On Fri, 9 Mar 2001 13:36:01 -0500, Lee Bell <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>Reef Fish wrote:
>
>> Since you refuse to shut up even though you have been proven to be
>> completely wrong in your FALSE statements about me, easily verifiable
>> in the archives, which you refused to look, I hope you don't think
>> my "subject" (question) on this post is out of line.
>
>I find it very much out of line, just like you found it out of line when
>someone complained to Clemson about you.

I very carefully explained, both in my original post, and in my
reply to Huw why these cases are COMPLETELY different.  Go back and
re-read them.


>Nevertheless, it's in my best
>interest to answer your question.  You asked "Are my IRS TAXES paying for
>this?"  The answer is, No, they are not.

That wasn't my question.

This was my question:

RF> 1.  You work for the US Government, or in a job wholly or partly
RF>     paid for by the US Goverment, as a financial examiner of sorts,
RF>     in Florida.  Is that correct?


>Your post is a threat.  More specifically, it is a threat against an
>official of the United States Government.

Call it a threat if you will.  So you ARE an official of the United
States Government.  My threat was merely that I MIGHT write to your
employeee and complaint about YOUR slandering behavior while you
are supposed to be WORKING in your job.

Even the President of the United State was threatened by citizens
(Paula Jones, remember) for IMPROPER bahavior.

Lee, who the hell do YOU think you are, to make that kind of
reverse threat to me?

>Threatening an official of the
>United States Government is a  crime punishable by fines and/or
>imprisonment
>and the loss of civil rights that goes along with being a convicted.

You are quoting the law OUT OF CONTEXT of course.  That pertains to
entirely different types of threats.  Absolutely and positively
NOT applicable here.  If you're going to pretend that you're
unassailable on IMPROPER CONDUCT on your part, as a member of
the working force for the United States Government, you are much
more naive than I imagined.

I
>chose to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you don't realize the
>severity of what you have done.  Having advised you, however, I won't do so
>again.

I replied to your IDLE threat.  Now go back and answer MY question.
I don't need YOUR advice, on matters of citizen-rights and matters
of law.


>I will retain your post and, should you repeat your mistake or
>proceed further with your threat, I will provide it to those charged
>with enforcing the relevant laws and follow up to ensure that they
>do so to the fullest extent allowable by law.

Well, retain THIS COPY too.  I've made no mistake, and I am repeating
my question and what you considered to be a "threat" in the context
in which my threat is neither physical NOR anything prohibited by
law.

To the extent of your IDLE threat, those who charged with "enforcing
the relevant laws and follow up to ensure they do so to the fullest
extent allowable by law", they best they can do is laugh at your
fact and tell you that there is NOTHING improper in what I posted.

On the other hand, if you want to play that game, I can have lawyers
I can consult regarding public slander by Government Employees while
they are on their Government jobs.


>You have stepped over the line between acceptable and unacceptable behavior
>and the line between legal and illegal.  You are on very shakey moral
>ground and on completely unstable legal ground.  I advise extreme
>caution.
>
>Lee

I couldn't have said it better myself, about YOU.

-- Bob.