S
SteveL
Guest
On Wed, 14 Nov 2007 12:37:44 -0800, "DGVREIMAN"
<dgvreiman@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>STEVEL PROVES HE LIES - PH MEDAL WAS A DISTORTION
>
>
Do you ever address a post point by point Dougie?
No you just ignore what's said and post multi-hundred line babbling
rants.
I'll show you how it's done.
>
>
>Doug Says: Take note that SteveL is a criminal cyberstalker. My
>laweyr(s) have advised me he is violating H.R/ 3402 Sect 113,
Are these the same "lawyers" who left you to pursue (and repeatedly
fail) to obtain subpoenas pro se in the summer.
>which was designed to make illegal any anonymous stalking and
>cyberstalking on USENET or via other means of communication.
>(Congressman McDermott of Washington State wrote the new statute
>due to a constituent of his being harassed anonymously online).
Real lawyers would know the difference between an allegation and an
established fact. You, however, have never demonstrated that you are
aware of the difference. Therefore I conlude that you are lying here.
>
>
>Please be advised we believe Mr. SteveL uses several aliases
Unsupported allegation, and in fact false. I only post as SteveL.
> to
>post fraud, false accusations, obloquy and outright forgeries for
>the purpose to harass, defame, threaten, incite threats of death
Cite one example?
>and violence against me, and fraudulently accuse me of various
>ridiculous and preposterous statements and acts for the obvious
>purpose of cyberstalking and unlawful harassment, among other
>criminal acts. This post is a classic example of such criminal
>acts.
What post? You appear to have framed a rant that is has no context of
a reply to any post! Or at least you have snipped my previous post
entirely.
>
>Please be advised that my lawyer and I have informed Mr. SteveL
>several times to cease and desist his criminal cyberstalking.
In point of fact that is not the case. Your lawyers email made no
allegations, merely pointed out that IF I was indulging in any said
alleged behavior (loony accusations from his client) that I would be
infringing the law.
Boiled down to "If you're breaking the law then that's against the
law".
FOAD Doug.
> He
>replied to our demands with just more cyberstalking, obloquy and
>false accusations sent directly to me and to one of my lawyers.
I replied to your lawyer's email with cited facts (specifically the
hilarious satire that you insisted to the point of hysteria was a
serious "Forged FBI Document"). I notice he no longer appears to be
acting in your interests, Mr Pro Se. I wonder why.
>
>Rebuttal Fact to SteveL's False Accusations and Criminal Libel
>and his Own Proof He is Lying and Falsely Accusing again:
>
>I never claimed to have a Purple Heart Medal, not once, not ever,
You're lying. Your own words betray you.
That is a fact.
>and I have posted several statements to the contrary,
So you posted some denials. Big Deal. They are not evidence. They mean
nothing, you woeful idiot.
Your post claiming "I have a Purple Heart and I got mine in a real
war" IS irrefutable evidence to the contrary.
<snip abject defective bullshit>
>Moreover, unbelievably, now SteveL himself has inadvertently
>proved he and his gang members have been lying about this issue
>all along! (See below):
Really. This should be fun.
Let's see.
>
>"SteveL" <stevelon@deletethisbitntlworld.com> wrote in message
>news:R8adnaklu6G4a6fanZ2dnUVZ8smgnZ2d@giganews.com...
>
>> On Tue, 13 Nov 2007 14:04:02 -0600, "Nigel Brooks"
>> <nbrooks@msn.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Another interesting thing is that on March 12, 2003 - Mr.
>>>Reiman was engaged
>>>in yet another rant in a thread entitled "Doug's Mysterious
>>>Military >>Service" in the newsgroup alt.news-media. In that
>>>rant - he had ever
>>>opportunity to clear up any misconceptions about his February
>>>16th, 2003
>>>post - but quite clearly he did not.
>>>
>>>Post number 1 was made by Mr. Jim Mculloch who quoted a number
>>>of Reiman's
>>>prior claims including the following: http://tinyurl.com/37dh4d
>>>
>>>> 2003-02-16 14:22:46 PST
>>>> Doug Says: I have a Purple Heart also, and I received mine in
>>>> a
>>>> real war (the above reply by my typist was in the context of
>>>> Purple Heart Card as the typist clearly noted in the post,
>>>> and it was in response to a statement by Chip that he had a
>>>> Purple Heart Card).
>>>
>>>He then went on to comment - "Specificity here would also help.
>>>If he can
>>>produce records of shrapnel to the head, everything will be
>>>solved".
>
>
>>>
>>>Mr. Reiman responded to that comment in post number 3 - where
>>>he said as
>>>follows: http://tinyurl.com/2l284k
>
>>
>>>"Doug Says: Why? Your point? If you are bent on making a fool
>>>out of yourself with idiotic innuendos and distortions, you
>>>have
>>>done a very good job. If you are trying to bait me to reveal
>>>information, like I said, I have $10,000 (or more) to use to
>>>back
>>>up my claim that I have an honorable discharge from the US
>>>Marines and the US Army. Care to take that challenge Jimmy?"
>
>SteveL has just proved I stated the Purple Heart Medal accusation
>from Mr. Mculloch was "an idiotic innuendo and a distortion". My
>reply above was, as SteveL proves, a direct reference to Mr.
>Mculloch's false statement that I had ever claimed a Purple Heart
>Medal.
First of all, you should learn to read well enough quote the right
person. Never mind it's a common flaw with you. That was not me who
quoted that.
But lets's read on.
>
>The post by my typist was posted on or about February 16, 2003
>and on March 12, 2003 when Mr. Mcculloch tried to claim that I
>was claiming a Purple Heart Medal I clearly told him his claim in
>that regard was "an idiotic innuendo and a distortion."
McCulloch never claimed you had a Purple Heart.. YOU DID. He was
responding with disbelief to YOUR CLAIM, and you responded that his
DISBELIEF was "an idiotic innuendo and a distortion."
Sheesh. Like shooting fish in a barrel. What else have you got?
(Oops!! No doubt this'll show up as another "death threat" at some
point).
>
>
>
>Doug Says: Once again, SteveL has proved I clearly stated above
>that Mr.Mculloch's statement about me receiving a Purple Heart
>Medal, was "idiotic innuendo and distortions."
>
>My only statement in reply to his "Idiotic innunendo and
>distortion" that I claimed I had a Purple Heart Medal was that I
>had Honorable discharges from the US Army and the US Marines,
>which is a fact, AND I CLEARLY LABELED MR. MCULLOCH OUT OF
>CONTEXT REFERENCE TO THE PURPLE HEART CARD EXCHANGE BETWEEN CHIP
>AND I AS BEING ABOUT A PURPLE HEART MEDAL AS "AN IDIOTIC INNUENDO
>AND A DISTORTION" OF THAT POST!!!!.
>
>
>
>What SteveL has done in his desperate attempt to continue to
>criminally libel me by fraudulently repeating his false claim
>back then that I said I had received a Purple Heart Medal is to
>prove in a subsequent post about that very Purple Heart Card post
>that I declared such accusations that Chip and I were talking
>about Medals AT THAT VERY TIME as "idiotic innuendo and
>distortions!"
>
>An rational person can easily see that in fact I DID CLEAR UP
>that fraudulent accusation issue right then and there. Had I been
>actually claiming I had a Purple Heart Medal in post #17 like Mr.
>Mculloch falsely questioned, I certainly would have NOT called
>his claim in that regard an "idiotic innuendo and distortion."
>>>
>>>Using his usual tactic of deflection - Reiman failed to address
>>>the Purple
>>>Heart issue, and instead turned it into a challenge over
>>>whether or not he
>>>had an honorable discharge from the Army and the Marines. It
>>>reminds me of
>>>the political bait and switch technique where a candidate is
>>>asked one
>>>thing - but answers with another.
>
>Doug Says: There was clearly no deflection. I responded directly
>to Mr. Mculloch's false accusation that I ever claimed to have a
>Purple Heart Medal with a clear response that said his accusation
>in that regard was "an idiotic innuendo and a distortion" as my
>reply, and the Google archive clearly provides.
>
>In obvious fact I was directly replying to he Purple Heart issue
>as the above post and tiny URL clearly proves. Mr. Mculloch asked
>for confirmation I possessed a medal I never claimed I had, and I
>clearly said his claim that I said I had one was "an idiotic
>innuendo and a distortion." I could not have been more clear in
>my rebuttal of his false claim about me saying I had a Purple
>Heart Medal.
>
>Since I clearly responded to Mr. Mculloch's distortion of my
>Purple Heart Card reply into a Purple Heart Medal with a
>statement that his claim was an "idiotic innuendo and a
>distortion" I obviously did respond directly to his fraud, and
>called it the false statement and distortion it was.
>
>Had I really been claiming a purple heart medal I certainly would
>not have responed to his statement that I did with a response
>that his statement that I had a Purple Heart Medal was an
>"idiotic innuendo and a distortion." McCulloch saw post 17, he
>knew it was about Cards and not Medals, and therefore when he
>tried to forge the context it into medals, he was IMMEDATELY told
>his claim was a "an idiotic innuendo and a distortion" as the
>SteveL tiny URL above clearly demonstrates.
>
>Cyberstalker Shoots Himself in Foot
>
>
>
>I have noticed that sometimes when con men and criminal
>cyberstalkers like SteveL attempt to compound their fraud and
>false accusations they often actually end up proving to the world
>they have posted nothing but lies and false accusations.
>
>SteveL has proved that I immediately replied and stated that
>his and Mcullochs' idiotic accusation that I was talking about a
>Purple Heart Medal back during the 2003 exchange was an "idiotic
>innuendo and a distortion."
>
>SteveL has just proved he and his smear gang the liars I said
>they were, and further proved irrefutably that I was not and
>could not have been claiming I had a Purple Heart Medal. If I
>were, I certainly would not have said such a claim from Mr.
>McCulloch in a recent and subsequent thread was an "idiotic
>innuendo and distortion" of what I really said.
>
>The criminal SteveL is simply desperate to compound his obvious
>fraud and false accusations with just more fraud and false
>accusations, in his obvious, child like and clearly criminal
>cyberstalking style.. . . yet he has hereby shot himself in his
>foot as usual and proved the exact opposite of what he was trying
>to fraudulent portray! BHWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA....No one
>said that criminal cyberstalkers are smart, just that they are
>criminals.
>
>Do Not Get Involved with a Criminal Cyberstalking Gang
>
>Moreover, please do not respond to or further this criminal's
>posts. If you do, you could be considered operating with him for
>a common criminal purpose which is clearly to violate criminal
>Federal statutes by anonymously smearing, threatening and
>inciting threats of death and violence (another Federal felony)
>and to defame, harass, threaten and incite more threats more
>death and violence to intimidate people to stop posting on
>newsgroups he does not want them to post on (which is yet another
>Federal Felony Offense) and to cause extreme emotional harm with
>his outright fraud and false accusations, and of course, criminal
>libel as well as his criminal cyberstalking and his anonymous
>threats of death and violence which we believe is mostly coming
>from whomever is behind all of these fraudulent names that he
>seems to use to perpetrate all these criminal acts.
>
>It is just a matter of time now until the authorities track
>SteveL down, don't make the mistake of getting involved with or
>caught up with him.
>
>
>
>Moreover, SteveL is perhaps posting his former name's outright
>fraud to compound his present fraud. The McCulloch alias
>(presumed to be one of SteveL aliases) was using outright fraud
>in rewriting the context of posts that I wrote, much the same as
>the criminal cyberstalker SteveL does. Now SteveL (since the
>Mculloch alias disappeared about the time the SteveL alias
>appeared and both are allegedly from Texas) is quoting fraudulent
>posts from his old alias, which he already knows contained false
>and fraudulent statements, and then he juxtaposes fragments from
>several fraudulent posts from his own aliases to try and paint a
>false image.....fact, we believe SteveL is a con man, a liar and
>a criminal cyberstalker, and I will prove that fact in a court of
>law.
>
>End of story. This will represent my last reply to the criminal
>cyberstalker STeveL other than to repeat this post, and remind
>him that he was told to cease and desist his cyberstalking, and
>each new post from him in that respect will represent another
>criminal count, and that he will be prosecuted. It is amazing how
>many criminal counts he is determined to build against himself. .
>. . are these people coming unglued?
>
>
>
>What I suggest is that SteveL hire a lawyer and have that lawyer
>contact me or one of my three lawyers at legalcoach@comcast.net
>if he wants to avoid prosecution.
>
>Keep in mind that my allegations above are directed to a
>pseudonym that is clearly committing criminal acts on USENET and
>has been advised directly by my lawyer via email (at his own
>invitation to notify him directly) to cease and desist his
>cyberstalking. I do not know who the person(s) are behind all of
>these fake names like SteveL that are clearly using cyberstalking
>and anonymous re-mailers to boot, and I cannot accuse them by
>name of any crimes until the authorities first determine who they
>are, who they are working for, and if any other individuals or
>business entities are directly or vicariously involved in SteveL's
>obvious cyberstalking campaign he has been waging against me for
>years. Depending upon the companies these cybersalkers work for,
>there could be both criminal and civil charges filed once we
>determine the proper
>
>information.
>
>My third lawyer will deal with this issue both with the
>authorities and in civil court. The other two will assist him,
>and Mr. Shaver will actually be called as a witness because he
>received reply emails from SteveL. My latest lawyer lives very
>close to the Federal Court in Tacoma, and if you want to contact
>him please email me at legalcoach@comcast.net .
>
>Moreover, since Mr. Brooks and Mr. Rau seem to be bent recently
>on accusing me of criminal acts, or juxtiposing a refernce to me
>in connection to others committing fraud and criminal acts, then
>I will be addressing that issue and perhaps their involvement in
>a few in a rebuttal, that is unless they want to retract those
>claims and apologize?
>
>I have tried my best to keep the criminal authorities out of the
>cyberstalking and fraud that is going on in respect to AWV such
>simply because many involved are Veterans, and I have a personal
>reason to like Medics. Yet some of these gang members are
>starting to push this issue into a realm where there will be no
>return.
>
>If they continue, then this issue will go to the next level, I
>will not tolerate being falsely accused of criminal acts, even by
>medics more than one time. (I realize that many Veterans are
>crackpots due to their service, and I have no desire to prosecute
>any Veteran of any war, not unless I am forced to do so simply to
>defend myself from their false accusations).
>
>If this issue goes further, we can start by talking about
>obstruction of justice by telling a gang member to remove his
>posts containing threats of death and violence from USENET, and
>then move on to other criminal issues after that one is exposed,
>such as inciting those threats of death and violence,
>contributing to them, and furthering them with a common criminal
>conspiracy purpose, etc....
>
>I should mention that SteveL has admitted he is not a Veteran
>although he posts on Veterans NG's so as to clearly cyberstalk
>real veterans, and I feel no remorse nor hesitation to refer his
>acts to the proper authorities for the criminal acts he regularly
>perpetrates against me. Antiwar types that target Veterans for
>fraud and cyberstalking in my opinion, should be prosecuted as
>they are purposely causing emotional harm much like that gang of
>stalkers did at all those funerals of our fallen warriors.
>
>Doug Grant (Tm)
>
>"
>
Just more of the same.
You should look up the word "brevity".
<dgvreiman@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>STEVEL PROVES HE LIES - PH MEDAL WAS A DISTORTION
>
>
Do you ever address a post point by point Dougie?
No you just ignore what's said and post multi-hundred line babbling
rants.
I'll show you how it's done.
>
>
>Doug Says: Take note that SteveL is a criminal cyberstalker. My
>laweyr(s) have advised me he is violating H.R/ 3402 Sect 113,
Are these the same "lawyers" who left you to pursue (and repeatedly
fail) to obtain subpoenas pro se in the summer.
>which was designed to make illegal any anonymous stalking and
>cyberstalking on USENET or via other means of communication.
>(Congressman McDermott of Washington State wrote the new statute
>due to a constituent of his being harassed anonymously online).
Real lawyers would know the difference between an allegation and an
established fact. You, however, have never demonstrated that you are
aware of the difference. Therefore I conlude that you are lying here.
>
>
>Please be advised we believe Mr. SteveL uses several aliases
Unsupported allegation, and in fact false. I only post as SteveL.
> to
>post fraud, false accusations, obloquy and outright forgeries for
>the purpose to harass, defame, threaten, incite threats of death
Cite one example?
>and violence against me, and fraudulently accuse me of various
>ridiculous and preposterous statements and acts for the obvious
>purpose of cyberstalking and unlawful harassment, among other
>criminal acts. This post is a classic example of such criminal
>acts.
What post? You appear to have framed a rant that is has no context of
a reply to any post! Or at least you have snipped my previous post
entirely.
>
>Please be advised that my lawyer and I have informed Mr. SteveL
>several times to cease and desist his criminal cyberstalking.
In point of fact that is not the case. Your lawyers email made no
allegations, merely pointed out that IF I was indulging in any said
alleged behavior (loony accusations from his client) that I would be
infringing the law.
Boiled down to "If you're breaking the law then that's against the
law".
FOAD Doug.
> He
>replied to our demands with just more cyberstalking, obloquy and
>false accusations sent directly to me and to one of my lawyers.
I replied to your lawyer's email with cited facts (specifically the
hilarious satire that you insisted to the point of hysteria was a
serious "Forged FBI Document"). I notice he no longer appears to be
acting in your interests, Mr Pro Se. I wonder why.
>
>Rebuttal Fact to SteveL's False Accusations and Criminal Libel
>and his Own Proof He is Lying and Falsely Accusing again:
>
>I never claimed to have a Purple Heart Medal, not once, not ever,
You're lying. Your own words betray you.
That is a fact.
>and I have posted several statements to the contrary,
So you posted some denials. Big Deal. They are not evidence. They mean
nothing, you woeful idiot.
Your post claiming "I have a Purple Heart and I got mine in a real
war" IS irrefutable evidence to the contrary.
<snip abject defective bullshit>
>Moreover, unbelievably, now SteveL himself has inadvertently
>proved he and his gang members have been lying about this issue
>all along! (See below):
Really. This should be fun.
Let's see.
>
>"SteveL" <stevelon@deletethisbitntlworld.com> wrote in message
>news:R8adnaklu6G4a6fanZ2dnUVZ8smgnZ2d@giganews.com...
>
>> On Tue, 13 Nov 2007 14:04:02 -0600, "Nigel Brooks"
>> <nbrooks@msn.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Another interesting thing is that on March 12, 2003 - Mr.
>>>Reiman was engaged
>>>in yet another rant in a thread entitled "Doug's Mysterious
>>>Military >>Service" in the newsgroup alt.news-media. In that
>>>rant - he had ever
>>>opportunity to clear up any misconceptions about his February
>>>16th, 2003
>>>post - but quite clearly he did not.
>>>
>>>Post number 1 was made by Mr. Jim Mculloch who quoted a number
>>>of Reiman's
>>>prior claims including the following: http://tinyurl.com/37dh4d
>>>
>>>> 2003-02-16 14:22:46 PST
>>>> Doug Says: I have a Purple Heart also, and I received mine in
>>>> a
>>>> real war (the above reply by my typist was in the context of
>>>> Purple Heart Card as the typist clearly noted in the post,
>>>> and it was in response to a statement by Chip that he had a
>>>> Purple Heart Card).
>>>
>>>He then went on to comment - "Specificity here would also help.
>>>If he can
>>>produce records of shrapnel to the head, everything will be
>>>solved".
>
>
>>>
>>>Mr. Reiman responded to that comment in post number 3 - where
>>>he said as
>>>follows: http://tinyurl.com/2l284k
>
>>
>>>"Doug Says: Why? Your point? If you are bent on making a fool
>>>out of yourself with idiotic innuendos and distortions, you
>>>have
>>>done a very good job. If you are trying to bait me to reveal
>>>information, like I said, I have $10,000 (or more) to use to
>>>back
>>>up my claim that I have an honorable discharge from the US
>>>Marines and the US Army. Care to take that challenge Jimmy?"
>
>SteveL has just proved I stated the Purple Heart Medal accusation
>from Mr. Mculloch was "an idiotic innuendo and a distortion". My
>reply above was, as SteveL proves, a direct reference to Mr.
>Mculloch's false statement that I had ever claimed a Purple Heart
>Medal.
First of all, you should learn to read well enough quote the right
person. Never mind it's a common flaw with you. That was not me who
quoted that.
But lets's read on.
>
>The post by my typist was posted on or about February 16, 2003
>and on March 12, 2003 when Mr. Mcculloch tried to claim that I
>was claiming a Purple Heart Medal I clearly told him his claim in
>that regard was "an idiotic innuendo and a distortion."
McCulloch never claimed you had a Purple Heart.. YOU DID. He was
responding with disbelief to YOUR CLAIM, and you responded that his
DISBELIEF was "an idiotic innuendo and a distortion."
Sheesh. Like shooting fish in a barrel. What else have you got?
(Oops!! No doubt this'll show up as another "death threat" at some
point).
>
>
>
>Doug Says: Once again, SteveL has proved I clearly stated above
>that Mr.Mculloch's statement about me receiving a Purple Heart
>Medal, was "idiotic innuendo and distortions."
>
>My only statement in reply to his "Idiotic innunendo and
>distortion" that I claimed I had a Purple Heart Medal was that I
>had Honorable discharges from the US Army and the US Marines,
>which is a fact, AND I CLEARLY LABELED MR. MCULLOCH OUT OF
>CONTEXT REFERENCE TO THE PURPLE HEART CARD EXCHANGE BETWEEN CHIP
>AND I AS BEING ABOUT A PURPLE HEART MEDAL AS "AN IDIOTIC INNUENDO
>AND A DISTORTION" OF THAT POST!!!!.
>
>
>
>What SteveL has done in his desperate attempt to continue to
>criminally libel me by fraudulently repeating his false claim
>back then that I said I had received a Purple Heart Medal is to
>prove in a subsequent post about that very Purple Heart Card post
>that I declared such accusations that Chip and I were talking
>about Medals AT THAT VERY TIME as "idiotic innuendo and
>distortions!"
>
>An rational person can easily see that in fact I DID CLEAR UP
>that fraudulent accusation issue right then and there. Had I been
>actually claiming I had a Purple Heart Medal in post #17 like Mr.
>Mculloch falsely questioned, I certainly would have NOT called
>his claim in that regard an "idiotic innuendo and distortion."
>>>
>>>Using his usual tactic of deflection - Reiman failed to address
>>>the Purple
>>>Heart issue, and instead turned it into a challenge over
>>>whether or not he
>>>had an honorable discharge from the Army and the Marines. It
>>>reminds me of
>>>the political bait and switch technique where a candidate is
>>>asked one
>>>thing - but answers with another.
>
>Doug Says: There was clearly no deflection. I responded directly
>to Mr. Mculloch's false accusation that I ever claimed to have a
>Purple Heart Medal with a clear response that said his accusation
>in that regard was "an idiotic innuendo and a distortion" as my
>reply, and the Google archive clearly provides.
>
>In obvious fact I was directly replying to he Purple Heart issue
>as the above post and tiny URL clearly proves. Mr. Mculloch asked
>for confirmation I possessed a medal I never claimed I had, and I
>clearly said his claim that I said I had one was "an idiotic
>innuendo and a distortion." I could not have been more clear in
>my rebuttal of his false claim about me saying I had a Purple
>Heart Medal.
>
>Since I clearly responded to Mr. Mculloch's distortion of my
>Purple Heart Card reply into a Purple Heart Medal with a
>statement that his claim was an "idiotic innuendo and a
>distortion" I obviously did respond directly to his fraud, and
>called it the false statement and distortion it was.
>
>Had I really been claiming a purple heart medal I certainly would
>not have responed to his statement that I did with a response
>that his statement that I had a Purple Heart Medal was an
>"idiotic innuendo and a distortion." McCulloch saw post 17, he
>knew it was about Cards and not Medals, and therefore when he
>tried to forge the context it into medals, he was IMMEDATELY told
>his claim was a "an idiotic innuendo and a distortion" as the
>SteveL tiny URL above clearly demonstrates.
>
>Cyberstalker Shoots Himself in Foot
>
>
>
>I have noticed that sometimes when con men and criminal
>cyberstalkers like SteveL attempt to compound their fraud and
>false accusations they often actually end up proving to the world
>they have posted nothing but lies and false accusations.
>
>SteveL has proved that I immediately replied and stated that
>his and Mcullochs' idiotic accusation that I was talking about a
>Purple Heart Medal back during the 2003 exchange was an "idiotic
>innuendo and a distortion."
>
>SteveL has just proved he and his smear gang the liars I said
>they were, and further proved irrefutably that I was not and
>could not have been claiming I had a Purple Heart Medal. If I
>were, I certainly would not have said such a claim from Mr.
>McCulloch in a recent and subsequent thread was an "idiotic
>innuendo and distortion" of what I really said.
>
>The criminal SteveL is simply desperate to compound his obvious
>fraud and false accusations with just more fraud and false
>accusations, in his obvious, child like and clearly criminal
>cyberstalking style.. . . yet he has hereby shot himself in his
>foot as usual and proved the exact opposite of what he was trying
>to fraudulent portray! BHWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA....No one
>said that criminal cyberstalkers are smart, just that they are
>criminals.
>
>Do Not Get Involved with a Criminal Cyberstalking Gang
>
>Moreover, please do not respond to or further this criminal's
>posts. If you do, you could be considered operating with him for
>a common criminal purpose which is clearly to violate criminal
>Federal statutes by anonymously smearing, threatening and
>inciting threats of death and violence (another Federal felony)
>and to defame, harass, threaten and incite more threats more
>death and violence to intimidate people to stop posting on
>newsgroups he does not want them to post on (which is yet another
>Federal Felony Offense) and to cause extreme emotional harm with
>his outright fraud and false accusations, and of course, criminal
>libel as well as his criminal cyberstalking and his anonymous
>threats of death and violence which we believe is mostly coming
>from whomever is behind all of these fraudulent names that he
>seems to use to perpetrate all these criminal acts.
>
>It is just a matter of time now until the authorities track
>SteveL down, don't make the mistake of getting involved with or
>caught up with him.
>
>
>
>Moreover, SteveL is perhaps posting his former name's outright
>fraud to compound his present fraud. The McCulloch alias
>(presumed to be one of SteveL aliases) was using outright fraud
>in rewriting the context of posts that I wrote, much the same as
>the criminal cyberstalker SteveL does. Now SteveL (since the
>Mculloch alias disappeared about the time the SteveL alias
>appeared and both are allegedly from Texas) is quoting fraudulent
>posts from his old alias, which he already knows contained false
>and fraudulent statements, and then he juxtaposes fragments from
>several fraudulent posts from his own aliases to try and paint a
>false image.....fact, we believe SteveL is a con man, a liar and
>a criminal cyberstalker, and I will prove that fact in a court of
>law.
>
>End of story. This will represent my last reply to the criminal
>cyberstalker STeveL other than to repeat this post, and remind
>him that he was told to cease and desist his cyberstalking, and
>each new post from him in that respect will represent another
>criminal count, and that he will be prosecuted. It is amazing how
>many criminal counts he is determined to build against himself. .
>. . are these people coming unglued?
>
>
>
>What I suggest is that SteveL hire a lawyer and have that lawyer
>contact me or one of my three lawyers at legalcoach@comcast.net
>if he wants to avoid prosecution.
>
>Keep in mind that my allegations above are directed to a
>pseudonym that is clearly committing criminal acts on USENET and
>has been advised directly by my lawyer via email (at his own
>invitation to notify him directly) to cease and desist his
>cyberstalking. I do not know who the person(s) are behind all of
>these fake names like SteveL that are clearly using cyberstalking
>and anonymous re-mailers to boot, and I cannot accuse them by
>name of any crimes until the authorities first determine who they
>are, who they are working for, and if any other individuals or
>business entities are directly or vicariously involved in SteveL's
>obvious cyberstalking campaign he has been waging against me for
>years. Depending upon the companies these cybersalkers work for,
>there could be both criminal and civil charges filed once we
>determine the proper
>
>information.
>
>My third lawyer will deal with this issue both with the
>authorities and in civil court. The other two will assist him,
>and Mr. Shaver will actually be called as a witness because he
>received reply emails from SteveL. My latest lawyer lives very
>close to the Federal Court in Tacoma, and if you want to contact
>him please email me at legalcoach@comcast.net .
>
>Moreover, since Mr. Brooks and Mr. Rau seem to be bent recently
>on accusing me of criminal acts, or juxtiposing a refernce to me
>in connection to others committing fraud and criminal acts, then
>I will be addressing that issue and perhaps their involvement in
>a few in a rebuttal, that is unless they want to retract those
>claims and apologize?
>
>I have tried my best to keep the criminal authorities out of the
>cyberstalking and fraud that is going on in respect to AWV such
>simply because many involved are Veterans, and I have a personal
>reason to like Medics. Yet some of these gang members are
>starting to push this issue into a realm where there will be no
>return.
>
>If they continue, then this issue will go to the next level, I
>will not tolerate being falsely accused of criminal acts, even by
>medics more than one time. (I realize that many Veterans are
>crackpots due to their service, and I have no desire to prosecute
>any Veteran of any war, not unless I am forced to do so simply to
>defend myself from their false accusations).
>
>If this issue goes further, we can start by talking about
>obstruction of justice by telling a gang member to remove his
>posts containing threats of death and violence from USENET, and
>then move on to other criminal issues after that one is exposed,
>such as inciting those threats of death and violence,
>contributing to them, and furthering them with a common criminal
>conspiracy purpose, etc....
>
>I should mention that SteveL has admitted he is not a Veteran
>although he posts on Veterans NG's so as to clearly cyberstalk
>real veterans, and I feel no remorse nor hesitation to refer his
>acts to the proper authorities for the criminal acts he regularly
>perpetrates against me. Antiwar types that target Veterans for
>fraud and cyberstalking in my opinion, should be prosecuted as
>they are purposely causing emotional harm much like that gang of
>stalkers did at all those funerals of our fallen warriors.
>
>Doug Grant (Tm)
>
>"
>
Just more of the same.
You should look up the word "brevity".
))