Aussie spammer sues anti-spammer in world-first case

Rachel Lebihan, ZDNet Australia

30 May 2002 06:10 PM

Tags: caube, troy rollo, t3 direct, spam, spammer, reynolds, sue, blacklist

An alleged Australian spammer is suing an anti-spam advocate after being blacklisted by a spam prevention Web site, in what is believed to be a first of its kind case worldwide and one that could end up -bigger than Ben Hur", according to a source close to the proceedings.

Perth-based T3 Direct is seeking compensation of AU$43,750 from Joseph McNichol, whom it alleges caused the company to be blacklisted on the spews.org Web site.

Blacklist sites distribute lists of Internet Protocol (IP) addresses online that are believed to be involved in spamming activities, enabling end users to block traffic from such IP addresses.

Because other blacklist sites have been sued and shut down, SPEWS - Spam Prevention Early Warning System - operates in secret, with no listed contact details. It is a not-for-profit organisation.

A writ of summons was filed against McNichol on May 24, upon receipt of which he was given 10 days to confirm his awareness of the charges.

"It's only the second spam-related lawsuit in Australia and the first of its kind worldwide," said Troy Rollo of the Coalition against Unsolicited Bulk E-mail. "It's the first time someone has gone and sued someone else just for saying they are a spammer."

T3 is seeking loss and damages of AU$14,000 for replacing blocked or compromised IP numbers, $4,750 for labour costs of technicians to establish an alternative e-mail system, $5,000 to purchase a new server computer and $20,000 for loss of income it claims to have incurred over a 20-day waiting period for a new Internet connection to be installed.

Rollo, who claims some of the damages being sought by T3 Direct are -clearly not justified based on the pleadings of the case", is in the midst of establishing a Web site for the case from which a legal defence fund will be set up for McNichol.

Jeremy Malcolm, an independent Perth-based solicitor who specialises in IT law and is representing McNichol, said he wouldn't be putting in a defence straight away and would be applying for a summary judgement in the hopes of not having to go to trial.

Malcolm described the statement of claim against his client as a -fairly weak claim...brought about to intimidate a critic of T3 Direct".

-We will defend it as strongly as we can."

Mark Reynolds, president of Western Australia Internet Association, claimed it had received many complaints about T3 Direct over the years.

In response to -many, many complaints this year about spam", Reynolds said the Association is working on a policy derived in consultation with its members that will enable it to recommend to its members -- 60 ISPs in WA -- what they should do in regards to spam. As the WA Internet Association owns and operates WA-based exchanges -which most ISPs exchange information on for a low cost", Reynolds said the ultimate aim was to -enforce its spam policies for users of that network" and if ISPs chose to ignore the Association's policy -deny them use of the network".

Reynolds also said it was the first case of its kind he had heard of. -It's the first time a known spam organisation is suing an end user who made public complaints about receiving spam." Reynolds added that as overseas anti-spam organisations had already got wind of the proceeding, -it could end up bigger than Ben Hur".

McNichols aired his view on his Web site www.vtgts.com/auspam.htm

T3 Direct's legal representatives, Perth-based Tan and Tan Solicitors, did not return ZDNet Australia's calls by press time.

Talkback (42)
Print
E-mail
Share
- del.icio.us
- Digg
- Reddit
- Slashdot
- StumbleUpon

Talkback 42 comments

Add your opinion

Spammers are internet leeches, stealing both our time and resources. If they win it will be a sad day for the online community.Anonymous -- 30/05/02

Spammers are internet leeches, stealing both our time and resources. If they win it will be a sad day for the online community.

In regards to your story and link ... http://www.zdnet.com.au/newstech/communications/story/0,2000024993,20265640,00.htm SPEWS � Spam Prevention Early Warning System � "operates in secret, with no listed contact details. It is a Anonymous -- 31/05/02

In regards to your story and link ...
http://www.zdnet.com.au/newstech/communications/story/0,2000024993,20265640,00.htm

SPEWS � Spam Prevention Early Warning System �
"operates in secret, with no listed contact details. It is a not-for-profit organization. "

PLEASE READ AND POST:

Don't you believe that one either!.

To wit:

SPEWS is defined as a Racketeering Organization. A (RICO ACT) as reviewed by our attorney at Venable.com pending litigation in Federal Courts.The REAL SPEW on the SPEWS.ORG, is that they are Russian Based, hidden, secretive racketeering firm, without rules or members that can hardly be called an "Organization". On several occasions after having attempted to make contact with spews, we have been solicited to pay $10,000.00 dollars to John Olivier at hosting.com and Joseph McNichol, Joe Jared and many others as well. Spews is accountable to none and yet they have caused damage to ATT, SPRINT, AOL, RR, QWEST and many others and yet they are afraid to blacklist UUNET. SPEWS is directed associated with ALLEGIANCE TELECOM and Hosting.com via John Olivier as the former administrator that ran their domain name servers.

SPEWS.ORG is a LIE in itself!

Get the picture yet?
Spews is a Blackmail Rico Criminal Org and that is a fact!

I will say only one thing, On a recent talkback on this topic, Peter Schroebel has called SPEWS a RICO organization. Wrong! SPEWS is protected in the United States under First Amendment. It merely publishes a blocking listlist and a gAnonymous -- 31/05/02

I will say only one thing, On a recent talkback on this topic, Peter Schroebel has called SPEWS a RICO organization.

Wrong!

SPEWS is protected in the United States under First Amendment. It merely publishes a blocking listlist and a great number of ISP's around the world have chosen to use SPEWS to block spammers off the network. This has caused a great reduction in spam in many SPEWS-filtered ISPs, therefore saving costs.

Peter Schroebel is also a spammer himself.
See Peter Schroebel's listing here:
http://www.spews.org/html/S348.html

I would not believe a word that Mr. Schroebel says himself because he is pro-spam.

Clifton Sharp's article has eloquently stated that spam is on the rise, and offers an alternative thoughts of UCE.
http://www.clifto.com/8345.html

Hawkeye-X

First off, I would like to correct Mr. Rollo's statement that this is the first case worldwide in which someone has been sued for calling someone else a "spammer." In fact, in 2000, one Andrew Brunner of Pennsylvania sued a California couple foRob Mitchell -- 31/05/02

First off, I would like to correct Mr. Rollo's statement that this is the first case worldwide in which someone has been sued for calling someone else a "spammer." In fact, in 2000, one Andrew Brunner of Pennsylvania sued a California couple for this very thing, although a few other issues were involved as well.

He lost the case.

I will conclude by quoting part of an article I have just posted to the Usenet newsgroup news.admin.net-abuse.email in response to Mr. Schroebel's commentary in this Talkback section.

**********

I note again, as I did yesterday, that my dictionary defines "racketeer"
as "one engaged in an illegal business." I have just left a message with
an attorney friend of mine (one who is most definitely bonafide) asking
him to get back to me with the most common legal definition of the term.
I'm suspecting, however, that it may not be terribly different from the
one in the dictionary. As far as the definition I've given, it seems to
me to mean that the business itself which the "racketeer" is engaged in
must itself be specifically against the law, as in selling illegal drugs,
etc. I have yet to see convincing citations of the "business" itself of
SPEWS being specifically illegal, & in fact, I am not sure that what SPEWS
does could properly be called a "business," since the organization has not
been proven to make monetary profit for what it does. That in itself may
seriously undermine the "racketeering" argument. I have, however, seen a
number of quite unconvincing (& in some cases, downright implausible)
citations of laws SPEWS has supposedly "broken." Mr. Scelson gave several
of these examples the other day, most of which I believe I successfully
dispensed with yesterday. And of course, one of the various assertions we
see here all too often is that SPEWS has committed "libel." But although
I can recall a few of the evidence files which seemed perhaps a bit
questionable, the vast majority of them seem to not contain much of
anything which is provably false, & some listings which have seemed
incorrect have been corrected or removed quickly.

On the other hand, I've seen several SPEWS detractors not hesitate for a
moment to commit unquestionable libel, or what is very likely libel,
either of SPEWS itself or of other entities. We had that Supernews troll
a few weeks ago who used the spews.org domain in its From address a few
times, who in at least 2 articles suggested that my ISP, txucom.net,
should be blocked for "sending kiddie porn," even though Google searches
on the keywords "porn txucom" & "pornography txucom" return no matches for
any publicly reported porn spam from TXU in the entire archives. Last
week, Bud Schneehagen claimed that he personally was being "libelled" by
SPEWS, even though it could plainly be seen that the exact evidence file
he was referring to did not mention him at all. This week, Mr. Scelson
quite clearly accused Spamcop of "impersonating an officer," even though
nothing on the site contains anything remotely like a claim of affiliation
with any law enforcement agency, & it seems rather that it would be
blindingly apparent to anyone with even a moderate amount of common sense
that "Spamcop" is merely a slightly tongue-in-cheek name for a private
entity which helps to "enforce" anti-spam values; & also Mr. Scelson
seemed to imply that one or more of the anti-spam organizations he named
interfered with "freedom of religion," a claim for which I have never seen
the most meager shred of evidence.

Now we have Mr. Schroebel in the latest of what appears to be sadly
deluded & desperate rants, claiming that "we" (apparently meaning himself
& unnamed individuals) have been solicited to pay a considerable monetary
amount to Mr. Oliver, Mr. McNicol, & Mr. Jared. Solicited by whom he, not
surprisingly, does not say. While I am willing to entertain the
possibility that some person might have wanted to play a nasty little j

Hmmm, the whole thing didn't seem to post. Here's the rest of it. ********** While I am willing to entertain the possibility that some person might have wanted to play a nasty little joke on Mr. Schroebel & send him suchRob Mitchell -- 31/05/02

Hmmm, the whole thing didn't seem to post. Here's the rest of it.

**********

While I am willing to entertain the
possibility that some person might have wanted to play a nasty little joke
on Mr. Schroebel & send him such a "solicitation" without the prior
knowledge & consent of the parties who were supposed to benefit from it,
this claim ranks rather low on my plausibility meter. In fact, if Mr.
Schroebel never names the party from whom this solicitation came, I doubt
I'll ever give it any credibility at all.

Then of course we come to the racketeering claim, which to my mind comes
even closer to provable libel, for the reasons I have given above.

It is ironic that some of the most vocal detractors of SPEWS et al do not
seem to hesitate in the slightest to commit some of the same acts of which
they claim the anti-spam organizations are guilty. This smacks of extreme
desperation to me.

Rob

SPEWS is protected . . . that is a joke, correct? "SPEWS is protected in the United States under First Amendment. It merely publishes a blocking listlist and a great number of ISP's around the world have chosen to use SPEWS to block spammeAnonymous -- 31/05/02

SPEWS is protected . . . that is a joke, correct?

"SPEWS is protected in the United States under First Amendment. It merely publishes a blocking listlist and a great number of ISP's around the world have chosen to use SPEWS to block spammers off the network. This has caused a great reduction in spam in many SPEWS-filtered ISPs, therefore saving costs."

To wit:

SPEWS is not protected as they use their purported data for extortion and the majority of said data is fraudulent at best. Since it has been raised . . . I am not pro-spam and I am not a spammer but, I am guilty of making a few anti's angry and my so-called record is simply an Alice-in-wonderland, fictional story composed by a few choice anti-spammers and, is many years old and with all issues long since resolved.
Yet there it stands, without reference or foundation of any factual basis.

Russian Organizations are Not protected under the United States First Amendment.

Secretive and Illegal Organizations such as SPEWS are excluded from the First Amendment

SPEWS can not speak without fear of retaliation or they would do so! Prove me wrong and name SPEWS members including, full name, addresses and telephone numbers . .
RIGHT HERE AND NOW, I CALL YOUR BLUFF!

Quoting Mr. Joe Jared, the creator of the software that uses the spews database. Mr. Jared said, " that he had many online meeting with SPEWS", " that SPEWS reads but, does not write". When asked if SPEWS does not write, then how did the database get written? Mr. Joe Jared replied with " I don't understand" which happens to be his favorite answer to any question.

I am quite used the attacks of the psychotics that dwell within the user group that calls themselves NANAE.
I am also quite aware the anyone that was respectable within that group has long since departed and that even google is no longer retaining their archives.

If anyone has any doubt about the nature of SPEWS, then simply use your browser and go to the search engine known as http://www.google.com and search on SPEWS. You will be amazed at the magnitude of the problem and the brutal treatment that the recipients of their attacks are forced to endure in a feeble attempt to get removed from the SPEWS fabricated database base.

SPEW is like HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION GONE MAD

But after all is said and done . . . We have out-lived many other ISP's, grown everyday and remain profitable. In addition we pay Google over $20,000.00 a month, I wonder how much money your psychotic anti's put in the market. The internet is not free and those that thought it should be are not in business anymore.

-P.Schroebel

Hmm..., www.spews.org sounds good to me. Hopefully this will stop all the Powerselling SPAM that we have been receiving.Anonymous -- 31/05/02

Hmm..., www.spews.org sounds good to me. Hopefully this will stop all the Powerselling SPAM
that we have been receiving.

What the people of Australia need to realize is that blocking spammers and spam friendly companies has become not only necessary, but quite common. Much of Australia's IP space is close enough to that of China and Korea that virtually all of the country iAnonymous -- 31/05/02

What the people of Australia need to realize is that blocking spammers and spam friendly companies has become not only necessary, but quite common. Much of Australia's IP space is close enough to that of China and Korea that virtually all of the country is already blocked by some simply because it's easier to block the whole pacific rim than to have a thousand different entries for specific companies. When spammers like Petey get away with intimidating people into allowing their abuse, it only hurts everyone. It would be a real shame if all of Australia's connections suffered even further for the benefit of one habitual abuser.

Petey is blowing smoke, and it's uncertian what he's smoking. Spews is indeed protected in civilized nations as spews is only a list of IPs which it's publishers have chosen to refuse email from. It's nothing more than that. Others use the list because they trust spews. That trust has been earned over time by spews' vigilant focus on accuracy.

Hey, who gives a fig about who spews.com or anyone else is - or what protection they may or may not get in the US? Spam is inherently evil and spammers are the ultimate parasites who do not deserve space on the planet. Spam is the most pernicious thAnonymous -- 31/05/02

Hey, who gives a fig about who spews.com or anyone else is - or what protection they may or may not get in the US?
Spam is inherently evil and spammers are the ultimate parasites who do not deserve space on the planet. Spam is the most pernicious threat to the long-term viability of the Internet and we as individuals, or as businesses, as an industry, governments, everyone, must take whatever action is necessary to destroy this scourge and punish the perpetrators.

Peter Schroebel claims that: "On several occasions after having attempted to make contact with spews, we have been solicited to pay $10,000.00 dollars to John Olivier at hosting.com and Joseph McNichol, Joe Jared and many others as well.&quAnonymous -- 31/05/02

Peter Schroebel claims that:

"On several occasions after having attempted to make contact with spews, we have been solicited to pay $10,000.00 dollars to John Olivier at hosting.com and Joseph McNichol, Joe Jared and many others as well."

This is another blatant Schroebel lie and I say if he has proof of anyone attempting to extort him he should post it AND contact law enforcement.

The only people who *may* have solicited Schroebel for any amount of money would be hookers.

He won't because he has only his warped fantasies to offer as proof.

A simple Google search should help you to determine for yourselves if Schroebel has even a shred of credibility.

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=+%22peter+schroebel%22&hl=en&lr=&sa=G&scoring=d

Wow Pete. You're foaming at the mouth. You should go see your vet about that. It's no wonder that due to your rantings, inability to tell factual tales, and vivid imagination that you lost the ICANN election. Perhaps next time you let your naAnonymous -- 31/05/02

Wow Pete. You're foaming at the mouth. You should go see your vet about that.

It's no wonder that due to your rantings, inability to tell factual tales, and vivid imagination that you lost the ICANN election. Perhaps next time you let your name stand, you'll do so with Prozac and a tinfoil cap.

Shiksaa (FULL NAME) Notice how all the psychotic anti's can't use their real name? Fullname: Shiksaa (typical) Location: Earth (sure you are) Occupation: Exposer of spammers' lies Comments: >This isAnonymous -- 31/05/02

Shiksaa (FULL NAME)

Notice how all the psychotic anti's can't use their real name?
Fullname: Shiksaa (typical)
Location: Earth (sure you are)
Occupation: Exposer of spammers' lies
Comments:

>This is another blatant Schroebel lie and I say >if he has proof of anyone attempting to extort >him he should post it AND contact law >enforcement.

In process and I only took that advice after you tried to shake me down, when you wanted to be paid to remove that make believe information you entered.

>The only people who *may* have solicited >Schroebel for any amount of money would be >hookers.

But that would be you Susan (Shiksaa) and I am very happy you admitted to eveyone that you are a hooker as I would have never brought it up nor even mentioned it.

>He won't because he has only his warped >fantasies to offer as proof.

I have my proof and we are pursuing . Have your attorney call ours, oh but then you have no name.

>A simple Google search should help you to >determine for yourselves if Schroebel has even a >shred of credibility.

Susan, you have no credibility as you don't even have a name. Only liars and hookers need to hide their identity. Unfortunately you have made yourself fit both categories.

As I said:

I am also quite aware the anyone that was respectable within that google group has long since departed and that even google is no longer retaining their archives.

Prove that I am wrong about anything, try stating your full name.

P.Schroebel

In reponse to Mr. James - "That trust has been earned over time by spews vigilant focus on accuracy." Oh sure, give me a break, just go to google.com, groups, news.admin.net-abuse.email and see all the innocent people begging to get ouAnonymous -- 31/05/02

In reponse to Mr. James - "That trust has been earned over time by spews vigilant focus on accuracy."

Oh sure, give me a break, just go to google.com, groups, news.admin.net-abuse.email and see all the innocent people begging to get out of spews.
A typical response would be "Your nothing but collateral damage and subhuman at best simply by being here". This would be uncharacteristically polite by the spews group.

What I see is a tiny clique of people without a life, trying to feel important, like Barney Fife. Not only that, they sound like Barney Fife.

A person only needs to read the comments toward Mr. Schroebel to get a picture of the type of person most are.

Sadly, they bite and there is no Andy to put them in their place. Bet they cause isp's and businesses more headache and money than the terrible, low life, scumball spammers
they are trying to stamp out. I say get rid of them both and the net will be a much better place.

Wrong again Peter! Of course we need to try to hide from spammers. Allowing our details to display here is tantamount to becoming a target for every spammer on earth. Every time we complain, or try to unsubscribe from a spammer's list, our detaAnonymous -- 31/05/02

Wrong again Peter!

Of course we need to try to hide from spammers. Allowing our details to display here is tantamount to becoming a target for every spammer on earth. Every time we complain, or try to unsubscribe from a spammer's list, our details are passed on to the Spammer's Hit-list - or so the spammers assure us when the next flood of crap starts to overwhelm us.

You see, spammers don't have any morals at all.

"You see, spammers don't have any morals at all." Looks like the pot is calling the kettle black again. Like the spews group is so moral in their dealings. Come on you can do better than that.Anonymous -- 31/05/02

"You see, spammers don't have any morals at all."

Looks like the pot is calling the kettle black again. Like the spews group is so moral in their dealings. Come on you can do better than that.

Taking a reasonable stance in the Spam rants is akin to trying to talk marketing to the Linux fanatics :-)......... I've been burnt in both areas, however when good men remain silent,that's all it takes......... The main concern for people such as mej rigby -- 31/05/02

Taking a reasonable stance in the Spam rants is akin to trying to talk marketing to the Linux fanatics :-)......... I've been burnt in both areas, however when good men remain silent,that's all it takes.........
The main concern for people such as me, is our experience with fanatics in other times and places, and the lure of "spamcop" "power" is a very great one for extreme leftists, just as the lure of totally free mail-bombing is to the hustler.

But overall, I fear the fanatic far more than I fear the simple immoral. I have had experience with more than one of these "moral guardians" and been forced to react against their intimidation.
Luckily, for the most part they were not very competent people or they would have had real jobs and be busy earning the vast(!) sums good Sysops can in the real world. :-)
Some of them electronically - as we've seen here - cybernetically foam at the mouth at any suggestion that they haven't a God-given right to interfere with *your* mail coming to *you*. Whether you or I want it or not, is *OUR* decision, not some self-appointed uncontrolled,anonymous person, or little group.
______________________________________
THAT is the crux of the whole area for intelligent discussion.
_____________________________________

I do not want some unknown and to me, socially suspicious person usurping my rights in any way shape or form.
There *are* many good folk and true in the anti-spam movement, but so far, my personal and several friends experiences with most are far more reminiscent of Stalin's Russia.

The ultimate point is simple:
What the Spammers do is legal. Note the word: LEGAL.
THAT is how we conduct ourselves in what's left of the civilised world.

Thinking people everywhere will applaud this Court Case, because it requires proof of cause.
Someone is lying.

It also offers the only real way for our civilised system to decide openly what we want to do about it. Simply: Make it illegal, or make it uneconomic.
Kilneth's paper 4 years ago accurately forecast this problem and this simple solution.

Yes, we all hate spam, only the spammer doesn't, but it is not SPEW or any of the other organisations, clandestine or not, right, to interfere with the passage of information between us sorta free citizens!
If the people in these Spamcop operations are sincere, they will stop interfering and simply offer education to enquirers. Tell them about the filters freely available *and* free, out there, that solve the spam problem on the User level far more effectively than they can with their tactics.

Spend their time canvassing for support to have the laws changed, or lobbying ISP's for all email to be charged for at the "Kilneth Rate" of $10 per 10,000 and spam would go away, it would simply no longer be economic. Easy?

T3 will surely loose! Everybody is free to use a blacklist, and SPEWS is just providing the blocks form sleazeball ISP's. ANYBODY can choose to block incoming e-mail from those ISP's. T3 should sue the ISP's who are using those blacklists: and loose time Anonymous -- 31/05/02

T3 will surely loose! Everybody is free to use a blacklist, and SPEWS is just providing the blocks form sleazeball ISP's. ANYBODY can choose to block incoming e-mail from those ISP's. T3 should sue the ISP's who are using those blacklists: and loose time and money.

Wow, this Peter guy sounds like a real dyed-in-the-wool frothing stark-raving-mad loon. No wonder why people don't want to respond to spammers, when they act like that.Anonymous -- 31/05/02

Wow, this Peter guy sounds like a real dyed-in-the-wool frothing stark-raving-mad loon. No wonder why people don't want to respond to spammers, when they act like that.

Spammer sucks. I hate them very much.Anonymous -- 31/05/02

Spammer sucks.
I hate them very much.

what is that j Rigby going on about? If spammers have a legal right to spam, fine. But then anti-spammers have a legal right to block it and complain about it when third rate communications companies provide support - and Telstra has one of theAnonymous -- 31/05/02

what is that j Rigby going on about?

If spammers have a legal right to spam, fine. But then anti-spammers have a legal right to block it and complain about it when third rate communications companies provide support - and Telstra has one of the worst reputations in the world for spamming, alongside Sprint, ATT, Verio and WorldCom.

But spam *will* be banned worldwide and soon. Why? cos if every company in the world thinks it has the right to send unsolicited emails to whomsoever it sees fit, then email will become completely unusable.

Anyway, the case is based entirely on BS. SPEWS doesn't do requests - more's the pity - it is based entirely on spam sent to addresses that spammers scraped off of web pages and usenet etcetera.

And what is that $5000 for a new server??? cos they got their IPs blocked? err, why?

Peter Schroebel, like most spammers, wants to claim that SPEWS is evil and that its factual content is not entitled to the protection provided to it by the First Amendment to the US Constitution, but yet spammers consistently claim that their own spewage Anonymous -- 01/06/02

Peter Schroebel, like most spammers, wants to claim that SPEWS is evil and that its factual content is not entitled to the protection provided to it by the First Amendment to the US Constitution, but yet spammers consistently claim that their own spewage should be so protected.

Does this eem like an inconsistent stand? It should. Free speech is about the right of any individual to inform others of what has been discovered and ought to be brought to light, by *publishing* that information where it can be found by anyone who wishes to find it. This is precisely what SPEWS does. Free speech is *not* about graffiti, and courts have found on more than one occasion that spam, due to its nature as a medium in which the *receiver* must pay for the delivery, is more akin to graffiti than to the junk mail to which the spammers would like us to compare it.

Spam is not driven by the desire to engage in free speech, it's entirely motivated by the opportunity to shift the cost of advertising from the advertiser to the target. Spammers rely on the fact that the Internet's core design was based around the idea of trust, and they exploit, abuse and betray that trust in ways that were never envisioned by the originators in their wildest nightmares. The Internet was designed in part to be a medium by which the messages involved in communication would be easily and speedily delivered; the original assumption (which the spam problem has proven false) was that the email system would only be available to, and used by, those who could be trusted to use it appropriately. Spamming is not considered an appropriate use of the internet by anyone but the spammers; to the rest of the world, it's anathema, and its practitioners are regarded as no better than the bill pasters whose work defiles walls around the world.

Spammers regularly hijack machines that do not belong to them, they consistently send messages with misleading subjects and content, they acquire addresses using means that are far worse than merely questionable, they falsely state that they will take your name off their mailing list upon request, often in the same message in which they say that the spam is a one-time mailing, and they even sell lists of "verified" addresses which include precisely those addresses that were given to them as part of a list removal request. Furthermore, the majority of spam is delivered by means that are chosen specifically to disguise the actual origin of the message so that the sender's Internet access won't be terminated. These are not the actions of an ethical trade, and spammers engage in them continually.

Peter Schroebel supports and encourages spamming. Peter Scroebel has a publicly visible record of not only refusing to take action against spammers operating from his network, but of actively denigrating the efforts of others to keep his clients from polluting the e-mail boxes of people who have never expressed any desire for such traffic.

Draw your own conclusions.

Petey the Prevaricator sez: :Shiksaa (FULL NAME) : :Notice how all the psychotic anti's can't use their real name? :Fullname: Shiksaa (typical) :Location: Earth (sure you are) :Occupation: Exposer of spammers' lies Anonymous -- 01/06/02

Petey the Prevaricator sez:

:Shiksaa (FULL NAME)
:
:Notice how all the psychotic anti's can't use their real name?
:Fullname: Shiksaa (typical)
:Location: Earth (sure you are)
:Occupation: Exposer of spammers' lies
:Comments:
:
:This is another blatant Schroebel lie and I say >if he has proof of anyone attempting to extort
:him he should post it AND contact law >enforcement.
:
:In process and I only took that advice after you tried to shake me down, when you wanted to be
:paid to remove that make believe information you entered.

That's a bald-faced lie. I tried to shake you down? Post proof or be shown for the liar that you are.

:The only people who *may* have solicited >Schroebel for any amount of money would be
:hookers.
:
:But that would be you Susan (Shiksaa) and I am very happy you admitted to eveyone that you
:are a hooker as I would have never brought it up nor even mentioned it.

If I were a hooker you can bet that I wouldn't solicit you for ANY amount of money. Even hookers have standards, Petey.

:He won't because he has only his warped >fantasies to offer as proof.
:
:I have my proof and we are pursuing . Have your attorney call ours, oh but then you have no
:name.

Post it. You won't because you can't. You're a liar, Petey-pooh.

:A simple Google search should help you to >determine for yourselves if Schroebel has even a
:shred of credibility.
:
:Susan, you have no credibility as you don't even have a name. Only liars and hookers need to
:hide their identity. Unfortunately you have made yourself fit both categories.
:
:As I said:
:
:I am also quite aware the anyone that was respectable within that google group has long since
:departed and that even google is no longer retaining their archives.

You really are nuts.

:Prove that I am wrong about anything, try stating your full name.

So nutjobs like you can make cartooney threats, stalk and harass me? No, thanks.

:P.Schroebel

Peter Schroebel wrote: > SPEWS is not protected as they use their > purported data for extortion > and the majority of said data is fraudulent at > best. Really? The "majority" of it? Strange; I hRob Mitchell -- 01/06/02

Peter Schroebel wrote:

> SPEWS is not protected as they use their
> purported data for extortion
> and the majority of said data is fraudulent at
> best.

Really? The "majority" of it? Strange; I have read quite a few SPEWS evidence files, & have been able to quite easily verify independently that the majority of the ones I have seen have contained accurate information. Please post the exact URLs for the SPEWS evidence files which contain provably false information, along with solid documentation that the information is false, so that we may all independently verify the validity of your claims.

> SPEWS can not speak without fear of retaliation
> or they would do so! Prove me wrong and name
> SPEWS members including, full name, addresses
> and telephone numbers . .
> RIGHT HERE AND NOW, I CALL YOUR BLUFF!

What "bluff" would that be? No one is disputing that the maintainers of SPEWS are publicly unknown. The reason for them remaining unknown, however, I suspect is not that they wish to avoid the law (which can easily locate them through due process), but rather that they remain less vulnerable to frivolous & unjustified legal action of the type MAPS had to endure, which finally sapped MAPS' strength through excessive legal bills. But not a single court case has yet been won against MAPS, whereas several court cases have indeed been *lost* by entities filing suit against maintainers of blocklists, which all by itself is powerful evidence that none of the suits filed against MAPS were viable, & even if they had not been settled out of court, would not have been won all the way through the appeals process.

> I am quite used the attacks of the psychotics
> that dwell within the user group that calls
> themselves NANAE.
> I am also quite aware the anyone that was
> respectable within that group has long since
> departed and that even google is no longer
> retaining their archives.

Lol! Oh do please name the exact posters whose articles were once archived by Deja/Google & whose articles now no longer appear in Google's database.

Rob

Peter Schroebel wrote: > I am also quite aware the anyone that was > respectable within that google group You apparently have little understanding of how Usenet works. It is not a "Google group"; Google is only onRob Mitchell -- 01/06/02

Peter Schroebel wrote:

> I am also quite aware the anyone that was
> respectable within that google group

You apparently have little understanding of how Usenet works. It is not a "Google group"; Google is only one of many news-services that carries that newsgroup, & many others.

> has long since departed and that even google is
> no longer retaining their archives.

I will ask you once again to name these "respectable" people who have departed & whose articles are no longer visible in the Google archives. I warn you in advance that I have years of experience of searching that database, & I have never known anyone's articles to "disappear" in the manner you describe.

Failure to name any such person whose articles have "disappeared" will of course be taken by practically anyone reading this Talkback section as a tacit admission on your part that in fact you have no evidence that any such thing has occurred.

Rob

Regarging spews' accuracy, Douglas Walbash Spews does not list individual IPs used by spammers. Spews lists IPs owned or controlled by spam friendly hosts. The "innocent" people posting to NANAE 'begging for removal' are victims of tAnonymous -- 01/06/02

Regarging spews' accuracy, Douglas Walbash

Spews does not list individual IPs used by spammers. Spews lists IPs owned or controlled by spam friendly hosts. The "innocent" people posting to NANAE 'begging for removal' are victims of their hosts, not victims of spews. In many of those cases their host leased them IPs which they knew were tainted and blocked. That's fraud, and it's wrong, but it's not the fault of spews. Some also move their spammers around their blocks of IPs helping them to avoid the blackhole lists. Admins have better things to do than spend all day every day adjusting filters to only block specific IPs. It's easier and more effective to block the source of the abuse which is the hosts who allow it to continue from their space.

Also, a large number of those 'begging innocents' are the spammers and the spammers' hosts themselves attempting to fool people into thinking they are innocent third parties. Don't fall for it, many have been caught red handed.

Consider also that spews has opened temporary holes in their list for companies while they move to decent non-abusing hosts.

So yes, spews has an extremely high accuracy rating in my opinion. Apparently, quite a few others share my view on that since so many use spews.

Rob Mitchell Hello Rob, Do you really want me to post the spews database links for level 1 & level 2 and, I am not talking about their cgi url either? So far you have kept things civil and did not lower yourself to that oAnonymous -- 01/06/02

Rob Mitchell

Hello Rob,

Do you really want me to post the spews database links for level 1 & level 2 and, I am not talking about their cgi url either?

So far you have kept things civil and did not lower yourself to that of Susan and here name calling tradition. I have noted that none of the respondents are related to any of the parties herein.

Spews would be untouchable, If in-fact they operated as real organization . . . However, they don't and choose to hide themselves and anyone that hides their identity is considered questionable regardless of their reasons for doing so.

It is truely a pleasure to watch what the others say in a feeble attempt to provide absurd reasons that they are afraid to use their real name.

In Susan's case she went on and on about making changes and then when asked to clean up the records that she in-fact had entered. Susan said "I am not getting paid to that" and kept going on about her back. I recieve a call from Bubba Katz, speaking on behalf of Susan who instructed me to send money to Susan. Again I asked Susan to perform the clearing and once again I was told by Susan that she had not been paid to do it. You don't have to be a 4.0 graduate to see the shake down.

We had cleaned up our act long ago and there is no extent supporting data that reliable. I have sent requests numerous times to her partner Steve Linford of Spamhaus that have gone unanswered and who does not respond unless Susan tells him too.

They are all part of this big scam and shake down.

-P.Schroebel

From j rigby "Luckily, for the most part they were not very competent people or they would have had real jobs and be busy earning the vast(!) sums good Sysops can in the real world. :-) Some of them electronically - as we've seen here - cybernetAnonymous -- 01/06/02

From j rigby "Luckily, for the most part they were not very competent people or they would have had real jobs and be busy earning the vast(!) sums good Sysops can in the real world. :-)
Some of them electronically - as we've seen here - cybernetically foam at the mouth at any suggestion that they haven't a God-given right to interfere with *your* mail coming to *you*. Whether you or I want it or not, is *OUR* decision, not some self-appointed uncontrolled,anonymous person, or little group."

I'm sure you're a jam-up sysadmin making $10 million a year (income - the only true measure of a human's value) but you've got your facts mixed up. Actually, I should say you've got no facts to mix up. 1) SPEWS doesn't block anyone's email. 2) Sysadmins (who I'm sure don't make as much as you) who choose to protect THEIR servers from the onslaught of valuable /Viagra/**** Enlargement/Hot Teenagers vs. Badgers in Nude Twister/Send me $5/ spams are the ones blocking email. If you don't like it, don't get an account with them. Why don't you write in to your favorite movie critic and tell him/her he has no damned right to tell you that you can't go see "Dude, Where's My Car Part IV in 3-D"? Is it because he didn't tell you you couldn't see it, but instead just said "No thinking human could sit through it"?

You're still free to get all of those valuable offers. Other people are free NOT to get them by using SPEWS, SBL, etc. YOU seem to be the one wanting to make decisions for them. You run your mail servers, they'll run theirs, and everyone is happy.

By the way, your arguments sound like you made your vast fortune "in your spare time at home" and that you're about ready to "FIRE YOUR BOSS". Anybody at ZDNet want to post the IP addresses of posters? I'm wondering if there's a unique one-to-one mapping of names to them.

I can't understand what Mr. Schroebel is going on about. He has facilitated the sending of spam that contributes to the cost of billions of dollars to Internet users, and now he's upset because some people have chosen to protect themselves from his imposRich Tietjens -- 01/06/02

I can't understand what Mr. Schroebel is going on about. He has facilitated the sending of spam that contributes to the cost of billions of dollars to Internet users, and now he's upset because some people have chosen to protect themselves from his imposition of unwanted costs on them?

Don't we usually call people like that "thieves?"

Oh, and Peter - don't call me again, like you did when I posted the truth about you while you were running for a Board position on ARIN. If I want to be harassed by lunatics, there people who are far better at it, and more entertaining.

Schroebel the liar says: >In Susan's case she went on and on about making changes and then when asked to clean up > the records that she in-fact had entered. Susan said "I am not getting paid to that" and kept >Anonymous -- 01/06/02

Schroebel the liar says:

>In Susan's case she went on and on about making changes and then when asked to clean up
> the records that she in-fact had entered. Susan said "I am not getting paid to that" and kept
> going on about her back. I recieve a call from Bubba Katz, speaking on behalf of Susan who
> instructed me to send money to Susan. Again I asked Susan to perform the clearing and once
> again I was told by Susan that she had not been paid to do it. You don't have to be a 4.0
> graduate to see the shake down.

You're a liar. If you're going to recount the incident at least have the common decency to tell the truth.

I said I don't get paid to jump every time you want your ROKSO record updated since I am a volunteer and that I had wanted to discuss the changes you wanted made with Steve.

In fact, I have told you on several occasions that most of the spam fighters are doing this on their own time - meaning (since you're obviously too dense to comprehend)that we all have jobs and lives that require most of our time.

As to Bubba Catts - a. he's a spammer, b. he doesn't speak for me, and c. I seriously doubt that Robert "Bubba" Catts called you.

> We had cleaned up our act long ago and there is no extent supporting data that reliable. I have
> sent requests numerous times to her partner Steve Linford of Spamhaus that have gone
> unanswered and who does not respond unless Susan tells him too.
>
> They are all part of this big scam and shake down.

You're a madman, Schroebel, and I suggest you hie yourself down and get the mental health care which you so obviously need.

Susan-> the hker Five Dollar a night HOE a best! Anyway . . Bubba stated that he pays you and others. Ask him yourself, hker! Yada Yada . . admitting that you screw people up on your own time is the firAnonymous -- 01/06/02

Susan-> the h**ker

Five Dollar a night HOE a best!

Anyway . .

Bubba stated that he pays you and others.
Ask him yourself, h**ker!

Yada Yada . . admitting that you screw people up on your own time is the first step. It's a pity that you make them pay to fix your spare time boo-boos.

Rich must be your street daddy?

The little coward pee pee his pants and hung up the telephone. Rich the Big CEO of a loser hosting company, what has he been sniffing.

Come on rant somemore

>Susan-> the h**ker > >Five Dollar a night HOE a best! Not even 500 million per trick for you, Petey-pooh. >Anyway . . > >Bubba stated that he pays you and others. >Ask him yourself, h*Anonymous -- 01/06/02

>Susan-> the h**ker
>
>Five Dollar a night HOE a best!

Not even 500 million per trick for you, Petey-pooh.

>Anyway . .
>
>Bubba stated that he pays you and others.
>Ask him yourself, h**ker!

If, and that's a very big if, he did, he's a liar like you are. Besides, you want me to accept the word of a relay hijacking, open proxy exploiting spammer like Bubba? Yeah, OK.

>Yada Yada . . admitting that you screw people up on your own time is the first step. It's a pity that you make them pay to fix your spare time boo-boos.
>
>Come on rant somemore

Your kookiness has physically manifested itself in your eyes. In fact, you remind me a bit of certain serial killers I've seen on documentaries.

http://chickenboner.com/spammer_pics/petey-s.jpg

Post proof of your allegations (which you can't unless you fabricate them yourself and I wouldn't put it past you to do so) or STFU.

Susan -> Nice Picture . . Well it is nice to know your price. Big dollar hoe, eh . . Btw: Who is that? Oh and you though I would send you my real picture? U musta be a dumb hoe too, eh?Anonymous -- 01/06/02

Susan -> Nice Picture . .

Well it is nice to know your price.
Big dollar hoe, eh . .

Btw: Who is that?
Oh and you though I would send you my real picture? U musta be a dumb hoe too, eh?

Peter wrote "If anyone has any doubt about the nature of SPEWS, then simply use your browser and go to the search engine known as http://www.google.com and search on SPEWS. You will be amazed at the magnitude of the problem and the brutal tAndrew Poli -- 02/06/02

Peter wrote

"If anyone has any doubt about the nature of SPEWS, then simply use your browser and go to the search engine known as http://www.google.com and search on SPEWS. You will be amazed at the magnitude of the problem and the brutal treatment that the recipients of their attacks are forced to endure in a feeble attempt to get removed from the SPEWS fabricated database base."

Crap

We recently had an entire C class placed into SPEWS. The listing occured because of a spamer.
No arguments there. In our AUP there is a clause regarding abuse and spam saying effectily that we can close an account immediatly if such activity is detected/reported. We did so. We then posted to n.a.n-a.e detailing the case in question and within 12hrs the block was no longer listed as a spam domain.

very quick, quite easy, little pain and the only thing needed was to deal with an abusive client.
Sorry peter I have found spews to be both fair and reasonable from an ISP point of view.

felixmeister

Spammers Cost Internet Community $BILLIONS/Year. If you think Spamming is OK and this creep should win his court case, consider this: If only 1 million internet users spend, like me, 15 minutes every day deleting/blocking Spam, that woAnonymous -- 02/06/02

Spammers Cost Internet Community $BILLIONS/Year.
If you think Spamming is OK and this creep should
win his court case, consider this:
If only 1 million internet users spend, like me,
15 minutes every day deleting/blocking Spam, that works out to 91 million hours/year. If we value
our time at even $20/hr, that comes to $Bn1.82
EVERY year Spam costs in lost time.
My solution is to ban email harvesting programs
and bulk emailling websites internationally.
Simplistic - yeah, but what's your alternative ?

Andrew Poli -> Crap? Andrew then you are an exception and kudos to you. We have performed a major turn around here and really cleaned up our network. We do not approve of spam whatsoever and have made that perfectly clear to all. ThAnonymous -- 03/06/02

Andrew Poli -> Crap?

Andrew then you are an exception and kudos to you.
We have performed a major turn around here and really cleaned up our network.
We do not approve of spam whatsoever and have made that perfectly clear to all. There are some that either don't or won't listen and when asked about cleaning out their database of really old and errata data. I get a reply from those cats in nanae that goes like this " you know what you have to do" refer to the requests for capital. We did not pay to get on the list nor should we have to pay to get off the list. All in all, we are not too concerned as we unlike many others have network all over the place and have made adjustments.

My point here is that though spews may in fact be a good service as a tool is can easily be used as a weapon. Not all people are fair as history points out too often. Our love-hate issue with those in NANAE go back almost five years. Some of their members stoop to slander, fraud and far worse tactics in attempt to bring someone down.

SPAM you say!
Gee . . I think that I have been placed on every known and unknown list there is and by those same crazy, goofy and wildly insane slap-happy members of the NANAE. Who happen to hate Paul Vixie for some reason as of late.

I posted one note and right away they start with the remarks. I had thought to keep things civil and not be antagonist.

In lieu of the litigation regarding the original post of the ZD. This case has merit and it will be brought trial. Tort is a very serious issue and easily called. I imagine that McNichols defense fund should need to be a minimum of $100,000.00. Similar case that are in-process have far exceeded $20,000.00 per instance. It is hard to imagine that these individual can band together to raise that much money. They are a very hateful bunch that fight amongest themselves. You can see this in NANAE and from their rantings here.

As a network administrator, I do quite well and have very little stress and no worries. We get larger and stronger everyday. We have remained profitable at all times and shall continue. We own our own longhauls, have our own POP and reside within several MAE's.

I wish you the best of luck and fortune!

P.Schroebel

Um - Schroebel, are you forgetting this: http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=f0vd5a.sp1.ln%40blackehlo.outblaze.com&output=gplain I don't doubt there was suggestion of the possibility of money fixing a blocked server - it's just fAnonymous -- 03/06/02

Um - Schroebel, are you forgetting this:

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=f0vd5a.sp1.ln%40blackehlo.outblaze.com&output=gplain

I don't doubt there was suggestion of the possibility of money fixing a blocked server - it's just funny to see who suggested it. If you're getting "larger & stronger" everyday, why do you keep whining about SPEWS? By the way, "you know what you have to do" refers to implementing confirmed opt-in (different from the spammer's opt-in, which is "I found/someone entered/dictionary attack guessed your email"). Spammers don't want to do that, because they know 99.9999% of the internet (maybe more) doesn't want that crap, but that doesn't matter to them.

In closing, let me say:

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&scoring=d&q=sms+group%3Anews.admin.net-abuse.email

Get back to your busy network.

Peter A. Schroebel wrote: > In Susan's case she went on and on about making > changes and then when asked to clean up the > records that she in-fact had entered. Susan said > "I am not getting paid to that" aRob Mitchell -- 03/06/02

Peter A. Schroebel wrote:

> In Susan's case she went on and on about making
> changes and then when asked to clean up the
> records that she in-fact had entered. Susan said
> "I am not getting paid to that" and kept going
> on about her back. I recieve a call from Bubba
> Katz, speaking on behalf of Susan who instructed
> me to send money to Susan. Again I asked Susan
> to perform the clearing and once again I was
> told by Susan that she had not been paid to do
> it. You don't have to be a 4.0 graduate to see
> the shake down.

ROFL, & you believed Bubba Katz? That he was actually "speaking on behalf of Susan" with her prior knowledge & consent? This, this, is all the evidence you can come up with to support your claim?

You don't have to be a 4.0 graduate to see the shake down, that Mr. Katz was obviously trying to implicate her in a desperate attempt to implicate her of something, anything.

Oh, & I'm still waiting for you to name the anti-spammers whose older articles are no longer archived by Google.

I have been thinking .. And I guess that if given a choice of integrity between Bubba's word ( what I known now) and that of Susans. Then I would have to accept Susans word and grant that I had misread her by accident and therefore I would have to apologiPeter Schroebel -- 04/06/02

I have been thinking .. And I guess that if given a choice of integrity between Bubba's word ( what I known now) and that of Susans. Then I would have to accept Susans word and grant that I had misread her by accident and therefore I would have to apologize for causing her distress as I have learned that she values her word above all. Given the tremendous support she received here, I must admit that I have been wrong about her and that Bubba lied.

I hereby retract and apologize

-Peter

Three cheers for Mr M. In my opinion (and there's nothing humble about it), spammers are the moral equivalent of blood-sucking parasites. They invade my privacy, waste my time, bore me with useless information, and impose themselves on complete strangers.Anonymous -- 13/06/02

Three cheers for Mr M. In my opinion (and there's nothing humble about it), spammers are the moral equivalent of blood-sucking parasites. They invade my privacy, waste my time, bore me with useless information, and impose themselves on complete strangers. They can kiss my left testicle (the sweaty one).

Yo, Peter S, make up your mind where you live (Rockville or Baltimore), and you're a CIO of what? I've just reviewed Most (not all) of the posts and I must say, you're starting to sound like a loon. Have you ever thought of taking up permanent rAnonymous -- 13/06/02

Yo,

Peter S, make up your mind where you live (Rockville or Baltimore), and you're a CIO of what? I've just reviewed Most (not all) of the posts and I must say, you're starting to sound like a loon. Have you ever thought of taking up permanent residence in the Twilight Zone?

It's actually embarassiong to me (a certified IT professional) to see such drivel in print by someone claiming to be a Chief Information Officer.

SPAM (any kind) costs my clients thousands of dollars a year in lost productivity. It costs me even more in aggravation and admin time. Did you ever think of maybe mounting a defense for Adolph Hitler? You seem to have the same talent for sophistry.

For those still unfamiliar with our champion of SPAM you might want to check out
http://www.arb-forum.com/domains/decisions/95639.htm. Seems our golden boy has some serious dirt on his hands (more like dung).

Give it up Peter; no amount of pretty words or feigned civility will change the fact that people who engage in your brand of assault are pariahs. Hopefully, you'll go the way of the dinosaur; if not peacefully, then through legislation.

What Petey (A.K.A.I'm a Biga$$ spammer) sorta fails to mention is the name of the company for which he is "CIO". SMSonline... Which is listed with just about every spam reporting service on the planet, and maybe on his own little planet as well.PeteyIsMyBeotch -- 15/06/03

What Petey (A.K.A.I'm a Biga$$ spammer) sorta fails to mention is the name of the company for which he is "CIO". SMSonline... Which is listed with just about every spam reporting service on the planet, and maybe on his own little planet as well.
Other credits on his resume...
Hacker/cracker, they broadcast scan almost constantly for potential zombies...
Liar, he's only too aware that the spews list is diligently maintained. That is his major objection, they catch him and publish his activities, and people and services who don't wish to allow him to send them postage due theft of their services, use the list and others entirely by their own choice.
Spews is hidden?
err.... no, absolutely it is not actually. They may not have a 1-800 number, but their having kept the mail tags off their site is to avoid abuse by people just like you, Petey.
I have had no problems in finding them to inform them of evidence in my possession of the activities of another of their listees who has decided to roll the dice in court.
Russian? no... actually, it was a long distance call, but not that long a distance. If Petey was a competant CIO he would have no trouble finding their phone number, etc. Perhaps he knows this but chooses to present his own problems understanding the issue as a giant conspiracy. Everyone out to get poor Petey.
BTW, you don't know jack about the law Petey. If you did you never would have tried to screw with the trademark and domain for Homeonline. Bigtime idiot move.
The bark and drool bit about how hard done by you poor "e-marketing consultants" are is typical, and I caught your whine posting about getting turned over to the feds and how you're just trying to make a living
Oh... BTW, I'm one of the people who after getting sick of your spam helped collect the evidence that put you on the SPEWS list, and reported your CNCnet open relays.

The cost of email is bourne by the client. Thats why you love it so. That also means that filling my email box deprives me of paid services, and costs my ISP bandwidth and facilities overhead which I pay for every month in my service fee. I have no agreement with you that allows you to use my paid bandwidth and storage, nor my management time. That is theft of service.
Should you continue to send me offers to make me huge money fast, offers to filter my spam for me for a fee (what an irony that you should accuse SPEWS of extortion), or make my "endowment" bigger and harder.... And I will continue to show you that I can defend my own email very well, COST you money while bending you in half and showing you just how chubby I am for your spamming bu#.

BTW... I currently have 5 listings in my firewall logs for netblocks you own... broadcasting for listening Kuang2 zombies.
I'm sorry... now what were you carrying on about... something... SPEWS... unfair, illegal, RICO... or was that just the sound of last nights broccoli and chili casserole?

Peter Schroebel, the man the myth the legend. when you owe people money, when you spam wrecklessly, when you state claims about people that are untrue - karam gets you - or at least i will. you have crossed the line. I will take you and your son CHRIS dowAnonymous -- 05/09/03

Peter Schroebel, the man the myth the legend. when you owe people money, when you spam wrecklessly, when you state claims about people that are untrue - karam gets you - or at least i will. you have crossed the line. I will take you and your son CHRIS down with me. You have 1 chance to abide. If not you will perish. I know where you live. I have been on that **** street you call home. you know what to do. be well my freind.