As encouraged by Mr. Ranelli, I am posting a copy of a recent series of message exchanges that decry my "intimidation" of others members here at OpEdNews.com.
Mr. Ranelli states, "I... would encourage you to post the entire exchange, in its full and unabridged entirety, in an OEN diary. I have nothing to hide and I am confident that my view is a prevailing view – that you are a disruptive force and engage in willful, slanderous activities, is compelling and when opened up for public scrutiny, I would prevail."
I'll let the messages speak for themselves, although I have removed pertinent personal items from the messages. But I'm genuinely curious as to whether or not Mr. Ranelli's intimidation claims represent the prevailing view of OEN members. For reference, webster.com defines "intimidation" as: "to make timid or fearful : frighten ; especially : to compel or deter by or as if by threats intimidate a witness>," - http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/intimidation .
----------------------
You are a wonder! You threaten legal action, you copy your attorney on your message to me, and yet you will not provide me with your attorney's contact information? And your reasoning is that I "have no official standing or authority"? For all your pompous, ego-inflating invective regarding your legal experience, you fail to practice the basics of law.
You have issued me a cease and desist letter. In that letter, you threaten legal action if I do not stop infringing your works, stalking, libeling, and slandering you. I denied all charges you leveled against me and disagreed directly your assumption for my posting at OEN. You gave conflicting instruction when you said I may reply to your letter but such a reply would be construed by you as a failure to comply with the cease and desist request. No timeline for a response was identified with the only response accepted being my complete acquiescence.
Therefore, I have reasonable apprehension that you will pursue legal action.
In response to this conflicting guidance, I intend to file a petition for a declaratory ruling in civil court on this matter. I reside in... and will file the petition in that state's District Court system. Whether pro se or through legal counsel, you will be compelled to travel to the court to address the petition. In filing this petition, I am requesting both your and your attorney's contact information. Such information is required for pleadings before the court, which is covered under General Rule 1.3-A and 3.2 of the Rules of the District Courts of the State of...
Please provide the requested information to me via the OEN messaging system by 12:00 noon EDT on Monday, October 20, 2008. Failure to do so will result in my processing the ruling with only your name and that of your attorney, addresses unknown, with the exception of your OEN account.
I am also providing a copy of this request to Rob Kall. While there is no legal policy posted on the OEN web site, subsequent court actions may require discoverability to present or frame our respective positions with regard to your charges. While the managing editors may remove my posted content from viewing, such information may not be permanently deleted pursuant to applicable... state law.
Very truly yours,
Thomas J. Murphy
----- Original Message -----
From: Tom Murphy
To: Frank J. Ranelli
Sent: Friday, October 17, 2008 2:46:50 AM
Friday, October 17, 2008
Mr. Murphy,
As your closing statement noted, "I wish I could say it was a pleasure discussing this issue with you but I would be lying", indicates the harassment of my work and me is no longer pleasurable, or, it is no longer fun and games, is it? Actually, it is not in the least, which is why I sent you a message in private, with the hopes of appealing to your senses and clearly articulate, once again, that I am not amused, in any way, by the comments you continue to affix to my work.
Skipping over all the boilerplate legal jargon you assiduously and frivolously noted, in such somber tenor, as a means to demonstrably apply the same tactics you are inaccurately and falsely accusing me of perpetrating, is in effect, by your affirmation, precisely what your clear intent is, and I quote, "intimidating your [me] online presence."
This is the heart of the matter, your incessant intimidation tactics, using a variety of outlandish devices, to intentionally, and with malice, attack my character, my personal integrity, question my intellect, and my motives. My motives are clear and have been incontrovertibly stated numerous times. If in doubt, refer to my voluminous articles, comments, and diaries since my inception at OEN.
Your reading of the law is inconsequential, and I outright reject that I am working from, "[a] decidedly weaker case." Quite the opposite is true and I am prepared, if necessary, to defend vigorously that position with the full force and weight of the law. In my view, you have a myopic view of the law, and it is not limited, in any manner, to the statues you spuriously claim apply. You would be wise to follow your own advice in regard to Sun Tzu's edicts of war and not underestimating you opponent.
In addition, I do not need a reminder from you as to what OEN constitutes, nor do I need a condescending lecture from you. Your voice here has no standing and your obvious bluster is grandstanding bravado, nothing more.
As to any and all requests provided herein, as you have no official standing or authority, are hereby denied. Tom, it is clear that you severely underestimate my abilities, mental acuity, my resources, and most importantly, my background. I will tell you, which is all that is needed for you to understand my seriousness; I have worked as an expert witness and testified in a number of high profile court cases, and I am very comfortable in a courtroom and have a large contingent of legal minds to draw from in this troubling affair, should the need arise.
Nonetheless, In fact, I have made a fulsome attempt to ask, persuade, plea and finally demand that you cease commenting on my work. (See my final publicly stated comment on OEN to you for further assistance.) My "presumed" legal threats were only the last part of a multipoint approach to insist that you stand down and refrain from any additional interaction with me at OEN. Further, to the best of my knowledge, I have never knowingly engaged you first; I have only offered countermands after your unremitting commenting on my articles and work. Therefore, this renders your entire argument, and virtually your entire response mute, impotent, and immaterial.
As to authority, I never made any claims of supreme power or clout, that is your warped perception, and I see no need to address it beyond the fact I asked a logical, lucid question as to, "Why not use your intellect and join a conservative blog or a think tank?" It was a legitimate question, a fair question, and not a demand in any way.
It is interesting to note that, "I [you] have received requests from other 'intellectual thinkers' here not to comment on their works, which I [you] have for the most part respected." This is indeed a fascinating confession, as it proves my point that you in fact, receive requests from others to cease your overbearing comments at the behest of more than just I do. I can only speculate, but you appear to have a messianic mandate to right what you falsely perceive as wrongs, that which, is the opinions and views of liberals, intellectuals, and those who challenge (not even directly, but peripherally) your political agenda, only it is a conservative agenda. You, in fact, have a clear and stated agenda, "I [you] comment to counter what I [you] see as intentional and unintentional misrepresentations by others that appear to have a political agenda." [Emphasis on the final word, "agenda."]
As to the charge of conflict and strife, I stated, "the overwhelming consensus is your sole purpose is to harass liberals". An overwhelming consensus is not absolute; however, it is clearly a super majority of those in charge of the stewardship of OEN, based on extensive conversations with two managing editors and a number of other members. It is clear, to use their own words, you are, "obnoxious", "inflammatory", "[a] petulant child", "a perennial pest," and "whose sole purpose seems to be to harass." And no I will not release their names as I do not have permission to do so and I am obligated to protect their anonymity at this time.
Mr. Murphy, it is clear that you seem to take glee in combative exercises. Your 1,700 plus comments in roughly a year, your hostile and mocking tone toward me, and even this reply of yours suggests an innate need for confrontation. Perhaps, when you stated, "If you spent a couple of years in a combat theater..." this was an outward demonstration of that need for conflict. Only you can answer that in the quietness of your own mind. As for me, I am a conscientious objector and eschew all notions of war and combat. War is never the answer, nor is it a noble endeavor, in my estimation.
As to your threat of "(temptation) to make your [our] message public, I am not dissuaded, and would encourage you to post the entire exchange, in its full and unabridged entirety, in an OEN diary. I have nothing to hide and I am confident that my view is a prevailing view – that you are a disruptive force and engage in willful, slanderous activities, is compelling and when opened up for public scrutiny, I would prevail.
Finally, if you regard my e-mail as too informal of a request to CEASE AND DESIST your unacceptable and unbecoming behavior, and you wish to escalate this to a full-scale legal battle, I am willing to oblige, if necessary. If you somehow find my unequivocal request to CEASE AND DESIST as "confusing to me [you]," then that is a problem you will have to deal with as it is not mine to grapple with presently.
THEREFORE, In the interest of putting this matter to rest without further strife, or undue hardship, your statement, "this is what I am willing to offer you, at present", which pertains to, "requests from other 'intellectual thinkers' here not to comment on their works", will be acceptable provided I have written confirmation from you (an e-mail reply is sufficient) that you will not engage me, make comments directed at me or my work, refer to me in any way, implicitly or explicitly, harassment me, defame my character, or practice any form(s) of intimidation, in or outside of OEN, then this matter will be presumed closed.
There is nothing positive that can come from a continual escalation of this, but I will, if necessary defend my good name and compel you to cease your outrageous and egregious assaults on my good name.
I look forward to an uneventful conclusion to this most unfortunate set of events.
Regards,
Frank J. Ranelli
----- Original Message -----
From: Frank J. Ranelli
To: Tom Murphy
Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2008 9:14:22 PM
Mr. Ranelli,
Where you have elevated this and threatened legal action, which I wholly encourage you to pursue, I respectfully request that you forward to my attention the mailing address and/or e-mail address of Michael..., Attorney-at-Law. I'll presume that this is your legal counsel, although you did not identify him as such. I also respectfully request that you forward a copy of this reply to the identified attorney for his records.
Please note that my quoting of your written works are covered under the "fair use" clause of 17 USC § 107. This section states in part:
"Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright."
Please note the allowances for criticism and comment. While it's certainly within your purview to pursue legal action, be forewarned that you have the decidedly weaker case in asserting your claims of "character assassinations... personal defamation of [your] work, [your] character and [your] personal integrity and good name."
I am tempted to make your message public, Mr. Ranelli to demonstrate how you suppress a dissenting voice – not unlike the very manner which you have claimed this Administration of practicing. I trust you understand that there is no "right to privacy" with such a sent message albeit you expressed a desire for the same?
Here is the limited copyright expectation for authors at OpEdNews.com:
"Our Copyright policy is to only put articles on our website if we have permission. We do NOT copy editorial or news material from major news websites. We provide links to many other websites, and we have articles that we host on our site. One writer friend let us know how offensive it is to have your writing posted on a website without permission. Since most writers are not wealthy, we chose to respect their ownership of their words and ideas."
Submittal at OpEdNews.com presumes you gave the web site permission to post a copyrighted work. As such, it is subject to the "fair use" clause noted previously. Honestly, Mr. Ranelli, your crying "foul" on what I have posted in response to your articles, diary entries, and comments is childish. This is not meant as an insult but as a personal observation of your inability to accept criticism of your posted words.
Let me remind you of what OpEdNews.com represents, as stated by Rob Kall:
"The site is non-partisan but left-leaning. It is left biased and readers should expect to read the site as a left wing site with a left wing perspective. That does not mean it supports only one party. All progressives are welcome."
What authority, then, do you have to assert that I should, "...[U]se [my] intellect and join a conservative blog or a think tank? Some place that would appreciate [my] views; nobody here at OEN does and no one wants to hear them." No one? Once again you are making absolute declarations about me. I have had positive and concurring comments on some of my posts and comments by other members, Mr. Ranelli. This certainly dismisses your claim of "no one". This is your opinion only, which clearly does not align with Mr. Kall's representation detailed previously, and yet you are trying to assert it as finality. It's not.
And please, do not flatter yourself to think that I am obsessing over or stalking you. As I have posted previously, I comment to counter what I see as intentional and unintentional misrepresentations by others that appear to have a political agenda. Yes, I agree your viewpoints are liberal, perhaps even ultraliberal in some respects, but that does not grant you the authority to, "...[E]liminate the Mr. Bybee's of the world whose only reason for joining places like OEN is to create conflict and strife."
You have no[t] proven that Mr. Bybee's or my own only (another absolute) reason in joining OpEdNews.com was to create conflict and cause strife. You have assumed that these are the reasons; you have not provided direct evidence that proves such a paranoid compliant. Please note that such was not my reason for joining, and I have defended myself against the troll charges before and upon multiple occasions. If you seek reasons as to why I post here, then I recommend you read those comments.
As to your discussions with managing editors for the web site, I do not covet my comments. What is here today can easily be gone tomorrow. Perhaps if you spent a couple of years in a combat theater you might actually accept the reality of that statement. If their decision is to ban me from OpEdNews.com and delete my writings, then that is theirs to make and not mine. I cannot control them and I cannot control you. But with your threats, you are clearly trying to control me. And a controlling person is one who is governed typically by their fears, angers, and resentments – definitively non-progressive qualities.
I will, though, send a copy of your message and my reply to Mr. Kall, a managing editor, so that our respective positions are available for his (or other editors) review, if desired or warranted.
I have received requests from other "intellectual thinkers" here not to comment on their works, which I have for the most part respected. However, if they reference me or my works in a post, I will respond which is only fair. This is what I am willing to offer you, at present. What I find fascinating, though, is the elitist way in which you confronted the issue of my intimidating your online presence – by threat of legal action. I respect the other intellectual thinkers far more so because they did not stoop to your tactic; they asked openly and received an open reply for all to monitor and/or enforce.
You did not and that speaks volumes about your character, Mr. Ranelii. And again, this is not an attack but a personal observation. This is a reply to your demand in which you asked several questions of me, which I believe I have answered. Therefore, your illogical statement of, "You may reply back, but any comments, e-mails, or correspondence from you, from this point forward, will be considered as evidence of your failure to cease and desist your outlandish actions against me," cannot be construed as a cease and desist order. It is regarded by me as a personal desire or wish.
Please have your attorney serve me with a formal cease and desist notice so that your intent is logically framed and less confusing to me. I will receive correspondence at the following work address:
Thomas J. Murphy, ...
National Grid - Emergency Planning
...
...
I wish I could say it was a pleasure discussing this issue with you but I would be lying. Again, please forward a copy of this reply to the identified attorney on your message for his records.
Very truly yours,
Thomas J. Murphy
cc: Mr. Michael..., Attorney at Law
Mr. Robert Kall, Editor and Publisher of www.OpEdNews.com
----- Original Message -----
From: Tom Murphy
To: Frank J. Ranelli
Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2008 6:16:34 PM
Mr. Murphy,
This is a private message as it does not belong in public – this is between you and me. Your obsession with me has grown out of hand. The time you take to carefully hunt down my comments and then add your own worthless garbage is the epitome of a stalker. It is plainly obviously that your sole purpose is to cause commotion and disruption at blogs like OEN that are wholly antithetical to your views. You do it to instigate, to be combative, to create conflict and strife. You have no other purpose than to be disruptive with people who utterly disagree with you. Your actions are akin to a belligerent drunk armed with a keyboard instead of a broken beer bottle spoiling for a virtual barroom melee.
There is no plausible or rational reason for you to sit in wait and hijack every thread or article I write except that you like stalking me, as you fear me intellectually and feel the need to challenge me, hoping to crack my equanimity. You won't. It's not going to happen, no matter how many invective, sneering, ridiculing, condescending, smart-ass comments you make directed at me. I will not be baited into another public debate with you. Let me be clear: No matter how much drivel you post, I will not respond to it!
You cannot quash the true purpose of why I write articles or make comments in the first place – to illuminate, educate, and advocate for a better, more progressive America. I do not shy away from my liberal views, and nothing you do will deter me. I am not seeking your approval, and I unreservedly reject any form of conservative views or governance.
Tom, you appear to be an educated man, or claim to be in your OEN bio, even though you dismiss "elitism" and "intellects" all the while acting like an ostentatious elitist. Why not use your intellect and join a conservative blog or a think tank? Some place that would appreciate your views; nobody here at OEN does and no one wants to hear them.
I have already had a lengthy discussion – with two managing editors – and an examination of your more than 1,700 provocative comments along with your obsessing over me and a few other intellectual thinkers. And because the overwhelming consensus is your sole purpose is to harass liberals, they are definitely ready to show them the door. Keep up the stalking and derision and you will have to ply your inflammatory tactics somewhere else.
A final thought, Tom. I am not here for your amusement. I am outright tired of your attempts to reduce me to a punch line and character assassin my work. You may find it comical, but my research work is serious, my life's work and I won't allow you, or anyone else, to mitigate it, belittle it or denounce it. I may blog on the internet, but it is a sideline preview of what I do for a living, and it only gives out a small sampling of the material I develop, write, and have published.
The last public comment I made to you was my vociferous way to tell you that your intrusive interruptions make you an uninvited guest – that it's time to find another way to occupy your time other than being fixated over me.
Now, either you can act like an adult, stop with the blog stalking of me – and inane, insipid, commenting – or I will be forced to take measures that are more aggressive. These include, but are not limited to, an intervention with the entire editorial staff and Rob Kall about your unacceptable behavior and stalking, and, if necessary, a review of your character assassinations with my attorney and to civilly sue you for personal defamation of my work, my character and my personal integrity and good name.
ALL of the information that I publish on the internet, in regards to my work on authoritarian personalities, is subject to copyrights, and therefore, infringement if misused. Hence, you are hereby warned to cease and desist soiling my good name and my professional work.
This is the only and final warning you will receive. You may reply back, but any comments, e-mails, or correspondence from you, from this point forward, will be considered as evidence of your failure to cease and desist your outlandish actions against me.
Regards,
Frank J. Ranelli
Cc. Mr. Michael..., Attorney at Law
