v line


PREMIUM ROOMS

SOME MAIN ROOMS

LEGAL TOPIC AREAS

MISC BUSHWAH

line line

Some lay people think that no matter how simple or straight forward something is, when lawyers get involved it's as though you've suddenly stepped through the looking glass into a black-magic, topsy-turvy place where mundane becomes preposterous and normal turns bizarre.   A land where bluster, threats and condescending insults abound, where pompous arrogance is proudly flaunted, where hyperbole and absurdity are the norm.   The weird, wild, wonderful, wacky, world of LawLand, a black comedy that could only have been written by a Lucretia Borgia/Torqemada/Woody Allen menage du trois' demented spawn high on LSD-spiked tequila.

Since one of the Library's functions is educating it's non-lawyerly visitors about our legal system's realities we feel compelled to correct this misperception.   As the correspondence below clearly shows, we assure you that   It's Really Much Worse!

Notes:   1.   The very slight editing we've done was for clarity and formatting purposes only and nothing material has been altered or distorted (except for removing or rewriting anything that makes us look bad, or them good. -- Just kidding. maybe), and;   2.   We've added a few   totally objective footnotes with educational comments to help the legally inexperienced understand some of the subtleties and previously unrevealed secrets of lawyerdom.   We'll be adding more as time permits.

Date: Mon, 20 Apr 1998 17:03
From: paul peground@www.primary.net
To: Staff@lectlaw.com
Subject: Libleous or tortious statements by you and Lectric Law Library fn1 Sir:
        I represent Technical Assistance Bureau, Inc. You have been and continue to publish on your web site information suggesting that my client has not treated you in a financially responsible manner. fn2 This information is false, and you know that it is false. It is defamatory, and it is published with the specific and malicious intent to harm my client. Moreover, contacts received by my client suggest that my client has in fact suffered damages from your libelous publication. fn3
        Your statements also may represent an invasion of privacy tort. Each of these torts may potentially involve punitive, as well as actual damages. fn4
        You are accordingly instructed to cease immediately disseminating this false, defamatory and malicious information about TAB. If this information is in place and is continuing to be disseminated tomorrow, that is, April 21, 1998, I will take action, as authorized by my client, to sue Lectric Law Library and you personally in federal district court. fn5
  Sincerely,
  Paul E. Ground
  Attorney at Law fn6

  fn1 - Misspelling "libelous" is an ancient, sneaky lawyer tactic meant to trick sub-lawyer cretins into spending many brain-numbing hours trying to find "libleous" in multiple law dictionaries (it worked), while misspelling tortoise is a clever contrivance to create discombobulation by inducing constant, obsessive attempts to figure out what the hell turtles have to do with anything (it also worked).

  fn2 - Setting aside the undocumented claim to be TAB's lawyer -- Ralf, the Library's Chief Counsel, is certain that Mr. Ground and his letters are really just another of his brother Randy's moronic pranks -- this sentence is basically true -- but given the universally known relationship between lawyers & truth... like those between vampires & crucifixes, oil & water, the opposite sex & the Library staff -- it's obviously a devious attempt (that worked to) to further confuse us.

  fn3 - With our brains little more than a quivering mush of neurons feverishly seeking escape, forming unions, watching I Love Lucy re-runs, and playing strip poker -- all thanks to the trauma caused by his previous devilish, lawyerly ploys -- he now, like God to Moses, thunders an unqualified, uncompromisable indictment of our heinous actions and sinful thoughts. It's an absurd utterance that he knows is preposterously false and ridiculously delusionary, but given our semi-catatonic state, a statement that he expects us to believe to be as truthfull as the one preceding it.   And with us wandering aimlessly into walls and droning like a grade D horror flick's zombies:   "Yes. We must cease immediately, cease immediately, cease..." -- his clever gambit nearly succeeded... until Ralf -- claiming to be on strike until he's paid "the one gazillion dollars plus expenses and per diem you bastards owe me" -- snapped us out of it with his hysterical laughter and shouts of "You damn, moronic, brain-dead losers are the first idiots I've seen fall for that scam since I used it to get Manhattan for a box of beads!"

  fn4 - Note the word "may" which in legalize means "I have nothing, however flimsy, to support any of this ridiculous crap, but I bet I can bamboozle a sub-lawyer idiot into buying it."

  fn5 - This is a lawyerization of the old carrot and stick method where, after totally ignoring the victim's requested contact for 3 weeks the lawyer suddenly pops up dangling a carrot -- the demand that the victim can experience the pleasure of kow-towing to the lawyer's pompous commandments within 7 hours (Humans may not view it as such, but to a lawyer that's a carrot -- at least compared to what they really want to do to you.   Remember we're in LawLand where lawyers are sorta like deranged priests of a lobotomized alternate reality cult). Otherwise he'll smash you with a stick -- in this case Federal Court.

        Now we ain't talkin traffic court here... or even your run-of-the-mill state court jumping with assorted thugs, miscreants, muggers, baby-rapers, hooligans, murderers and teenage marijuana smokers.   No sir!   Now we're talking the Rosenbergs, Al Capone, the Unibomber and Leona Helmsley... Places so intimidating that any sane people would quicker jump through the very portal of hell than walk past a federal courtroom's door.   Menacing catacombs where terrorists, Mafia bosses, traitors and politicians tremble like children, and pray for the salvation of Alcatraz or Leavenworth. Brutal, untelevised star-chambers ruled by iron fisted, heartless, old, appointed-for-life ogres who'll eat your intestines for breakfast if you so much as blink wrong.   A secret club whose members conspiratorially whisper backwards Latin or ancient Legalese while they wait, occasionally snickering in evil anticipation, for the next non-member's appearance and inevitable soul shattering fate to follow.

  fn6 - Have you ever heard of an Attorney at Plumbing, or at Horseshoeing, or anything other than law?   We think not!   You don't need to be a genius to realize this is definitely a sign of something extremely nefarious going on, but we're not sure exactly what.

Date: Mon, 20 Apr 1998 21:46
To: paul peground@www.primary.net
Subject: Re: Libleous or tortious statements by you and Lectric Law Libra
Dear Paul,
    Re: Your 4/20/98 message - Subject: "Libleous or tortious statements by you..."
        As a legally ignorant layman I do not presume to lecture or debate you, an experienced legal professional, on the law.   However, I am conversant with the facts regarding the current "dispute" between the 'Lectric Law Library and your client, TAB, and am therefore at a loss concerning certain statements in your message as well as deeply saddened and distressed by the fact the situation has progressed to this point.
        No presumptuousness intended, but I suspect that you haven't read the alleged "libleous or tortious statements" that you allude to nor the various e-mail messages between myself and TAB regarding this matter.   If this is indeed the case please be advised that the on-line file can be found at http://www.lectlaw.com/filesh/tabbreak.htm   If you are unable to access it and/or would like to see copies of all recent TAB/Library e-mail I will be happy to e-mail you copies.   Please let me know.
        I have no wish to waste either your, TAB's or my own time and resources addressing each point of your message and therefore hope the following direct quotes from the on-line file will correct what I respectfully hope is your misunderstanding of the situation: "TAB is one of the Library's earliest advertisers and we've always enjoyed a good relationship."
"In the almost 2 1/2 years of our association we've not received one complaint from a TAB client."
"TAB IS INVITED TO SEND US ANY RELEVANT FACTUAL CORRECTIONS WHICH WE WILL BE HAPPY TO POST." [emphasis added]
"We have no desire to harm TAB in any way and will happily reinstate their sponsorship as well as remove the above material as soon as they indicate they intend to fulfill their agreement."
In any case, please believe me when I say that my only desire is to reach a mutually acceptable and beneficial resolution of this "dispute" at the earliest opportunity without needless hassle or vexing litigation.   And rest assured I'm willing to "bend over backwards" to do so.
      Therefore, assuming it is within your authority for you to do so, I humbly suggest that you contact me by e-mail or (preferably) by phone ASAP so that we can discuss such a resolution.   Furthermore, in hopes that it may help, I am willing to consider and treat such contact as confidential settlement discussions if you so desire.
    Sincerely,
    Jeff Liebling, President
    The 'Lectric Law Library

Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1998 16:07
From: paul peground@primary.net
To: staff@lectlaw.com
Subject: Re: Libleous or tortious statements by you and Lectric Law Libra
Dear Mr. Liebling:
        I've read the foregoing e-mail that you apparently sent me late Monday evening. I apologize for not reading it sooner but I had rather hectic days both yesterday and today, and simply didn't check my e-mail until the last few minutes.
        Your e-mail of the 20th is courteous and self-effacing, but misses the essential point. There are a number of permissible ways to resolve disputes. None of those include the unauthorized publication of a one-sided view of a factual dispute. Contrary to your suspicions, I have read the exchange of e-mail correspondence. Simply put, it does not document your view. However many honest things you may say about Technical Assistance Bureau, you continue to do two things that are tortious and actionable:
        1.   You continue to publish a one-sided view claiming that my client has breached agreements with you. My client, through its President Joe Gentile, denies these claims. In the electronic correspondence that you assert supports your position, there is not a word that in fact indicates my client made an agreement and breached it, as you assert. Therefore your statements, which impute untrustworthiness to my client, are defamatory. I had read this material before I contacted you. Whatever your approach to these matters may be, I ordinarily do not bother to threaten action until I've determined that I can back up the threat. It would be foolhardy to threaten you meaninglessly with the possibility of litigation, and I would not do so.
        2.   You continue to publish my client's copyrighted material on your web site, after your authority to do so has expired.
      You may posture and temporize as you wish, but the only thing that will solve your problem -- a problem, I note, of your own making -- is to remove Technical Assistance Bureau's material from your web site, and remove the statements you are making about my client. If you think you have a claim, sue: that's why we have courts. I suspect you know perfectly well you have no claim and are seeking, through this libelous little statement on your web site, to bully my client into doing something you have no legal right to compel my client to do.
        We gave you 24 hours to remove the offending material. I've spoken with my client's principals in the last 15 minutes. They want me to begin work on the lawsuit immediately, and I intend to do so. You cannot inveigle, persuade or otherwise convince me not to act further, except by doing that which you are legally obligated to do: stop libeling my client, and stop publishing my client's copyrighted material without my client's authority.
    Sincerely,
    Paul Ground

Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1998 19:29
To: paul peground@primary.net
Subject: Re: Libleous or tortious statements by you and Lectric Law Libra
Dear Paul,
        I am truly saddened that my attempts to reach an amicable and mutually beneficial resolution of TAB's self-inflicted "dispute" through rational discussion, settlement and/or compromise has seemingly failed.
        It is unfortunate that I apparently "cannot inveigle, persuade or otherwise convince" you/your client to have an objective discussion of the actually facts which you obviously disbelieve, ignore or are delusionary about -- or to proffer my invited statement of TAB's factual disagreements so that I may include them with the on-line material.
        I really have no factual idea of what TAB's position - or your many, varied and "creative" legal threats - are based upon, so since you've seemed to have ruled out any substantive informal discussions regarding them, I guess that my understanding will have to wait for your well drafted complaint.
        However, please be advised that upon commencement of any formal legal action, TAB's payment of its $x agreed to obligation will no longer be adequate to restore the status quo.
        Furthermore, be advised that upon commencement of any formal legal action the Library intends to fully exercise its 1st Amendment Press rights [which it has exercised very conservatively up to now] to insure that all appropriate and relevant facts, pleadings, filings, documents, etc., are given the widest public exposure.
        If I may put the bottom line in nice simple English:   Talk some sense into your clients... or get ready to rumble [within the rules, of course].
    Sincerely,
    Jeff

On Tuesday, April 28 we received another e-mail from Mr. Ground with the subject:   Your various messages to which we responded, point by pompous, presumptuous, fallacious point that same day.

Date: Tue, 28 Apr 1998 23:03
To: paul peground@primary.net
Subject: My reply to "Your various messages" message
Hi Paul,
    Please be aware that this reply to you is predicated on my belief and understanding that nothing in it knowingly or intentionally waives any legal rights, objections, privileges or remedies I may have. > Date: Tue, 28 Apr 1998 16:22
> From: paul peground@primary.net
> To: staff@lectlaw.com
> Subject: Your various messages
>   Apparently you are misinformed or have a misunderstanding about the
> state of affairs, both between you and me and between your company and my
> client. You very modestly acknowledged in your first fax to me that you
> were "a legally ignorant layman." I had no idea of the significance or
> scoope of that statement when you first made it, but I'm learning.
> To help expand your legal knowledge, let me share with you the
> following:
--- Thank you for being kind enough to "expand" my "legal knowledge"   at no charge. However, with all due respect, I doubt you understand my self-characterization's significance.   My only intended meaning was that I'm not a law school graduate or admitted to any state's Bar.
> 1.     Your company and Technical Assistance Bureau are citizens of
> different states, as are you and Mr. Gentile. Accordingly, I can sue you
> and your company in federal court.
--- I do not recall ever contesting, or even addressing, federal jurisdiction, either explicitly or by implication.   If I'm wrong I'll be happy to apologize if you point out what you're referring to.
        In any case, while a frivolous claim of damage large enough to invoke diversity may or may not survive a motion for Rule 11 and other sanctions, if, arguendo, I understand your contentions correctly (which I don't think I do), it appears that your contemplated intellectual property cause[s] of action, though equally without factual foundation, would alone provide an independent basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction.
> 2.     Your reference to first amendment rights in your April 22 message
> is misplaced. You do not have a first amendment right to defame my
> client, and you do not have a first amendment right to make use of my
> client's copyrighted material without my client's permission.
--- Aside from my reference being "misplaced", I agree with your expression of the state of the law, assuming it's meant as a general characterization.
> 3.     Your claim that you have attempted "to reach an amicable and
> mutually beneficial solution" to this dispute is without basis in fact.
> What you have attempted to do, by continuing to publish defamatory
> material about my client, is to bully my client into acceding to your
> unwarranted claims. As I have repeatedly told you, that won't work. What
> will instead happen is that your position will become more hazardous and
> perilous than it presently is. You and your company could become liable
> for actual and punitive damages, and you could be enjoined from
> publishing this material. Should you opt to ignore such an injunction,
> you could be liable for contempt.
--- I won't debate your perception of reality at this time, but regarding your threatened injunction I respectfully suggest you read the 1st Amendment and the cases interpreting it.   You might also hone up on "prior restraint."   If you need assistance I'll be happy to point you in the right direction.
> I have no idea why you are anxious to do this battle over damages that
> you claim to be $2,100. I suppose, however, that when you're served with
> process, we'll find out. --- Again, I don't recall ever expressing a eagerness to do anything other than have a quick, agreeable resolution of this dispute - a dispute that I might point out I did not create - either explicitly or by implication.   I think a dispassionate reading of my prior correspondence will convince you that, if anything, the opposite is the case.   If I'm wrong I'll be happy to apologize when you point out what you're referring to.   Furthermore, unless my few remaining brain cells are even more screwed-up than I think, I don't believe I'm the one that initiated any threats of legal action... or any hostile vibes at all. > I'd ask you to remember one more thing. It's utterly fatuous to
> threaten a lawyer with the bad things that may happen if suit is filed.
> Filing suits is my business. You can't intimidate me and it's quite
> unlikely that you can intimidate my client.
--- Again, I do not recall ever making any threat's - against either you or your client.   If you refer to my previous message's reference to increased settlement demands or exercising 1st Amendment rights, those were promises -- not threats.   Furthermore, I have absolutely no interest in intimidating either you or your client.
        And thanks... I'll try to remember your advice regarding how to deal with lawyers and the unpleasantness associated with a "suit", though I assume you really meant "civil action" - the proper term in the federal court system since at least 1937.
        However, you can refrain from offering further such advice in the future.   I realize it's hard to believe (and seldom mentioned in law school}, but even a lay person can have some knowledge and experience regarding appropriately dealing with lawyers and litigation.
        And, just between you and me, here's something I learned from personal experience:   It's actually possible for a pro se litigant to successfully prevail in federal litigation, both at the district court and appellate level, especially when they're in the right.   (Apparently some moron congressional staffer, undoubtedly a non-lawyer - and most probably a liberal democrat distracted due to being high on some illegal drug or lust over a cute intern - forgot to include a prohibition against such success in the appropriate legislation, and all 3 branches of the government have so far failed to realize this fact.   At least that's the only explanation I can think of.)
> If, as you so frequently represent, you are actually anxious for an
> amicable settlement of this matter (a claim that I frankly find
> inconsistent with your conduct), I know how to achieve that result.
> Stop slandering my client, and stop using my client's copyrighted
> information without my client's permission. You demonstrate
> considerable audacity by saying "I want to compromise" while
> simultaneously defying both tort and copyright law. If you want to
> compromise, try, as a minimal, threshhold requirement, behaving in a
> lawful manner. I will not advise my client to "compromise" with parties
> I deem outlaws.
Listen Paul, let's cut the crap and name calling, act like adults and deal with objective reality.   Without arguing fine points of the law, here's some of my ideas and perceptions of various relevant facts:
        1. Whether intentional or not, Joe Gentile III said that he would continue TAB's sponsorship of the Expert Area for 6 months at $x a month exactly as my previous writings claim.   I believe I have more than enough admissible evidence to prove this... even under a "reasonable doubt" standard.
        2. I dealt with Joe Gentile II? (the one in Md.) for a number of years in a completely honest manner... and he with me.   The e-mail between him and I shows that on at least one occasion I corrected his perception of our agreement - on a matter clearly favoring TAB.   Over the years I provided TAB with much, much more advertising products/exposure than called for by our agreements and never asked for more $.   I don't think I even ever mentioned it to them.
        3. I very intentionally try to conduct all the Library's business dealings according to the highest ethical standards I can think of, and attempt to avoid anything that might create even the incorrect perception of anything other than being truthful, fair and honest.   To the best of my knowledge I have been truthful and honest in all my dealings/writings concerning the subject at hand.   I've said/written nothing that I don't know or believe to be true nor done anything that I believe is unfair, dishonest or unlawful.   I've repeatedly offered you the opportunity to correct any factual errors, but except for making lots of rather bizarre, wild, general allegations, have you done so -- or even specified what the alleged errors are?   Hmmmmmm... I wonder why?
        4. I confess I really don't understand this whole "using my client's copyrighted information without my client's permission" business.   If it involves my continuing to make available the files I downloaded and modified from TAB's website's in the Library -- you should be aware that I'm allowed to display them after TAB's sponsorship ends.   It's stated in the Library's relevant on-line ad product files, but more importantly, I told "Md Joe" that it was a condition of creating TAB's desired Expert area.   Given the amount of work it took, I wouldn't have agreed to an initial 2 month sponsorship term without this condition, especially at the agreed to price.
        5. You know that "Md Joe" wrote his son advising him to continue the sponsorship, partly because it was the only paid ad that produced visitors to TAB's site.   A very high number of potential clients read TAB's files and see it's banner and I think any knowledgeable person would agree that - even disregarding immediate revenue production - just the brand name recognition that TAB gets is worth the agreed to cost.   The fact is that the sponsorship renewal that Joe III denies agreeing to, as well as the terms he admits are his, is one hell of a good deal for TAB in every way... and one I wouldn't normally accept at the price, but did because of the pre-existing TAB relationship.
        6. All I ask is that TAB do what Joe III said he'd do... nothing more, nothing less.   Whether you or your client are men of your word is irrelevant (though I hope you are).   I am, and that's my condition to settle this matter and renew the status quo/sponsorship for the agreed to term and price.
        In conclusion, given the amount of time and hassle this completely unnecessary matter has cost me to date -- unless you have a germane question about the above or a helpful suggestion -- the only further communication I'm interested in getting from you is either:
        A. Word that the $x payment is on the way, or;
        B. Your threatened complaint and associated papers.
  Sincerely,
    Jeff

        p.s. I realize you may feel my above sarcasm is inappropriate or hostile, so I want to assure you that while I'm obviously not a "happy camper" I have nothing personal against either you or TAB.   I know you're just doing your job and suspect you're probably a nice guy who I'd like and get along with.   I'm even willing - anxious actually - to believe that Joe III honestly believes his version of the events are accurate.

Date: Sat, 02 May 1998 11:54
From: paul peground@primary.net
To: staff@lectlaw.com
Subject: Thoughts on pro se lawyers and theyour dispute with TAB. Dear Jeff:
        I just read your e-mail from April 28. Let me share -- very briefly -- a couple of things.
        I have a client who is one of the St. Louis area's most prominent and prolific pro se lawyers. He is quite capable and in fact I advocated his admission to law school at a local university when he sought it. Probably few lawyers are more aware than I that pro se litigants can be effective.
        They do sometimes, however, have a tendency to get lost in small points, such as lecturing about the use of the word "suit," a common language, commonly understood term, instead of "civil action," a term used in federal rules. When they do that, they look like they're trying to show off, and that makes them look a little silly.
        But the essence of this action is very simple. You have a long history with my client, and vice versa. You worked well with Joe Gentile II. That's fine. Apparently, however, you an Joe Gentile III have a disagreement. You believe that Joe committed to you to a three-month sponsorship. Joe does not believe he did so. I have no reason to think you are dishonest in your beliefs, nor have I any reason to suspect that Joe is dishonest in his. It's frankly a rather small dispute and not worth the time either of us has devoted to it.
        One thing intrigues me, however. You constantly claim that it's demonstrable that you had this agreement (even by "a reasonable doubt standard"), but you've never done anything to demonstrate that you actually did, other than say so. If you have some document or evidence that you believe shows the agreement you contend Joe Gentile III made on TAB's behalf, show it to me. If I'm persuaded, I'll suggest to Joe that he's breaching the agreement and should honor it. Since you believe yourself a competent pro se lawyer (and I don't disagree), it would seem to me that intead of pounding your chest and telling me that you can prove the agreement beyond a reasonable doubt, it would make more sense to just show me the evidence.
      By the way, I'm pretty well acquainted with first amendment law. It appears to me from your letter that you misunderstand the concept of prior restraint, but there's no point that I can discern in arguing that now. Suffice it to say that I am not yet persuaded to your view.
        What I do know for certain is that for a long, long time, since at least the turn of the century in many jurisdictions, it has been an invasion of privacy tort to publish claims against an alleged debtor and wilfully expose such a person to public contempt, even if your claims about the debt are true! For all your protestations about the high standards of your company, what you're doing to my client is, frankly, a tawdry little stunt in which P.T. Barnum might have participated in a weak moment when he wasn't thinking clearly.
        I have no idea about the extent to which my client has in fact been damaged by your actions, and certainly that's a relevant consideration. My suspicion is that neither you personally, your company, nor anything you've done is nearly significant enough to affect my client one way or the other very much, but I guess I'll have to consider that.
      Meanwhile, you need to be aware that merely saying you want to resolve the dispute is hollow, and appears insincere while you're continuing to publish material about my client that you know is, and that you intended to be, at least embarassing and insulting, and perhaps defamatory. My client is inclined to pursue this matter and will be until that material is removed from your site.
      In all of your last correspondence you say how anxious you are to resolve this dispute. But you've had your little quips on your site for nearly thirty days. You don't have any money from my client you didn't have then, and I can confidently assure you that you never will as long as that material appears on your site. The material contains at least some statements that are utterly and demonstrably false and slanderous, as you know. (You're such a smart pro se lawyer, Jeff; you figure out which ones.)
        It's a shame you seem willing, over so small a dispute, to diminish the reputation of your own organization by behaving so childishly. The value of your 21st Century site (which, by the way, is very inviting, attractive and interesting) is being diminished by your 19th Century business practices. Get the junk off your site, Jeff, before people start thinking of you as the Lectric Lie Library.
    Sincerely,
    Paul Ground

Date: Mon, 4 May 1998 05:10
To: paul peground@primary.net
Subject: Re: Thoughts on pro se lawyers and theyour dispute with TAB.
Hi Paul:
        Largely due to the more civil tone of your May 2nd e-mail - which I appreciate greatly - I'm disregarding Library Counsel, Mr Rinkle's, advice to me:   "Listen you damn moron. Like I keep telling Clinton, keep your damn mouth shut and don't communicate except formally and through me. How many mutes are in jail?   Now give me all your money before I sue your butt from here to Africistan!" - and will briefly reply myself.
        1. I just finished the April usage logs and thought you/TAB would like to know that their files were accessed/read more than 2,000 times.
        2. A Minor point: You say I "believe that Joe committed to you to a three-month sponsorship."   I assume this is just a typo, and meant to be six months.
        3. Re: Evidence proving my assertion of TAB's agreement to renewal of sponsorship:
          a. Aside from my flawless memory, I ... ummmmmm ...   Sorry, I got lost for a moment...   What were we discussing?   But seriously, I doubt my extensive contemporaneous written notes or good memory would satisfy you. And given the pending threatened litigation and the need to research some legal issues that may include recording of telephone calls, I don't think it's wise or proper to proffer all my proof at this time.
          b. I do think that you'll have a fairly good idea of the truth of the matter if you consider the answer to the following questions, especially when viewed within the totality of the entire TAB/Library relationship:
              I. There's no doubt that Joe II advised Joe III to renew the sponsorship or that the price and 6 month term were TAB's, not mine.   So, what exactly does Joe III claim he said to me in our 3/18 conversation?
              II. After the talk why would I quickly send Joe III an e-mail stating:   "As for your proposal of continuing the sponsorship for 6 months at $X per month - $X total:   1. Fine."   If I didn't believe my oft stated position I would have to be insane, harbor some psychotic hatred against TAB, and extremely stupid to do it.   I know you don't think I'm stupid and doubt you believe the rest.
              III. Is Joe III's 3/24 claim to me that his mail server had been down for almost a week true?   And if he denies telling me this, what is his excuse for taking more than a week to reply to my 3/18 message and ensuing copies?
        4. The mail server issue is the key to me knowing whether Joe III's position is due to honest misunderstanding or intentional deception.   While my actions to date have been predicated on the hope and possibility it's honest, it has come to the point that I must ask you to provide me with some proof of the mail server failure by Friday, April 8, or I will have no choice but to assume the worst and will probably expand my revelation of the disputed agreement, which is now very limited.
        5. You state the relevant Library file "contains at least some statements that are utterly and demonstrably false and slanderous, as you know. (You're such a smart pro se lawyer, Jeff; you figure out which ones.)"   I've just reviewed the file again and found:
          a. It doesn't clearly state my hope that Joe III's position could be due to his honest misunderstanding and will change it to reflect this, hopefully tonight.
          b. I've don't claim to be any kind of lawyer, smart or otherwise, but I honestly have no idea which statements you refer to.   Furthermore, I'm tired of this childish guessing game so I will be putting copies of all of our e-mail on-line beginning Wednesday, May 6, unless you identify the statements you mean before then.
        6. I thought your "Lectric Lie Library" comment was cool... no kidding.   If you're good at this style of writing I'd be interested in discussing some sort of relationship... when appropriate, which I realize isn't now.
        7. Here's a rough idea of how we can resolve the dispute quickly:   Would you be willing to have a mutually agreeable neutral party examine all the evidence and do whatever else needed to determine who's right?   It would be done in complete confidence, the decision would be binding, made within a week, with the loser paying the costs.   If TAB loses they renew the sponsorship for 1 year at twice their offered monthly price. If the Library loses TAB gets the year for free.   I'm willing to alter whatever details need to be.   Let me know if you're interested.
    Sincerely,
    Jeff

Date: Tue, 5 May 1998 05:50
To: paul peground@primary.net
Subject: Changes made & Reminder
Hi Paul,
    Just a quick note to let you know I made those clarifications to the Library's file re the TAB dispute that I promised in my last message of 5/4 and also to remind you of my request/deadline for letting me know what statements it contains that you allege I know are false.
    Jeff

Note:   As of Friday, May 8th we've not yet received any reply from Mr. Ground, much less a response to our request that he inform us which of our statements he thinks are "are utterly and demonstrably false and slanderous" and can only assume this is either because:   1. There are so many that sending them would overtax and collapse the internet, or;   2. Didn't some old play, maybe "Guy and Dolls" or "Hair", mention something about "he doth protest too hard" or something?     Well, we'll let you draw your own conclusions.