From: Hiram Panguitch <lds@example.ut>
Newsgroups: rec.food.cooking,uk.politics.misc,uk.politics.economics,uk.politics.electoral,can.politics,aus.politics
Subject: Re: Your Friday Night Menu? 10/04/2024
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2024 11:20:21 -0600
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
On 10/10/2024 8:12 PM, Petzl wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Oct 2024 08:10:42 -0600, Hiram Panguitch <lds@example.ut>
> wrote:
>
>>>>
>>> Aus.politics have about 6 users doubt if any cross post outside of
>>> Australia
>>
>> We have an expat Dutch/Auzzie troll here who has infested this group for
>> well over a decade.
>>
>> Bruce <Bruce@invalid.invalid>
>>
>> It seemed apt to return volley on his own turf.
>>
>> Then again the odds he learns to bugger off seem slimmer than a strand
>> of spinifex.
>>
> Sounds like "Dolf"
> The only one I have blocked,
> Every so often threatins me via email of legal action.
> Just reporteed his emails as spam to his provider
> seemed to shut him up for sometime.
> Seems it wants pissoff money, which seems to work in US corrupt
> lawyers/judges. looked up a few of his cases which went to court none
> stood up.
> He is interested in vexatious litigation
>
> AI tells one
> Vexatious litigation is a legal action that is intended to harass or
> cause legal expenses to the defendant, rather than to seek a
> legitimate legal remedy. It can involve filing frivolous lawsuits,
> repeatedly filing meritless motions, or engaging in other tactics to
> delay the process.
> A plaintiff who engages in vexatious litigation either knows or should
> know that there is no legal basis for the lawsuit. The injured party
> can file a claim for malicious prosecution to obtain a remedy.
> Some examples of vexatious litigation include:
> Starting or continuing multiple cases without a lawyer, and losing all
> of them or having them remain pending for at least two years without a
> trial
> Repeatedly relitigating the same claims that were lost against the
> defendant
> Filing unnecessary motions, pleadings, or other papers
> Conducting unnecessary discovery
> In California, the law requires the abuser to provide security to the
> court to pay reasonable expenses related to the vexatious litigation.
> The abuser may choose to withdraw the litigation to avoid losing the
> security payment.
Are you at all familiar with the Charles Novins case?
"Dolf" sounds like an echo of that mess.