You mean John Stark took your phone call? Would you care to share the content?
I see Jenna still hasn't learned to use the word 'libel'. You would think with all of the legal terms she keeps throwing out that she would know the difference between slander and libel. She will really flip when she gets the notice of the TRO. I wonder what the ex-FBI agent thinks about all of this. He was taken off as a Director of her thread on IHUB. I wonder if they are still married? I suspect by next week she will wish there was nothing to the
"BIG LAW SUIT." Will we see a true nervous break down if a class action suit is filed against Jenna, Market Gems, and Pristine?
More rants from the madhouse:
Oh sure.. they think they can fling darts and then HIDE in their cyber obscurity, BUT NOT ANY
LONGER. Many people who have not come forward because they think they have no recourse
but to retreat are going to see there is RECOURSE. I find it extremely audacious on their part
that they think they can get away with anything and claim... "OH MY you are harming me and my
family and my veil of secrecy".. what goes around comes around and the darts will get them. Its
one thing when they have something concrete to back up their slander but they thrive on
innuendo, anticipation of the "BIG LAW SUIT" and there is absolutely nothing. I have 10 cases of
one of the posters here on IHUB and SI who has thrown 'class law suits' on people to intimidate
them when they don't have a clue or have NEVER followed up any of their threats but only live on
the intimidation.. THOSE DAYS ARE OVER.
We are gathering many posters who are coming forward and the amount is incredible, virtually
scores of posters have been intimidated by "class action law suits' and other junk while the
intimidators are high-fiving each other with their victims. There are attorneys that specialize in
INTERNET HARASSMENT. There are precedents and fines all over the country.
Here is a stalking law in California:
Cal. Civil Code § 1708.7
(a) A person is liable for the tort of stalking when the plaintiff proves all of the following
elements of the tort:
(2) "Credible threat" means a verbal or written threat, including that communicated by
means of an electronic communication device, or a threat implied by a pattern of conduct or
a combination of verbal, written, or electronically communicated statements and conduct,
made with the intent and apparent ability to carry out the threat so as to cause the person
who is the target of the threat to reasonably fear for his or her safety or the safety of his or
her immediate family.
(3) "Electronic communication device" includes, but is not limited to, telephones, cellular
telephones, computers, video recorders, fax machines, or pagers. "Electronic
communication" has the same meaning as the term defined in Subsection 12 of Section
2510 of Title 18 of the United States Code. |
