New Civilization News: Kriss Hammond wants to change my financial status    
 Kriss Hammond wants to change my financial status19 comments
14 May 2008 @ 12:45, by Flemming Funch

It took me a moment to remember the story... See, I did this posting in 2005: Jetsetters wants to sue everybody, which was about this fellow, Kriss Hammond, who said he wanted to launch a 10 million dollar lawsuit against me, because I had reposted some articles related to his outfit, Jetsetters Magazine. Articles written by some of his affiliates, specifically with a license to repost freely, with attribution. I don't know why they do that, if they don't want the articles to actually be used. Anyway, I had reposted them automatically, and they weren't particularly good articles or anything. Since the outrageous lawsuit threat was kind of amusing, I looked around a little bit, and found that Kriss Hammond seems do that kind of thing often, and that he runs a somewhat questionable business which involves paying him money to learn how to present oneself as a "travel writer", so that one can get free hotel rooms and that kind of thing. At least that's how I understood it.

I had mostly forgotten about it, until the guy sent me an e-mail yesterday:
Hello Ming the Mechanic, also known as F Funch. We know who you are and where you live and operate. For some time you have had a posting about Jetsetters Magazine on the net that shoiuld be taken down, if you are truly a practioner of change. If you are not truly a practioner of change, we are about to change your financial status, as we did with Carl Parks.


Kriss Hammond -
Editor - Jetsetters Magazine
Carl Parkes was a vocal critic of the Jetsetters scheme, and is a (real) travel writer.

Changing my financial status, hey, I'd welcome that, but I think he means it as a threat.

I can guess why he doesn't like my previous posting. See, if you look up "Jetsetters Magazine" in Google, there are 48,000 matches, and mine is number 3. That's of course a bit annoying when one is trying to game the search engines with thousands of poorly written travel articles that all link to the Jetsetters homepage.

26 minutes later, Kriss sent me this message:
When we originally posted Jetsetters Magazine articles on there was no intention for you to use the articles within your site without our permission, which at your own admission, you did. Thank you for taking them down. Also, please remove your Ming the Mechanic reference to us, and in the future stop referencing us in any way or slandering or libeling our name online. We have helped many budding writer enhance their lifestyles, which you and Carl Parks have liebeled and slandered. We have taken care of Mr. Parks, and now are concentrating on you. We can have one of our colleagues call upon you if you wish, at 6 rue Pedro Gailhard, 31100, Toulouse France. Thank you for your understanding and consideration.
It doesn't sound too good that they have taken care of Mr.Parks (it is Parkes, really). Or that he'd like to send some thugs to my door. Then, again, Kriss Hammond doesn't strike me as a very well armed opponent in the legal arena or in any other arena. Anyway, he wasn't done, so 18 minutes later:
We will give you exactly until June 1, 2008 to remove all references online from you as Ming the Mechanic to Jetsetters Magazine and then we begin law suit procedures. We realize you are a professional programmer, and if there is any threats, real or inferred to our websites from you we will incorporate those threats, real or inferred into any existing or pending lawsuit. We will also attach this lawsuit to your chateaux in France through French courts. I don't think you really realize who you are dealing with. Our IT staff is monitoring all our websites for any illegal or illicit activity to them by you or others. We have deep pockets and relish any legal confrontations with you.
Oh no, please don't touch my chateaux. I'd have to live on my yacht if you took them away from me.

Now, today there was a Skype request to add "Kriss Hammond (jetsetters2)" to my contact list, with this reason "Jetsetters Magazine lawsuit". I don't think I want to chat with him on Skype about that at odd hours of the day, so I declined.

I'm very approachable, and normally willing to discuss it if somebody is not happy with something I've posted somewhere. If Kriss Hammond had simply asked me to remove his travel articles back then, I'd just have done so. Oh, I did, but since he also threatened me, I wrote about it. Which I do now as well. You would get much further by being nice, Mr. Hammond.


... A day later: Kriss Hammond sent me a couple more messages where he actually sounded more human and friendly. I'm not sure if it is because of my e-mail answer or because he read this message. I sort of suspect the former. Anyway, that's a positive sign. Most people want things to come out well, but sometimes they pick the wrong strategy at first.

[< Back] [New Civilization News]



15 May 2008 @ 07:14 by Lino @ : reposting articles
Of course it is not OK to republish other people's stuff without permission. People want their paid for of course. Libel and slander is an additional problem.
But what really amuses me is the ridiculous sum of 10 mill. Does this guy to any research before he shoots his mouth off? Doesn't he realize that he'd have to sue you where you live now? In France! In Europe - I am pretty sure anywhere in Europe - you cannot just sue people for some amount out of your imagination.  

15 May 2008 @ 07:19 by Roan Carratu @ : Hahahahahahaa
I would take down any reference to him, regardless of what he said. It's not nice to mess with the intellectually challenged, and he is not important enough to react to, despite his rather blatant threats. Someday you can go visit him in prison to show him you are a nice guy, since he will probably be there eventually and need a friend. People who make those kinds of threats often have karma that requires time in a cage to balance.

There's no real principle involved, so don't let him provoke a reaction in you, whatever you do. (I don't think he can, you are really pretty cool, but I thought I should say so anyway.)

Sometimes you have to walk a mile in someone else's shoes to understand them.
Sometimes you have to walk alongside them.
Sometimes you have to stand and encourage them as they walk away without you. And sometimes you leave first, and don't look back.

This kind of silliness calls for the last option. grin. He may want to get you to 'get your back up' by threatening you, so he can take you to court and maybe get some money out of you. If you take everything pertaining to him off your sites and ignore him after that, it is likely he will simply fade away.

I don't have personal enemies. I usually make friends out of my enemies. But in this case, I would minimize the problem and ignore him.


15 May 2008 @ 10:53 by ming : Enemies
I don't really have enemies either. In this kind of situation, my preferred strategy is simply to put it out in the open, to report on what happens. Not to attack the guy, but simply because it is the best defense. I could care less about his business. It is of course very unlikely that he'd be able to mount a lawsuit against me in France, and even if he could, there's really no basis for it. There wouldn't be in the US either, but there one could harrass somebody quite a bit, even with a frivolous lawsuit.  

17 May 2008 @ 01:15 by Kriss Hammond @ : Libel suit against Ming the Mechanic
Mr. Flemming Allen Funch - Okay, the lawyers have read your most recent account from my emails to you that you posted online. The crux of the problem is this: You are perpetuating the libelous rebroadcast of Carl Parkes or Carl Parks (he seems to go by both names). You have placed yourself as an unwitting partner with Mr. Parkes/ Parks with your rebroadcast of the libelous postings about us from Parkes or Parks that really puts you in jeopardy, either real or through innuendo. No, I am not a lawyer, but yes I do have good international entertainment lawyers, with associate offices in France. The problem again is that you have rebroadcast libelous material about us, and that is what is really going to affect you unless you pull down all references to Jetsetters Magazine online. Obviously you don't understand libel law. So I ask you one last time to kindly remove all references to us. You will note that none of the links in your original post about Jetsetters Magazine are live; you may want to ask Mr. Parks about this, or Mr. Parkes, and the publications he writes for. The lawyers have a PDF file of the original posting, with the live links you posted back to the libelous actions from Parkes/Park. So your only alternative now is to kindly stop referencing Jetsetters Magazine online in any manner. We will first try to deal with this issue with you, Ming the Mechanic, aka Flemming Funch, in a positive, non threatening, non legal manner.  

17 May 2008 @ 04:41 by Edward Knight @ : Libel Law
It is VERY difficult to prove libel. One must prove that the publisher, in this case, a certain FUNCH named Ming, knew the published information was false. Second, the accuser must prove that it was published with specific intent to damage the reputation of the libel victim. Third, there must be proof that actual damage has occurred as a result of the libel.
If anything, the yammering coming from the Jetsetter noise machine is likely to drive traffic to his site up, thereby negating the claim of actual damage.  

17 May 2008 @ 12:29 by ming : Libel
You're right. I'm not sure what part of anything I've said would even start to qualify. First there would have to be some information that possibly could be false. I mostly just reported what happened. This guy sent me threatening e-mails and said he wanted to sue me. I don't know if Kriss Hammond plans to dispute that, as he just sort of did the same thing again here.

So, first there would need to be some actual false information, and, yes, he'd need to prove that I knew it was false and was trying to hurt him, and that I did, and he had damages from that, etc.

One can't really sue people just for them having a negative opinion about you or what you do.  

17 May 2008 @ 13:17 by ming : Jetsetters
Mr. Hammond,

After I answered your e-mail this week, saying that you'd get much further by being nice, but that I'd publish any threats you send me, we exchanged a few e-mail messages. Messages in a fairly pleasant tone. You said that you don't really mind a bit of negative publicity, and that you'd much rather communicate normally, but that sometimes it is necessary to defend your interests more vigorously. You also said some nice things about me, and sent me some travel advice. I appreciated that more pleasant way of communicating. But I suppose you didn't see my posting here before afterwards.

Now, I looked over my previous posting. I can't see anything there that you possibly could have any kind of legal basis for suing me for. I basically just reported what happened, just like I did here. I linked to Carl Parkes' postings, which have since been removed, but that doesn't really change anything.

You didn't exactly sue Carl Parkes out of business either. And I don't think you could have, as his postings weren't libelous either. He merely got tired of you, which is no great surprise. You are not really all that interesting, and the entertainment value is fairly short-lived.

Will I remove all references to you? No. What happened is what happened. You're only buying yourself more negative publicity by sending out more threats. The wisest course of action for you would probably be to let it go. I have very little interest in you, and I have no vendetta against you. If I don't hear from you again, I'd forget about you very quickly.

For the record, though, if you had simply sent me a message saying, hey, that story was 3 years ago, and it doesn't represent what we do today, and it isn't so good for us that your blog post shows #3 in Google when people look for us, so would you maybe consider removing it? I very well might have. Because, well, it is old news, and I don't otherwise see any fresh controversies around you on the net. And I really don't care.

But by sending me a fresh set of preposterous threats, you made it into a fresh news item. Still, I don't carry grudges, so if you should write to me next year and say, hey, how about we forget about this whole thing, I might be open to that.  

17 May 2008 @ 20:04 by a-d : I would like to take this
opportunity to share this Info about us humans with all my NCN Reader- Friends; what constitutes a Sick/o and what not, so to speak...
I know, Skerrit talks about "Spouses and Loved One's" but since pretty much everybody is Someone's Spouse or Loved One, it goes for ALL Humanity: to me it is all about HUMANS; healthy, a little less healthy, even less healthy all the way to really pervert!....

Richard Skerrit's Writings have been most enlightening to me and I feel so empowered by every Insight he shares with me/us!

Here is one link (from where you can find your way to more of Skerrit's Writings -or I can give more links to his pages.
[ ]

" [In this essay, I talk about the perception we often form of disordered partners; a perception that they are, at heart, normal healthy and loving people. Somehow we imagine that they've been burdened with a disruptive illness, and that if we could just "peel away" that illness, we would have the wonderful person within.

This raises two issues, both of which I explore in greater depth in my new Meaning from Madness. The first is the question of what is at the core of disordered people. In reality, their behavior can span a very wide range, and we have to sort out what that means about them as people and as partners. The second is the question of healing, something that many of us have outdated ideas about based on what we read and hear. Meaning from Madness deals with the underlying dynamics and psychological defense mechanisms of the three disorders that show up in abusers: borderline, narcissistic, and sociopathic (antisocial), and it gives an updated outlook on treatment prospects. The book comes directly out of the explanations that people need to hear when they consult with me, and I recommend it as the ideal complement to Tears and Healing.

In keeping with Tears and Healing's focus on us rather than them, the message in this excerpt is focused on us and our beliefs about our partners. When our partners have personality disorders, especially the abusive ones named above, they are pretty seriously troubled people. Our natural inclination is to think the best of people, and that attitude can lead to a lot of hurt. This essay is an attempt to get to the reality of the situation.

The third piece in this relationship puzzle is the issue of being in love, which I address in In Love and Loving It - Or Not! The title is a not-so-subtle reference to the anguish these feelings of love can cause when things don't go right. I now have Tears & Healing Reflections , The Richard Skerritt Pack with all five of my books; the Relationship Pack with the four books that deal with relationships with a disordered person; and the smaller triple pack . Everything is here.

Today is the first half of this essay.]

Onions and Scrambled Eggs - Part 1
Well, Many nons feel that there is a “good core” in their PDSOs (significant others with a personality disorder, including borderline, narcissistic and antisocial) and that, much like an onion, they can somehow peel the layers of the disorder away, revealing this beautiful diamond core. Of course, most all of us live (or did) with behavior that varies all over the map from violent to adorable. Is it just a layer?

If you’re going to make good decisions, it’s important to understand what you live with. First, let’s look at PDs who are sick, in denial, and don’t accept responsibility. This isn’t a mood. This isn’t a passing state. I’ll say more about healing later, but to begin, we need to keep in mind that PDs are disordered and will stay that way until they accept responsibility for themselves The idea of a shimmering diamond is enticing, but is it there?

One analogy I have used around this issue is:

“My H is really a good, law-abiding person. It’s just that every once in a while he robs a bank. But really, deep down inside, he is a good, law abiding person.”

The only way I can make sense of this kind of alternating behavior is to back up from it. In my mind, the basic truth is:

Good, law-abiding people don’t rob banks. When you see someone rob a bank, you know they are not a law abiding person.

I would apply this to a definition of a loving person: A loving person does not demean, derogate, hit, kick, spit on, or rage at other people. When you see these behaviors, you know that you are not seeing a loving person.

A disordered person is just that: disordered. There is no gem of personality inside the disorder. This is why they are called personality disorders - because they disorder the entire structure of the person. Living with a disordered person and thinking there is a sparkling diamond waiting for us to uncover is unrealistic. We can never peel this onion. A PD is more like a scrambled egg. The tendency to be loving and good is intertwined with the compulsion to be hurtful. There is not some diamond inside, covered by a crust. The whole person is disordered - scrambled, if you will. You get it all together, or you get nothing. You might read the Parable of the Tree (p. 70).

Projected diamonds: And what is it that makes up this scrambled mess? Is it a diamond? Is it the precious person we imagine? Well, only healing will tell, but it’s not likely. The “ideal” persona that we sometimes see in our SOs is not an expression of their true self. It is a facade, held up to avoid rejection. Surely that cannot represent their core. And like everyone, we project our own wishes and desires onto others, including our SOs. “Oh, isn’t she sweet?” we coo at a toddler, even though she may be far from it. It is what we value and wish to see. We do this with our SOs, too. I talk about this a little in On Changing Values (p. 117). Our perceptions of our SOs are distorted by both their ideal facades and our own projected desires.

Not our onion: More importantly, even if this were an onion, it is not our onion to peel. Only the disordered person can choose to do that. It is not our responsibility to do that; it is not within our power to do that. If we are focused on “helping” our PDSO, we are in the wrong place. We need to be focused on helping ourselves. It is up to our SOs to choose to change.

[continued in next excerpt...]

Are you seeing a diamond at the core of someone who treats you horribly? Get the Relationship Pack or the triple pack and get the whole picture on your situation.

Read T&H? Time for Tears & Healing Reflections." ///

That's it for now from Richard Skerrit , posted by A-d -apropå's this Lunatic Kriss Hammond and I sure hope Richard Skerrit doesn't turn out to be another Kriss H.!...hehehhe, but since I don't even remember ever asking him for his material, to me it seems it just popped up on my e-mail space, and I then discovered -more by mistake than by intent- how good his Material was -and intriguing- to someone like me, who really wants so understand the TRUTH; the Good AND the Bad, about us Humans -how else can we go on growing to be more of what "GOD" intended us to be?!?...

Ming, if you don't like me doing this, then just delete it. I know it takes up a lot of space... but I think this gives us all a picture of what this Kriss-Boy really is all about!.... and maybe give you a hint of "how to handle" the guy!... Hopefully! ;)


20 May 2008 @ 14:30 by ming : Libel suit against Ming from Jetsetters
OK, so here's the next installment from Kriss Hammond, just received:

Date 20 mai 2008 16:16
Subject Libel suit against Ming from Jetsetters Magazine

Mr. Funch

Here is the latest. My lawyers inform me because of the nature of the Internet, AND because you have a telephone number in the US, that US courts have jurisdiction over any libel lawsuit against you, and then the lawyers can run the judgment through French courts for collection and settlement. This is not a precedent setting case. If you or your counsel does not appear in court in the US then you lose by default. My lawyers also will be contacting Google and other search engines about your libel case. You can take the simple route or we will take the complex route. We will also serve the lawsuit on any of your server providers and notify any of your employers of collection and settlement.


Kriss Hammond -
Editor - Jetsetters Magazine  

20 May 2008 @ 14:39 by ming : Libel
Alright, Mr. Hammond, I'm not sure I really believe you even have any lawyers. If you do, they're not giving you very good advice.

One can sue people for libel, but there has to be some kind of case there. I.e. somebody needs to have written something that appears to be libel. You should probably look up what that means. It is really not enough that you don't like what they're saying, or you don't like that it shows up in search engines. If you think I've posted anything that is libel, you should be able to tell me what exactly that is, for starters.  

22 May 2008 @ 04:12 by Edward Knight @ : Sad
Dear Flemming, Sadly, Mr Hammond's yammering is generating far more cr*p than what is warranted. Are you familiar with the site "Chilling Effects?" What our lawyerless friend might be meaning to say, instead of libel is that he is upset about what is detailed in the link below.
The very best to you. Sincerely,

22 May 2008 @ 04:14 by Edward Knight @ : Whoops!
I hope my linking to Chilling Effects doesn't cause them to sue either one of us for libel, or jaywalking, or yodeling within city limits.  

22 May 2008 @ 10:20 by ming : Yodeling
Heheh, thanks. Yes, I know about Chilling Effects. Excellent resource. I'll look more at their advice.  

24 May 2008 @ 20:11 by vortexd @ : KrISS my ass !
Ming, kudos on how you have handled this. I think you are spot on in this case. One should always ask nice the first time. Dont make war first, you are only going to cause resistance. I love the part where you tell him ask me again in a year politely and maybe you will take it down then. This was perfect. He gets a one year penalty for being a jerk. Infinium labs tried to sue and intimidate HardOCP magazine for writing an honest article and the intimidator (infinium) lost. There was no libel, they just didnt like the truth. This sounds like the same exact case. Now Infinium is all but out of business, probably in large part to the attempted lawsuit. Maybe jetsetters will suffer the same fate.  

4 Jun 2008 @ 21:48 by elion @ : Is This Guy For Real?
First of all, if he is so well financed that he can take days out of his busy work to pander at blog spheres and boast on an army of lawyers to slingfire at will, why does his website appear to be so poorly constructed? And hotmail account for email!!!

When someone confuses a webmaster with a programmer by which he really intented to call you a "script kiddie" or a "cracker," it becomes patently clear that he is dabbling in the Lala Land. Is he even cognizant of what "hyperlink" constitutes? And what useless "IT" team of experts monitor a traffic for this kind of shenanigan? This guy is just too uniquely irrelevant.

"Carl Parkes or Carl Parks (he seems to go by both names)"

You already mentioned that he is "finished" as in your imaginary suits of lawyers took care of him. In that case, it'll be reasonable to at least know him by his "real" name which obviously exposes your whole scheme to even lack the simplest form of legal representative and your entire claim a macabre joke the least to say.

"unwitting partner with Mr. Parkes/ Parks"

Is he placing you under the same legal status of et al. entities? Does this guy even know what he is talking about? And if this poor soul knew anything about how impossible is to win libel cases, he wouldn't even had gotten himself into this mess in the first place. Besides, I don't even think libel cases have much of legal status in the US so what is he babbling about?

Ask him to expose the firm that supposedly represents him and contact them to see whether he is even real. Bottom line is, I believe this guy is either a disenchanted Internet ninny or lives off of injecting bogus claims into his everyday life. In either case, you should sue him for being pedantically irritating.

P.S. Where do these people come from?  

5 Jul 2008 @ 15:35 by Lino @ : Press laws
I'd say, somebody is behaving in a really ridiculous manner - and should take a closer look at press laws, the right to free speach and other democratic rights in various countries. In this case of course especially those of France and the EU as a whole.
How can anybody in his right mind believe he can forbid Ming or anybody else to write about whoever and whatever he wants as long as he sticks to the truth.  

26 Sep 2008 @ 12:33 by Visitor @ : Jetsetters Magazine
What a moron (s)  

26 Sep 2008 @ 12:34 by Visitor @ : Jetsetters Magazine
What an ugly site - what are they talking about? does it even work for them? can't you get a virus there ?  

29 Apr 2016 @ 05:02 by Keydrick @ : qFUwwWfmJWToIH
disse:Vou ser sincero, não gostei. Talvez, depois de concertados os erros, pode ser que melhore para mim. Até lá, prefiro o anarbior.Aretços.[]  

Other entries in
24 Nov 2008 @ 10:57: American Justice: Any Hope?
11 Nov 2008 @ 07:40: In justice in Utah
3 Dec 2007 @ 22:40: Megadukkhas - quantifying suffering
16 Jul 2007 @ 09:28: Constitutional Crisis
6 Jul 2007 @ 23:16: Year One of the Roberts Court
4 Jul 2007 @ 10:50: Justice Texas Style
20 Apr 2007 @ 09:57: If I Hear "Robust" Once More, I'm Gonna Puke
26 Mar 2007 @ 19:25: The Profit
7 Jun 2006 @ 17:29: Transport of London sucks
31 Mar 2006 @ 17:10: where have all the lawyers gone ?

[< Back] [New Civilization News] [PermaLink]?