Quoting Joe Baptista <baptista@pccf.net>:

On Sun, 29 Oct 2000 brflgnk@cotse.com wrote:

...

At 05:06 PM 10/29/00 -0500, Joe said:

...

John Palmer is on the right track ..

This is the same John Palmer that once tried to unmoderate all of alt.*. I guess age does bring wisdom.

I don't know - I'll ask.

Actually, that wasn't a question. It's also the same John Palmer who mined UUCP maps and spammed paper junk mail to several thousand sysadmins offering the services of his Rabbit Network (whose logo Kibo once described as the ugliest in history). He was often described as Usenet's Best Bad Example, and was semi-immortalized with his own alt.fan newsgroup. I remember when he first started pushing alternative TLDs and urging people to use "sane" DNS that recognized them. At the time, I dismissed it as more of Mr. Palmer's wackiness. Little did I know that ICANN would rise up as it has, nor did I predict the Open Root Server Project. As I said, age brings wisdom (for all, it seems). You are correct that John Palmer is on the right track. I wish him success in his endeavour.

From: "Bill Stewart" <bill.stewart@pobox.com>

This is also the same Joe Baptista who's not supposed to email or fax the government* of (Ontario, I think?)

Yes, but this is also the Joe Baptista who was served with this: CLAIM 1. The Plaintiff claims: (a) damages for libel in the amount of $500,000.00; (b) damages for malicious falsehood in the amount of $500,000.00; (c) punitive and exemplary damages in the amount of $500,000.00; (d) an interim, interlocutory and final injunction restraining the Defendant from communicating with any person, group of persons, associations or corporations by facsimile transmission, computer facilities, including electronic mail and the "Internet" or in any manner whatsoever except direct individual communication, wherein such communication, either directly or indirectly, refers to or concerns the Plaintiff; (e) costs on a solicitor and client basis; (f) such further and other relief as this Honourable Court deems just. 2. The Plaintiff is and at all material times was the Chief of Police of the City of London Police. 3. The Defendant resides in the City of Toronto and is a self-described: harasser of the police; critic of government; bulk user of government services; and, administrative burden to the police. 4. On or about the 5th day of February, 1995, the Defendant falsely and maliciously wrote and published of and concerning the Plaintiff and of him in the way of his office as Chief of Police to Robert Riley and the public at large by electronic mail over the Internet, the message set out in Schedule "A" attached hereto. 5. On or about June 27th, 1995, the Defendant falsely and maliciously wrote of and concerning the Plaintiff and of him in the way of his office as Chief of Police by letter addressed to the attention of "all concerned citizens" as set out in Schedule "B" hereto. 6. The said letter was published by the Defendant by facsimile transmission to: (a) the police departments of the following municipalities in the Province of Ontario: (i) LaSalle (ii) Durham Region; (iii) Kingston; (iv) Lakefield; (v) Brockville; (vi) Desoronto; (vii) York Region; (viii) Anderdon Township; (ix) Chatham; (x) Niagara Region; (xi) Amherstburg; (xii) Essex; (xiii) Kemptville; (xiv) Sudbury Region; (xv) Lindsay; (xvi) Windsor; (xvii) Gananoque; (xviii) Collingwood; and others not presently known to the Plaintiff; and (b) the following media outlets in the City of London: (i) 6X Radio, Fanshawe College; (ii) CJBK Radio 1290; (iii) CKSL Radio 1410; (iv) CFPL Radio 98; (v) CFPL Television; (vi) The London free Press; and other outlets not presently known to the Plaintiff. 7. At or about the same time, the aforesaid or similar letter was further published electronically by the Defendant to the public at large over the medium of the Internet, a global computer network. 8. On or about the 6th day of July, 1995, the Defendant falsely and maliciously wrote of and concerning the Plaintiff and of him in the way of his office as Chief of Police, as set out in Schedule "C" attached hereto, submissions to the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario, purportedly pursuant to an Inquiry being conducted under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. 9. On or about July 10th, 1995, the Defendant published the document attached as Schedule "C" to all of those parties referred to in paragraph 5 above and others, by facsimile transmission and other means of communication. 10. With respect to the complained of words contained in Schedule "A", the Plaintiff pleads that the defamatory sting is contained within the said communication as a whole and in conjunction with the complained of words contained in Schedules "B" and " c ". 11. With respect to the complained of words contained in Schedule "B", the Plaintiff pleads that the defamatory sting is contained within the said communication as a whole and in conjunction with the complained of words contained in Schedules "A" and "C" but particularly in the following words: (a) "Dr. "; (b) "Attention: all concerned citizens"; (c) "an upcoming inquisition"; (d) "an investigation into the background and activities of Julian Fantino"; (e) "family and employment history"; (f) "known, suspected or rumoured criminal activities"; (g) "known, suspected or rumoured homophobic, sexist, or racist activities (including actions and statements)"; (h) "any other information of a nature that might bring Mr. Fantino into disrepute, and/or before justice". 12. With respect to the complained of words contained in Schedule "C", the Plaintiff pleads that the following words, on their own and in conjunction with the complained of words contained in Schedules "A" and "B", are maliciously false and defamatory of him: (a) "the Information and Privacy Commissioner has been victim to a criminal conspiracy from within the ranks of the London Police Services Board"; (b) "This process is nothing more than the police version of the silent scream. A futile and miscalculated adventure by them to avoid or minimalize prosecution under the Criminal Code of Canada."; (c) "Although the old Chief is a principal in this crime - he has not been a driving force in its application. That honour goes to another who will be later named." (referring to the Plaintiff); (d) "the actions by the various police agencies to the court application only merit consideration as they relate to criminal behaviour"; (e) "this action has only been taken by the police with the intent of avoiding and deflecting criminal responsibility"; (f) "I only present these facts in support of any claims of wrongdoing I herein level against the various irresponsible police authorities as they respect the Commissions inquiry."; (g) "I accuse former chief McCormick and chief Julian Fantino of an offence against authority and public order. Both have conspired to maintain confidences with respect to my criminal activities and as a result have assisted me in achieving my goals ... the police have at all times known and been aware of my criminal activity ... the police abstained from the proper criminal procedures and that said actions were with intent."; (h) "Apart from having his private telephone ... disclosed to me and details of a dysfunctional family life, I was also able to confirmed(sic) Fantino is not altogether a law abiding citizen."; (i) "they (referring to the police and the Plaintiff) have in turn become criminal". 13. The Plaintiff pleads that the words set out in Schedule "A" are defamatory of him and, in their natural and ordinary meaning, meant and were understood to mean and were maliciously written and published by the Defendant to be understood to mean, in and of themselves and in conjunction with the words set out in Schedules "B" and illicit that the Plaintiff is: (a) porcine; (b) greedy; (c) dirty; (d) an annoying person; (e) an unpleasant person; (f) a slovenly person; (g) a slob; (h) a despicable person; (i) a Neanderthal; (j) primitive; (k) unintelligent; (l) aesthetically challenged; (m) intellectually challenged; and (n) prehistoric. 14. The Plaintiff pleads that the complained of words as contained in Schedule "B" and particularized in paragraph 11 above, in their natural and ordinary meaning, meant and were understood to mean and were maliciously written and published by the Defendant to be understood to mean, in and of themselves and in conjunction with the words set out in Schedules "A" and "C" that the Plaintiff: (a) was guilty of wrongdoing and is the subject of an officially sanctioned investigation being conducted by the Defendant; (b) was and is engaged in criminal activity; (c) is homophobic and was and is engaged in homophobic activities; (d) is sexist and was and is engaged in sexist activities; (e) is racist and was and is engaged in racist activities; (f) does engage in and has engaged in disreputable and discreditable activities; (g) has engaged in unlawful activities that should be subject to judicial sanction; (h) has breached his oath and duty as a police officer and Chief of Police; and (i) has not conducted himself as a police officer and Chief of Police in accordance with law, honesty and integrity. 15. The Plaintiff pleads that the complained of words in Schedule "C" hereto, as particularized in paragraph 12 above, in their natural and ordinary meaning, meant and were understood to mean and were maliciously written and published by the Defendant to be understood to mean, in and of themselves and in conjunction with the words set out in Schedules "A" and "B", that the Plaintiff: (a) has contravened the criminal law; (b) is a criminal; (c) has engaged in a criminal conspiracy; (d) has, by a criminal action, victimized the Information and Privacy Commissioner; (e) has breached his public duty as a police officer and Chief of Police; (f) has engaged in civil proceedings involving the Information and Privacy Commissioner in order to subvert the criminal law and/or to prevent exposure and prosecution for his own criminal acts; (g) is a criminal ringleader; (h) is participating in wrongdoing and unlawful activities; (i) has covered up criminal wrongdoing; and is an unfit husband and father. 17. The Plaintiff pleads that the complained of words published by the Defendant were calculated to and did disparage the Plaintiff in his calling as a police officer and Chief of Police. 18. Furthermore, the Plaintiff pleads that the Defendant published the complained of words out of malevolence or spite towards the Plaintiff, 19. By reason of the publication of the complained of words by the Defendant, the Plaintiff has been much injured in his credit and reputation and has been brought into scandal, odium and contempt and has thereby suffered damage. 20. The Defendant intends to continue the publication of the same or similar defamatory charges against the Plaintiff; 21. Further and in the alternative, the Plaintiff pleads that the complained of words set out in Schedules "A", "B" and "C" and as particularized in paragraphs 11, 12 and 13 are untrue, were published with express malice and constitute malicious falsehoods. 22. The Plaintiff pleads and relies upon Section 19 of the Libel & Slander Act, R. S. 0. 1990, Chapter L12 as amended. 23. The Plaintiff proposes that this action be tried at the City of London, in the County of Middlesex. And responded, unsuccessfully, with this: STATEMENT OF DEFENCE AND COUNTERCLAIM 1. The defendant admits the allegations contained in paragraphs 2, 3 and 8 of the statement of claim. 2. The defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraphs 1, 7 (page 3), 5, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 20 and 21 of the statement of claim. 3. The defendant has no knowledge in respect of the allegations contained in paragraphs 6, 7 (page 5), 9 and 19 of the statement of claim. 4. The defendant is the system administrator to planet earth. 5. The defendant is an internet god. 6. The defendant is at war with the government of Canada du jour. 7. The defendant is the government of Canada de facto. 8. The defendant is inquisitor to Alberto Araujo Cunha, sometimes known as Albert Araujo, Albert Cunha, Alberto Cunha, and Alberto Araujo, a priest to the roman catholic order and reformed cocaine dealer. 9. The defendant is inquisitor to Julian Fantino the plaintiff to this action. 10. The defendant by act of war warns this court that it has no jurisdiction in this action. 11. The defendant by inquisition advises the court that limited jurisdiction is granted this court with respect to facilitating the continued inquisition of Julian Fantino a plaintiff to this action. 12. The defendant admits the allegations contained in paragraph 2 of the statement of claim. The defendant has been successfully at war with the government of Canada du jour, and associated entities since April 1993. 13. The defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph 7 (page 3) of the statement of claim. The electronic mail communication set out in Schedule A of the plaintiffs statement of claim is a forged communication which does not comply with network news transfer protocol standards employed by the posting agent at the host server at planet.earth.org. 14. The defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph 5 of the statement of claim. The defendant believes the document set out in schedule B to the plaintiffs statement of claim originated from the ExtraTerrestrial Archives (ETA) an independent agent and archivists to the inquisition of Julian Fantino. The defendant however is unable to verify the ETAs authorship of the stated document since ETA archive access to internet public inquisitors is denied. 15. The defendant further claims that any individual with an internet account may access the necessary documents and files that can reproduce the defendants letterhead and signature in electronic form. 16. The defendant further claims that the document set out in schedule B to the plaintiffs statement of claim is in form and content acceptable to the defendant as a inquisition document. 17. The defendant admits the allegations contained in paragraph 8 of the statement of claim but denies that the submissions made under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario were in any way false or malicious. The defendant further claims that the document set out in schedule C to the plaintiffs statement of claim is not a true copy of the original text published by the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario. 18. The defendant further claims that the plaintiff has contravened the criminal law of Canada, is a criminal and has engaged in a criminal conspiracy with one William McCormick a former police chief to the Metropolitan Toronto Police. 19. The defendant further claims that the plaintiff has engaged in unlawful activities and has breached his public duty as a police officer and Chief of Police. 20. The defendant further claims that as a result of this criminal activity the public and the Information and Privacy Commissioner have been victimized by the plaintiff. 21. The defendant further claims that as a result of this criminal activity government processes and democratic principals have been jeopardized by the plaintiff. 22. The defendant by declaration of war further claims that the criminal behavior exhibited by the plaintiff is good and has served the defendants purposes and goals in destabilizing government structures and systems. 23. The defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 21 of the plaintiffs statement of claim. The defendant did not author the documents contained in schedule A and B to the plaintiffs statement of claim and therefore any reference to these documents in support of any allegation is void and irrelevant. 24. The defendant pleads that he agrees with the interpretation of schedule C to the plaintiffs statement of claim contained in paragraphs 15. (a), 15. (b), 15. (c), 15. (d), 15. (e), 15. (f), 15. (h) and 15. (i). 25. The defendant has no knowledge of the allegation contained in paragraph 15. (g) of the plaintiffs statement of claim. The defendant pleads and believes that the plaintiff does not have the necessary skills or competence to be a criminal ringleader. 26. The defendant has no knowledge of the allegations contained in paragraph 15. (j). 27. The defendant pleads that as inquisitor to Julian Fantino, the defendant has received privileged information concerning the sexual and private activities of the plaintiffs family. 28. The defendant further pleads that this information was discussed at length with the defendants associates. 29. The defendant further pleads that these conversations were private and have not yet been placed on the public record. 30. The defendant further pleads that the plaintiff has unlawfully gained access to transcripts of these conversations. 31. The defendant further pleads the plaintiffs allegations contained in paragraph 15. (j) that he is an unfit husband and father is a reflection not of the plaintiffs interpretation of schedule C but an interpretation of information from transcripts unlawfully obtained. 32. The defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph 18 of the plaintiffs statement of claim. The plaintiff at all times has been manipulated and directed to serve the defendants authority. The defendant further pleads the plaintiff has been instrumental in furthering the defendants objectives. 33. The defendant pleads that he has no malevolence or spite towards the plaintiff. COUNTERCLAIM 34. The defendant claims: (a) damages for libel in the amount of $500,000.00; (b) damages for malicious falsehood in the amount of $500,000.00; (c) punitive and exemplary damages in the amount of $500,000.00; (d) an interim, interlocutory and final injunction restraining the plaintiff from communicating with any person, group of persons, associations, police forces, governments agencies and departments or media in any manner, including individual communication, either directly or indirectly, as it refers to or concerns the defendant; (e) a autographed color picture of the plaintiffs anus; (f) costs on a solicitor and client basis; (g) such further and other relief as this court deems just, or unjust. 35. The defendant is an inquisitor of the order of arcon. 36. The defendant as inquisitor has conducted himself professionally, honestly, with integrity and in keeping with the principals and teachings of the arconian committee of inquisition. 37. The defendant as inquisitor has conducted various aspects of inquisition on behalf of the committee of inquisition: (a) Robert George Spencer, being the investigation and promotion of political activities in fraud; (b) Thomas Clifford, being a report into political activities and crimes against children, inquisition pending due to health of subject; (c) John Eakins, being a report into political activities and crimes against children; (d) Roy McMurtry, being the purchase of the same, inquisition inactive; (e) James Kalan, being the purchase of the same, inquisition terminated due to death by random violence; (f) Sid Balcom, being a report into guardianship and crimes against children, application for inquisition pending the availability of an inquisitor; (g) Marion Boyd, being an investigation and application for inquisition pending the availability of an inquisitor; (h) Alberto Araujo Cunha, inquisition active and pending the investigation of the roman catholic order; (i) Julian Fantino, inquisition active and moved to public forum at the request of the subject. 38. The defendant claims the plaintiff has made wild, insane and malicious accusations against the defendant as an individual and inquisitor. 39. On or about September 1st, 1995 the plaintiff gave an interview to XTRA magazine, set out in schedule A, in which he referred to the defendant as: (a) This is a situation out of control,; (b) The hate mongering, the spreading of propaganda and malicious attacks on the institution of policing.; (c) Its more then societys prepared to take.; (d) I am a victim, am I not.; (e) I have merely incurred his wrath because I have professionally, honestly, with integrity, in keeping with my oath of office, brought to bring some relief to this anarchist movement he promotes - and got in his way.; (f) That suggestion is unfair.; (g) Mr. Baptista is attacking me for what I have done in my capacity as police chief. 40. On or about September 1st, 1995, Dianne Haskett, mayor to the city of London, in the county of Middlesex, did also give an interview to XTRA magazine in which she said of the defendant: (a) I believe other action would of been more effective.; (b) We have heard a lot about threatening communications made by Mr. Baptista.; (c) I think they should be explored to see if they violate the Criminal Code.; (d) To try to curtail someones access to the internet goes beyond what we are capable of, even in this lawsuit.; (e) This is something not even the computer community agrees you can do. 41. The defendant pleads that the plaintiff, and individuals associated and under the direction of the plaintiff, have with purpose and malice given interviews to various press and media persons with the intention of harming and damaging the defendants reputation. 42. The defendant pleads that the plaintiff has used his office as chief of police to the city of London, in the county of Middlesex to cause hatred and harm towards the defendant through hate mongering and the spreading of malicious propaganda. 43. The defendant pleads that the complained of words contained in schedule A are maliciously false and defamatory of him. 44. The defendant pleads that the plaintiff is a disgrace to his office and profession. 45. The defendant proposes that this action be tried before a jury at the city of London, in the county of Middlesex. Date: September 12th, 1995 Dr. Joe Baptista Inquisitor to Julian Fantino

On Sun, 29 Oct 2000, Bill Stewart wrote:

At 07:41 PM 10/29/00 -0500, brflgnk@cotse.com wrote:

...

At 05:06 PM 10/29/00 -0500, Joe said:

...

John Palmer is on the right track ..

This is the same John Palmer that once tried to unmoderate all of alt.*. I guess age does bring wisdom.

This is also the same Joe Baptista who's not supposed to email or fax the government* of (Ontario, I think?)

Actually no - that's not the case. The fax thing is part of legend - or fame whatever, right. I used to fax the government of ontario via my own designed fax balasting facilities. This was before the advent of email, which I find more effecient. Although fax is more expensive for government. I used to cost them about $5,000,000 $CAN per year in fax stationary costs. But email is more efficient. I recently emailed the entire US govenment expressing my concerns to the civil servants over the US govenment action on domains (ICANN). That went over well. I also emailed all of the egyptian government over ICANN and president mubarek ended up standing them up (he was going to speak at the opeining meeting). Now - the only court order I am under is from Judge Edmond Brown of London. I am under a gag order to not discuss the abuse of children in fort lauderdale florida and cornwall ontario, including the government coverup involved nor can I reveal the names of the senior law officers involved both in the abuse of children and in conceilment and destruction of the evidence. Up here in Canada it's OK to fuck children as yonge as 8 - provided your part of the establishment. So that's about it for that.

because he used to contact _all_ of them when they (collectively) did or failed to do something that they need to be told to do or not do or do differently or whatever.

No - you might be getting that confused with the Dr. baptista's Freedom Of Information campaign which resulted in an overhaul of the entire FOIR system in Ontario. That one cost my governments in excess of 500 million $CND, so they decided to stream line the system - and now our FOIR commissioner practices interior decore in her offices. The commissioner who was the senior FOIR officer under my campaign ended up adjudicating tribunals for used car sales. A great way to end ones carrer. For the longest time he disappeared, and we though he was dead. You know politicians will kill each other if necessary. If blackmail don't work ... etc.

Apparently the Canadian equivalent to "needs killing" is "needs faxing".... and they weren't prepared to deal with that.

were a very civil society. but canadians have been bombing politicians recently (and for the last five years). So who knows what's going to happen. There's only so much those poor canuks can get pissed on before they hang their prime minister.

[*I'm using "government" in the US sense, which includes everybody in the civil service working for them, rather than the British sense, which refers to the top office-holders in the ruling party, (US-speak "The Administration".) I'm not sure which term Canada tends to use. ]

the cabnet ?? me thinks.

Thanks! Bill Bill Stewart, bill.stewart@pobox.com PGP Fingerprint D454 E202 CBC8 40BF 3C85 B884 0ABE 4639

-- Joe Baptista http://www.dot.god/ dot.GOD Hostmaster +1 (805) 753-8697