"DGVREIMAN" <dgvreiman@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:VsGdnTgk18RjG6rVnZ2dnUVZ_tPinZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> "Nigel Brooks" <nbrooks@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:69mjtpF34i796U1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> "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
>
> Doug Says: No one asked you to pay a fee you cheapo. And I will
provide
> him with your "evidence" above and my rebuttal to it. Moreover, I am
> confident your self-serving confidence and knowledge is not based upon
> fact nor reason nor evidence, it is based upon ridiculous irrelevant
> bull****, but that will be something for the experts to decide not me
nor
> you.
Exactly what is it about the response "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" you fail to understand?
If Ed is indeed your "expert" he would be derelict by allowing one part to
an argument present what pur****ts to be the other party's evidence. And we
all know how you have previously been accused of mischaracterizing the
facts
(See Grant V. Greate Bay and your recent foray into federal lawsuits -
Western District of Wa****ngton).
No Mr. Reiman - Don't presume to act on my behalf - just have your
"expert"
contact me.
> As a case in point, you are posting things that Chip said that neither
my
> typist nor I heard him say nor read. Your posts above prove that I
never
> had anything to do with his comments, no reply to his comments came from
> me, not even once. So how can something I (nor my typist) could not
> possibly know have anything to do with what we thought he was trying to
> say in his post? If he had a conversation with his wife the Sunday
before
> he wrote what he wrote and in that conversation told his wife he had the
> purple heart medal, would you also claim that conversation was something
> we should have known and considered before we replied to him? The real
> and rational world does not have crystal balls like you seem to claim to
> have Mr. Brooks.
>
> Another point is you omitted all those times BEFORE the 2003 post that I
> said I did not have a purple heart medal, and all those times after,
which
> occurred long before you said a word about this post that was discarded
> into my waste basket due to its error. (Remember I submitted a
1998-1999
> statement to the court providing a brief autobiography of my military
> service - no purple heart medal was mentioned in that re****t). I also
> stated in 2004 no purple heart medal, and about a dozen times
thereafter.
> So if, like you claim, it was my intention to deceive everyone into
> believing I had a purple heart medal then why on Earth would I say I did
> not have that medal before and after the erred post about a dozen times?
>
> The post was written wrong by my typist Brooks, and when the error was
> detected it was removed and discarded as it should have been, and Google
> was told the precise reason it was being removed, because the word
"Cards"
> was missing and the post could be thereby misconstrued.
>
> You are claiming that a post that was long discarded was an intentional
> post and the replacement post that corrected the error was false. Do
you
> know how irrational that sounds to an independent expert Mr. Brooks?
>
> In fact you and Tom Rau agreed in a post in 2005 that I did not have nor
> ever claimed I had a purple heart medal. Yet in 2006 based upon a long
> removed ambiguous post maliciously dug out of my electronic waste basket
> by one of your smear gang members for the obvious and deliberate purpose
> to forge the context of that discarded post to defame and smear, you
> contradicted your own statements about this issue.
>
> You also ignored the fact that you offered to retract your claim the
post
> was about Medals and in fact was about Cards if I posted the fact that
> Chip did not have a purple heart medal nor any combat ribbons. When I
> agreed to post that proof, you then backpedaled from your offer to
> retract. You failed to mention that fact in your new evidence above
also
> Mr. Brooks.
>
> You also ignored that within weeks of when my typist posted that erred
> post someone asked me if I was referencing a purple heart medal in that
> very post, and I responded with "that claim is a complete distortion and
> false innuendo of what was written" or words to that effect. So if I
> intended to deceive everyone with a claim I possessed that medal, why
> would I deny the allegation that is what I meant the first time it was
> mentioned way back in 2003?
>
> You also lied and said when you first brought up this discarded post
that
> was maliciously retrieved from my waste basket by SteveL (Google is
> investigating this issue as I write this and they are pissed about it)
> back in 2006 I never replied.
>
> You said I never said it was about Cards and not Medals when you first
> brought it up, and because I did not respond then it could not have been
> about Cards. Yet by your own admission you just proved it WAS about
> Cards and not medals and your above stated conclusion to the contrary is
> completely false and preposterous. Why? Because the Google archive
> evidence shows that not only did I immediately respond to your 2006 post
> and say I had removed an erred posts about Purple Heart Cards, I also,
in
> the same post mentioned that someone else wrote the post that was
removed.
> So here is irrefutable confirmation that (1) someone other than me wrote
> the post and (2) the post was removed due to an error which means it
> obviously was not intentional, and (3) the post was intended to be about
> cards and not medals.
>
> If you disagree with any of my rebuttal above, and wish to provide
> evidence anything I said is wrong or incorrect or misleading, then
please
> do so before May 30, 2008, as that weekend I will resubmit your claims
and
> new evidence and my rebuttal and proof of it to the expert for his
review
> and opinion.
>
>
> OH, BTW, about my wounds and injuries, I have FINALLY received a copy of
> the morning re****t that shows I was hospitalized in the 36th Evac after
> being med-evacuated from Can Tho. There is a reason the NPRC could not
> find these records after years of searching which I will not elaborate
on
> at this time.
>
> I also have contacted both Sp4 Olson and Sp5 Nelson and records, spoke
to
> some other people that were also on that patrol, (and on others) and
more
> about that patrol and what happened on it is coming, including specific
> information about Sp4 Olson and Sp5 Nelson's purple heart medals and
what
> happened to Sp4 Olson after he was med-evacuated. (When I reference
> wounds I am assuming you agree that concussions are considered "wounds"
> even if they are minor ones - and all bleeding wounds that are minor are
> rarely taken to an aid station or hospital if a band aid will do the
> trick).
1. Don't assume anything Mr. Reiman.
As it relates to the following posts by you:
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"
and
"I have a Purple Heart also, and I received mine in a real war"
http://tinyurl.com/kfz36
I have confidence that anyone reading those posts in the context they were
made would come to the conclusion that the word "wounded" was meant to
infer
that the individual making those posts was wounded as a result of enemy
action as described in AR600.
I also am confident that in the exchange with ChipC - they would reach
exactly the same conclusion when taking into account his prior utterances
concerning Lebanon.
2. As it relates to "Olson"
To refresh your memory - the argument is not over whether a person named
Olson exists - it is about your claim that a person named Olson was
killed.
On December 23, 2004 in a thread entitled "Mosul Attack-Fire The Generals"
http://tinyurl.com/qpojx
"We suffered dozens of casualties, two of which were men assigned to my
team. Sp4 Olson received a mortal wound in his liver that night, and Sp4
Nelson was wounded in the arm. (Nelson if you are reading this by chance
email me)."
When I questioned whether or not the incident involving Olson really
happened you adamantly stated on March 4, 2005 as follows
http://www.tinyurl/g8qby
:
"Doug Says: Look again Nigel, you are lying or stupid, one or the
other. He was hit on that mission I was on and as I described,
which hospital he was in when he eventually died I do not
remember, but I do know where he was hit that night, and I also
know his name is on the Wall Nigel. "
The term "Mortal Wound" in common usage means the following: A severe
injury which leads directly to the death of the victim.
You were adamant that Olson had died - you "knew" his name was on the wall
in your reply of March 4 - yet when faced with the irrefutable facts that
absolutely no-one named Olson with the 25th Division died during that time
frame - you changed your story.
> Hint, it is almost impossible to be walking directly in front of two men
> that were severaly wounded in an abused patrol without receiving at
least
> some minor wounds and a minor concussion from the multiple incoming
> explosions. And that was long before Can Tho.
So what are you saying here? Are you claiming that you were walking
directly in front of two men that were severely wounded and that you
received "some minor wounds and a minor concussion from the multiple
incoming explosion?
Try to restrict your answers to the points I have made without going off
the
deep end.
Nigel Brooks
|
