Received: from msgrouter3.onetel.net.uk([212.67.96.134]) (5061 bytes) by veritas.nizkor.org
	via sendmail with P:esmtp/D:dotforward/T:pipe
	(sender:  owner: ) 
	id 
	for ; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 17:13:57 -0500 (EST)
	(Smail-3.2.0.111 2000-Feb-17 #1 built 2000-Jun-23)
Received: from b52.centurione.com (async41-5.nas.onetel.net.uk [212.67.101.41])
	by msgrouter3.onetel.net.uk (Mirapoint)
	with SMTP id AAH09823;
	Thu, 15 Feb 2001 22:16:00 GMT
Message-ID: <004701c0979d$839036a0$296543d4@centurione.com>
From: "david_michael" 
To: 
Subject: Re: "ALL FACTS ... ARE DEEMED ADMITTED."
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 22:20:20 -0000
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300


Kenneth McVay, OBC  wrote in message
news:96hhlu$2v04$1@news.tht.net...
> In article <96hgpv$9s3$1@bob.news.rcn.net>, steve wolk 
wrote:
>
>
> [David Michael's blather]
>
> >global warming.  Why don't you save the planet?  Just shut up and take
legal
> >action.
>
> Indeed. I've met some fine barristers in London, and I'm certain they
> would be happy to represent me. They are not without experience in
> British libel law.
>
> We could then add a substantial amount of information about his past
> to the existing public record, and, of course, post it all to UseNet,
> just as was done during the Irving rout.
>
> I'm certain Mr. Michael would appreciate the publicity. Perhaps he
> could get David Irving to represent him...

Mr McVay

I have already raised the matter with a firm of attorneys in British
Columbia to get a view on the subject from the Canadian end. CGA in York,
Pennsylvania, who specialize inter alia in US Internet law, will give a view
on whether we have grounds to mount an action for malicious prosecution
against Edeiken shortly -- I sent them a batch of stuff just last week and I
think that if he has, as you appear to be claiming, been telling lies about
me in open court then this can only strengthen the case for acting.

I have no objection to you adding information so long as it is fair,
accurate and not likely to expose me or my family to danger (and I have
noted your penchant for publishing addresses and telephone numbers of
revisionist posters, presumably in the hope that they will get firebombed,
as was Grosvenor -- after you published his details). The problem is that
the 'information' you provide about me is consistently and damagingly
inaccurate. You are one of these people who see neo-Nazis everywhere and you
seem to automatically assume that anyone who does not agree with you is one
of them and is, moreover, a criminal. I think that at the moment you are
rather confused about whether you wish your Nizkor site to be an
'educational resource' or a weapon for smearing and defaming people who
express views with which you disagree on the Internet. Plainly, if you are
going to simply pile on smears that can be easily refuted -- such as the
arrant nonsense that I 'conspired' in some way to commit criminal acts --
then the credibility of your site will simply reduce, which can only be a
good thing in the long run. I can assure you with the utmost sincerity that
I have never conspired with Bradbury to commit any illegal act. My e-mail
contacts with him have been quite minimal and innocuous and, as I am sure
that a number of pro-revisionist posters (e.g. McClelland, Carpenter, Ellis)
will be able to tell you, I make it a matter of policy NOT to get involved
with other posters in alt.revisionism by e-mail (except in emergencies).
Indeed, if you look through my Usenet posts, I have spoken out against
unlawful actions.

Whatever the legalities of the matter, I can assure you that no amount of
smearing will cause me to just shut up and go away. I shall simply repeat my
challenge to you to substantiate your allegations. You will not be able to
do so. Others will see this and they will draw their own conclusions about
you.

To summarize:

-- the statements that I am a 'British neo-Nazi' and that I have conspired
to commit illegal acts are false; I have condemned National Socialism in
public and, Edeiken's allegations and Bradbury's failure to contest them
notwithstanding, I have never conspired to commit any unlawful act;
-- I have been given no opportunity to contest your allegations of unlawful
conduct in court;
-- I have already appointed a law firm in PA to look at the possibility of
mounting an action against Edeiken, probably for malicious prosecution; I am
expecting a view on this literally any day;
-- I have today initiated discussions with a Vancouver law firm to consider
your own conduct and what can be done about it;
-- I have publicly challenged you to provide evidence of your allegation
that I have conspired to commit unlawful acts; so far you have been
spectacularly unable to do so. I now repeat my challenge. If you are unable
to meet the challenge, then I suggest that a public apology would be
appropriate although I don't suppose you have the balls for that.

(Dr) David E Michael

Home ·  Site Map ·  What's New? ·  Search Nizkor