another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

[fuzzytomcat]

Guys,  It seems that Glen Lettenmaier's legal team need some time to marshal the facts here.  Perhaps they're not quite as efficient as my own lonely lawyer.  Would that I could afford an entire team to deal with a class action.  Golly.  But then again - one would would have expected an  entire team to assemble some papers more quickly than that?  Surely?  A whole year?  A class team for a class action and it'll take a whole year to get their ducks in a row?  That seems unnecessarily 'extended'.  If that was me I'd be inclined to think that they're not taking me seriously enough.  Frankly I'd sack them.  On the spot.  I'd want to know why I was not being prioritised.   Hopefully Glen will take this advice to heart and find himself some more effective representation.  Perhaps he needs a second team.  After all.  His complaint is profound.  He has appropriated an entire experiment and associated papers as his own property and he needs untold representation to enforce this.  Absolutely.  I see the need. 

Anyway.  I'll keep you posted.  Certainly - to date - we've had nothing other than rather empty threats of action to be taken in a year's time.  Please.  I could be dead by then.  God knows.  I'm already rather old.

Regards,
Rosemary

Rosemary,

I've contacted Stefan earlier with a request and see how enthused you are to "BRING IT ON" so as soon as you can cut and past this to Stefan with your 100% approval, I can move onto your IP Provider. I'm sure if your lawyer has been involved in this kind of thing he would know the steps to take for a suit, but we do have professionals some well known here and all over the place just choose one so to speak. I did make a attached download PDF copy for your attorney.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


----- Original Message -----

From: Glen Lettenmaier
To: Stefan Hartmann
Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2012 10:49 AM
Subject: Libel Case - Rosemary Ainslie

Hi Stefan,

I was asked to get a listing of IP addresses that the Over Unity member Rosemary Ainslie has used to access
the Over Unity web site.

This is required to verify that any and all postings that appeared under the name of Rosemary Ainslie were
actually from Rosemary not someone else through the IP provider.

This is a easy function that is available in the Forum software you use and in use for Over Unity .com on the
internet.

Any other member names using those IP address would also be requested for cross checking the validity of
each name used.

I am only asking this of you to avoid any legal process that would arise to get this information from you, in a
timely manner.

Thank you for your assistance in this matter.

Sincerely,
Glen Lettenmaier

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Rosemary,

I've contacted Stefan earlier with a request and see how enthused you are to "BRING IT ON" so as soon as you can cut and past this to Stefan with your 100% approval, I can move onto your IP Provider.

Hello Glen,
I'm not sure that we're on the same page.  In the first instance I need only prove my identity to those at the service address - and this is well established.  And there is NO way that an IP address has EVER established an identity.  Surely you know that?  I wonder if you're not possibly trying to solicit my IP address for nefarious purposes?  It's not something one usually makes generally available.   And I'd be particularly reluctant to allow you easy access to this.  We all know your earlier Skype boasts where you crashed into certain archives.  It's well known.  We're well aware of your talents in this regard.

I'm sure if your lawyer has been involved in this kind of thing he would know the steps to take for a suit,

Indeed.  LOL  Quite possibly?  One certainly hopes so.   

but we do have professionals some well known here and all over the place just choose one so to speak.

WHAT?  I'm NOT actually able to appoint your own defense team.  Quite apart from which you alleged you already had one.  Some heavyweights?  Not sure.  I certainly got that general impression.  But I can't appoint your lawyers.  Sadly. I think it would be seen as prejudicial.  LOL.  eatenbyagrue - are you reading this?  I would have thought this is somewhat unusual.

I did make a attached download PDF copy for your attorney.

Thank you for this.  At least that service address wasn't wasted.  But I also think we shouldn't be talking to each other.  I've appointed my attorney.  You've appointed your team of attorneys.  And I'm not sure that my attorney will see fit to talk directly to you Glen?  I think we both require more professionalism here.  With respect.  You actually need first to bring an action to bear against me in support of your claimed ownership of our paper and of the 'discovery' related to our circuit.  And I believe you've got a host of miscellaneous quarrels that will involve a 'class action' - as you put it. 

Thank you for your efforts - nonetheless.  They're richly entertaining.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

[TinselKoala]

It seems that this thread of mine has now been appropriated by TK in a 'debunk' replication exercise that falls well short of a 'debunk' or a replication.  Rather inappropriately he is also now desperately appealing to all and sundry to duplicate HIS replication.

LOL.... lie after lie. HERE is the circuit and test I want all and sundry to 'duplicate'. It's going to be kind of difficult though, since the CIRCUIT DIAGRAM SHOWN is NOT the diagram of the device shown.... is it, Rosemary. And wherever will anyone get all those clipleads, and how can anyone be expected to keep them straight?

And whatever are those huge heat sinks for, I wonder.

[fuzzytomcat]

Hello Glen,
I'm not sure that we're on the same page.  In the first instance I need only prove my identity to those at the service address - and this is well established.  And there is NO way that an IP address has EVER established an identity.  Surely you know that?  I wonder if you're not possibly trying to solicit my IP address for nefarious purposes?  It's not something one usually makes generally available.   And I'd be particularly reluctant to allow you easy access to this.  We all know your earlier Skype boasts where you crashed into certain archives.  It's well known.  We're well aware of your talents in this regard.
Indeed.  LOL  Quite possibly?  One certainly hopes so.   
WHAT?  I'm NOT actually able to appoint your own defense team.  Quite apart from which you alleged you already had one.  Some heavyweights?  Not sure.  I certainly got that general impression.  But I can't appoint your lawyers.  Sadly. I think it would be seen as prejudicial.  LOL.  eatenbyagrue - are you reading this?  I would have thought this is somewhat unusual.
Thank you for this.  At least that service address wasn't wasted.  But I also think we shouldn't be talking to each other.  I've appointed my attorney.  You've appointed your team of attorneys.  And I'm not sure that my attorney will see fit to talk directly to you Glen?  I think we both require more professionalism here.  With respect.  You actually need first to bring an action to bear against me in support of your claimed ownership of our paper and of the 'discovery' related to our circuit.  And I believe you've got a host of miscellaneous quarrels that will involve a 'class action' - as you put it. 

Thank you for your efforts - nonetheless.  They're richly entertaining.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

I duly noted "REFUSAL" of request.

Thank You

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Guys - all that's happening here is that Glen is well aware of Harti's reluctance to engage when litigation is being threatened.  It usually results in 'locking' of the thread which is what Glen is actually doing.  And Glen is trying to imply to Harti that this 'class action' of his is likely to engage forum members.  Rest assured.  This action is between him and me.  He has roundly advised us all of his intention to sue me based on the evaluation of the claim that was being assessed as he posted.  I've provided him a service address so that he can manage this rather easily.

This is getting a little bit farcical.  I was at least hoping for some kind of genuine claim to defend.  Else how can I get my apparatus to Court for some kind of evaluation?  That's my ONLY motivation here.  I intend to rather opportunistically produce all that evidence of COP INFINITY.  And hang the consequences of any court rulings against me.

Golly
In any event - as ever
Rosemary