"DGVREIMAN" <dgvreiman@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:pdednZ3emLhKn6vVnZ2dnUVZ_ovinZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> "Nigel Brooks" <nbrooks@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:69ledlF33ghn9U1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>> "DGVREIMAN" <dgvreiman@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>> news:3Pidne0vi5Lw2KjVnZ2dnUVZ_v7inZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>
>>> "Nigel Brooks" <nbrooks@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>> news:69k6pgF31og69U1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>
>>>> "DGVREIMAN" <dgvreiman@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>>> news:c_udnTpO9pE4QqnVnZ2dnUVZ_tjinZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>>
>>>>> "Mac" <NoSpamToday@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>>>> news:eec734phnnd6qc3v8kl07t2ulfpdkdvgkb@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>>> On Tue, 20 May 2008 15:41:11 -0400, Sharky <sharky@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Messrs: Stevel/Paul Carrier/Dennis McDonnell, including all other
>>>>>>>false
>>>>>>>names you may use, you are hereby once again notified to cease and
>>>>>>>desist your cyberstalking such as reposting forged FBI do***ents
>>>>>>>about
>>>>>>>me, and cease and desist your intentional copyright infringements
and
>>>>>>>violations or face legal action.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ========== ====
>>>>>> Go pound sand...
>>>>>> Apparently you have had a relapse.
>>>>>> Once again you are claiming that several different people are one
>>>>>> person.
>>>>>> When next you talk to those "legal-experts" to whom you present a
>>>>>> very one-sided, biased discussion, ask them to help you read
simple
>>>>>> HEADERS....
>>>>>> Jeez!
>>>>>> --Mac
>>>>>
>>>>> Doug's Rebuttal:
>>>>>
>>>>> Mr. McDonnell, are you claiming that you have not posted under fake
>>>>> names in respect to posts about or directed to me? BWHAHAHAHAHAHA.
>>>>>
>>>>> Moreover, you were already offered the op****tunity to provide any
and
>>>>> all evidence you wished to present to the INDEPENDENT legal and
>>>>> military experts I have retained to justify your volumes of false
>>>>> accusations about me and my service. So far you have ignored that
>>>>> offer and snipped it out of your replies.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you post your evidence to back up your accusations about me you
can
>>>>> be sure the experts will receive it and will consider it before they
>>>>> render an opinion, and they will reconsider their opinion if they
>>>>> have already rendered an opinion, especially if the evidence is new.
>>>>>
>>>>> They are NOT going to get involved with a gang of smear merchants on
>>>>> USENET that are not interested in the truth, and use several fake
>>>>> names to further their fraud and cyberstalking. But they will read
>>>>> all sides of an issue before they render their opinion. Obviously
your
>>>>> claim of me presenting them with a biased discussion is a lie, if
you
>>>>> disagree, please provide your evidence.
>>>>>
>>>>> Those experts have a reputation, they will not lie for you nor for
me.
>>>>> They are interested in facts and evidence, which is what I am also
>>>>> interested in. The days of smear gangs' lying and then sup****ting
>>>>> those lies with volumes of fake named posts to smear and defame
their
>>>>> targeted victims are over. However, I must warn you that if you
>>>>> attempt to falsify evidence, or lie about me or such evidence, such
>>>>> fraud could be used against you in a court of law when these experts
>>>>> testify.
>>>>>
>>>>> Time to walk the walk Mr. McDonnell. I have replied to you only to
>>>>> again offer you the op****tunity to provide your evidence to sup****t
>>>>> your accusations about me if you have any. If not, then I will
assume
>>>>> you are simply deliberately lying.
>>>>>
>>>>> Moreover, since you and your "friends" have often repeated the fraud
>>>>> Tom Rau has posted about me, I suggest you read the following
rebuttal
>>>>> to Mr. Rau's lies before you dream up some more false accusations
>>>>> about me.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/447mjw
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Doug Grant (Tm)
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Mr. Reimans experts (COD):
>>>>
>>>>
http://law.justanswer.com/questions/15ukz-usenet-libel-defamation-question
>>>>
>>>> http://military-law.justanswer.com/questions/13ytr-searching-person
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Nigel Brooks
>>>
>>> Doug Says: Mr. Brooks I have used experts on that forum and other
>>> experts as well not on that forum. The experts that will testify in
>>> court and the ones I am using primarily are not of that forum.
However,
>>> if you wish to use the retired First Sergeant as a reviewing expert in
>>> respect to your claims, I will be glad to consult him again. Do you
>>> have any new evidence to back up your accusations about me? If you do
>>> please present it and I will present him with your evidence and my
>>> rebuttal, and we shall let the chips fall where they may.
>>>
>>> Doug Grant (Tm)
>>>
>>
>> You are joking right?
>>
>> Do you really expect that I would trust you to provide Ed with the
>> information that I utilized in arriving at my conclusions?
>>
>> Tell you what - I will present my the information that I utilized in
>> arriving at the conclusion you have lied - at the appropriate time and
>> place of my choosing.
>>
>> I feel confident that given all of the facts - your "experts" will
agree
>> with me.
>>
>> Nigel Brooks
>
> Doug Says: Mr. Brooks, I will publish your evidence and my rebuttal in
> the same question to Ed. When he publishes his answer the question he
is
> answering will be published right along with it. So you do not need to
> trust me, only him, and he will not lie for either of us. You already
> know this, so why duck and dodge a simple independent review of your
false
> accusations if you were "confident" that independent expert would agree
> with you? Why not even go to independent arbitration loser pays if you
> are so confident? I am confident that all experts will agree with me,
and
> ALL I have consulted so far have done precisely that.
>
> We all know that you jumped to false conclusions about me Mr. Brooks,
and
> we all know that after you stick your neck out with those false
> conclusions, and it gets chopped off with the truth, you run around like
a
> chicken with its head chopped off lying, blustering, lying and
blustering
> and producing "evidence" that is both ridiculous and irrelevant (such as
> producing statements by Chip that you know I nor my typist never read or
> knew about and claiming something we clearly did not know about should
> have been considered by us when we replied to Chip - while hiding all
the
> times as far back as 1998 when I said I did not have a Purple Heart
Medal
> in a court action, and all subsequent times I said the same).
>
> You act as if you have never made a mistake, or you cannot make a
mistake.
> Your conclusions about me were wrong, false, and you are finding that
out,
> and you are making a fool out of yourself by sticking with your false
> conclusions and statements. But making a further fool out of yourself
in
> is up to you. I have offered you an op****tunity to provide a third
> independent expert your evidence sup****ting your accusations and I will
> produce my rebuttals, and let the experts sort out the truth - yet you
run
> and hide and find some flimsy and transparent excuse not to allow that
to
> happen.
>
> And we both know the reason why. Stop it Brooks! Admit you erred and
go
> on with your life, and if you continue your attacks this issue will just
> keep going up to a new levels until you and your gang are going to end
up
> paying a lot of money for your false conclusions and accusations.. .
but
> then if that is the way you want it I am your huckleberry.
Evidence used to conclude that in post number 17 of the thread "Al Qaeda
Says Saddam an Infidel" you were claiming to have been awarded the United
States Military Decoration the Purple Heart for wounds received as a
result
of enemy action is as follows:
a. On May 21, 1998 you wrote in part "And I was wrong to think the VC
that
fired at me would not hit me"
b. On September 12, 2001 you wrote in part " War is a terrible thing to
behold. I know, I fought in one for a very long time, and I was wounded
and
almost lost my life"
c. On October 24, 2001 you wrote in part "I abbhor war, having fought and
wounded in Vietnam".
d. On May 27, 2002 you wrote in part "And yes, I fought for my country,
and
I have killed the enemy and I was wounded in the process"
e. All of the above were prior to your response to Mr. Ciammachella who
was
responding to your retort that you suspected he had never seen a shot
fired
in anger in his life (http://tinyurl.com/kfz36
- post number 15).
In answer, Mr. Ciammaichella quoted you and responded as follows:
"I have a Purple Heart and a CAR that proves you wrong, Dougie."
((http://tinyurl.com/kfz36
post number 16)
You then responded "I have a Purple Heart also" in post 17
((http://tinyurl.com/kfz36
)
f. Further evidence that Mr. Ciammachella was referring to the United
States Military award the Purple Heart and the Combat Action Ribbon - not
a
Veterans Administration ID card as you are attempting to claim - would be
his post of January 20, 2003 where he said in part:
"I have a military service, a Purple Heart, a Purple Heart and scars I
will
carry forever that prove that I have at least a little courage"
Later in that post he said "My service in the Marine Corps, my Combat
Action
Ribbon and my Purple Heart prove you wrong again boy."
http://tinyurl.com/29s4q8
Then on February 5, 2003 Mr. Ciammaichella said "I served 9 years in the
USMC. Among my decorations are a Combat Action Ribbon and a Purple Heart
I
have the dubious *honor* of *winning* after being wounded in action in
Beirut in 1983" http://tinyurl.com/3x58n6.
On September 11, 2002 Mr. Ciammaichella said "I served my time and more in
the Marine Corps, earning the dubious honor of a purple heart from a
terrorist attack". http://tinyurl.com/389b59
Based on all of the above evidence - I am convinced and satisfied that
during your engagement with Mr. Ciammaichella in the thread entitled "Al
Qaeda Says Saddam an Infidel" he was referring to the United States
Military
Award the Purple Heart Medal which is awarded for injuries as a result of
enemy action. I am also convinced that when he used the acronym "CAR" he
was referring to the Combat Action Ribbon.
I am satisfied that your post in response to Mr. Ciammaichella in the
thread "Al Qaeda Says Saddam an Infidel" wherein you responded by saying -
in part "I have a Purple Heart also, and I received mine in a real
war"(http://tinyurl.com/kfz36
, was designed to convey the impression to
the reader that you have been awarded the United States Military award
"The
Purple Heart".
In making this determination I took a variety of factors into account, I
took into account your subsequent claims that you were actually speaking
of
a card issued by the Veterans Administration and that Mr. Ciammaichella
was
also referring to a like card. It is my opinion that the claim lacks
veracity, indeed one would have to abandon all common sense in order to
accept the explanation
I also took into account your reputation for veracity in USENET since at
least 1998. I took into account things such as your claim to have a PhD
in
Statistics, your claim to have met Wesley Clark, your claim to have spent
30
years in the military with your last command being an MI command, and many
many other facts which have been refuted by my investigation.
Feel free to have your expert contact me directly and I will be happy to
provide him with all of the information which I utilized to determine that
you were lying.
I am not willing however to pay his $30 fee to learn something I already
know and am confident of.
--
Nigel Brooks
|
