===========
MESSAGE.001
===========
Date: Tue Jun 20 1995 01:18
From: John Souvestre
To: All
Subj: Steve Winter
Hi all.
As you might recall, back in February Steve Winter refused to acknowledge:
The services offered by the Zone One Mail Backbone are in addition to
any which are required of, or due to, members of FidoNet by FidoNet
Policy. Use of these services should be viewed as a privilege, not a
right. Any or all of these services may be terminated at any time,
without any prior notice.
Somewhat against my better judgement, I agreed to again carry his HOLY_BIBLE
echo in spite of his multiple, prior legal threats against me. Now I see
this in two recent posts by Steve Winter in the ZEC echo:
===== To Bruce Bodger:
SW> I've already forwarded to my atty a copy of Marge's note to cut my
SW> feed to this echo ...
SW> ... I thought you might want to see a couple of posts that I have
SW> forwarded to Federal authorities ...
===== To Lisa Gronke:
SW> It has been my feeling all along that it involved a conspirisy.
SW> Who else besides yourself was also involved?
=====
I take these as threats against the Backbone and/or attempts to disrupt its
operation. Since the RECs and Zone Hubs have shown that they prefer to act
in isolation rather than in unity, I'll not bother making any motions for
their consideration.
In an effort to distance myself both legally and personally as far as
possible from Steve Winter I am immediately terminating any services which he
had the privilege of receiving from me and/or my system. As a result, I will
no longer carry any echo which he moderates, including HOLY_BIBLE.
Regards,
John
===========
MESSAGE.002
===========
Date: Fri Jul 28 1995 06:29
From: John Souvestre
To: Steve Winter
Subj: Moderators beware
On Jul 27, Steve Winter of 1:18/98 wrote to All:
SW> I continue to labor to take action in which certain abusers of their
SW> positions in FidoNet will find themselves personally responsible for
SW> damages resulting from their abuse and malice. Due to Bodger's,
SW> Souvestre's and other's recent actions I will re-double my
SW> ongoing efforts towards that goal.
Because of your abuse of me any my system, you are no longer afforded any
privileges here.
In additon, your continued harassment is not appreciated.
John
===========
MESSAGE.003
===========
Date: Wed Aug 09 1995 13:06
From: Steve Winter of 1:18/98
To: John Souvestre of 1:396/1
Subj: Notice
* Original message addressed to: John Souvestre (1:396/1).
* Carbon copies sent to: John Woodward (1:396/0), Jerry Moon (1:3825/19),
Lloyd Rabanus (1:2245/104).
I had hoped to have a complaint in your hand by now regarding your
carrying of the Z1_WINTERS echo and other matters, but it hasn't
happened yet. Rest assured this is not because of any lack of
effort on my part.
This netmail is regarding your abuse of your star position to illegally
remove the HOLY_BIBLE echo from FidoNet distribution.
This is a netmail attempt to avoid formal policy action. Unless
HOLY_BIBLE is immediately restored to its rightful status and moderator
authority recognized, formal action will be taken within the FidoNet
advertised policy 4 to have your node number removed from Fidonet.
This is in no way a waiver of any damage claim(s) against you for
previous or ongoing matters.
Regards,
Steve Winter PreRapture BBS 919-286-3606
cc: Atty
--- timEd/2 1.01+
===========
MESSAGE.004
===========
Date: Wed Aug 09 1995 16:38
From: John Souvestre of 1:396/1
To: Steve Winter of 1:18/98
Subj: Notice
cc: Bruce Bodger 1/200
Clif Bright 1:18/0
Jerry Moon 1:3825/19
Lloyd Rabanus 1:2245/104
James Ray 1:19/0
John Woodward 1:396/0
Mr. Winter:
SW> This is a netmail attempt to avoid formal policy action. Unless
SW> HOLY_BIBLE is immediately restored to its rightful status and
SW> moderator authority recognized, formal action will be taken within
SW> the FidoNet advertised policy 4 to have your node number removed
SW> from Fidonet.
I do not appreciate this continued harassment of me and my system. I once
again state:
JS> The services offered by the Zone One Mail Backbone are in
JS> addition to any which are required of, or due to, members of
JS> FidoNet by FidoNet Policy. Use of these services should be
JS> viewed as a privilege, not a right. Any or all of these
JS> services may be terminated at any time, without any prior
JS> notice.
JS> I take these as threats against the Backbone and/or attempts
JS> to disrupt its operation.
JS> In an effort to distance myself both legally and personally as
JS> far as possible from Steve Winter I am immediately terminating
JS> any services which he had the privilege of receiving from me
JS> and/or my system. As a result, I will no longer carry any echo
JS> which he moderates, including HOLY_BIBLE.
JS> Because of your abuse of me any my system, you are no longer
JS> afforded any privileges here.
JS> In addition, your continued harassment is not appreciated.
Indeed, FidoNet Policy 4 forbids such harassment and attempts to route mail
without a specific agreement.
P4> 2.1.7 Not Routing Mail
P4>
P4> You are not required to route traffic if you have not agreed to
P4> do so. You are not obligated to route traffic for all if you
P4> route it for any, unless you hold a Network Coordinator or Hub
P4> Coordinator position. Routing traffic through a node not
P4> obligated to perform routing without the permission of that node
P4> may be annoying behavior. This includes unsolicited echomail.
I draw your attention to FidoNet Policy 4, Section 9.1, which states:
P4> Filing a formal complaint is not an action which should be
P4> taken lightly. Investigation and response to complaints
P4> requires time which coordinators would prefer to spend doing
P4> more constructive activities. Persons who persist in filing
P4> trivial policy complaints may find themselves on the wrong side
P4> of an excessively-annoying complaint.
Should you follow through with your threat to file a FidoNet Policy Complaint
against me, even though you know said complaint to be frivolous and wrong, I
will indeed file a counter complaint as described above. In it I will
petition for your removal from FidoNet. I will take similar action against
anyone conspiring to act in concert with you.
SW> This is in no way a waiver of any damage claim(s) against you for
SW> previous or ongoing matters.
Likewise, I'm sure. You have caused and are continuing to cause me serious
personal pain and business losses as well. I demand that you cease this
harassment immediately. I also demand this of anyone conspiring to act in
concert with you.
Sincerely,
John Souvestre
Southern Star
===========
MESSAGE.005
===========
Date: Wed Aug 09 1995 18:08
From: Steve Winter of 1:18/98
To: John Woodward of 1:396/0
Subj: Notice
* Original message addressed to: John Woodward (1:396/0).
* Carbon copies sent to: Clif Bright (1:18/0), James Ray (1:19/0).
The below netmail from Mr Souvestre provides the evidence for this formal
policy 4 complaint to have John Souvestre removed from FidoNet for the
Excessively Annoying Behaviour of deliberately interfering with the
distribution of a valid backbone echo.
It is clear from Souvestre's attitude that nothing short of the removal of
1:396/1 from FidoNet will solve the problem. It is for the good of all
FidoNet moderators that Mr Souvestre's decision to censor the backbone at his
whim be met with swift action.
* Forwarded (from: netmail) by Steve Winter using timEd/2 1.01+.
* Originally from John Souvestre (1:396/1) to Steve Winter.
* Original dated: Aug 09 '95, 16:38
cc: Bruce Bodger 1/200
Clif Bright 1:18/0
Jerry Moon 1:3825/19
Lloyd Rabanus 1:2245/104
James Ray 1:19/0
John Woodward 1:396/0
Mr. Winter:
SW> This is a netmail attempt to avoid formal policy action. Unless
SW> HOLY_BIBLE is immediately restored to its rightful status and
SW> moderator authority recognized, formal action will be taken within
SW> the FidoNet advertised policy 4 to have your node number removed
SW> from Fidonet.
I do not appreciate this continued harassment of me and my system. I once
again state:
JS> The services offered by the Zone One Mail Backbone are in
JS> addition to any which are required of, or due to, members of
JS> FidoNet by FidoNet Policy. Use of these services should be
JS> viewed as a privilege, not a right. Any or all of these
JS> services may be terminated at any time, without any prior
JS> notice.
JS> I take these as threats against the Backbone and/or attempts
JS> to disrupt its operation.
JS> In an effort to distance myself both legally and personally as
JS> far as possible from Steve Winter I am immediately terminating
JS> any services which he had the privilege of receiving from me
JS> and/or my system. As a result, I will no longer carry any echo
JS> which he moderates, including HOLY_BIBLE.
JS> Because of your abuse of me any my system, you are no longer
JS> afforded any privileges here.
JS> In addition, your continued harassment is not appreciated.
Indeed, FidoNet Policy 4 forbids such harassment and attempts to route mail
without a specific agreement.
P4> 2.1.7 Not Routing Mail
P4>
P4> You are not required to route traffic if you have not agreed to
P4> do so. You are not obligated to route traffic for all if you
P4> route it for any, unless you hold a Network Coordinator or Hub
P4> Coordinator position. Routing traffic through a node not
P4> obligated to perform routing without the permission of that node
P4> may be annoying behavior. This includes unsolicited echomail.
I draw your attention to FidoNet Policy 4, Section 9.1, which states:
P4> Filing a formal complaint is not an action which should be
P4> taken lightly. Investigation and response to complaints
P4> requires time which coordinators would prefer to spend doing
P4> more constructive activities. Persons who persist in filing
P4> trivial policy complaints may find themselves on the wrong side
P4> of an excessively-annoying complaint.
Should you follow through with your threat to file a FidoNet Policy Complaint
against me, even though you know said complaint to be frivolous and wrong, I
will indeed file a counter complaint as described above. In it I will
petition for your removal from FidoNet. I will take similar action against
anyone conspiring to act in concert with you.
SW> This is in no way a waiver of any damage claim(s) against you for
SW> previous or ongoing matters.
Likewise, I'm sure. You have caused and are continuing to cause me serious
personal pain and business losses as well. I demand that you cease this
harassment immediately. I also demand this of anyone conspiring to act in
concert with you.
Sincerely,
John Souvestre
Southern Star
===========
MESSAGE.006
===========
Date: Fri Aug 11 1995 16:47
From: John Woodward of 1:396/2
To: Steve Winter of 1:18/98
Subj: Notice
On Aug 09 18:08 95, Steve Winter of 1:18/98 wrote:
Hello Steve,
SW> * Original message addressed to: John Woodward (1:396/0).
SW> * Carbon copies sent to: Clif Bright (1:18/0), James Ray
SW> (1:19/0).
SW> The below netmail from Mr Souvestre provides the evidence
SW> for this formal policy 4 complaint to have John Souvestre
SW> removed from FidoNet for the Excessively Annoying Behaviour
SW> of deliberately interfering with the distribution of a valid
SW> backbone echo.
SW> It is clear from Souvestre's attitude that nothing short of
SW> the removal of 1:396/1 from FidoNet will solve the problem.
SW> It is for the good of all FidoNet moderators that Mr
SW> Souvestre's decision to censor the backbone at his whim be
SW> met with swift action.
Steve I have to rule in favor of Mr Souvestret due to you not specifing <sp>
what Mr Souvestre has violated. I have not been able to find where anyone is
required to carry an echo. If this is infact what your referring to above.
The only thing that i have been able to find within Policy 4 is below and it
does not cover Mr. Souvestre.
2.1.7 Not Routing Mail
You are not required to route traffic if you have not
agreed to do so. You are not obligated to route traffic
for all if you route it for any, unless you hold a
Network Coordinator or Hub Coordinator position. Routing
traffic through a node not obligated to perform routing
without the permission of that node may be annoying
behavior. This includes unsolicited echomail.
You should be aware that Policy 4 does cover filing Trivial Complaints...
Section 9.1,
Filing a formal complaint is not an action which should be taken lightly.
Investigation and response to complaints requires time which coordinators
would prefer to spend doing more constructive activities. Persons who
persist in filing trivial policy complaints may find themselves on the wrong
side of an excessively-annoying complaint.
Regards,
John.
===========
MESSAGE.007
===========
Date: Sun Sep 10 1995 01:18
From: John Souvestre of 1:396/1
To: Clif Bright of 1:18/0
Subj: FidoNet Complaint
cc: Bruce Bodger 1/200
James Ray 1:19/0
Steve Winter 1:18/98
John Woodward 1:396/0
Hello Mr Bright.
Please consider this a formal FidoNet complaint against Steve Winter,
1:18/98, an independent node in your region, as per FidoNet Policy 4.07,
Section 9.1 ("Resolution of Disputes", "General") and FidoNet Policy,
Section 2.2.2 ("Sysop Procedures", "General", "The Basics").
I contend that Mr. Winter is excessively annoying and that he is too easily
annoyed. I have done nothing within the scope of FidoNet Policy to annoy
Mr. Winter yet he has repeatedly harassed me. Besides various netmail and
echomail messages, this harassment has included Mr Winter's initiation of
legal actions on the behalf of himself and his commercial enterprise against
myself and his filing of a trivial FidoNet complaint against myself. It is
primarily the latter upon which I base this complaint, however I do wish to
note that I have suffered harm, as well as financial losses, due to his
overall harassment.
Mr. Winter's behavior is not merely annoying, it is excessively annoying.
He is not a new FidoNet SysOp. Indeed, having been excommunicated twice
previously himself and having filed FidoNet complaints himself on occasions
too numerous to count he is certainly very familiar with FidoNet Policy.
Also, I informed him of relevant sections in messages to him, which he
acknowledged, one of which is included (see item #1).
Although I include only one sample (see item #1), there have been many
messages, both netmail and echomail, between myself and Mr. Winter. In
addition I have communicated with Mr. Winter's lawyer both directly (voice
and mail) and via representation.
As evidence I include (see item #1) a copy of the full FidoNet complaint
which Mr Winter recently filed against me. In turn, it includes a netmail
message which I wrote to him which states my position and includes numerous
FidoNet Policy references as the basis for my position. Mr Winter's
complaint does not address these issues but instead is based merely on his
opinions with no basis in FidoNet Policy stated for them.
I wish to point out that I made no response to Mr. Winter's complaint
because I was not copied on it until after my Net Coordinator, John
Woodward, 1:396/0, had ruled on it, rejecting the complaint based on its own
lack of merit. As evidence I include a copy of the message containing this
ruling (see item #2).
Although not shown by the evidence I have enclosed, I believe it important
to note that I feel that it is widely agreed amongst the various FidoNet
Coordinators that Mr. Winter is responsible for filing more FidoNet
complaints that any other node in FidoNet, almost all of which complaints
are trivial.
As a result of the above and as shown by the evidence, I ask the following:
That you find Mr. Winter guilty of filing a trivial FidoNet complaint
against me. That you find Mr. Winter guilty of being excessively annoying
and too easily annoyed for having filed said complaint against me. That you
excommunicate Mr. Winter so that he will not be able to continue this form
of harassment against me and others. That the term of said excommunication
be set at an absolute minimum of 1 year. That Mr. Winter not be allowed to
file a FidoNet complaint for 5 years regardless of his FidoNet membership
status.
Sincerely,
John Souvestre
Southern Star
===== Evidence: Item #1 =====
Date: Wed Aug 09 1995 20:52:43
From: John Woodward of 1:396/2
To: John Souvestre of 1:396/1
Subj: Notice
Attr: privileged crash recvd
FidoNet E-Mail -------------------------------
============================================
* Original To : John Woodward, 1:396/0
* Original From: Steve Winter, 1:18/98
* Original Date: Aug 09 18:08
============================================
* Original message addressed to: John Woodward (1:396/0).
* Carbon copies sent to: Clif Bright (1:18/0), James Ray (1:19/0).
The below netmail from Mr Souvestre provides the evidence for this formal
policy 4 complaint to have John Souvestre removed from FidoNet for the
Excessively Annoying Behavior of deliberately interfering with the
distribution of a valid backbone echo.
It is clear from Souvestre's attitude that nothing short of the removal of
1:396/1 from FidoNet will solve the problem. It is for the good of all
FidoNet moderators that Mr Souvestre's decision to censor the backbone at
his whim be met with swift action.
* Forwarded (from: netmail) by Steve Winter using timEd/2 1.01+.
* Originally from John Souvestre (1:396/1) to Steve Winter.
* Original dated: Aug 09 '95, 16:38
cc: Bruce Bodger 1/200
Clif Bright 1:18/0
Jerry Moon 1:3825/19
Lloyd Rabanus 1:2245/104
James Ray 1:19/0
John Woodward 1:396/0
Mr. Winter:
SW> This is a netmail attempt to avoid formal policy action. Unless
SW> HOLY_BIBLE is immediately restored to its rightful status and
SW> moderator authority recognized, formal action will be taken within
SW> the FidoNet advertised policy 4 to have your node number removed
SW> from Fidonet.
I do not appreciate this continued harassment of me and my system. I once
again state:
JS> The services offered by the Zone One Mail Backbone are in
JS> addition to any which are required of, or due to, members of
JS> FidoNet by FidoNet Policy. Use of these services should be
JS> viewed as a privilege, not a right. Any or all of these
JS> services may be terminated at any time, without any prior
JS> notice.
JS> I take these as threats against the Backbone and/or attempts
JS> to disrupt its operation.
JS> In an effort to distance myself both legally and personally as
JS> far as possible from Steve Winter I am immediately terminating
JS> any services which he had the privilege of receiving from me
JS> and/or my system. As a result, I will no longer carry any echo
JS> which he moderates, including HOLY_BIBLE.
JS> Because of your abuse of me any my system, you are no longer
JS> afforded any privileges here.
JS> In addition, your continued harassment is not appreciated.
Indeed, FidoNet Policy 4 forbids such harassment and attempts to route mail
without a specific agreement.
P4> 2.1.7 Not Routing Mail
P4>
P4> You are not required to route traffic if you have not agreed to
P4> do so. You are not obligated to route traffic for all if you
P4> route it for any, unless you hold a Network Coordinator or Hub
P4> Coordinator position. Routing traffic through a node not
P4> obligated to perform routing without the permission of that node
P4> may be annoying behavior. This includes unsolicited echomail.
I draw your attention to FidoNet Policy 4, Section 9.1, which states:
P4> Filing a formal complaint is not an action which should be
P4> taken lightly. Investigation and response to complaints
P4> requires time which coordinators would prefer to spend doing
P4> more constructive activities. Persons who persist in filing
P4> trivial policy complaints may find themselves on the wrong side
P4> of an excessively-annoying complaint.
Should you follow through with your threat to file a FidoNet Policy Complaint
against me, even though you know said complaint to be frivolous and wrong, I
will indeed file a counter complaint as described above. In it I will
petition for your removal from FidoNet. I will take similar action against
anyone conspiring to act in concert with you.
SW> This is in no way a waiver of any damage claim(s) against you for
SW> previous or ongoing matters.
Likewise, I'm sure. You have caused and are continuing to cause me serious
personal pain and business losses as well. I demand that you cease this
harassment immediately. I also demand this of anyone conspiring to act in
concert with you.
Sincerely,
John Souvestre
Southern Star
===== Evidence: Item #2 =====
Date: Sat Sep 09 1995 02:49:40
From: John Woodward of 1:396/2
To: John Souvestre of 1:396/1
Subj: Notice
Attr: privileged crash recvd
FidoNet E-Mail -------------------------------
============================================
* Original To : Steve Winter, 1:18/98
* Original From: John Woodward, 1:396/2
* Original Date: Aug 11 16:47
============================================
On Aug 09 18:08 95, Steve Winter of 1:18/98 wrote:
Hello Steve,
SW> * Original message addressed to: John Woodward (1:396/0).
SW> * Carbon copies sent to: Clif Bright (1:18/0), James Ray
SW> (1:19/0).
SW> The below netmail from Mr Souvestre provides the evidence
SW> for this formal policy 4 complaint to have John Souvestre
SW> removed from FidoNet for the Excessively Annoying Behaviour
SW> of deliberately interfering with the distribution of a valid
SW> backbone echo.
SW> It is clear from Souvestre's attitude that nothing short of
SW> the removal of 1:396/1 from FidoNet will solve the problem.
SW> It is for the good of all FidoNet moderators that Mr
SW> Souvestre's decision to censor the backbone at his whim be
SW> met with swift action.
Steve I have to rule in favor of Mr Souvestret due to you not specifing <sp>
what Mr Souvestre has violated. I have not been able to find where anyone is
required to carry an echo. If this is infact what your referring to above.
The only thing that i have been able to find within Policy 4 is below and it
does not cover Mr. Souvestre.
2.1.7 Not Routing Mail
You are not required to route traffic if you have not
agreed to do so. You are not obligated to route traffic
for all if you route it for any, unless you hold a
Network Coordinator or Hub Coordinator position. Routing
traffic through a node not obligated to perform routing
without the permission of that node may be annoying
behavior. This includes unsolicited echomail.
You should be aware that Policy 4 does cover filing Trivial Complaints...
Section 9.1,
Filing a formal complaint is not an action which should be taken lightly.
Investigation and response to complaints requires time which coordinators
would prefer to spend doing more constructive activities. Persons who
persist in filing trivial policy complaints may find themselves on the wrong
side of an excessively-annoying complaint.
Regards,
John.
===== (end of evidence) =====
(end of complaint)
===========
MESSAGE.008
===========
Date: Sat Oct 07 1995 02:36
From: Clif Bright of 1:3660/818
To: John Souvestre of 1:396/1
Subj: Your PC:
* Original to: John Souvestre (1:396/1)
cc: James Ray, John Woodward, Steve Winter
Hello Mr. Souvestre.
Here is the response to your policy complaint of 9-9-95 against Steve Winter.
I find your policy complaint extremely well written and documented.
I find your policy complaint to be valid.
However the action that you ask for, excommunication of a node is among
the most extreme action availible to a fidonet coordinator and should be
used sparingly if used at all.
I normally stress education to nodes who are confused about basic fidonet
policy, but it would appear that from your and your NC's communications that
you have attempted to educate Mr. Winters as to the validity of routing
agreements and that such agreements are a privilege between individuals and
not a right of fidonet membership. I commend you for taking the time to
attempt to resolve any misunderstanding Mr. WInter might have had concerning
policy before resorting to filing this complaint.
The purpose of a fidonet policy complaint is not to punish, but to
correct inappropriate behavior. Since Mr. Winter has abused his privilege
of FidoNet membership to file policy complaints against you, I hereby:
1) Suspend Mr. Winters' privilege of FidoNet membership to file a policy
complaint against you for a period of 1 year unless he first secures
the approval of his NC (or RC if he is an independent node) to file
said complaint.
2) Advise Mr. Winters that should he file a policy complaint against you
without the approval of his NC (or RC if he is an independent node)
additional membership privileges may be suspended.
2) Advise Mr. Winters that filing a policy complaint is not a matter to be
taken lightly and the filing of trivial policy complaints against
members of FidoNet will result in additional restrictions on his
priviledge of FidoNet membership to file policy complaints.
Clif Bright
Regional Coordinator 18