Re: Surrogate factoring, update
From: Tom St Denis (tom_at_securescience.net)
Date: 07/15/04
- Next message: Tom St Denis: "Re: Surrogate factoring, update"
- Previous message: Tom St Denis: "Re: Surrogate factoring, update"
- In reply to: Tom St Denis: "Re: Surrogate factoring, update"
- Next in thread: Joe Peschel: "Re: Surrogate factoring, update"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2004 19:42:24 GMT
Tom St Denis wrote:
> <snip>
>
> Let's do some clue hunting for James shall we.
More clue hunting...
If James were Canadian...
He would be guilty of section 298 of the Criminal code of Canada. He has no
such defense as per section 309 since what he is saying is in fact wrong.
That is, James is openly trying to encourage people to show contempt for
myself and others who have legally spoken against him by publishing
statements to the effect that we are breaking the law. Since we are not
breaking the law [hence his action of Libel] and his intended effect is to
garnish contempt he has violated section 298.
Now whether usenet counts as a "publication" is another matter...
But see James, isn't looking things up fun?
Tom
- Next message: Tom St Denis: "Re: Surrogate factoring, update"
- Previous message: Tom St Denis: "Re: Surrogate factoring, update"
- In reply to: Tom St Denis: "Re: Surrogate factoring, update"
- Next in thread: Joe Peschel: "Re: Surrogate factoring, update"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|