LAWYERS AND CRACKPOTS - AND WHY TO FILE PRO SE
I received the following email - I did not write this. Very funny.
(Smear Merchant Disclaimer: Please note this article (the same as all of
my past articles and exchanges with posters) represents an editorial on
contem****ary issues and events - my opinion. Nothing in this article
represents in any manner any asseveration of biographical fact, nor is
about, directed toward or against any particular person - other than
those specifically mentioned herein. This article is being posted for
entertainment purposes only. If any person finds this post personally
annoying, abusive, defaming or otherwise disturbing, please notify me of
your specific reasons for annoyance via email at legalcoach@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
we find your detailed objections reasonable (considering the
"reasonable person" doctrine and case law) we will then remove this
post, or the offending passages contained therein, from the Google
archive, publicly apologize and retract. My intent is to entertain, and
to present articles to USENET readers prior to publication to determine
interest, and not to annoy, abuse, humiliate, or in any way cause anyone
emotional harm by posting on USENET or elsewhere. Please note that
defending myself from harassment and obloquy with rebuttal posts has
been deemed a "lawful and legitimate" publication by my legal counsel.
If I am not attacked, defamed or harassed, or my copyrighted articles
not interrupted nor infringed upon, I clearly do not have a reason to
respond with a rebuttal. Please also note that I intend to notify any
and all ISP's and web hosts of any annoying or calumnious post, web site
or other similar entity about me after I give the offender an
op****tunity to retract, apologize and remove said post from the Google
archive).
IN ADDITION, considering the typical ridiculous, absurd and obviously
false claims about my military service that originates from Sp4 Nigel
Brooks and his Brownie crackpot gang, I also hereby certify and attest
this article is NOT a secret coded message that only Sp4 Nigel Brooks
can decode with his secret Federal Agent midget decoder and mind reading
ring. This means Mr. Sp4 Brooks, Mr. Uy Uy's (and their Brownie
crackpots that echo their every fraud and false accusation) inevitable
claims that this article is me really claiming in a soothsaying code (a
code Nigel Brooks and crackpots et al gang can only read of course which
involves the standard nonsensical Nigel Brooks mind reading claims) that
(1) I was a CIA cross border assassin that sniper killed Ho Chi Minh,
HOORAH - (2) that I personally killed 1803 enemy soldiers in Vietnam and
then feasted on their bodies (burp) (3) that I was a secret member of
the Mi Lai massacre, (let god sort them out) that I hunted down and
murdered unarmed Priests (take that choir boy) (4) that I was trained by
the Martian Army on Mars, and I have green blood, and retractable fangs
(slurp), (5) that the movie "Rambo" was copied after my deeds in Vietnam
and I still live in caves in the northwest (6) and best of all, I went
to the Carlise War College to study WWII tactics even before I was
born!!!! BWHAHAHAHAHHA. Such preposterous Sp4 Nigel Brooks'/Tom Rau and
crackpot et al smear and fraud gang claims about me are, as usual,
blatantly false and equally ridiculous. (Ask them for proof of their
claims the next time they make such ludicrous claims and watch them
scurry for their rocks). Also, note that all of the Nigel Brooks smear
gang's accusations about me have been submitted to a team of independent
and highly qualified investigators, experts on military issues, and the
law. I have already seen some of their written conclusions, and so far
all of the experts agree with me, and some believe I am being smeared
and defamed with fraud, false accusations and obloquy, and two have
recommended I take immediate legal action. I will publish all of their
opinions about the Nigel Brooks accusations when all of his and his
gang's
false accusations, forgeries, fraud, false military record
representations, and general obloquy have been investigated).
> >
> > ATTORNEY: Are you ***ually active?
> > WITNESS: No, I just lie there.
> > ___________________________________________________________________
> >
> >
> > ATTORNEY: What gear were you in at the moment of the impact?
> > WITNESS: Gucci sweats and Reeboks.
> > _______________ _______________________
> >
> >
> > ATTORNEY: This myasthenia gravis, does it affect your memory at
> > all?
> > WITNESS: Yes.
> > ATTORNEY: And in what ways does it affect your memory?
> > WITNESS: I forget.
> > ATTORNEY: You forget? Can you give us an example of something you
> > forgot?
> > _____________________________________
> >
> >
> > ATTORNEY: What was the first thing your husband said to you that
> > morning?
> > WITNESS: He said, 'Where am I, Cathy?'
> > ATTORNEY: And why did that upset you?
> > WITNESS: My name is Susan!
> > ______________________________________
> >
> >
> > ATTORNEY: Do you know if your daughter has ever been involved in
> > voodoo?
> > WITNESS: We both do.
> > ATTORNEY: Voodoo?
> > WITNESS: We do.
> > ATTORNEY: You do?
> > WITNESS: Yes, voodoo.> > ______________________________________
> >
> >
> > ATTORNEY: Now doctor, isn't it true that when a person dies in his
> > sleep, he doesn't know about it until the next morning?
> > WITNESS: Did you actually pass the bar exam?
> > ____________________________________
> >
> >
> > ATTORNEY: The youngest son, the twenty-year-old, how old is he?
> > WITNESS: Uh, he's twenty.
> > ________________________________________
> >
> >
> > ATTORNEY: Were you present when your picture was taken?
> > WITNESS: Are you ****'in me?
> > ______________________________________
> >
> >
> > ATTORNEY: So the date of conception (of the baby was August 8th?
> > WITNESS: Yes.
> > ATTORNEY: And what were you doing at that time?
> > WITNESS: Uh.... I was gett'in laid!
> > ______________________________________
> >
> >
> > ATTORNEY: She had three children, right?
> > WITNESS: Yes.
> > ATTORNEY: How many were boys?
> > WITNESS: None.
> > ATTORNEY: Were there any girls?
> > WITNESS: Are you ****'in me? Your Honor, I think I need a
> > different attorney. Can I get a new attorney?
> > ___________________________ ___________
> >
> > ATTORNEY: How was your first marriage terminated?
> > WITNESS: By death.
> > ATTORNEY : And by whose death was it terminated?
> > WITNESS: Now whose death do you suppose terminated it?
> > ______________________________________
> >
> >
> > ATTORNEY: Can you describe the individual?
> > WITNESS: He was about medium height and had a beard.
> > ATTORNEY: Was this a male or a female?> > WITNESS: Guess.
> > _____________________________________
> >
> >
> > ATTORNEY: Is your appearance here this morning pursuant to a
> > deposition notice which I sent to your attorney?
> > WITNESS: No, this is how I dress when I go to work.
> > ________________________ ______________
> >
> >
> > ATTORNEY: Doctor, how many of your autopsies have you performed on
> > dead people?
> > WITNESS: All my autopsies are performed on dead people. Would you
> > like to rephrase that?
> > ______________________________________
> >
> >
> > ATTORNEY: ALL your responses MUST be oral, OK? What school did you
> > go to?
> > WITNESS: Oral.
> > ______________________________________
> >
> >
> > ATTORNEY: Do you recall the time that you examined the body?
> > WITNESS: The autopsy started around 8:30 p.m.
> > ATTORNEY: And Mr. Denton was dead at the time?
> > WITNESS: No, he was sitting on the table wondering why I was
> > doing an autopsy on him!
> > ____________________________________________
> >
> > ATTORNEY : Are you qualified to give a urine sample?
> > WITNESS: Huh....are you qualified to ask that question?
> > _ _____________________________________
> >
> >
> > And the best for last:
> >
> >
> > ATTORNEY: Doctor, before you performed the autopsy, did you check
> > for a pulse?
> > WITNESS: No.
> > ATTORNEY: Did you check for blood pressure?
> > WITNESS: No.
> > ATTORNEY: Did you check for breathing?
> > WITNESS: No.> > ATTORNEY: So, then it is possible that the patient
> > was alive when
> > you began the autopsy?
> > WITNESS: No.
> > ATTORNEY: How can you be so sure, Doctor?
> > WITNESS: Because his brain was sitting on my desk in a jar.
> > ATTORNEY: I see, but could the patient have still been alive,
> > nevertheless?
> > WITNESS: Yes, it is possible that he could have been alive and
> > practicing law.
Heh
Doug Grant (Tm)
"Troll #327" <leonard@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:sl9v24l8i589m58ss1c7kl2ii7mpclhfek@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Sat, 17 May 2008 11:59:07 -0700, "DGVREIMAN"
> <dgvreiman@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>>LAWYERS AND CRACKPOTS - AND WHY TO FILE PRO SE
>>
>>I received the following email - I did not write this. Very funny.
>>
>>
>>Snip crackpot cyberstalking and false FBI re****ts again.
Spam?
I find it amazing the smear gang gang members would (1) violate my
copyrights, and (2) reply to a post leaving the title intact and then
complain about the contents of the original post being in the post when
I reply to their spam. It seems they are deliberately causing my posts
to be repeated several times as Giganews has authorized me to replace
the original post contents whenever it is snipped out and the title line
is deliberately allowed to remain intact. (That is the way smear
merchant hide facts that prove they are lying - it is a common practice
for smear gangs I am told).
Of course Giganews and lawyers, and law enforcement are wise to the
tactics of smear merchants.
Even the smear merchants must realize a reply to a post is not another
repeated initiated post? So why are they repeating my posts twenty or
thirty times and then howling spam when I reply to their repeats? Are
they trying to fraudulently claim I am the one repeating the posts they
in fact are repeating when I reply to their spam? Naw, no one is *that*
stupid. It is clear the smear gang resorts to snipping out entire post
contents and leaving the title line intact so as to (1) hide the post
and (2) hide the fact that one of their gang members has been
irrefutably proved a liar and a fraud merchant. Then of course when I
reply and replace the original post so people will understand what the
title line is about, they try to defraud the readers by claiming I
simply repeated the same post twenty or thirty times - which anyone that
can read headers can easily see that claim is a complete fraud. If it
is not this Repeating Spam fraud they are using when they know the facts
I present cannot be refuted, then it is the fake Kook votes they claim
happened but never did.
It appears to me that anytime I defend myself from one of NIgel Brooks
or Tom Rau's outright frauds, false accusations, forgeries and obloquy,
with a truthful rebuttal, their smear gang members come out of the
woodwork and try to hide or distort my proof those smear merchants have
been caught lying and using false accusations. Some of the gang members
even used the same fake names, and traded off using the same fake name
several times while they were repeating my posts. They repeat my posts,
then blame me for doing so, which is of course typical smear merchant
fraud, but it is so transparent they certainly cannot believe someone
would not see what is going on? Are they *really* as stupid as they
sound?
Doug Grant (Tm)
|
