru
Not yet ratedRating:
show options


Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show
original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author


As usual, it is impossioble to tell whether your ignorant blather is
motivated primarily by stupidity or by malice. In either case, your
repeated, ongoing attacks and slurs on my wife constitute stalking. I
have made two sets of copies of your posts and sent one to your ISP,
asking that your account be closed. I have sent the other copy to the
FBI, asking that you be arrested. Life could finally get interesting
there in the trailer park.

Reply Rate this post: Text for clearing space

[Heidi Graw]

Post by William P. Reaves
From: rorik - view profile
Date: Mon, May 8 2006 7:34 am
Groups: alt.religion.asatru
show options
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show
original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author
As usual, it is impossioble to tell whether your ignorant blather is
motivated primarily by stupidity or by malice. In either case, your
repeated, ongoing attacks and slurs on my wife constitute stalking. I
have made two sets of copies of your posts and sent one to your ISP,
asking that your account be closed. I have sent the other copy to the
FBI, asking that you be arrested. Life could finally get interesting
there in the trailer park.
Reply Rate this post: Text for clearing space

William, I wouldn't mind being kept informed about any developments with
respect to the above. If you wish, you can e-mail me re. any action your
ISP takes or whether or not the FBI contacts you.

Heidi

[rorik]

William Lack-lore, weak of
will, shrinks from skaldcraft.
Hlín-of-necklace Turd-tongue tackles,
trotting fatly from battle.
Ragr by his deeds decried,
dog-Thor slinks from war-field,
hides from Deep-hood, dropping
drawers, the glee-boy flees.



This niðvísa still stands unanswered.


William "Turd-Tongue" Reaves wrote:

[William P. Reaves]

Post by rorik
This niðvísa still stands unanswered.

You call that a niðvísa! Lol! Looks like another pile of your crap to
me.

[William P. Reaves]

The problem is Rorik, while you consider me a worthy enough opponent to
compose so-called nið-vísa, I recognize you for the yapping pup you
are. Hardly worth the energy to shoo you away.

[rorik]

Post by William P. Reaves
The problem is Rorik, while you consider me a worthy enough opponent to
compose so-called nið-vísa, I recognize you for the yapping pup you
are. Hardly worth the energy to shoo you away.

William Lack-lore, weak of
will, shrinks from skaldcraft.
Hlín-of-necklace Turd-tongue tackles,
trotting fatly from battle.
Ragr by his deeds decried,
dog-Thor slinks from war-field,
hides from Deep-hood, dropping
drawers, the glee-boy flees.

This niðvísa still stands unanswered.

[William P. Reaves]

Post by rorik
This niðvísa still stands unanswered

And it will remain so, since it is a violation of your oath to the
gods.

Shoo now. Bad dog.

[Doug Frisk]

Post by rorik
This niðvísa still stands unanswered

And it will remain so, since it is beyond my limited intellect to answer
in kind.

Fixed it for you.

[William P. Reaves]

Post by Doug Frisk
Fixed it for you.

No Doug, you simply changed my words to say what you wanted them to
say. It takes no intellect to write some childish song lyrics and dance
around singing them, urging others to join in. A fool or two always
will.

Do you truly consider that garbage poetry?

I find these words by Rorik, written 5 years ago to be much more
poetic. Careful now, Rorik might report you to your ISP:

1 From: Rorik - view profile
Date: Wed, Apr 18 2001 9:03 am
Email: "Rorik" <***@yolo.com>
Groups: alt.religion.asatru
Not yet ratedRating:
show options


Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show
original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author


ANNOUNCEMENT

For years, William Reaves has been regarded as little more than
Ásatrú's harmless laughingstock. Lately, however, Mr. Reaves'
behavior has taken a more serious turn. Without going into
unnecessary detail, his recent activity includes forging posts and
attributing them to Ásatrúar with whom he disagrees. I have formally

complained to his ISP, but Mr. Reaves is known to post under a
variety of assumed names from free e-mail accounts, so nothing of
substance is likely to come of that.


I have concluded that it is no longer possible for an honorable
person to associate with William Reaves in any way. I have outlawed
Mr. Reaves from the Asatru_Studies list, and by this public
announcement I declare him a niðing to be shunned. From this day
forward I will not address, respond to, or recognize the existence of
William Reaves in any way. So help me Óðinn, Týr, and the almighty
ás.


Rorik


Still no response from Rorik on this, and I've been waiting much
longer.

[Cuauhtla]

"William P. Reaves" <***@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
Rorik wrote:
"For years, William Reaves has been regarded as little more than
Ásatrú's harmless laughingstock. Lately, however, Mr. Reaves'
behavior has taken a more serious turn. Without going into
unnecessary detail, his recent activity includes forging posts and
attributing them to Ásatrúar with whom he disagrees. I have formally
complained to his ISP, but Mr. Reaves is known to post under a
variety of assumed names from free e-mail accounts, so nothing of
substance is likely to come of that."

You forged posts, pretending to be your opponents?

[William P. Reaves]

Post by Cuauhtla
You forged posts, pretending to be your opponents?

Hardly. I simply changed a few words in his response to mock him, as
Doug Frisk did recently here. Rorik is truth-challenged.

As you may know, RS Radford of the Pacific Legal Foundation has a
tendency to exaggerate. Like the time he claimed a short synopsis he
made of a scholarly article was worth $30,000, never mind that he never
sold it, and posted it on a public list. As I said, he was laughed out
of that group after the following post:


Rorik on the worth of his own work:

--- In ***@y..., "rorikradford" <***@y...> wrote:

Are you accusing me of stealing other people's work and posting it as
my own? If so, please state the details for everyone's information.

Drafting and editing the abstract of Lindow's treatment of Baldr's
vengeance which appeared in four installments on Asatru_Studies took
approximately 100 hours of my time, which in the real world would
represent about $30,000. By stealing this work verbatim and posting
it under his own name on the Loonies list, the WLRA's actions are no
different from those of someone who breaks into your garage and
steals your $30,000 car. Do you recognize a distinction between
creating things of value and stealing them? If so, do you attach any
moral significance to that distinction?

regards,
rorik

--- End forwarded message ---



Just like a lawyer to exaggerate the amount of time he worked on
something, then try to fleece his client. For the record, I reposted a
synopsis of Lindow's work. It wasn't clear to me if Rorik had actually
written it, or just strung together a bunch of excerpts from the text.
The authorship of the piece was dubious at best.



Rorik's response, as usual, was to threaten lawsuits. Nothing came of
it. From a man who mocks civility, and swears false oaths to the gods,
what do you expect?


Rorik on civility:

RS Radford of the Pacific Legal Foundation on ***@yahoogroups.com
wrote:

Hey, Karl, you dick! Knock off the slap-crap, shitass! By the way,
this is not being abusive, this is what passes for cordiality in Our
Meadhall. (See your own post #30379.).

As always, he represents his profession well.

[Heidi Graw]

Post by William P. Reaves

Post by Doug Frisk
Fixed it for you.

No Doug, you simply changed my words to say what you wanted them to
say. It takes no intellect to write some childish song lyrics and dance
around singing them, urging others to join in. A fool or two always
will.
Do you truly consider that garbage poetry?
I find these words by Rorik, written 5 years ago to be much more
1 From: Rorik - view profile
Date: Wed, Apr 18 2001 9:03 am
Groups: alt.religion.asatru
show options
ANNOUNCEMENT
For years, William Reaves has been regarded as little more than
Ásatrú's harmless laughingstock. Lately, however, Mr. Reaves'
behavior has taken a more serious turn. Without going into
unnecessary detail, his recent activity includes forging posts and
attributing them to Ásatrúar with whom he disagrees. I have formally
complained to his ISP, but Mr. Reaves is known to post under a
variety of assumed names from free e-mail accounts, so nothing of
substance is likely to come of that.
I have concluded that it is no longer possible for an honorable
person to associate with William Reaves in any way. I have outlawed
Mr. Reaves from the Asatru_Studies list, and by this public
announcement I declare him a niðing to be shunned. From this day
forward I will not address, respond to, or recognize the existence of
William Reaves in any way. So help me Óðinn, Týr, and the almighty
ás.
Rorik
Still no response from Rorik on this, and I've been waiting much
longer.

William, Rorik is a lawyer, the above sounds rather professional to me.
Just when does Rorik's professionalism end? While he's on Usenet, he
waffles between professional and unprofessional. He's a lawyer who is
bound by the s of his profession and he is bound by a code of conduct.
Usenet is a *public* forum. He frequently and regularly communicates with
members of the public. He is supposed to adhere to professional standards
no matter where he is writting things that the public has access to.


Sacramento Bar Association - Standards of Professional Conduct

Section 12

Lawyers shall conduct themselves with clients, opposing counsel, judges,
jurors, parties, and the public in a manner consistent with the high respect
and esteem which they shall have for the courts, the civil and criminal
justice systems, and the legal profession and its members.

Examples - Lawyers shall:

a. When making public communications shall at all times and under all
circumstances reflect appropriate civility, professional integrity, personal
dignity, and respect for the legal system. This rule does not prohibit good
faith, factually based expressions of dissent or criticism made by a lawyer
in public or private discussions having a purpose to motivate improvements
in our legal system or profession.
b. Not make false or misleading statements.

http://www.saccourt.com/geninfo/local_rules/bar.asp


Heidi

[Lilith]

Heidi Graw wrote:
<snip>

... wondering how all this fits into Heidi's "Common courtesy over
chivalry because we don't live in a leetist society" position... one
would think that "professionals" should be held to a similar standard as
"construction workers" under such an egalitarian ethos... apparently
not, though I fail to understand how that ethically works.
Fickle as a weathervane, Heidi, that's what you appear to be.

Post by Heidi Graw
Sacramento Bar Association - Standards of Professional Conduct

Oh!
You appear to have dropped this!
You seem to have real butter-fingers lately, did you burn them or
something? Butter's no good you know, it only spreads the burn deeper. ;)

Here, let me put it back for you;

Post by Heidi Graw
Section 12

COMMUNICATIONS ABOUT THE LEGAL SYSTEM
AND WITH PARTICIPANTS

Post by Heidi Graw
Lawyers shall conduct themselves with clients, opposing counsel, judges,
jurors, parties, and the public in a manner consistent with the high respect
and esteem which they shall have for the courts, the civil and criminal
justice systems, and the legal profession and its members.

<snip>

Context, Heidi, context.
When you screw with the context, you automatically lose because it isn't
addressing the point.

Lilith. (wondering how in the world Heidi could have missed that
heading, all in caps)

Post by Heidi Graw
http://www.saccourt.com/geninfo/local_rules/bar.asp
Heidi

[Heidi Graw]

Post by Lilith
... wondering how all this fits into Heidi's "Common courtesy over
chivalry because we don't live in a leetist society" position... one would
think that "professionals" should be held to a similar standard as
"construction workers" under such an egalitarian ethos... apparently not,
though I fail to understand how that ethically works.
Fickle as a weathervane, Heidi, that's what you appear to be.

Interesting how professionals create professional rules to govern themselves
while trying to work with laws common to all. ;-)

Post by Lilith

Post by Heidi Graw
Sacramento Bar Association - Standards of Professional Conduct

Oh!
You appear to have dropped this!
You seem to have real butter-fingers lately, did you burn them or
something? Butter's no good you know, it only spreads the burn deeper. ;)
Here, let me put it back for you;

Post by Heidi Graw
Section 12

COMMUNICATIONS ABOUT THE LEGAL SYSTEM
AND WITH PARTICIPANTS

Yes, and I am a participant when it comes to the legal system. As a citizen
of the community, I'm actually quite involved in it.

Post by Lilith

Post by Heidi Graw
Quote continues...
Lawyers shall conduct themselves with clients, opposing counsel, judges,
jurors, parties, and the public in a manner consistent with the high respect
and esteem which they shall have for the courts, the civil and criminal
justice systems, and the legal profession and its members.

<snip>
Context, Heidi, context.
When you screw with the context, you automatically lose because it isn't
addressing the point.

I screwed no context. We're all governed by the legal system. We're all
participants one way or another.

Post by Lilith
Lilith. (wondering how in the world Heidi could have missed that heading,
all in caps)

I didn't miss it. I read it and I understood what it means.

So, why'd you snip the rest ... the examples which clarify what is meant by
that header under section 12?

Examples - Lawyers shall:

a. When making public communications shall at all times and under all
circumstances reflect appropriate civility, professional integrity, personal
dignity, and respect for the legal system. This rule does not prohibit good
faith, factually based expressions of dissent or criticism made by a lawyer
in public or private discussions having a purpose to motivate improvements
in our legal system or profession.
b. Not make false or misleading statements.


Pay particular attention to...

*When making _public communications_ shall at _all times_ and under _all
circumstances_ reflect appropriate civility, professional integrity,
personal dignity, and respect for the legal system.*


I suspect you left this out because it's inconvenient to your argument. ;-)

Post by Lilith

Post by Heidi Graw
http://www.saccourt.com/geninfo/local_rules/bar.asp

According to this code of conduct, when a lawyer communicates with a member
of the public, he/she is supposed to at *all times* under *all
circumstances* abide by that code.

You can't tell me that Rorik has actually lived up to it, can you?

Heidi

[Sabine Baer]

On 2006-05-14, Heidi Graw wrote:

[...]

Post by Heidi Graw
According to this code of conduct, when a lawyer communicates with a
member of the public, he/she is supposed to at *all times* under
*all circumstances* abide by that code.
You can't tell me that Rorik has actually lived up to it, can you?

http://www.dtcc.edu/cs/rfc1855.html#3

Netiquette Guidelines

Status of This Memo
This memo provides information for the Internet community. This memo
does not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Distribution of
this memo is unlimited.

[...]
* Assume that individuals speak for themselves, and what they say
does not represent their organization (unless stated explicitly).
[...]

If You as a member of the 'Internet community' are sure to never have
left those Guidelines, well then go on.

Sabine

[Heidi Graw]

Post by Sabine Baer
[...]

Post by Heidi Graw
According to this code of conduct, when a lawyer communicates with a
member of the public, he/she is supposed to at *all times* under
*all circumstances* abide by that code.
You can't tell me that Rorik has actually lived up to it, can you?

http://www.dtcc.edu/cs/rfc1855.html#3
Netiquette Guidelines
Status of This Memo
This memo provides information for the Internet community. This memo
does not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Distribution of
this memo is unlimited.
[...]
* Assume that individuals speak for themselves, and what they say
does not represent their organization (unless stated explicitly).
[...]

Yes, Sabine, Rorik cannot say anything on behalf of the PLF unless he has
been granted permission to do so. He also cannot speak on behalf of the
Sacramento Bar Association unless he has permission from them. He can,
however, speak for himself. He is, however, a lawyer. He is guided by the
Sacramento Code of Conduct for lawyers. As that lawyer, is is obligated to
abide by that code. This code governs *all* communications *anywhere* with
*anyone.*

Post by Sabine Baer
If You as a member of the 'Internet community' are sure to never have
left those Guidelines, well then go on.

I don't speak on behalf of any association I may belong to unless I have
their permission to do so. I'm also self-employed. As for the associations
I do belong to, I'm familiar with their codes of conduct and I do abide by
them. However, if someone believes I'm breaking the law or any of the codes
of conduct for any association I may belong to, they can certainly complain
to those authorities, be that my ISP, my local RCMP, those associations,
etc.

Heidi

[Sabine Baer]

On 2006-05-14, Heidi Graw wrote:

[Netiquette]

Post by Heidi Graw
I don't speak on behalf of any association I may belong to unless I have
their permission to do so. I'm also self-employed. As for the associations
I do belong to, I'm familiar with their codes of conduct and I do abide by
them. However, if someone believes I'm breaking the law or any of the codes
of conduct for any association I may belong to, they can certainly complain
to those authorities, be that my ISP, my local RCMP, those associations,
etc.

You completely missed my point.
I asked _You_ about _Your_ conduct according to the guidelines. Did You
accept that everybody - and so You and Rorik as well - are speaking
for themselves?

Rorik passed the borders of civilised behaviour, he offended You in an
unbeleavable manner, but You - You passed the border to sneaking.

Fordere ihn zum Duell, send him a glove, verpasse ihm eine
Beleidigungsklage, but stop your actions against freedom of usenet,
please.

Sabine

[Heidi Graw]

Post by Sabine Baer

Post by Sabine Baer
[Netiquette]
I don't speak on behalf of any association I may belong to unless I have
their permission to do so. I'm also self-employed. As for the associations
I do belong to, I'm familiar with their codes of conduct and I do abide by
them. However, if someone believes I'm breaking the law or any of the codes
of conduct for any association I may belong to, they can certainly complain
to those authorities, be that my ISP, my local RCMP, those associations,
etc.

You completely missed my point.
I asked _You_ about _Your_ conduct according to the guidelines. Did You
accept that everybody - and so You and Rorik as well - are speaking
for themselves?

Sabine, I don't belong to a professional association. I've not made an oath
to abide by a code of conduct that professionals have created and devised
for themselves. I'm governed by the civil and criminal laws. And if my
conduct offends anyone, they are free to complain about me to anyone they
think is the right authority to complain to.

As to speaking for oneself, since I'm not a professional, I'm not bound to
uphold a professional standard. I can emulate one if I want. But, there's
nothing to hold me to that standard. So, when I speak for myself, I do it
as that non-professional. I'm strictly that amateur, or that ordinary
citizen governed by the laws, rules and regulations as laid out by various
authorities.

Rorik on the other hand is that professional. He's bound by a professional
code of conduct. When he speaks for himself, he speaks as that
professional.

Post by Sabine Baer
Rorik passed the borders of civilised behaviour,

...not just civilised behavior, but professional behavior as well.

Post by Sabine Baer
he offended You in an
unbeleavable manner, but You - You passed the border to sneaking.

What am I sneaking? I think I've been pretty up front with everything. If
had wanted to be sneaky, I would not have told you all about my letter to
the PLF.

Post by Sabine Baer
Fordere ihn zum Duell, send him a glove, verpasse ihm eine
Beleidigungsklage, but stop your actions against freedom of usenet,
please.

Sabine, I'm not going against "freedom of usenet." I don't think it's
actually possible to do that. When it comes to usenet, people will,
however, carve out niches for themselves that may be moderated forums.
Usenet, too, has guidelines about usenet. People can and do have the right
to complain to Internet Service Providers. They can also complain to the
legal authorities, they can also complain to assorted ethics committees
about anyone's conduct.

As for abuse, that's never o.k. *anywhere.* There are various appeals
processes one can make use of. People are free to complain to anyone they
want to, and to anyone who they believe will be most effective to do
something about this abuse.

I'm talking about *abuse*, I'm not talking about curtailing free speech.
People can hold various opinions about all sorts of things. They can
discuss their various views without being abusive and resorting to
harassments.

Heidi

[Sabine Baer]

On 2006-05-14, Heidi Graw wrote:

[...]

Post by Heidi Graw
According to this code of conduct, when a lawyer communicates with a
member of the public, he/she is supposed to at *all times* under
*all circumstances* abide by that code.
You can't tell me that Rorik has actually lived up to it, can you?

http://www.dtcc.edu/cs/rfc1855.html#3

| Netiquette Guidelines
|
| Status of This Memo
| This memo provides information for the Internet community. This memo
| does not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Distribution of
| this memo is unlimited.
|
| [...]
| * Assume that individuals speak for themselves, and what they say
| does not represent their organization (unless stated explicitly).
| [...]

If You as a member of the 'Internet community' are sure to never have
left those Guidelines, well then go on.

Sabine

[Lilith]

Post by Heidi Graw

Post by Lilith
... wondering how all this fits into Heidi's "Common courtesy over
chivalry because we don't live in a leetist society" position... one would
think that "professionals" should be held to a similar standard as
"construction workers" under such an egalitarian ethos... apparently not,
though I fail to understand how that ethically works.
Fickle as a weathervane, Heidi, that's what you appear to be.

Interesting how professionals create professional rules to govern themselves
while trying to work with laws common to all. ;-)

Post by Lilith

Post by Heidi Graw
Sacramento Bar Association - Standards of Professional Conduct

Oh!
You appear to have dropped this!
You seem to have real butter-fingers lately, did you burn them or
something? Butter's no good you know, it only spreads the burn deeper. ;)
Here, let me put it back for you;

Post by Heidi Graw
Section 12

COMMUNICATIONS ABOUT THE LEGAL SYSTEM
AND WITH PARTICIPANTS

Yes, and I am a participant when it comes to the legal system. As a citizen
of the community, I'm actually quite involved in it.

Post by Lilith

Post by Heidi Graw
Quote continues...
Lawyers shall conduct themselves with clients, opposing counsel, judges,
jurors, parties, and the public in a manner consistent with the high respect
and esteem which they shall have for the courts, the civil and criminal
justice systems, and the legal profession and its members.

<snip>
Context, Heidi, context.
When you screw with the context, you automatically lose because it isn't
addressing the point.

I screwed no context. We're all governed by the legal system. We're all
participants one way or another.

Post by Lilith
Lilith. (wondering how in the world Heidi could have missed that heading,
all in caps)

I didn't miss it. I read it and I understood what it means.
So, why'd you snip the rest ... the examples which clarify what is meant by
that header under section 12?
a. When making public communications shall at all times and under all
circumstances reflect appropriate civility, professional integrity, personal
dignity, and respect for the legal system. This rule does not prohibit good
faith, factually based expressions of dissent or criticism made by a lawyer
in public or private discussions having a purpose to motivate improvements
in our legal system or profession.
b. Not make false or misleading statements.
Pay particular attention to...
*When making _public communications_ shall at _all times_ and under _all
circumstances_ reflect appropriate civility, professional integrity,
personal dignity, and respect for the legal system.*
I suspect you left this out because it's inconvenient to your argument. ;-)

Post by Lilith

Post by Heidi Graw
http://www.saccourt.com/geninfo/local_rules/bar.asp

According to this code of conduct, when a lawyer communicates with a member
of the public, he/she is supposed to at *all times* under *all
circumstances* abide by that code.
You can't tell me that Rorik has actually lived up to it, can you?
Heidi

Oh, FFS.
If you can't figure out that the item heading means the item is
specifically talking about "COMMUNICATIONS ABOUT THE LEGAL SYSTEM
AND WITH PARTICIPANTS", and what "ABOUT" and "PARTICIPANTS" is referring
to then all there really is left to say is... gee yer dumb.

I'm done.

Rorik, if I were you I would re-think that time frame... she seems to be
escalating with every day that passes. At the least, her feeding of her
obsession doesn't allow for much let-up.
<shrug>

L.

[Heidi Graw]

Post by Lilith

Post by Heidi Graw
So, why'd you snip the rest ... the examples which clarify what is meant
by that header under section 12?
a. When making public communications shall at all times and under all
circumstances reflect appropriate civility, professional integrity, personal
dignity, and respect for the legal system. This rule does not prohibit good
faith, factually based expressions of dissent or criticism made by a lawyer
in public or private discussions having a purpose to motivate
improvements
in our legal system or profession.
b. Not make false or misleading statements.
Pay particular attention to...
*When making _public communications_ shall at _all times_ and under _all
circumstances_ reflect appropriate civility, professional integrity,
personal dignity, and respect for the legal system.*
I suspect you left this out because it's inconvenient to your argument. ;-)

Post by Heidi Graw
http://www.saccourt.com/geninfo/local_rules/bar.asp

According to this code of conduct, when a lawyer communicates with a
member of the public, he/she is supposed to at *all times* under *all
circumstances* abide by that code.
You can't tell me that Rorik has actually lived up to it, can you?
Heidi

Oh, FFS.
If you can't figure out that the item heading means the item is
specifically talking about "COMMUNICATIONS ABOUT THE LEGAL SYSTEM
AND WITH PARTICIPANTS", and what "ABOUT" and "PARTICIPANTS" is referring
to then all there really is left to say is... gee yer dumb.
I'm done.

Lilith, Rorik is that lawyer. If I criticise Rorik's behavior that he
demonstrates on the Internet, I'm criticising a legal representative...a guy
who is very much involved in legal affairs.

I am participating in the legal system. I'm criticising Rorik's behavior.
I believe his behavior damages the image of the legal profession. This is a
legal issue...professional conduct and whether or not that can be improved.

That section I pointed to is very much applicable to what we're discussing
here.

You may not see it. But I do.

Heidi

[Doug Frisk]

Post by Heidi Graw
You may not see it. But I do.

Heidi, I'll try one more time. When no one else sees the boogey man, it's
quite possible he exists only in your head.

With the exception of little Billy, everyone here has said you've gone over
the top. People who have *no* care about the outcome of your spat are
pointing out that you've gone too far.

[Dirk Bruere]

Post by Heidi Graw
Lilith, Rorik is that lawyer. If I criticise Rorik's behavior that he
demonstrates on the Internet, I'm criticising a legal representative...a guy
who is very much involved in legal affairs.
I am participating in the legal system. I'm criticising Rorik's behavior.
I believe his behavior damages the image of the legal profession. This is a
legal issue...professional conduct and whether or not that can be improved.
That section I pointed to is very much applicable to what we're discussing
here.
You may not see it. But I do.

I think you'll find that the code of conduct applies only to those doing
business with the lawyer. And Rorik will find he has no grounds for
legal action since what you did was patently legal.

Ethical in the wider sense is something else.

FFF
Dirk

[Heidi Graw]

Post by Dirk Bruere

Post by Heidi Graw
Lilith, Rorik is that lawyer. If I criticise Rorik's behavior that he
demonstrates on the Internet, I'm criticising a legal representative...a
guy who is very much involved in legal affairs.
I am participating in the legal system. I'm criticising Rorik's
behavior. I believe his behavior damages the image of the legal
profession. This is a legal issue...professional conduct and whether or
not that can be improved.
That section I pointed to is very much applicable to what we're
discussing here.
You may not see it. But I do.

I think you'll find that the code of conduct applies only to those doing
business with the lawyer.

I believe it extends beyond doing business. It does mention communication
with the public. For example, if the media hounds a lawyer to make a
statement about what the public is interested in, that lawyer has to be
careful how he words things. The media is not in business with that lawyer,
nor is the public. That lawyer cannot make slanderous remarks about anyone
when he's put into such a situation.

So, while some may interpret that section very narrowly, others may
interpret it more liberally. There is an attempt to clarify what is meant
in section 12 of the code via this example:

Examples - Lawyers shall:

a. When making public communications shall at all times and under all
circumstances reflect appropriate civility, professional integrity, personal
dignity, and respect for the legal system. This rule does not prohibit good
faith, factually based expressions of dissent or criticism made by a lawyer
in public or private discussions having a purpose to motivate improvements
in our legal system or profession.
b. Not make false or misleading statements.

Post by Dirk Bruere
And Rorik will find he has no grounds for legal action since what you did
was patently legal.

Oh, I already know that. However, what concerns me is his ongoing,
incessant and repeated false claim that I was harassing and venomously
attacking his wife and that I'm now going after his children. Huh?
Clearly, Rorik has lost it! He keeps on slandering me over and over again
over something I didn't do. Then he ends up writing a sexually harassing
poem about me. He invites people to obtain even filthier stuff about me
through e-mail. And all this merely because I disagree with his wife's
"Under God" advocacy and her career activities can be discussed because she
does have that on-line presense that describes her professional career?
She's "fair game" to be discussed because her activities are described
on-line. I didn't say she was "fair game" to hunt down and harass! Good
grief! And just where does Rorik get this notion I'm searching out his
children? He has definitely gone bananas.

Post by Dirk Bruere
Ethical in the wider sense is something else.

Ethically-wise, Rorik has definitely stepped way over the line. And my
inquiry as to whether or not the PLF has an employee code of conduct for
Internet use is not something that can be construed as harassment. And
neither was it unethical. Rorik's name wasn't even mentioned. I made no
reference to him at all. The PLF also has various offices located all over
the place. It is of *general* interest...a *general* inquiry to be treated
as a *general* concern...nothing more and nothing less.

Anyway, as it is, Rorik can certainly go ahead and persue whatever legal
action he wants to persue. He's already dug into the BC Assessment
Authority's on-line archives to find out stuff about my property. He's
probably also searched out whatever other information is so typically
available to lawyers, but not to the general public. Heck, he probably has
done a credit check on me, plus searched out whether or not I have a
previous criminal record. He probably already knows whether or not I've had
a traffic ticket or two. I'll bet Rorik has been a busy little beaver
digging around for information to try to build up that suit. ;-)

I will, in the meantime, sit and wait until I hear back from the PLF about
that general inquiry I made. And if Rorik presents me with some legal
correspondence, I'll deal with it when the time comes.

Heidi

[rorik]

William Lack-lore, weak of
will, shrinks from skaldcraft.
Hlín-of-necklace Turd-tongue tackles,
trotting fatly from battle.
Ragr by his deeds decried,
dog-Thor slinks from war-field,
hides from Deep-hood, dropping
drawers, the glee-boy flees.

This niðvísa still stands unanswered.

[William P. Reaves]

Post by rorik
This niðvísa still stands unanswered.

Niðvísa? What niðvísa? I have yet to see an authentic niðvísa
posted by you in this forum.

Until you can produce a sword of equal length it would be unfair to
fight you, Rorik, according to your own published rules. Sorry, but
that flimsy little pointer you wield isn't up to the task. Being an
honorable person, I simply cannot allow you to hurt yourself in this
manner. We all know what happened to poor Galinn Grund when he tried
the same approach.


If it's any consolation, you do seem to be "winning" the little game
you like to play. Again, no one is talking about anything remotely
topical. It's all about you, once again.

[Doug Frisk]

Post by William P. Reaves
Niðvísa? What niðvísa? I have yet to see an authentic niðvísa
posted by you in this forum.

Respond or crawl back under your rock.

[William P. Reaves]

Post by Doug Frisk
Respond or crawl back under your rock.

You already have my response.

Besides, there isn't enough room under there with you and Rorik vying
for space.

As a suggestion, you should look up the definition of niðvísa if you
think this pale imitation is even close to the real thing.

It deserves all of the reponse it has gotten thus far, absolutely Ø.

[Doug Frisk]

Post by William P. Reaves

Post by Doug Frisk
Respond or crawl back under your rock.

You already have my response.
Besides, there isn't enough room under there with you and Rorik vying
for space.
As a suggestion, you should look up the definition of niðvísa if you
think this pale imitation is even close to the real thing.
It deserves all of the reponse it has gotten thus far, absolutely Ø.

Other than Heidi, you've alienated yourself from everyone here. Your
"participation" is nothing more than cut and paste "isn't this interesting"
posts and attacks on Rorik. Of course if Rorik responds you throw up the
"you can't respond" / "mom Heidi's on my side of the car seat!" kind of 7
year old defense.