posted May 06, 2008 07:51 PM              

Silverstone, Want another note from Linda Goodman? LOL

Maybe the plan has already been put into the works, Silverstone. Does copyright infringement ring a bell with you?

Now that is something that one can sue for. Kathleen McGowan knows that well because she has not one suit against her for plagerism.

Think about it Silverstone and you might even be able to conjure up just exactly who might be the ones around here that end up being sued for real instead of being used as just an attempt at intimdating.

posted May 06, 2008 10:22 PM            

You've been drinking that Marxist Kool-Aid for years, and years, and years and you still are.

posted May 07, 2008 02:56 AM              

quote:

---

Mirandee, all the butt-kissing for the Fab Four aside, you really haven't read much of what's been going on here, have you? You have not mentioned GG at all, so that just tells me that you are here to bring more conflict without knowing what you're talking about. You seemed to have described CE (conflict over Kathleen) and the shoutbox (chit-chat and butt-kissing) to a "T." If not for your unhealthy obsession with thinking someone is someone else (for which you should and probably will be sued), there would have been hardly any activity at all at your "more spiritual" home the past few weeks. If CE claims the moral high ground, they should live it. The rules DO apply to all at LL. GU is given more leeway during the occasional argument due to the nature of the material. And Jwhop only reacts. He is the protagonist. We have several antagonists. Amazing that the antagonists actually think they are the star of the show. Dumbfounding! And yes, it is quite an insult to call military men murderers when we have so many of them (and their spouses) on our Boards. If you are going to become embroiled in our little squabbles, get some of your facts straight, or else just stay over there playing butt-licking games with Daffy Duck. Catch my drift? Harsh? I don't think so. Not harsh enough. I'm tired of you popping up your little head to throw monkey poop on us at every opportunity. Libel is a crime, and I hope you and your merry band of thieves enjoy what is oh so soon coming to you. I know I will.

---

LOL Randall, those whole threads at CE which you claim to be so knowledgable about are all directed at Bibi De Angelo and not Kathleen McGowan.

quote:

---

You seemed to have described CE (conflict over Kathleen) and the shoutbox (chit-chat and butt-kissing) to a "T." If not for your unhealthy obsession with thinking someone is someone else (for which you should and probably will be sued),

---

When you said this you didn't have to mention Bibi's name. Who was I "thinking someone is someone else" about if not Kathleen and Bibi which I clearly identified on the threads you seem uncannily and weirdly familiar with? Mickey Mouse? Incidently you following me around to other forums to see what I am saying and doing is freaking me out. It's kind of weird for a webmaster to do that, you know? It could be seen as stalking.

Okay outside of you admitting on this and other threads that you know everything I say and do on another forum , Randall, this is the gist of things according to law and you can check it out yourself with your lawyer:

In your above post, Randall, you called me a theif. Calling me a thief, is prima facie libel, which is to say that:

1.I am a private person, not a celebrity. Because of that, I would not have to show "malice" on Randall's part to secure a libel verdict. I only need to show that you publicly defamed me.
2. Since I am also identifiable by my real name to web surfers at both web sites, CE and LL, the defamation is against me as a named individual.
3. Unlike libel, which is a civil matter and NOT a crime, theft IS a crime. Randall has accused me of a crime, without there being any proof of the assertion and where the assertion is blatantly untrue. That is libel on its face.
4. Randall has libeled Connie/Mirandee/moonflower- me, plain and simple, and it is an actionable offense.

On the other hand:
1. BiBi is a public person, rather than a private person, by virtue of having posted all those ads for the movie at LL and CE, by virtue of using the name of another public person, Linda Goodman, front and center on her website to promote her own celebrity status, and by virtue of now having posted to her website, for her own publicity, the names of celebrities she has supposedly counseled. I have saved copies of those web pages. Not just the text lifted off but actual "File ... Save as web page." Kathleen McGowan is also a public person, as the author of a controversial book who has participated in book tours promoting the controversy, and by virtue of claiming to be descended from Jesus and Mary Magdelene.
2. Being a public person, rather than a private person, BiBi would have to show that any information or questions I may have posted must not only be defamatory but must also: (a) Be untrue; (b) Be known to me to have been untrue; (c) Have been motivated by malice - which is an extremely tough standard. It is not at all clear that I have posted anything that could be considered defamatory, and beyond that, it certainly appears that anyone would have a very tough time proving the a, b, and c of the above.
3. I have not stated that BiBi and/or Kathleen McGowan committed any crime; unlike Randall, who blatantly accused me of crime.

Not to mention others here on this thread who also have been named as my fellow "band of theives" who have also been publically libeled.

What I am asking for, Randall, is for you to publicly apologize in a posting as prominent to the members of LL as your libelous post on this forum.

Now you can ban me from LL and delete this thread if you choose to do that instead of a public apology that is as prominent to everyone at LL as your post here is accusing me of the crime of theft, but I still have this thread saved page by page. I still have all the evidence saved.

I will fax those pages to my lawyer if I do not get a public apology because I am very tired of your attempts to defame my character on the boards of LL without any evidence to support your accusations, Randall. So is my husband. As I stated, at least in questioning the character of Bibi De Angelo, which as a member I have the right to do under the constitutional right of freedom of speech on a public forum in response to her unsupported and broad claims of who she knows and what she does etc, I did provide the evidence to support my thoughts and what I said. Questioning someone is not the same as outright accusing them as you have done to me and others here on this particular forum, Randall. You accused me outright of being a theif in league with a "band of theives."

Really, I am not just asking for an apology. I am demanding one. You see those ads at the top of your boards, the money from those ads is what I will ask in retribution for you libeling my name, Randall.

Now, Bibi or Kathleen can throw their money away if they choose because I am sure some lawyer would be willing to take that money, but she doesn't have a legal leg to stand on. But I do regarding you, Randall. Check it out and I will await that public apology which will save you a lot of money and trouble in the long run. Because I mean precisely what I say. My lawyer will get paid with your ad money.

Catch my drift? Harsh? I don't think so.

posted May 07, 2008 06:26 AM            

2. It kind of depends on what your definition of "thief" is. And who the merry band is.

3. I see that you can type. Good job. You got that from papers that you were already served, eh?

4. Thank you for showing all of us your true colors.

5. You will get no apology from me. Your threat is freakin' hilarious! Go ahead. I double dog dare you. You've "stolen" much more of my time than I should have given you already. Be gone!

6. Mirandee has left the proverbial building.

NANANANA NANANANA HEY HEY HEY GOOD-BYE!