N
Nigel Brooks
Guest
"DGVREIMAN" <dgvreiman@comcast.net> wrote in message
news
6ednbQl5sxpuqXanZ2dnUVZ_jidnZ2d@comcast.com...
>
> "Nigel Brooks" <nbrooks@msn.com> wrote in message
> news:5pot1pFs0g7cU1@mid.individual.net...
>> "DGVREIMAN" <dgvreiman@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:xbednRuFgslqyKvanZ2dnUVZ_u2mnZ2d@comcast.com...
>>>
>>> "Dai Uy" <Dai-Uy@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
>>> newsai-Uy-C739A6.10335310112007@news-server.hawaii.rr.com...
>>>> In article <gbSdneBmSs9YyajanZ2dnUVZ_uuqnZ2d@comcast.com>,
>>>> "DGVREIMAN" <dgvreiman@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Doug Says: The above post was not composed nor written nor
>>>>> posted by me, and regardless, it is not referencing medals.
>>>>
>>>> The headers clearly indicate that Message-ID:
>>>> <WaU3a.38894$rq4.3061...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
>>>> was written by "DGVREIMAN" <dggr...@worldnet.att.net>. Accept
>>>> the facts.
>>>>
>>>>> The
>>>>> cut and paste by ChIp is incomplete, does not contain the last
>>>>> paragraph that explains what the typist was referencing.
>>>>
>>>> No doubt you will be posting a revised version with the
>>>> missing last paragraph that will explain what the typist was
>>>> referencing.
>>>
>>> Doug's Rebuttal: In fact, if a criminal charges are filed over this
>>> issue (which will happen if anyone states that I claimed a purple heart
>>> medal as a statement of fact and not as some smear merchant's fraudulent
>>> opinion which is clearly designed to defame) or a lawyer gets involved,
>>> the prosecutor or the lawyer (if no statement of fact from an
>>> identifiable person I can file a Federal court action at my expense
>>> asking for a restraining order and damages in respect to this issue as
>>> soon as next week) the lawyer can then Subpoena Google for a copy and
>>> the reason it was removed. If the reason provided google for removal
>>> does not state this post was removed due to the context being Purple
>>> Heart Cards, or if the post itself does not state that fact as my
>>> typist's notes indicate, then I will pay for all legal fees and withdraw
>>> all charges. However, if it does contain the Purple Heart Card
>>> reference, then YOU plead guilty to criminal libel (that is if you are
>>> stating as a fact I ever claimed I had won a purple heart medal) and you
>>> pay for the legal fees. If you are not stating as a statement of fact
>>> that I ever claimed a Purple Heart Medal then I suggest you stop
>>> attempting to associate me with people that have been arrested for
>>> claiming fake medals or for defrauding the US Government in some manner
>>> or another, because such fraudulent associations clearly are designed to
>>> criminally libel me by claiming I too am guilty of the same crimes you
>>> are reporting. And even if you do not mention me by name, your gang
>>> leader follows up on your post and does, which is clearly represents
>>> criminal conspiracy to criminally libel me over this issue.
>>
>> Had the Stolen Valor Act amendment to Title 18 of the United States Code
>> been in effect prior to your February 16, 2003 post (number 17) to the
>> thread entitled Al Qaeda Says Saddam an Infidel, I have every confidence
>> that the claim to have been a Purple Heart recipient would have been
>> prosecutable under that statute - but fortunately for you, the Statute
>> was not signed into law until 2006 - so you get a free pass (ex post
>> facto laws being unconstitutional)
>
> Doug Says; Since I never claimed I received a Purple Heart Medal, that
> law has zero applicability to me. However, since you claimed that you
> received a Victoria Cross in Vietnam, and since you claimed you receive
> Vietnam Campaign Medals that were awarded long after you left the service,
> no doubt the criminal statutes would apply to you if those claims were
> stated after 2006. Do you wish to reiterate those claims you made in this
> respect, or do you now want to admit you were lying and never earned the
> medals you claimed you had been awarded?
>>
>>> I have not filed a single criminal complaint against anyone that I
>>> believed to be a Veteran (SteveL is the one exception). However, one
>>> more fraudulent association in that regard should be enough for me to
>>> demand criminal libel charges be filed against you in your home town,
>>> and then the Prosecutor can be the one that contacts Google, and I will
>>> get a trip to Hawaii to testify. If you continue to accuse me of a crime
>>> by implication or statement, I will take legal action against you.
>>
>> I have every confidence that when a competent prosecutorial authority
>> reviews any claims you might wish to make concerning these matters, and
>> they take into account the overwhelming evidence of your duplicity - and
>> tell you politely to **** off.
>
> Doug Says: Considering I have never posted any duplicity outside of your
> forgeries and fraud claiming otherwise, I will be more than happy to allow
> a prosecutor to review this issue....apparently you are speaking for Mr.
> Rau and the rest of your gang.
>>
>>
>>>> Chip quoted your entire message - refutting it point by
>>>> point, paragraph by paragraph -- including the last paragraph.
>>>> He deleted only your signature.
>>>
>>> Doug Says: Bullshit. See above to prove this issue once and for all.
>>> He cut and pasted only the part he wanted to respond to and the bottom
>>> of the post was not repeated by Chip, and your own admission that he did
>>> not cut and paste any signature proves that fact. Had he provided the
>>> entire post then a signature would have appeared at the immediate
>>> bottom of the fragment he excerpted. But it is interesting that you now
>>> admit that no signature appears on the post, yet in ALL other cases it
>>> does....You have just proved my point Mr. Rau that the cut and paste by
>>> Chip was NOT complete and did not include the entire contents of Post
>>> 17.
>>>>
>>>> See original messages -- yours and Chip C's -- below:
>>>>
>>>> Here is your original post (Number 17 in the thread)
>>>
>>> Mr. Rau, you and I both know you are simply repeating what Chip cut and
>>> pasted over a different post header. If post 17 was complete it would
>>> have included a signature and the statement at the bottom of the post
>>> that referenced the fact we were discussing cards and not medals. The
>>> signature is missing. The statement in parentheses is missing. You and
>>> the Cyberstalking nutcase SteveL are simply forging headers over a cut
>>> and past by Chip. Your forgery is obvious.
>>>
>>> We all can see what you two are doing in your desperation. There is no
>>> signature on the post and no statement in parentheses....the post is
>>> clearly incomplete. If you disagree find another complete post from the
>>> account I was using that did not contain a signature.n No? Of course
>>> not because none exist. However, you claim that I wrote this post
>>> although you also acknowledge that this is the only post from the
>>> account I was using that DID NOT contain a signature. So who signed the
>>> post? If it was unsigned then the post cannot be attributed to anyone.
>>> Yet if it was signed, then what you, Brooks and SteveL are purporting to
>>> be the complete post Number 17 is an outright forgery.
>>>
>>> Moreover, my server allows me and encourages me to post information to
>>> up to five or six different Newsgroups if those newsgroups contain
>>> individuals that are interested in the post.
>>>
>>> I have received emails from people that have been watching your fraud
>>> and smear gang unravel, and they are rejoicing in the fact that finally
>>> someone is standing up to your forgeries, fraud, and outright obloquy
>>> you and your gang members use to target your smear victims.
>>
>> Sure you have (this is not an acknowledgement of the veracity of your
>> claim to have received "supporting emails" it is sarcasm)
>>
>>> Each newsgroup I list has responded at one time or another to this
>>> issue, in many different ways. So please stop trying to hide the truth
>>> about your forgeries, fraud and unethical behavior....I noticed you did
>>> not try to omit newsgroups when you and Brooks and other gang members
>>> were posting your fraud and forgeries about me.
>>>
>>> I have received a recent confirmation from Chip over this issue and he
>>> confirmed precisely what he told me before, that (1) he does not have a
>>> Purple Heart Medal, and (2) that was not the context of his post, he was
>>> talking about Purple Heart Cards and NOT Medals, which was a previous
>>> topic prior to this post.
>>
>> Perhaps you would be so kind as to provide a copy of the communication
>> between yourself and Mr. Ciammaichella - either here in these forums - or
>> posted to your http://groups.google.com/group/namesofcyberstalkers google
>> group.
>
> Doug Says: Mr. Ciammaichella has not authorized me to repeat any email
> correspondence between him and I...but I will state again that he has
> confirmed that he was talking about Purple Heart Cards and not Medals as
> he originally confirmed a few weeks after the original exchange in 2003.
> Yet I notice that you, Mr. Brooks has claimed he told you otherwise, and I
> say your claim he contradicted the facts in this issue is an outright lie.
> Mr. Ciammaichella did not tell you otherwise, and in fact did not
> communicate with you at all....your claim is an outright lie and
> fraudulent misrepresentation. Mr. Ciammaichella would never claim a medal
> that he did not possess.
>>
>> Also kindly provide the appropriate reference for the "previous topic
>> prior to this post" which referred to "Purple Heart Cards" there doesn't
>> seem to be any such reference in Mr. Ciammaichella's google profile. A
>> query of the google group archive only returns 16 instances where he has
>> mentioned "Purple Heart"
>>
>> 1. To all members of this group - On Sept 11, 2002 (post 13 and 100 of
>> the thread)
>> 2. Dems Want Draft Reinstate...Kool!!! - On Jan 11 -13, 2003 (posts 74,
>> 80, 85, 87)
>> 3. Iraq: Direct action may become a necessity - on Jan 20, 2003
>> 4. I was spit on when I returned from Vietnam - on Jan 28, 2003
>> 5. Overpass Peace Protests anre booming - now spread to seven states -
>> On Feb 3, 2003
>> 6. The smoking gun has arrived - on Feb 5, 2003
>> 7. 10 million join world protest rallies - on Feb 16, 2003
>> 8. Al Qaeda Says Saddam an Infidel - on Feb 16, 2003 (posts 16 and 18)
>> 9. Vietnam was horrible thee was no room for Christ there - on Feb 17,
>> 2003
>> 10. Stand to the side lib pussies - and watch some real americans - on
>> Mar 18, 2003
>> 11. Hateful Democrats call American Troops baby killers - on Mar 29,
>> 2003
>>
>> Also of note is the fact that you appear in only one of those exchanges
>> in the thread entitled "Al Qaeda Says Saddam an Infidel"
>
> Doug Says: You need to search further. I have several posts in which I
> referenced purple heart cards, and whether Mr. Chip referenced them in
> exchanges that did not involve me has no bearing whatsoever as to my
> understanding and my typists' understanding of the context of the Purple
> Heart Cards post he directed to me...which Purple Heart Cards context he
> has confirmed, not once, but now twice! Also please provide the URL's
> of what you claim Chip wrote that did not involve me, so far, all I see is
> perhaps more forgeries from Nigel Brooks, seral liar.
>>
>>> I should also point out that in Feburary 2004, LONG BEFORE you and
>>> Brooks started your smear campaign against me, I clearly stated that I
>>> did not have a Purple Heart Medal. And then after that date I
>>> reiterated that fact at least six more times. It is obviously
>>> ridiculous to claim that I was claiming I had a Purple Heart Medal in
>>> 2003, and so was Chip, yet neither of us have that Medal, then in 2004 I
>>> and Chip both stated the exact opposite!
>>
>> Actually, Mr. Ciammaichella is quite clear when he speaks about the
>> Purple Heart he received in Lebanon.
>
> Doug Says: Please provide the Google URL for the following post. And I do
> note that you admit I was not involved nor knew of the thread you are
> (fraudulently?) quoting. Consequently, it had nothing to do with his
> context of Purple Heart Cards which was the topic of the post that
> involved my typist and I..... So attempting to take a post fragment (could
> be a forgery) from a post you admit I had no knowledge of, to change a
> context in which Chip made clear to me and my typist, is beyond fraud, it
> is irrational desperation and obvious nonsense.
>
> That is akin to me posting your claim of winning Victoria Crosses in
> Vietnam, and winning Vietnam Campaign medals after you were discharged to
> claims of you being a fake Federal Agent so as to intimidate people not to
> rebut your lies and fraud. The two claims are not related.
>>
>> a. In the "The Smoking Gun has arrived" thread (which you were not a
>> participant to) - he said the following:
>>
>> " 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."
>>
>> b. In the "I was spit on when I returned from Vietnam" thread he said
>> this"
>>
>> "I also have a little bitty scar on my belly and a much bigger scar on my
>> lower back that earned me this
>> cute little piece of ribbon with a purple heart hanging from it, that I
>> ****ed up and got in Lebanon in 1983. "
>>
>> He quite obviously was not speaking about a "card" in that post- it is
>> clear that he was speaking about the Purple Heart Medal which is awarded
>> to authorized personnel for wounds and injuries received as a result of
>> enemy action.
>
> Doug Says: I could care less what Chip said in other posts that were not
> directed to me nor involved me, nor I even knew about, which have zero
> bearing on this issue smear Merchant Brooks.
>
> When he was addressing me, he was talking about Purple Heart Cards, as he
> clearly stated and confirmed, and then recently re-confirmed via email.
> Since you admit I was not involved in the exchange above, I can only
> believe what the man said to me, which was his reference to Purple Heart
> Cards....which prompted my typist's reply in the same context.
>
> So Chip, I, and my typist say our exchange was about Purple Heart Cards,
> and you now claim that you know more than all three people involved in the
> exchange? And now you are also calling Chip a liar? Please Brooks, your
> fraud is glaring as usual. NO DOUBT BECAUSE YOU ADDED THE TERM "MEDALS"
> TO HIS AND MY TYPIST'S POST YOU ARE DUCKING AND DODGING YOUR FRAUD AND
> FORGERY----But in truth Brooks, you have been caught, once again, in Tar
> Baby, forging, lying and using outright fraud to defame, smear and cast
> your target victims in a false light so as to incite and encourage threats
> of death and violence....I strongly suggest you consider the repercussions
> of your actions in the future.
>>
>>> Further, if you claim we were talking about Medals and not Cards, then
>>> you are calling ALL THREE individuals involved in this exchange a liar,
>>> Chip, me and my typist. Yet we were the ONLY people that could have
>>> possibly known our context and what we were talking about, not unless of
>>> course, you are going to dreg up your acclaimed "mind reading skills"
>>> again - and if you do that I will provide some more mind reading tests
>>> for you, and as we both know, you and Brooks have failed all of those
>>> mind reading tests miserably in the past.
>>
>> I think it is obvious who is the liar here Mr. Reiman - and I certainly
>> do not acknowledge that you utilized a typist or anyone other than
>> yourself made the Purple Heart (post number 17) claim.
>
> Doug Says: Yes it is obvious that none of the posts contained the term
> Medals, and you forged that term into those post, that you, Nigel Brooks,
> are the obvious liar here. Moreover, considering there is no way in the
> world you could know what I used or the name of the typist that is willing
> to swear in court that she was talking about Cards and that she typed the
> post, and that Chip also confirmed that he was talking about Cards and not
> medals, then clearly, any representation contrary to all those people
> involved in both sides of this issue can only be considered complete and
> outright fraud, false representations and outright lies....which is
> clearly what you are doing Mr. Brooks. ALL THOSE INVOLVED SAY WE WERE
> TALKING ABOUT CARDS AND NOT MEDALS! How in the world can you claim to
> know more than all three individuals involved in the exchange???? Mind
> reading? More of your "Swami" bullshit? That what you are all about
> Brooks. Nonsense and bullshit.
>
> You are fraudulently attempting to contradict what all three of those
> individuals involved in this exchange say was the context of their
> discussion, and using criminal libel in the process. So why am I not
> surprised at your lack of ethics Brooks?
>>
>> As indicated above - Mr. Ciammaichella is clearly speaking of the Purple
>> Heart Medal when he call it a "cute little piece of ribbon with a purple
>> heart hanging from it" in his post to the thread "I was spit on when I
>> returned from Vietnam"
>
> Doug Says: Mr. Brooks, you have taken a statement from Chip in a
> completely different post that had nothing to do with Post 17 or 18, which
> you admit had nothing to do with me or the exchange my typist had with
> him, and tried to use that non-applicable and non-confirmed post fragment
> to apply to a post in which he was talking about a Purple Heart Card which
> designates a service connected disability at the time of his post. What
> he said in other posts that I did not read nor applied to me could not
> possibly have anything to do with the context he presented to me, which he
> said was Purple Heart Cards. My typist replied in that context, and the
> Google archive proves that fact irrefutably. Moreover, I note that you do
> not provide any URL to confirm what you claim Chip said in other posts
> that I had no knowledge of, so I will assume they are just more Nigel
> Brooks forgeries as usual....caught again Brooks I see....
>
> You have fraudulently taken an alleged statement from Chip in a post I
> clearly never saw nor replied to, and you have tried to include it in an
> exchange I had with him in which he clearly said did NOT involve the
> Purple Heart Medal, but instead, referenced the Purple Heart Card. Your
> attempt to forge a post I never saw nor responded to into my typist's
> response about Purple Heart Cards is beyond unethical, it is outright
> fraud. The two posts (if the one you are referencing exists which I
> doubt) are not related, you know that, I know that, and the court will
> know that fact as well. What Chip said or did not say in the past has no
> relevance on what he did say to me, which was referencing a Purple Heart
> Card, and NOT A MEDAL, (remember you FORGED THE TERM MEDAL IN BOTH POSTS)
> and that prompted my typist's reply in the same context....which BTW
> Google will confirm.
>>
>>> Your fraud and forgeries have been exposed yet again Mr. Rau, and if you
>>> would like to see a copy of that post, and/or the reason it was removed,
>>> and if it does not state to Google an issue about Purple Heart Cards,
>>> then I will pay all fees....but if Google confirms what I am saying is
>>> true, you pay the fees. It won't cost much for a lawyer to process a
>>> Subpoena to Google, so how about it Rau, Brooks, SteveL, MAC, and other
>>> gang members, are you going to "Walk the Walk" or is it just "Big Hat No
>>> Cattle" once again from the Brooks smear gang and his Brownies?
>>
>> The only fraud here is you Mr. Reiman - what you might have told the good
>> folks at google in your request to remove the post wherein you claimed to
>> have had a Purple Heart is immaterial - you are simply not to be
>> believed.
>
> Doug Says: Mr. Brooks, I never claimed to have a Purple Heart Medal in
> any post, and Google will confirm the reason the post was removed, and
> confirm it was dealing with a Purple Heart Card and not a Medal. You
> forged the term "Medal" in the post and now you are attempting to
> attribute your forgery to me. I find it amazing Mr. Brooks that when your
> fraud, false accusations, obloquy and outright criminal libel has been
> exposed for what it is, you blame me for your unethical practices.
>
> Google will confirm the reason the post was removed, and the context of
> the post, and this post was removed long before you or your smear gang
> said a word about it.....so Google, like all those Web Mangers that forced
> your eleven web sites down for your abuse and fraud, (I believe Brooks
> holds the record for web sites forced down due to fraud and abuse) will be
> considered independent of this issue.
>
> Like I said, if Google does not provide a copy of the post in which my
> typist clearly said we were talking about Purple Heart Cards, or the
> reason for the removal did not address that issue, then I will pay for all
> costs to Subpoena Google, but if it does confirm what I said, then you
> confess to criminal libel and you pay the costs....time to Walk theWalk
> Mr. Brooks..
>
> And if you think this is the end of the surprises that are in store for
> you and your gang, you must realize that I have just began to defend
> myself from your glaring fraud, false accusations, forgeries and smear
> tactics.
>
> Doug Grant (Tm)
>>
>>
Twist and spin to your heart's content Mr. Reiman - I am confident that my
interpretation of your exchange with Mr. Ciammaichella is the correct one.
And of course your claim that I have never communicated with him will be
directly refuted by the production of my telephone toll records should it
become necessary.
I am confident from this latest frenzied exchange, that you are incapable of
telling the truth.
--
Nigel Brooks
news
6ednbQl5sxpuqXanZ2dnUVZ_jidnZ2d@comcast.com...>
> "Nigel Brooks" <nbrooks@msn.com> wrote in message
> news:5pot1pFs0g7cU1@mid.individual.net...
>> "DGVREIMAN" <dgvreiman@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:xbednRuFgslqyKvanZ2dnUVZ_u2mnZ2d@comcast.com...
>>>
>>> "Dai Uy" <Dai-Uy@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
>>> news
ai-Uy-C739A6.10335310112007@news-server.hawaii.rr.com...>>>> In article <gbSdneBmSs9YyajanZ2dnUVZ_uuqnZ2d@comcast.com>,
>>>> "DGVREIMAN" <dgvreiman@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Doug Says: The above post was not composed nor written nor
>>>>> posted by me, and regardless, it is not referencing medals.
>>>>
>>>> The headers clearly indicate that Message-ID:
>>>> <WaU3a.38894$rq4.3061...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
>>>> was written by "DGVREIMAN" <dggr...@worldnet.att.net>. Accept
>>>> the facts.
>>>>
>>>>> The
>>>>> cut and paste by ChIp is incomplete, does not contain the last
>>>>> paragraph that explains what the typist was referencing.
>>>>
>>>> No doubt you will be posting a revised version with the
>>>> missing last paragraph that will explain what the typist was
>>>> referencing.
>>>
>>> Doug's Rebuttal: In fact, if a criminal charges are filed over this
>>> issue (which will happen if anyone states that I claimed a purple heart
>>> medal as a statement of fact and not as some smear merchant's fraudulent
>>> opinion which is clearly designed to defame) or a lawyer gets involved,
>>> the prosecutor or the lawyer (if no statement of fact from an
>>> identifiable person I can file a Federal court action at my expense
>>> asking for a restraining order and damages in respect to this issue as
>>> soon as next week) the lawyer can then Subpoena Google for a copy and
>>> the reason it was removed. If the reason provided google for removal
>>> does not state this post was removed due to the context being Purple
>>> Heart Cards, or if the post itself does not state that fact as my
>>> typist's notes indicate, then I will pay for all legal fees and withdraw
>>> all charges. However, if it does contain the Purple Heart Card
>>> reference, then YOU plead guilty to criminal libel (that is if you are
>>> stating as a fact I ever claimed I had won a purple heart medal) and you
>>> pay for the legal fees. If you are not stating as a statement of fact
>>> that I ever claimed a Purple Heart Medal then I suggest you stop
>>> attempting to associate me with people that have been arrested for
>>> claiming fake medals or for defrauding the US Government in some manner
>>> or another, because such fraudulent associations clearly are designed to
>>> criminally libel me by claiming I too am guilty of the same crimes you
>>> are reporting. And even if you do not mention me by name, your gang
>>> leader follows up on your post and does, which is clearly represents
>>> criminal conspiracy to criminally libel me over this issue.
>>
>> Had the Stolen Valor Act amendment to Title 18 of the United States Code
>> been in effect prior to your February 16, 2003 post (number 17) to the
>> thread entitled Al Qaeda Says Saddam an Infidel, I have every confidence
>> that the claim to have been a Purple Heart recipient would have been
>> prosecutable under that statute - but fortunately for you, the Statute
>> was not signed into law until 2006 - so you get a free pass (ex post
>> facto laws being unconstitutional)
>
> Doug Says; Since I never claimed I received a Purple Heart Medal, that
> law has zero applicability to me. However, since you claimed that you
> received a Victoria Cross in Vietnam, and since you claimed you receive
> Vietnam Campaign Medals that were awarded long after you left the service,
> no doubt the criminal statutes would apply to you if those claims were
> stated after 2006. Do you wish to reiterate those claims you made in this
> respect, or do you now want to admit you were lying and never earned the
> medals you claimed you had been awarded?
>>
>>> I have not filed a single criminal complaint against anyone that I
>>> believed to be a Veteran (SteveL is the one exception). However, one
>>> more fraudulent association in that regard should be enough for me to
>>> demand criminal libel charges be filed against you in your home town,
>>> and then the Prosecutor can be the one that contacts Google, and I will
>>> get a trip to Hawaii to testify. If you continue to accuse me of a crime
>>> by implication or statement, I will take legal action against you.
>>
>> I have every confidence that when a competent prosecutorial authority
>> reviews any claims you might wish to make concerning these matters, and
>> they take into account the overwhelming evidence of your duplicity - and
>> tell you politely to **** off.
>
> Doug Says: Considering I have never posted any duplicity outside of your
> forgeries and fraud claiming otherwise, I will be more than happy to allow
> a prosecutor to review this issue....apparently you are speaking for Mr.
> Rau and the rest of your gang.
>>
>>
>>>> Chip quoted your entire message - refutting it point by
>>>> point, paragraph by paragraph -- including the last paragraph.
>>>> He deleted only your signature.
>>>
>>> Doug Says: Bullshit. See above to prove this issue once and for all.
>>> He cut and pasted only the part he wanted to respond to and the bottom
>>> of the post was not repeated by Chip, and your own admission that he did
>>> not cut and paste any signature proves that fact. Had he provided the
>>> entire post then a signature would have appeared at the immediate
>>> bottom of the fragment he excerpted. But it is interesting that you now
>>> admit that no signature appears on the post, yet in ALL other cases it
>>> does....You have just proved my point Mr. Rau that the cut and paste by
>>> Chip was NOT complete and did not include the entire contents of Post
>>> 17.
>>>>
>>>> See original messages -- yours and Chip C's -- below:
>>>>
>>>> Here is your original post (Number 17 in the thread)
>>>
>>> Mr. Rau, you and I both know you are simply repeating what Chip cut and
>>> pasted over a different post header. If post 17 was complete it would
>>> have included a signature and the statement at the bottom of the post
>>> that referenced the fact we were discussing cards and not medals. The
>>> signature is missing. The statement in parentheses is missing. You and
>>> the Cyberstalking nutcase SteveL are simply forging headers over a cut
>>> and past by Chip. Your forgery is obvious.
>>>
>>> We all can see what you two are doing in your desperation. There is no
>>> signature on the post and no statement in parentheses....the post is
>>> clearly incomplete. If you disagree find another complete post from the
>>> account I was using that did not contain a signature.n No? Of course
>>> not because none exist. However, you claim that I wrote this post
>>> although you also acknowledge that this is the only post from the
>>> account I was using that DID NOT contain a signature. So who signed the
>>> post? If it was unsigned then the post cannot be attributed to anyone.
>>> Yet if it was signed, then what you, Brooks and SteveL are purporting to
>>> be the complete post Number 17 is an outright forgery.
>>>
>>> Moreover, my server allows me and encourages me to post information to
>>> up to five or six different Newsgroups if those newsgroups contain
>>> individuals that are interested in the post.
>>>
>>> I have received emails from people that have been watching your fraud
>>> and smear gang unravel, and they are rejoicing in the fact that finally
>>> someone is standing up to your forgeries, fraud, and outright obloquy
>>> you and your gang members use to target your smear victims.
>>
>> Sure you have (this is not an acknowledgement of the veracity of your
>> claim to have received "supporting emails" it is sarcasm)
>>
>>> Each newsgroup I list has responded at one time or another to this
>>> issue, in many different ways. So please stop trying to hide the truth
>>> about your forgeries, fraud and unethical behavior....I noticed you did
>>> not try to omit newsgroups when you and Brooks and other gang members
>>> were posting your fraud and forgeries about me.
>>>
>>> I have received a recent confirmation from Chip over this issue and he
>>> confirmed precisely what he told me before, that (1) he does not have a
>>> Purple Heart Medal, and (2) that was not the context of his post, he was
>>> talking about Purple Heart Cards and NOT Medals, which was a previous
>>> topic prior to this post.
>>
>> Perhaps you would be so kind as to provide a copy of the communication
>> between yourself and Mr. Ciammaichella - either here in these forums - or
>> posted to your http://groups.google.com/group/namesofcyberstalkers google
>> group.
>
> Doug Says: Mr. Ciammaichella has not authorized me to repeat any email
> correspondence between him and I...but I will state again that he has
> confirmed that he was talking about Purple Heart Cards and not Medals as
> he originally confirmed a few weeks after the original exchange in 2003.
> Yet I notice that you, Mr. Brooks has claimed he told you otherwise, and I
> say your claim he contradicted the facts in this issue is an outright lie.
> Mr. Ciammaichella did not tell you otherwise, and in fact did not
> communicate with you at all....your claim is an outright lie and
> fraudulent misrepresentation. Mr. Ciammaichella would never claim a medal
> that he did not possess.
>>
>> Also kindly provide the appropriate reference for the "previous topic
>> prior to this post" which referred to "Purple Heart Cards" there doesn't
>> seem to be any such reference in Mr. Ciammaichella's google profile. A
>> query of the google group archive only returns 16 instances where he has
>> mentioned "Purple Heart"
>>
>> 1. To all members of this group - On Sept 11, 2002 (post 13 and 100 of
>> the thread)
>> 2. Dems Want Draft Reinstate...Kool!!! - On Jan 11 -13, 2003 (posts 74,
>> 80, 85, 87)
>> 3. Iraq: Direct action may become a necessity - on Jan 20, 2003
>> 4. I was spit on when I returned from Vietnam - on Jan 28, 2003
>> 5. Overpass Peace Protests anre booming - now spread to seven states -
>> On Feb 3, 2003
>> 6. The smoking gun has arrived - on Feb 5, 2003
>> 7. 10 million join world protest rallies - on Feb 16, 2003
>> 8. Al Qaeda Says Saddam an Infidel - on Feb 16, 2003 (posts 16 and 18)
>> 9. Vietnam was horrible thee was no room for Christ there - on Feb 17,
>> 2003
>> 10. Stand to the side lib pussies - and watch some real americans - on
>> Mar 18, 2003
>> 11. Hateful Democrats call American Troops baby killers - on Mar 29,
>> 2003
>>
>> Also of note is the fact that you appear in only one of those exchanges
>> in the thread entitled "Al Qaeda Says Saddam an Infidel"
>
> Doug Says: You need to search further. I have several posts in which I
> referenced purple heart cards, and whether Mr. Chip referenced them in
> exchanges that did not involve me has no bearing whatsoever as to my
> understanding and my typists' understanding of the context of the Purple
> Heart Cards post he directed to me...which Purple Heart Cards context he
> has confirmed, not once, but now twice! Also please provide the URL's
> of what you claim Chip wrote that did not involve me, so far, all I see is
> perhaps more forgeries from Nigel Brooks, seral liar.
>>
>>> I should also point out that in Feburary 2004, LONG BEFORE you and
>>> Brooks started your smear campaign against me, I clearly stated that I
>>> did not have a Purple Heart Medal. And then after that date I
>>> reiterated that fact at least six more times. It is obviously
>>> ridiculous to claim that I was claiming I had a Purple Heart Medal in
>>> 2003, and so was Chip, yet neither of us have that Medal, then in 2004 I
>>> and Chip both stated the exact opposite!
>>
>> Actually, Mr. Ciammaichella is quite clear when he speaks about the
>> Purple Heart he received in Lebanon.
>
> Doug Says: Please provide the Google URL for the following post. And I do
> note that you admit I was not involved nor knew of the thread you are
> (fraudulently?) quoting. Consequently, it had nothing to do with his
> context of Purple Heart Cards which was the topic of the post that
> involved my typist and I..... So attempting to take a post fragment (could
> be a forgery) from a post you admit I had no knowledge of, to change a
> context in which Chip made clear to me and my typist, is beyond fraud, it
> is irrational desperation and obvious nonsense.
>
> That is akin to me posting your claim of winning Victoria Crosses in
> Vietnam, and winning Vietnam Campaign medals after you were discharged to
> claims of you being a fake Federal Agent so as to intimidate people not to
> rebut your lies and fraud. The two claims are not related.
>>
>> a. In the "The Smoking Gun has arrived" thread (which you were not a
>> participant to) - he said the following:
>>
>> " 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."
>>
>> b. In the "I was spit on when I returned from Vietnam" thread he said
>> this"
>>
>> "I also have a little bitty scar on my belly and a much bigger scar on my
>> lower back that earned me this
>> cute little piece of ribbon with a purple heart hanging from it, that I
>> ****ed up and got in Lebanon in 1983. "
>>
>> He quite obviously was not speaking about a "card" in that post- it is
>> clear that he was speaking about the Purple Heart Medal which is awarded
>> to authorized personnel for wounds and injuries received as a result of
>> enemy action.
>
> Doug Says: I could care less what Chip said in other posts that were not
> directed to me nor involved me, nor I even knew about, which have zero
> bearing on this issue smear Merchant Brooks.
>
> When he was addressing me, he was talking about Purple Heart Cards, as he
> clearly stated and confirmed, and then recently re-confirmed via email.
> Since you admit I was not involved in the exchange above, I can only
> believe what the man said to me, which was his reference to Purple Heart
> Cards....which prompted my typist's reply in the same context.
>
> So Chip, I, and my typist say our exchange was about Purple Heart Cards,
> and you now claim that you know more than all three people involved in the
> exchange? And now you are also calling Chip a liar? Please Brooks, your
> fraud is glaring as usual. NO DOUBT BECAUSE YOU ADDED THE TERM "MEDALS"
> TO HIS AND MY TYPIST'S POST YOU ARE DUCKING AND DODGING YOUR FRAUD AND
> FORGERY----But in truth Brooks, you have been caught, once again, in Tar
> Baby, forging, lying and using outright fraud to defame, smear and cast
> your target victims in a false light so as to incite and encourage threats
> of death and violence....I strongly suggest you consider the repercussions
> of your actions in the future.
>>
>>> Further, if you claim we were talking about Medals and not Cards, then
>>> you are calling ALL THREE individuals involved in this exchange a liar,
>>> Chip, me and my typist. Yet we were the ONLY people that could have
>>> possibly known our context and what we were talking about, not unless of
>>> course, you are going to dreg up your acclaimed "mind reading skills"
>>> again - and if you do that I will provide some more mind reading tests
>>> for you, and as we both know, you and Brooks have failed all of those
>>> mind reading tests miserably in the past.
>>
>> I think it is obvious who is the liar here Mr. Reiman - and I certainly
>> do not acknowledge that you utilized a typist or anyone other than
>> yourself made the Purple Heart (post number 17) claim.
>
> Doug Says: Yes it is obvious that none of the posts contained the term
> Medals, and you forged that term into those post, that you, Nigel Brooks,
> are the obvious liar here. Moreover, considering there is no way in the
> world you could know what I used or the name of the typist that is willing
> to swear in court that she was talking about Cards and that she typed the
> post, and that Chip also confirmed that he was talking about Cards and not
> medals, then clearly, any representation contrary to all those people
> involved in both sides of this issue can only be considered complete and
> outright fraud, false representations and outright lies....which is
> clearly what you are doing Mr. Brooks. ALL THOSE INVOLVED SAY WE WERE
> TALKING ABOUT CARDS AND NOT MEDALS! How in the world can you claim to
> know more than all three individuals involved in the exchange???? Mind
> reading? More of your "Swami" bullshit? That what you are all about
> Brooks. Nonsense and bullshit.
>
> You are fraudulently attempting to contradict what all three of those
> individuals involved in this exchange say was the context of their
> discussion, and using criminal libel in the process. So why am I not
> surprised at your lack of ethics Brooks?
>>
>> As indicated above - Mr. Ciammaichella is clearly speaking of the Purple
>> Heart Medal when he call it a "cute little piece of ribbon with a purple
>> heart hanging from it" in his post to the thread "I was spit on when I
>> returned from Vietnam"
>
> Doug Says: Mr. Brooks, you have taken a statement from Chip in a
> completely different post that had nothing to do with Post 17 or 18, which
> you admit had nothing to do with me or the exchange my typist had with
> him, and tried to use that non-applicable and non-confirmed post fragment
> to apply to a post in which he was talking about a Purple Heart Card which
> designates a service connected disability at the time of his post. What
> he said in other posts that I did not read nor applied to me could not
> possibly have anything to do with the context he presented to me, which he
> said was Purple Heart Cards. My typist replied in that context, and the
> Google archive proves that fact irrefutably. Moreover, I note that you do
> not provide any URL to confirm what you claim Chip said in other posts
> that I had no knowledge of, so I will assume they are just more Nigel
> Brooks forgeries as usual....caught again Brooks I see....
>
> You have fraudulently taken an alleged statement from Chip in a post I
> clearly never saw nor replied to, and you have tried to include it in an
> exchange I had with him in which he clearly said did NOT involve the
> Purple Heart Medal, but instead, referenced the Purple Heart Card. Your
> attempt to forge a post I never saw nor responded to into my typist's
> response about Purple Heart Cards is beyond unethical, it is outright
> fraud. The two posts (if the one you are referencing exists which I
> doubt) are not related, you know that, I know that, and the court will
> know that fact as well. What Chip said or did not say in the past has no
> relevance on what he did say to me, which was referencing a Purple Heart
> Card, and NOT A MEDAL, (remember you FORGED THE TERM MEDAL IN BOTH POSTS)
> and that prompted my typist's reply in the same context....which BTW
> Google will confirm.
>>
>>> Your fraud and forgeries have been exposed yet again Mr. Rau, and if you
>>> would like to see a copy of that post, and/or the reason it was removed,
>>> and if it does not state to Google an issue about Purple Heart Cards,
>>> then I will pay all fees....but if Google confirms what I am saying is
>>> true, you pay the fees. It won't cost much for a lawyer to process a
>>> Subpoena to Google, so how about it Rau, Brooks, SteveL, MAC, and other
>>> gang members, are you going to "Walk the Walk" or is it just "Big Hat No
>>> Cattle" once again from the Brooks smear gang and his Brownies?
>>
>> The only fraud here is you Mr. Reiman - what you might have told the good
>> folks at google in your request to remove the post wherein you claimed to
>> have had a Purple Heart is immaterial - you are simply not to be
>> believed.
>
> Doug Says: Mr. Brooks, I never claimed to have a Purple Heart Medal in
> any post, and Google will confirm the reason the post was removed, and
> confirm it was dealing with a Purple Heart Card and not a Medal. You
> forged the term "Medal" in the post and now you are attempting to
> attribute your forgery to me. I find it amazing Mr. Brooks that when your
> fraud, false accusations, obloquy and outright criminal libel has been
> exposed for what it is, you blame me for your unethical practices.
>
> Google will confirm the reason the post was removed, and the context of
> the post, and this post was removed long before you or your smear gang
> said a word about it.....so Google, like all those Web Mangers that forced
> your eleven web sites down for your abuse and fraud, (I believe Brooks
> holds the record for web sites forced down due to fraud and abuse) will be
> considered independent of this issue.
>
> Like I said, if Google does not provide a copy of the post in which my
> typist clearly said we were talking about Purple Heart Cards, or the
> reason for the removal did not address that issue, then I will pay for all
> costs to Subpoena Google, but if it does confirm what I said, then you
> confess to criminal libel and you pay the costs....time to Walk theWalk
> Mr. Brooks..
>
> And if you think this is the end of the surprises that are in store for
> you and your gang, you must realize that I have just began to defend
> myself from your glaring fraud, false accusations, forgeries and smear
> tactics.
>
> Doug Grant (Tm)
>>
>>
Twist and spin to your heart's content Mr. Reiman - I am confident that my
interpretation of your exchange with Mr. Ciammaichella is the correct one.
And of course your claim that I have never communicated with him will be
directly refuted by the production of my telephone toll records should it
become necessary.
I am confident from this latest frenzied exchange, that you are incapable of
telling the truth.
--
Nigel Brooks
