Time: Wed Jul 16 12:39:15 1997
by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id MAA04898;
Wed, 16 Jul 1997 12:36:30 -0700 (MST)
by usr07.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id MAA15338;
Wed, 16 Jul 1997 12:23:48 -0700 (MST)
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 1997 12:23:24 -0700
To: Primenet Abuse Response Team <abuse@primenet.com>
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: "commercial" [sic] e-mail
Cc: <nathan@primenet.com>, <kelseyn@primenet.com>
m>
Dear Andrew Ramsey,
I would like an opportunity to defend myself.
Won't you please give me that opportunity?
Number one: the message which I broadcasted
was NOT an advertisement. I specifically
stated that I have no financial interest whatsoever
in Hewlett Packard, in Circuit City, or any such
company. My purpose was to make people aware,
who might not already know, that there is a machine
which they might want to evaluate. I am sure they
can do their own comparison shopping. So, I must strongly
disagree with the way in which you have characterized
my message as an "advertisement"; it was not. So,
if it is an "advertisement" about which you are complaining,
then your criticism here is unwarranted, and off-the-mark.
I specifically stated, "I have no financial interest
in this message." Did you fail to read that statement?
It is the truth.
Number two: You state that, if you receive any
more complaints about my mailings, my account will
be expired. I hardly think this is fair, particularly
if you intend to expire my account without first
hearing my side of the story. Because of the highly
sensitive nature of most, if not all, of the legal
research which I have prepared and published, most of
it at my own expense, what you are saying, effectively,
is that the slightest complaint, no matter how valid
or invalid, will give you cause to terminate my account,
and that you WILL terminate my account. I protest this,
because it hits me as rather arbitrary and unfair,
particularly if you continue wrongly to characterize my
email as "commercials."
If somebody tells me that you beat your wife, am I
to ostracize you for the rest of your life, without first
checking your side of the story? There are always two sides
to any story, and I offer as proof all the documents
which I have made available to the whole world,
at my own expense, at our website. Please help yourself,
and then decide for yourself, whether or not the "complainers"
might also have a political motive to persuade you
to terminate my account. It sounds as if they are being
rather persuasive, judging from what you have written below.
I refuse to be punished because I type fast, or because I
might tend to be prolific.
Number Three: If I recommend that email users switch from
Juno, say, to Primenet, is that a "commercial," according to your
definition of the term? I have done this on many occasions,
and I have gone out of my way to speak highly of your
excellent technical support. I have not bothered to copy
these compliments to you, because I get the impression that
you are overloaded with email yourself, as I am. Would you
like me to discontinue these recommendations, because they
might be considered as "commercials" by your competition,
or worse, by people who have an unspoken and political
agenda to obstruct the truth about government corruption
in America?
Number Four: I have been saving most of the requests
from press and media contacts to be removed from the
lists of press contacts with which we have been supplied.
I do confess, however, that these requests have not
ranked in my top ten priorities during the past 2 months.
I get around to removing them, and I can prove to you
that I have removed them. If you want proof, then I will
need to receive a written request for same from the
president of your company, and I would need a written
agreement that these documents will not be disclosed
to anyone else in the world, for the sake of privacy,
if nothing else.
Think about these questions, please. I would value a
thoughtful response, much more than a shot from the hip.
I am open to negotiating some sort of short-term arrangement
with you, one which will permit me to submit to you ALL my
complaints about the many ways in which I have been abused
by other Internet users. These complaints will go to much
more serious matters, such as the propagation of outright
lies and defamation of my professional credentials and
motivations. If you terminate my account as you are now
threatening to do, then how will you explain to the world
that such an action was not motivated by the same illegal
purposes which motivate these liars and defamers?
I take this matter rather seriously, and I hope you will do the same.
I am not saying, or even implying, that you would deliberately
lie about me, but if you base decisions upon lies or forward
lies, without knowing that they are lies, then you do just
as much damage to me as if you were inventing lies deliberately.
What exactly IS your policy about defending your customers
against criminal defamation by other Internet users, anyway?
I would really like to know. You seem to get excited rather
quickly about improperly characterizing one message as a
"commercial," but I have yet to hear you complain about
the several Internet users who have descended into criminal
defamation and libel against me. These are not your true
priorities, are they?
Thank you very much for your kind and professional
consideration.
/s/ Paul Mitchell
http://www.supremelaw.com
copy: Nathan Raciborski, Neal Kelsey, Supreme Law School
At 03:49 PM 7/16/97 +0000, you wrote:
>Paul,
>
>This is your absolute final warning. We have been more than lenient and
>forgiving with you in your past mailings because you claimed they were
>news releases meant for press contacts.
>
>However, advertisements about a new computer hardly qualify as a press
>release. This is abuse of our services and a betrayal of the trust and
>willingness to cooperate Jim Lippard and I have extended to you in the
>past.
>
>If we receive any more complaints about your mailings, your account will
>be expired and you will be billed for our time in responding to those
>complaints.
>
>Andrew Ramsey
>Primenet Abuse Response Team
>abuse@primenet.com
>
>
>---------- Forwarded message ----------
> by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id SAA26244;
> Sat, 12 Jul 1997 18:26:07 -0700 (MST)
[206.165.44.21])
> by usr01.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA16697;
> Sat, 12 Jul 1997 17:59:59 -0700 (MST)
>Date: Sat, 12 Jul 1997 17:59:42 -0700
>To: (Recipient list suppressed)
>From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
>Subject: SLF: great new HP computer
>
>[This is a computer technology update from the Supreme Law Firm.]
>
>
>Dear Clients and Friends,
>
>I just took a tour of HP's new home/office computer,
>at Circuit City in Tucson, Arizona state.
>
>Here are some rough specs:
>
>Hewlett Packard Pavilion, Model 8160
>
>* 233MHz Intel Pentium Processor
> with MMX technology, Intel FX
> industry-standard motherboard
>
>* 32MB RAM, 60ns (expandable to 256MB)
>
>* 6GB Hard Drive (Quantum EIDE, FAT32),
> configured as single letter drive ("C:"),
> room for 4 x 6GB = 24GB, separate
> drive letters for each, 8.9ms access time
>
>* 24 max speed CD-ROM (dynamic)
>
>* k56flex DSVD modem (download up to
> 56Kbps/14.4Kbps fax)
>
>* integrated wrist-rest keyboard
>
>* Software included:
> MS Windows 95
> Productivity
> Entertainment
> Education
>
>HP is famous for its terrific integration,
>and excellent customer support. If you are
>looking to buy a modern Windows 95 machine,
>this is one to evaluate very carefully.
>
>I can recommend it highly, and it is also
>very good looking, either on your desk,
>or under your desk.
>
>Price: $2,300. Monitor is extra (get 17").
>By comparison, I paid over $5,000 for my
>first Intel 8088 IBM Personal Computer,
>with 640K of RAM.
>
>A great contact for a competitive quote is:
>
> Chuck Lane
> Sales Counselor
> Circuit City
> 5530 East Broadway
> Tucson 85711/tdc
> ARIZONA STATE
>
> tel: (520) 747-9881
>
>I have known Chuck for about a full year,
>and he is an absolute genius with this technology.
>Have your tape recorder going, if you have the
>good fortune to speak with him directly.
>
>And please tell him I sent you. I have no
>financial interest in this message.
>
>
>/s/ Paul Mitchell
>http://www.supremelaw.com
>
>
>
>========================================================================
>Paul Andrew Mitchell : Counselor at Law, federal witness
>B.A., Political Science, UCLA; M.S., Public Administration, U.C. Irvine
>
>tel: (520) 320-1514: machine; fax: (520) 320-1256: 24-hour/day-night
>email: [address in tool bar] : using Eudora Pro 3.0.3 on 586 CPU
>website: http://www.supremelaw.com : visit the Supreme Law Library now
>ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech, at its best
> Tucson, Arizona state : state zone, not the federal zone
> Postal Zone 85719/tdc : USPS delays first class w/o this
>
>As agents of the Most High, we came here to establish justice. We shall
>not leave, until our mission is accomplished and justice reigns eternal.
>========================================================================
>[This text formatted on-screen in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.]
>
>
>
========================================================================
Paul Andrew Mitchell : Counselor at Law, federal witness
B.A., Political Science, UCLA; M.S., Public Administration, U.C. Irvine
tel: (520) 320-1514: machine; fax: (520) 320-1256: 24-hour/day-night
email: [address in tool bar] : using Eudora Pro 3.0.3 on 586 CPU
website: http://www.supremelaw.com : visit the Supreme Law Library now
ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech, at its best
Tucson, Arizona state : state zone, not the federal zone
Postal Zone 85719/tdc : USPS delays first class w/o this
As agents of the Most High, we came here to establish justice. We shall
not leave, until our mission is accomplished and justice reigns eternal.
========================================================================
[This text formatted on-screen in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.]
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail