D
DGVREIMAN
Guest
PURPLE HEART QUESTIONS PROVIDED TO INDEPENDENT MILITARY EXPERTS
(Smear Merchant Disclaimer: Please note this article (the same as all of
my past articles and exchanges with posters) represents an editorial on
contemporary issues and events - my opinion. Nothing in this article
represents in any manner any asseveration of biographical fact, nor is
about, directed toward or against any particular person - other than
those specifically mentioned herein. This article is being posted for
entertainment purposes only. If any person finds this post personally
annoying, abusive, defaming or otherwise disturbing, please notify me of
your specific reasons for annoyance via email at legalcoach@comcast.net.
If we find your detailed objections reasonable (considering the
"reasonable person" doctrine and case law) we will then remove this
post, or the offending passages contained therein, from the Google
archive, publicly apologize and retract. My intent is to entertain, and
to present articles to USENET readers prior to publication to determine
interest, and not to annoy, abuse, humiliate, or in any way cause anyone
emotional harm by posting on USENET or elsewhere. Please note that
defending myself from harassment and obloquy with rebuttal posts has
been deemed a "lawful and legitimate" publication by my legal counsel.
If I am not attacked, defamed or harassed, or my copyrighted articles
not interrupted nor infringed upon, I clearly do not have a reason to
respond with a rebuttal. Please also note that I intend to notify any
and all ISP's and web hosts of any annoying or calumnious post, web site
or other similar entity about me after I give the offender an
opportunity to retract, apologize and remove said post from the Google
archive).
Arbitration Notice: If any person claims something I said about them in
this post is not true, then I invite them to email me and request
arbitration. The loser will pay for the arbitrator. I also invite
arbitration in respect to me claiming something someone said about me is
untrue. Again, the loser will pay for the arbitration. Truth as defined
in this offer will be statements in correct context and representing
original intent, and key omissions of fact will be considered
untruthful. Arbitrators will be selected from the American Association
of Arbitrators. This offer exclusively applies to all statements of fact
in this post.
So, far, as of April 16, 2008, we have consulted three such experts, and
their answers are all very similar. We will contact at least five
independent experts in respect to this issue and several other issues we
are preparing for testimony and expert opinion.
BACKGROUND AND EVIDENCE
The Smear and Fraud Merchants
After you read the background associated with this question you may
rightfully ask why anyone in their right mind would do what I am about
to describe. However, you must simply consider the person perpetrating
all this fraud and smear tactics is someone that has arrogantly claimed
that "he has appointed himself as my Judge" and he has been waging a
smear and fraud campaign against me for months. The tactics he uses to
smear me (and others) are replete with fraud, forgeries, lies and
duperies based upon his claim to be a retired "investigator" (actually
he is a retired custom worker) he also uses gross misrepresentations and
outright fraud in respect to the contents of military records, and
outright and deliberate obloquy. I also believe he holds the
International Internet record for web sites being forced down by web
managers due to his fraud or abuse or deliberate obloquy. (Nigel Brooks
has suffered about eleven web sites forced down so far and counting, and
he is hiding his last one out of fear it too will be removed after an
independent investigation into his false accusations and fraud by the
web managers).
If you can imagine someone holding a word Internet record for losing web
sites due to his publishing abuse or fraud or obloquy on them, this is
the kind of person I have been defending myself against (and his smear
gang) for months.
My first question in respect to this single issue is just one glaring
and outrageous example of this con man/fraud merchant "resurrecting"
typo dead-file (waste basket discarded) posts that were long removed
from Google archives due to errors or typos, and then forging the
context of that long removed dead post, retreived out of a waste basket,
for the purpose of defaming me and inciting threats against me.
If you can also imagine someone so unethical as to resurrect post
elements that contain admitted typos that have already been long removed
from the Google archive, also with the knowledge those typos have been
corrected and he has read the corrections several times, to defame and
smear someone with the long removed typo while hiding or ignoring the
correction, then you have this unethical smear and fraud merchant pegged
to a tee.
Tossing Erred Posts in the Waste Basket
Key Note: Long before this smear merchant said a word about the typo
post in question, it had been long removed from the Google USENET
archive due to a typo that was made by the person that wrote the post -
which was not me but was one of the typists I used at that time to post
information on USENET.
This particular Purple Heart ID Card (that the VA used to issue)
reference post (which will be the key post involved in my first question
to you) and many others that we found from time to time in error or with
typos or that differed from our copyrighted stories due to a typist
error or misstatement, and/or errors or typos that were brought to our
attention by others, were permanently discarded and removed from the
USENET Google archive just like all posts containing errors, typos or
ambiguities are supposed to be removed or discarded in Google's
electronic waste basket.
Google offers an USENET archive removal service (an electronic waste
basket) for posts in which errors are made and are subsequently
detected. These posts can be permanently removed/discarded by the
author, or with permission from the original author. In the case of a
forgery (and there were many posted under the name of our group) no
permission from the author is needed to remove if the forgery can be
proved to Google.
Google has revealed that about 35,000 such erred posts have already been
removed/discarded by USENET authors under the conditions of their
removal service - and many USENET authors have used this service to
correct their typos and errors thousands of times. Google also retains a
copy of the certified reason the author stated the post should be
removed, and typically requires a good reason, and certification to the
reason for removal before Google will remove the flawed post from its
archives.
If you can imagine a smear merchant that is so unethical, so immoral, so
dishonest and so desperate and obsessed to smear and defame someone he
would actually try to resurrect, reconstruct and replace a long removed
dead post, removed and thrown into a waste basket due to an admitted
typo error, so he can exploit and distort that error, and fraudulently
insert words into that discarded typo post that contained an admitted
typo error, for the exclusive and deliberate purpose of fabricating a
false accusation he and his smear gang could then use to smear and
defame their target victim - then you will have a perfect image of the
person with the initials of NB that is using such unethical and
fraudulent tactics to smear and defame his target victims, of which I am
one of many.
Key Note: What is most hypocritical about this smear gang is that
members of this Nigel Brooks smear team have removed posts from the
Google archive due to their threats of death and violence against
original target victims being exposed. I believe those threats of death
and violence posts perpetrated or incited by this gang were removed from
the Google archive for the purpose of hiding obvious criminal acts! And
it is clear the gang conspired to remove those posts not because they
were in error like mine, but because they provided evidence of Federal
Criminal acts and they were removed only after that evidence was
compiled and sent to the US Army HHC command. However, which gang
leaders were involved in this alleged obstruction of justice attempt has
still not yet been determined and probably will not be determined until
this issue goes to court.
The hypocritical gang howls about any post removed for error or typo by
others, meanwhile it clandestinely removes its own incriminating posts!
According to the Smear Gang Leader -Everything Posted on Usenet Is
Automatically Being Presented as an "Autobiographical Statement of Fact"
According to this "Nigel Brooks" howling mad smear merchant, ALL ERRORS
AND TYPOS posted on USENET (that do not belong to him or his gang)
including any ambiguous and/or extemporaneous retorts posted during
USENET conversations, are in fact intentional autobiographical
statements of facts of the author, regardless of whether the author
admits to those errors and subsequently removes them from the Google
archives or not. (Believe it or not, this is what this Nigel Brooks
person calls "Honest Investigation").
This is the kind of hypocritical and immoral "self-appointed inquisitor"
I am dealing with in respect to this issue. Someone so psychopathically
obsessed and desperate to defame and smear those that he has chosen to
defame and demonize he actually tries to resurrect and misrepresent dead
posts that have been long discarded and removed from the Google archive
due to an admitted error, typo or ambiguity, and then he misrepresents
all typos that have been thrown into Google's electronic waste basket by
his target victim as an "autobiographical statement of fact" by his
victim. Only Nigel Brooks and his gang would be so unethical as to claim
a discarded typo post that was thrown into the waste basket was an
"autobiographical statement of fact" by the person that discarded the
post - which in many cases were not even written by the person being
smeared!
The following is the history of the Nigel Brooks smear merchants'
attempt to resurrect a removed waste basket discarded post for error so
as to forge and distort it in a manner as to defame, smear, demonize and
cast the author in a false light:
Question Background
In 2003, while I was pending shoulder and wrist surgery, I could not
type. Consequently, as I had done several times in the past (and
announced several times on USENET that I and we used typists, as the
Google archive in not less than 71 posts will prove which I will send
you) I used a typist to actually compose and write my general and
inexact dictated replies on USENET in respect to conversations I was
having with other posters. (Typically, I would just provide a general
statement reply and she would fill in the rest adding or subtracting
words as she saw fit, and many times I recorded my reply on a tape
recorder and she would simply transcribe the recording onto USENET -
including errors and typos of course as any typist would make during
such transcribing).
In one particular exchange, a person that I was conversing with, a
person by the name of "Chip," wrote that he had a "Purple Heart and
Car(d)." I was driving when my typist called me and read me his reply
USENET statement. Here is the precise key sentence that Chip wrote:
"I have a purple heart and Car" . . .
(Note that I had already said many times on USENET that I did not have a
Purple Heart Medal, yet I had also said that I had been provided a
purple heart ID card by the Veterans Administration).
B. This is a "Purple Heart Card" context reference by me long before the
smear merchant forged the word "Medal" to Chip and my typist's reply
that had nothing to do with medals.
(The Purple Heart Card the VA issued at that time was the only ID card
that designated a service connected disability, regardless of whether
the owner of the card had been awarded the Purple Heart Medal or not.
This ID card was changed starting in 2005 to the new VIC card which DOES
distinguish the difference between a service connected disability and
someone that has received the Order of the Purple Heart Medal due to his
disability. Prior to that 2005 date, all service connected disabilities
were identified by the Purple Heart ID Card. The ID card itself and the
serviceman's records contained a "big Purple V" emblem, hence the slang
reference by people in the VA and Vets "Purple Heart Card." This large
Purple V on the card and on the VA records jacket, at that time, was
supposed to indicate to the VA employees that such a Veteran was to
receive priority care over other veterans with non-service related
disabilities. Note also that my conversation with Chip occurred in 2003,
long before the old Purple Heart ID Card was replaced by the new Veteran's
VIC card.)
KEY NOTE: The URL below provides a sampling the dozens of times I said I
did not have a Purple Heart Medal, including long before Nigel Brooks
forged the term "Medal" into Chip's and my typist's posts. It is
important to note the Nigel Brooks gang avoids mentioning all of the
times I clearly stated I had NOT been awarded the purple heart medal.
They avoid this fact because it contradicts their attempt to
fraudulently insert the term "Medal" into a post that had nothing to do
with medals.
http://tinyurl.com/33nrq7
According to my memory, and my typist's notes and her written statement
in respect to this issue, when my typist read me on the telephone what
Chip had said in his USENET reply, she read me the following sentence
precisely:
"I have a Purple Heart and Card."
Moreover, according to her notes and her sworn statement (a copy of her
2003 notes and her sworn statement will be sent to you) she believed
that Chip's " Car" term in his sentence was simply a reference to my
statements about Purple Heart ID cards that I said were issued by the
Veterans Administration (at that time). So, based upon what she read to
me on the telephone, I told her to respond to Chip with "I have Purple
Heart Card also, and I earned mine in a real war. . . . " (Note my
typist does not have a military background of any kind).
According to her notes and sworn statement in regards to this issue, the
above is precisely what I told her to respond to Chip with. She wrote my
reply in her notes clearly (she has her note books dating all the way
back to 2001). However, when she did actually respond she left out the
term "Card" and simply said; "I have a purple heart also and I earned
mine in a real war. . . . " (I am not sure she really knew the
difference). Then also according to her notes and sworn affidavit she
said she thought she mentioned something about VA cards at the bottom of
the page of her reply. Yet when Chip cut and pasted an element of my
typist's reply to respond to in the next thread, he omitted the entire
bottom of the page including the signature section and any reference my
typist made to VA Cards.
KEY NOTE: About three weeks after my typist's reply was written and
posted on USENET by my typist. Someone that was reading Chip's
incomplete cut and paste of my typist's reply suggested that I was
talking about Purple Heart Medals. I replied to that person with the
following statement as the following URL proves: "THAT IS AN IDIOTIC
INNUENDO AND A COMPLETE DISTORTION."
http://tinyurl.com/2ggyxc Nigel Brooks PH Medal Forgery.
Regardless of the overwhelming evidence to the contrary and the general
use of USENET by all that use it, the Nigel Brooks smear merchant that
resurrected this long removed erred post from the waste basket
ridiculously claims that everything posted by anyone on USENET
automatically represents an "autobiographical" claim by the author. Yet
I have clearly stated the opposite dozens of times in my posts, and in
respect to the post in question with Chip back in 2003 long before the
smear merchant started his smear campaign against me with forgeries and
fraud, I wrote the following as the above URL will also prove:
KEY NOTE: "Further, people do not post their personal background
information on newsgroups. I have no intention of doing so unless you
and Chirpy will agree to do the same. Further, when I offered to post my
discharges Chirpy said that if I did they would be forgeries." (Note
this statement was written subsequent to the Purple Heart Card typo post
in question).
So much for the smear merchant's outright lie that all of my USENET
posts were being presented as an"autobiographical" claim about my
military service. In fact, as my statement above clearly indicates,
nothing could be further from the truth.
As the Google archives prove irrefutably, I stated the exact opposite of
the Nigel Brooks claim that "all USENET statements are meant to be
autobiographical claim" years before the smear merchants started to
forge some of my post fragments and use typos and errors as a means to
fraudulently claim I said something that I clearly did not. The
following post also proves the SteveL anonymous cyberstalker and Nigel
Brooks gang member was also caught in a mid con about this issue:
http://tinyurl.com/2ah57c
The smear merchant and his gang members also carefully avoid mentioning
that almost immediately after the ambiguous and incomplete cut and paste
from my typist's reply appeared from Chip in respect to Purple Heart ID
Cards, a person by the name of McCulloch/SteveL asked me (suggested) if
I was referencing a Purple Heart Medal, and I replied with "that is an
idiotic innuendo and a distortion" of what was written. So even back in
2003 when Chip's first incorrect and incomplete cut and paste of my
typist's reply occurred, and LONG BEFORE the smear merchant forged the
false context of "Medals" into this long removed erred post that was
thrown into the waste basket, I said that concluding I was referencing a
Purple Heart "Medal" in my reply to Chip was an "idiotic innuendo and a
complete distortion." (See the above URL for evidence).
I also stated very clearly that I was NOT providing any autobiographical
information about my military service on USENET. How could anyone claim
a person was claiming (in code) that he had earned the Order of the
Purple Heart Medal if he also said in the very same USENET exchange that
he refused to provide any autobiographical information about his
military service? Any such smear merchant misrepresentation, even from
the Nigel Brooks smear merchant, is far beyond even idiotic.
KEY NOTE: (Obviously it is impossible to claim you were awarded a Purple
Heart Medal unless you are also posting your personal autobiographical
military information on USENET, which I clearly stated I was NOT doing).
Smear Merchants Hide Posts that Contradict their Fraudulent Claims
It is also important to mention this unethical Nigel Brooks smear
merchant and his gang all very carefully avoid, duck, hide and never
mention all of those other USENET posts in which I did write, (before
and after the Chip cut and paste post they falsely claim I wrote) which
states I DID NOT have a Purple Heart Medal. Why do you suppose the smear
merchants duck, cower, hide from, ignore, lie about and avoid all of the
overwhelming Google archived evidence that directly contradicts their
trumped claims that my typist and I, and Chip, were all talking about
Medals and not ID cards?
Chip Confirms the Context was Cards and Not possibly Medals
I cannot read Chip's mind, but I know for sure my typist and I thought
he was talking about cards and not medals. Moreover, when I contacted
Chip directly via email twice about this issue he said in his first
reply that he had to be talking about Cards and not medals because he
does not possess a Purple Heart Medal! He confirmed that statement in my
second more recent email to him. (I will send a copy of my latest
correspondence with him replete with verification he was never awarded
that medal so he could not have possibly been referencing a Medal in his
post).
KEY NOTE: All three participants in the original USENET conversation in
question (Chip, my typist and I) ALL have confirmed that the true
context of the conversation was "Cards" and NOT "Medals." Yet the Nigel
Brooks smear merchant and his gang "inserted" "forged" "added" the term
"medals" into the context of this long removed erred post for the
purpose of fabricating a means to claim that I was claiming a purple
heart medal that I had not earned - while deliberately hiding and
ignoring the half dozen times or so I had stated unequivocally that I
had NOT received a purple heart medal.
The preponderance of Evidence
http://tinyurl.com/2ggyxc Nigel Brooks PH Medal Forgery.
Of course the smear merchants avoid, hide, cower, duck and dodge all
those posts in which I said I did not have a Purple Heart medal and
never said I did (WHICH POSTS THE SMEAR MERCHANTS RESPONDED TO AND
AGREED WITH BEFORE ONE OF THEM RESURRECTED A TYPO POST THAT WAS
DISCARDED AND THEN FORGED ITS CONTEXT) because they know if those other
posts I posted about this issue (which were posts they acknowledged and
responded to) are revealed, then the preponderance of evidence in
respect to this matter proves irrefutably their accusations in respect
to the typo resurrected post issue are not only false, fraudulent and
forged, but also deliberately contrived for the purpose of defamation
and obloquy. (Please see the above URL "Nigel Brooks PH Medal Forgery"
for a listing of all the posts I posted stating the exact opposite of
the forged context long discarded typo post the smear merchants are
forging out of context).
Also note the many times in the above URL these same smear merchants
agreed that I did not have a purple heart medal, and agreed I never said
I had one. Yet "they completely changed their story" when one of their
gang resurrected a long removed waste basket post removed from the
Google archive due to an admitted typo. And once the gang's forgery was
complete on the post they removed from my waste basket, the gang then
deliberately used their forged and false "Medals" context of the erred
waste basket located typo post for the purpose of lodging false and
defaming accusations for the obvious purpose of deliberate stalking and
harassment.
Lack of Corroboration Obvious
Moreover, if someone was claiming he had a Purple Heart Medal on USENET
there would be many more USENET posts stating that claim instead of just
a single badly forged copy of an incomplete post written by someone else
and resurrected from a waste basket group of erred posts that Google had
already authorized for removal due to their errors or ambiguities.
The only corroboration of any statement in respect to this issue exists
in the several posts in which I stated the exact opposite of what the
smear gang and con men are claiming! And that is why the smear merchants
always hide those posts I wrote stating I did not have a Purple Heart
Medal.
Removal of the Ambiguous and Typo PH Card Post from the Google Archive
After I received the question/suggestion from Mr. McCulloch whether my
typist's reply context was about medals, I then took the time to
carefully read Chip's post about this issue and my typist's reply to his
post. It was clear the post my typist composed, wrote and posted could
be misconstrued due to the typist's typo of not clearly stating "card"
after "I have a purple heart also" sentence. I then contacted Chip
directly and asked him if he was talking about Medals or Cards like I
was told? He said that since he DID NOT have a Purple Heart Medal he
must have been talking about Cards and not medals. Regardless, my typist's
reply if cut and pasted incomplete like Chip had done, did contain a key
typo. Consequently for that purpose it was removed from the Google
archives (thrown in the electronic waste basket) MONTHS before any Nigel
Brooks smear merchant said a word about it or tried to use that post to
falsely claim I was claiming a Purple Heart Medal I did not have.
(KEY NOTE: The fact the Nigel Brooks and his gang of smear merchants
could not find the Purple Heart Card original post on the Google
archives, and used a cut and paste from Chip who had cut and pasted an
incomplete element of that post in his reply to it, proves irrefutably
and unequivocally the post in question was long removed as an erred post
from the Google archives, and discarded in Google's electronic waste
basket long before any of the smear merchants ever mentioned it.)
When the Nigel Brooks smear merchant in question resurrected my typist's
post that was removed long ago for its typo and then forged the term
"Medal" into the post for the purpose of false accusations and
defamation, I again emailed Chip and confirmed that he was talking about
Cards and not medals. I also have since received confirmation from the
US Army that Chip was telling the truth about him not being awarded any
Purple Heart medals or ever being in combat or earning combat badges.
(If you so require before you render your expert opinion on this matter,
I will send you a copy of my confirmation that Chip was not talking
about medals - and a statement from my typist affirming everything I
told you so far about what she had said and written).
However, even with the said confirmations by Chip that he was NOT
talking about Medals, (simply because he said he did not possess that
medal) my typist's typo still existed in Chip's cut and paste of my
typists' reply. So I contacted Google and asked them if I could modify
that original post to add the missing word. Google said that I could
not, but I could simply remove and discard the entire post in their
electronic waste basket as it clearly contained a typo or error.
Prior to allowing me to discard the post, Google required me to provide
them with a sworn statement as to the reason I was removing the post,
and I replied to Google (long before the Nigel Brooks smear merchants
said a word about this post) that it was being removed because the post
was referencing and talking about Cards and not Medals, and because of
the typo (the missing term "card" after my typist's comments) the post
could be and had been misinterpreted by those with the intent to defame
me over typos. (Google keeps a record of the reasons all posts are
removed from its archives. I removed this post long before the Nigel
Brooks smear merchants attempted to smear me with their forged term
"medals" into that post. My past statement as my reason for the removal
of this post from the Google archive can be requested with my permission
from the Google files. I will immediately provide Google with my
permission to release that reason for removal to you).
Typos and Errors in USENET Posts are Common
Everyone knows that typos, misstatements, errors can be and will be made
in USENET posts especially when typists are being used to post
dictation, and/or extemporaneous retorts are being published, and those
errors should be removed/discarded from the Google archive as soon as
they are identified. Resurrecting an erred dead file post that was long
removed and tossed into the electronic waste basket due to its admitted
typo, and then altering the true intended context of that discarded
erred post by forging into it a new word "medals" which was never used
in the post in any manner, for the purpose of defamation and libel, is,
in my opinion, about as unethical as it gets. Moreover, such acts
clearly, in my opinion, reflects a deliberate and contrived attempt to
use outright fraud and false accusations to defame, smear, harass and
cast in a false light, a targeted smear victim.
We await your written opinions in respect to this issue, and your
answers and opinions in respect to the following questions after you
receive all of the information you required that has been offered in
this background:
Douglas G. Reiman
Questions:
KEY NOTE: Due to the obvious fact this was a conversation on USENET and
clearly represented extemporaneous comments by all parties involved, had
I simply misspoke or made a mistake myself by omitting the term "Card" I
would readily admit such a common extemporaneous error and put an end to
this issue once and for all. Yet as all the evidence proves, that was
NOT what happened, and the truth will be told regardless of how the
smear merchants attempt to spin and distort it).
Quick summary:
1. The post the smear merchants are attempting to insert words into and
thereby change the intended context for the purpose of using their fraud
to defame, was discarded and removed as a flawed, erred and a post with
an obvious typo from the Google archives long before the smear merchants
ever even mentioned it. The smear merchants are clearly using typos and
errors that have been discarded in an electronic waste basket to smear
and defame.
2. When the post was first posted by my typist, and within a few days
after and when someone asked or suggested we were talking about Purple
Heart Medals and not Purple Heart ID Cards, I clearly responded to that
person with the following statement: "THAT IS AN IDIOTIC INNUENDO AND A
COMPLETE DISTORTION of what was written." If I had intended to claim a
Purple Heart Medal I certainly would have confirmed that claim at that
time, and I certainly would not have stated otherwise.
3. Subsequent to the post in question I was also asked to provide
personal information about my past military service on USENET. I
responded with the following:
"Further, people do not post their personal background information on
newsgroups. I have no intention of doing so unless you and Chirpy will
agree to do the same. Further, when I offered to post my discharges
Chirpy said that if I did they would be forgeries."
4. Some of the Nigel Brooks smear merchants attempted to claim that I
did not remove the PH Card post in question until after they brought
it up and questioned it. That of course is an outright lie, and the mere
fact the smear merchants did not possess a Google archived copy of the
post and used an incomplete cut and paste of it posted by Chip as
evidence the post originally existed is clear and irrefutable evidence
the PH card post was long discarded and removed as an erred post from
the Google archive. This fact also proves the smear gang used
resurrected dead file removed typo posts, long thrown into the waste
basket due to its errors, as a means to falsely accuse, defame and
smear. (Yes the gang is rummaging around in my electronic waste baskets
to try and find anything long discarded due to error to use to defame
and smear me - as hard as that is to believe as coming from grown men,
it is true).
5. All three participants in the original conversation in question
(Chip, my typist and I) ALL have confirmed that the true context of the
conversation was "Cards" and NOT "Medals." Yet the Nigel Brooks smear
merchant and his gang "inserted" "forged" "added" the term "medals" into
the context of this long discarded waste basket erred post for the
purpose of fabricating a means to claim that I was claiming a purple
heart medal that I had not earned - while deliberately hiding and
ignoring the half dozen times or so I had stated unequivocally that I
had not received a purple heart medal.
6. My typist also wrote at the bottom of her reply something else I
mentioned to her in respect to replying to Chip (which the smear
merchants now admit):
"BTW, bragging about a Purple Heart not received in combat is about as
cowardly as it gets."
This final sentence in her reply clearly indicates the topic was PH ID
cards and NOT MEDALS! Why? Simply due to the fact that we all know
Purple Heart Medals can only be provided during a period of combat.
Consequently, it is clear our impression that Chip was talking about
Purple Heart ID cards which CAN be provided by the VA based upon
non-combat events. If you replace the terms "Purple Heart" with "service
connected disability" you have the correct context of my reply and my
typist's intention. Although poorly worded, it is impossible for me or
anyone else to reference purple heart medals that were not earned in
combat, this sentence alone proves we had to be talking about something
other than medals.
7. All six of these summarized key points can be easily proved by
reviewing the Tiny URL's referencing Google archived post I have
provided in this unmasking of the smear merchants' clearly fraudulent
claims about this issue:
Question # One:
In your expert opinion, and considering the information I have provided
herein, (which I hereby attest to being the truth to the best of my
knowledge) do you believe a person that would resurrect a dead-file post
long discarded into an electronic waste basket due to its typo, via
someone's else's incomplete cut and paste of elements of that old dead
post - and then forge the context of the dead erred post, and insert new
words into that long removed and admittedly flawed and erred post so as
to defame the author, while ignoring the correct context provided by the
author, is an honest investigator that is providing truthful and honest
information about the context intent of the original author of the
resurrected from the waste basket erred post?
(1-1). Yes: In my opinion any person that would use the tactics
described above is an honest and/or competent investigator.
(1-2). No: In my opinion any person that would use the tactics described
above is not an honest and competent investigator.
(You may add comments if you wish).
Question # Two: If you replied extemporaneously to a USENET post, and
then later spotted an error in it in your reply, and realized due to the
typo the context of the post could be misinterpreted and was thereby
somewhat ambiguous, you decided to remove the post and place it in a
erred post dead file (an electronic waste basket) with the Google
archive. Then, months after you discarded and removed that erred post,
and because someone involved in the original extemporaneous USENET
conversation had cut and pasted an incomplete (thereby forged) element
of that long removed post in a cut and paste reply on USENET, a person
then used that incomplete and long discarded cut and paste element for
the purpose of forging words into that post to defame you, would you
believe that person is attempting to smear and defame you by using
forgeries and false accusations?
(2-1). Yes, I would agree any such person that did as you described
above would be attempting to smear and defame with the use of fraud,
false accusations and forgeries:
(2-2). No, the person in question is using an honest and truthful means
of investigation:
(You may add comments if you wish).
Question # Three: Do you believe that an honest and ethical
"investigator" would ever claim all posts on USENET automatically
represent an "autobiographical statement of fact" by the author, EXCEPT
those posted by the Investigator himself, his friends, and associates,
and only he has the mind reading skills to determine which posts are
meant to be autobiographical facts or simply sarcasm, fiction or
extemporaneous quips?
Answer:
(3-1). Yes, it is proper for an investigator to claim that all
statements on USENET are autobiographical statements by anyone he
decides are publishing such autobiographical claims via his mind reading
investigative skills.
(3-2). No, an honest, ethical and impartial investigator would NOT claim
that everything written on USENET, including typos and errors, would
represent autobiographical claims by the author.
(You may add comments if you wish).
Question # Four: Considering an impartial and honest investigation of
the facts as I have presented in respect to this above and in my
background information, and the preponderance of evidence involved, do
you believe the true context of my typist's extemporaneous reply to the
Chip post in question was about "Cards" or "Medals?"
Answer:
(4-1). In my expert opinion, and based upon the evidence you have
provided herein, I believe your typist's reply to Chip, which was posted
by her based upon your instructions to her, was in context about Purple
Heart ID cards provided by the Veterans Administration and not about
Medals.
(4-2). In my expert opinion and based upon the evidence you have
provided herein, I believe your and your typist's reply was about Purple
Heart Medals and not about Purple Heart ID cards.
(You may add comments if you wish).
Question # Five: Recently, one of the smear gang members claimed that
the entire post containing my Typist's reply suddenly reappeared on the
Google Archives because Google allowed it. I contacted Google and they
said that claim was a lie, and it was impossible for that post to
"reappear in their archives after it was removed by them from their
archives." An alleged copy of this long removed post was re-posted on
the Internet by the smear merchants. The article that was posted by the
gang clearly came from a well-doctored personal computer archive, and
NOT from Google! The smear gang also attempted to post this doctored
post with a forged header over a well-doctored personal computer
archived post, and then further fraudulently panned it off as coming
from the Google archive so as to bolster their fraud and false
accusations in respect to this issue. (A copy of this post will be sent
to you).
We all know that anyone can "recreate" a post and doctor it anyway they
wish on their own computer and then fraudulently present it as the
complete post that was originally posted - especially when that post has
been removed from the Google archive so a direct comparison cannot be
compared to the forgery. Please confirm or disagree that it is possible
for a post removed by Google to suddenly reappear on the Google Archive
without the knowledge of Google.
Answer:
(You may add comments if you wish).
Question # Six: Mind reading skills: One of the most questionable claims
by the Nigel Brooks smear merchant (and by some of his gang) is that due
to their mind reading skills and past military experience (one gang
member was a junior officer that spent nine months of duty in Vietnam
helping to guard a lonely outpost, and another was a Sp4 personnel clerk
in Long Binh that took his discharge in Vietnam) they can always
determine the true context of all USENET posts about Vietnam even if the
author of that post disagrees with their imposed and conjured context.
It has been my experience, after spending fifteen months in Vietnam
(2&1/2 tours) that each Vietnam vet has his own version of that war
based upon the time he spent fighting it, the units he was assigned to,
the duties he performed, and the precise years he spent in country. (My
years were 1968-69 with a brief visit to Vietnam in 1963).
In your expert opinion, do you agree that such mind reading skills
exist, and do you agree that anyone with the experience in Vietnam as
indicated above can subjectively determine the true context of anything
written about Vietnam, even if the author disagrees with the imposed new
and opposite context the author states he was trying to convey?
Answer:
(6-1). Yes, investigators all possess such mind reading skills, and with
the use of those skills and the time served in Vietnam as indicated
above, investigators and former junior officers can determine true
context of anything written about Vietnam even if their imposed context
contradicts that of the author that wrote or composed the writing or
article in question.
(6-2). No, any claim of mind reading skills connected with the Vietnam
experience stated above that can determine the context of anything
written about Vietnam is ridiculous on its face. The only individuals
that could possibly know the true context of anything written are the
persons that actually composed and/or published the writing. Many
articles can be easily misconstrued, especially if the misinterpretation
is deliberate and is being done for the purpose of defaming the author.
This is especially true if the article or writing involves
extemporaneous comments during a USENET conversation.
(You may add comments if you wish).
Question Seven:
Here is the verbatim disclaimer I post on the top of my USENET posts.
(Once it is posted I do not repeat it in threads or exchanges involving
the same topic). I also stated very clearly in 2003 that I do not reveal
personal autobiographical information on USENET (who would?)
"(Smear Merchant Disclaimer: Please note this article (the same as all
of my past articles and exchanges with posters) represents an editorial
on contemporary issues and events - my opinion. Nothing in this article
represents in any manner any asseveration of biographical fact, nor is
about, directed toward or against any particular person - other than
those specifically mentioned herein. This article is being posted for
entertainment purposes only. If any person finds this post personally
annoying, abusive, defaming or otherwise disturbing, please notify me of
your specific reasons for annoyance via email at legalcoach@comcast.net.
If we find your detailed objections reasonable (considering the
"reasonable person" doctrine and case law) we will then remove this
post, or the offending passages contained therein, from the Google
archive, publicly apologize and retract. My intent is to entertain, and
to present articles to USENET readers prior to publication to determine
interest, and not to annoy, abuse, humiliate, or in any way cause anyone
emotional harm by posting on USENET or elsewhere. Please note that
defending myself from harassment and obloquy with rebuttal posts has
been deemed a "lawful and legitimate" publication by my legal counsel.
If I am not attacked, defamed or harassed, or my copyrighted articles
not interrupted nor infringed upon, I clearly do not have a reason to
respond with a rebuttal. Please also note that I intend to notify any
and all ISP's and web hosts of any annoying or calumnious post, web site
or other similar entity about me after I give the offender an
opportunity to retract, apologize and remove said post from the Google
archive).
Question Seven: Do you believe that a qualified and expert investigator
would, after reading the above disclaimer, claim that whatever the
author ever wrote on USENET represented a autobiographical statement of
fact?
(You may add comments if you wish).
End Seven questions on this topic. Other topics are being prepared and
will be sent to you as soon as they are complete. As we agreed, please
understand that we reserve the right to publish your answers, and use
them as evidence and in a court of law.
Based upon the answers from all three military and law experts
consulted, the following is presented as the "Corrected Copy" containing
the true context of my typist's reply to Chip:
CORRECTED ANSWER TO CHIP'S FEB 16, 2003 STATEMENT
> On Sun, 16 Feb 2003 19:56:03 GMT, DGVREIMAN allegedly wrote...
> > Doug Says: We declared war on terrorism. Saddam is
supporting, financing, arming, training, aiding and harboring
terrorists.
> > Duh. I suspect that you do not have clue about what you are
> > talking about, and I further suspect you have never seen a
shot > fired in anger in your life.
> I have a Purple Heart and a CAR that proves you wrong, Dougie.
> There are other countries, some that are our allies, who are
much more active in supporting and arming terrorists...yet you want
to go after Iraq because you don't have the will to go after them.
That, to me is cowardice.
"Doug Says: I have a Purple Heart Card also, and I received mine in a
real war, I can't imagine where you got yours since you have
never fought in a war. About the only place you could have
received a purple heart card was in Lebanon, and that was not a
shooting war, just a bombing due to the ineptitude of a gang of
Marine officers. In respect to deposing Saddam, I am the one
advocating removing Saddam, you are the one advocating
cowering, hiding, and doing nothing. It is pretty clear who the coward
is
around here. BTW, bragging about a Purple Heart card not received in
combat is about as cowardly as it gets."
Note the above post reply that was written and posted by my typist was
originally discarded in Google's "waste basket" because my typist did
not properly place the term "Card" in the three places indicated above.
As the statement from my typist confirms, I was read the above post from
Chip on the telephone, and my typist took his statement above to say "I
have a purple heart and a car" as meaning I have a purple heart card
(meaning a VA purple heart ID card that was a topic of conversation I
had with others before). I told her to respond as the above post
correction indicates. After someone brought her key typo omissions to my
attention, I of course replied to that person (in 2003) that any
representation that my reply was about medals was a "complete distortion
and innuendo of what was written."
However, due to the typo, and because Google offers an "electronic waste
basket" for erred or posts containing such typographical errors, I
removed it from Google, told Google the reason it was being removed, and
Google placed the typo post in its "waste basket" dead file.
However, smear merchants, being what smear merchants are, decided to
retrieve the erred post from the waste basket and then he FORGED the
term "Medals" into the post after the purple heart terms, thereby
fraudulently changing and altering the true context of the long
discarded typo post from "Cards" into "Medals." Then Nigel Brooks and
his gang used their own forgery to claim I was falsely claiming a
"medal" I did not possess. Yet Chip confirmed (in writing) he did not
have a Purple Heart medal and therefore could not have been talking
about medals, my typist confirmed (in writing) she took his purple heart
statement to be about Cards and not Medals, and she also confirmed (in
writing) that my answer to Chip clearly stated Purple Heart Cards three
times. Yet she also said that because she really did not know the
difference she simply mistakenly omitted the term "Card" from the
original reply to Chip. Of course when I replied to the first person
that questioned this post back in 2003 that it did not mean medals, I
spotted the typo, and consequently, threw it in the electronic waste
basket which Google provides for such erred posts.
Yet since the smear merchants have been caught digging around in my
waste basket for erred and typo posts that have been long discarded to
try and find some unethical way to defame me, I have been advised to
provide this explanation and replace the post the way it was originally
intended. (My typist also states that she mentioned the topic was about
cards at the bottom of the post because it was impossible to earn a
purple heart medal in a non-combat situation, which I clearly indicated
Chip had done).
I have submitted this issue to an independent expert on the military and
the law, and he has replied that he agrees with me that the true context
of my typist's reply post was about "Cards" and NOT "Medals" contrary to
the misrepresentations and forgery by Nigel Brooks and his gang.
Any continued forgery of "medals" into this post will be recognized as a
typical Nigel Brooks forgery, just one more of many.
Doug Grant (Tm)
(Smear Merchant Disclaimer: Please note this article (the same as all of
my past articles and exchanges with posters) represents an editorial on
contemporary issues and events - my opinion. Nothing in this article
represents in any manner any asseveration of biographical fact, nor is
about, directed toward or against any particular person - other than
those specifically mentioned herein. This article is being posted for
entertainment purposes only. If any person finds this post personally
annoying, abusive, defaming or otherwise disturbing, please notify me of
your specific reasons for annoyance via email at legalcoach@comcast.net.
If we find your detailed objections reasonable (considering the
"reasonable person" doctrine and case law) we will then remove this
post, or the offending passages contained therein, from the Google
archive, publicly apologize and retract. My intent is to entertain, and
to present articles to USENET readers prior to publication to determine
interest, and not to annoy, abuse, humiliate, or in any way cause anyone
emotional harm by posting on USENET or elsewhere. Please note that
defending myself from harassment and obloquy with rebuttal posts has
been deemed a "lawful and legitimate" publication by my legal counsel.
If I am not attacked, defamed or harassed, or my copyrighted articles
not interrupted nor infringed upon, I clearly do not have a reason to
respond with a rebuttal. Please also note that I intend to notify any
and all ISP's and web hosts of any annoying or calumnious post, web site
or other similar entity about me after I give the offender an
opportunity to retract, apologize and remove said post from the Google
archive).
Arbitration Notice: If any person claims something I said about them in
this post is not true, then I invite them to email me and request
arbitration. The loser will pay for the arbitrator. I also invite
arbitration in respect to me claiming something someone said about me is
untrue. Again, the loser will pay for the arbitration. Truth as defined
in this offer will be statements in correct context and representing
original intent, and key omissions of fact will be considered
untruthful. Arbitrators will be selected from the American Association
of Arbitrators. This offer exclusively applies to all statements of fact
in this post.
So, far, as of April 16, 2008, we have consulted three such experts, and
their answers are all very similar. We will contact at least five
independent experts in respect to this issue and several other issues we
are preparing for testimony and expert opinion.
BACKGROUND AND EVIDENCE
The Smear and Fraud Merchants
After you read the background associated with this question you may
rightfully ask why anyone in their right mind would do what I am about
to describe. However, you must simply consider the person perpetrating
all this fraud and smear tactics is someone that has arrogantly claimed
that "he has appointed himself as my Judge" and he has been waging a
smear and fraud campaign against me for months. The tactics he uses to
smear me (and others) are replete with fraud, forgeries, lies and
duperies based upon his claim to be a retired "investigator" (actually
he is a retired custom worker) he also uses gross misrepresentations and
outright fraud in respect to the contents of military records, and
outright and deliberate obloquy. I also believe he holds the
International Internet record for web sites being forced down by web
managers due to his fraud or abuse or deliberate obloquy. (Nigel Brooks
has suffered about eleven web sites forced down so far and counting, and
he is hiding his last one out of fear it too will be removed after an
independent investigation into his false accusations and fraud by the
web managers).
If you can imagine someone holding a word Internet record for losing web
sites due to his publishing abuse or fraud or obloquy on them, this is
the kind of person I have been defending myself against (and his smear
gang) for months.
My first question in respect to this single issue is just one glaring
and outrageous example of this con man/fraud merchant "resurrecting"
typo dead-file (waste basket discarded) posts that were long removed
from Google archives due to errors or typos, and then forging the
context of that long removed dead post, retreived out of a waste basket,
for the purpose of defaming me and inciting threats against me.
If you can also imagine someone so unethical as to resurrect post
elements that contain admitted typos that have already been long removed
from the Google archive, also with the knowledge those typos have been
corrected and he has read the corrections several times, to defame and
smear someone with the long removed typo while hiding or ignoring the
correction, then you have this unethical smear and fraud merchant pegged
to a tee.
Tossing Erred Posts in the Waste Basket
Key Note: Long before this smear merchant said a word about the typo
post in question, it had been long removed from the Google USENET
archive due to a typo that was made by the person that wrote the post -
which was not me but was one of the typists I used at that time to post
information on USENET.
This particular Purple Heart ID Card (that the VA used to issue)
reference post (which will be the key post involved in my first question
to you) and many others that we found from time to time in error or with
typos or that differed from our copyrighted stories due to a typist
error or misstatement, and/or errors or typos that were brought to our
attention by others, were permanently discarded and removed from the
USENET Google archive just like all posts containing errors, typos or
ambiguities are supposed to be removed or discarded in Google's
electronic waste basket.
Google offers an USENET archive removal service (an electronic waste
basket) for posts in which errors are made and are subsequently
detected. These posts can be permanently removed/discarded by the
author, or with permission from the original author. In the case of a
forgery (and there were many posted under the name of our group) no
permission from the author is needed to remove if the forgery can be
proved to Google.
Google has revealed that about 35,000 such erred posts have already been
removed/discarded by USENET authors under the conditions of their
removal service - and many USENET authors have used this service to
correct their typos and errors thousands of times. Google also retains a
copy of the certified reason the author stated the post should be
removed, and typically requires a good reason, and certification to the
reason for removal before Google will remove the flawed post from its
archives.
If you can imagine a smear merchant that is so unethical, so immoral, so
dishonest and so desperate and obsessed to smear and defame someone he
would actually try to resurrect, reconstruct and replace a long removed
dead post, removed and thrown into a waste basket due to an admitted
typo error, so he can exploit and distort that error, and fraudulently
insert words into that discarded typo post that contained an admitted
typo error, for the exclusive and deliberate purpose of fabricating a
false accusation he and his smear gang could then use to smear and
defame their target victim - then you will have a perfect image of the
person with the initials of NB that is using such unethical and
fraudulent tactics to smear and defame his target victims, of which I am
one of many.
Key Note: What is most hypocritical about this smear gang is that
members of this Nigel Brooks smear team have removed posts from the
Google archive due to their threats of death and violence against
original target victims being exposed. I believe those threats of death
and violence posts perpetrated or incited by this gang were removed from
the Google archive for the purpose of hiding obvious criminal acts! And
it is clear the gang conspired to remove those posts not because they
were in error like mine, but because they provided evidence of Federal
Criminal acts and they were removed only after that evidence was
compiled and sent to the US Army HHC command. However, which gang
leaders were involved in this alleged obstruction of justice attempt has
still not yet been determined and probably will not be determined until
this issue goes to court.
The hypocritical gang howls about any post removed for error or typo by
others, meanwhile it clandestinely removes its own incriminating posts!
According to the Smear Gang Leader -Everything Posted on Usenet Is
Automatically Being Presented as an "Autobiographical Statement of Fact"
According to this "Nigel Brooks" howling mad smear merchant, ALL ERRORS
AND TYPOS posted on USENET (that do not belong to him or his gang)
including any ambiguous and/or extemporaneous retorts posted during
USENET conversations, are in fact intentional autobiographical
statements of facts of the author, regardless of whether the author
admits to those errors and subsequently removes them from the Google
archives or not. (Believe it or not, this is what this Nigel Brooks
person calls "Honest Investigation").
This is the kind of hypocritical and immoral "self-appointed inquisitor"
I am dealing with in respect to this issue. Someone so psychopathically
obsessed and desperate to defame and smear those that he has chosen to
defame and demonize he actually tries to resurrect and misrepresent dead
posts that have been long discarded and removed from the Google archive
due to an admitted error, typo or ambiguity, and then he misrepresents
all typos that have been thrown into Google's electronic waste basket by
his target victim as an "autobiographical statement of fact" by his
victim. Only Nigel Brooks and his gang would be so unethical as to claim
a discarded typo post that was thrown into the waste basket was an
"autobiographical statement of fact" by the person that discarded the
post - which in many cases were not even written by the person being
smeared!
The following is the history of the Nigel Brooks smear merchants'
attempt to resurrect a removed waste basket discarded post for error so
as to forge and distort it in a manner as to defame, smear, demonize and
cast the author in a false light:
Question Background
In 2003, while I was pending shoulder and wrist surgery, I could not
type. Consequently, as I had done several times in the past (and
announced several times on USENET that I and we used typists, as the
Google archive in not less than 71 posts will prove which I will send
you) I used a typist to actually compose and write my general and
inexact dictated replies on USENET in respect to conversations I was
having with other posters. (Typically, I would just provide a general
statement reply and she would fill in the rest adding or subtracting
words as she saw fit, and many times I recorded my reply on a tape
recorder and she would simply transcribe the recording onto USENET -
including errors and typos of course as any typist would make during
such transcribing).
In one particular exchange, a person that I was conversing with, a
person by the name of "Chip," wrote that he had a "Purple Heart and
Car(d)." I was driving when my typist called me and read me his reply
USENET statement. Here is the precise key sentence that Chip wrote:
"I have a purple heart and Car" . . .
(Note that I had already said many times on USENET that I did not have a
Purple Heart Medal, yet I had also said that I had been provided a
purple heart ID card by the Veterans Administration).
B. This is a "Purple Heart Card" context reference by me long before the
smear merchant forged the word "Medal" to Chip and my typist's reply
that had nothing to do with medals.
(The Purple Heart Card the VA issued at that time was the only ID card
that designated a service connected disability, regardless of whether
the owner of the card had been awarded the Purple Heart Medal or not.
This ID card was changed starting in 2005 to the new VIC card which DOES
distinguish the difference between a service connected disability and
someone that has received the Order of the Purple Heart Medal due to his
disability. Prior to that 2005 date, all service connected disabilities
were identified by the Purple Heart ID Card. The ID card itself and the
serviceman's records contained a "big Purple V" emblem, hence the slang
reference by people in the VA and Vets "Purple Heart Card." This large
Purple V on the card and on the VA records jacket, at that time, was
supposed to indicate to the VA employees that such a Veteran was to
receive priority care over other veterans with non-service related
disabilities. Note also that my conversation with Chip occurred in 2003,
long before the old Purple Heart ID Card was replaced by the new Veteran's
VIC card.)
KEY NOTE: The URL below provides a sampling the dozens of times I said I
did not have a Purple Heart Medal, including long before Nigel Brooks
forged the term "Medal" into Chip's and my typist's posts. It is
important to note the Nigel Brooks gang avoids mentioning all of the
times I clearly stated I had NOT been awarded the purple heart medal.
They avoid this fact because it contradicts their attempt to
fraudulently insert the term "Medal" into a post that had nothing to do
with medals.
http://tinyurl.com/33nrq7
According to my memory, and my typist's notes and her written statement
in respect to this issue, when my typist read me on the telephone what
Chip had said in his USENET reply, she read me the following sentence
precisely:
"I have a Purple Heart and Card."
Moreover, according to her notes and her sworn statement (a copy of her
2003 notes and her sworn statement will be sent to you) she believed
that Chip's " Car" term in his sentence was simply a reference to my
statements about Purple Heart ID cards that I said were issued by the
Veterans Administration (at that time). So, based upon what she read to
me on the telephone, I told her to respond to Chip with "I have Purple
Heart Card also, and I earned mine in a real war. . . . " (Note my
typist does not have a military background of any kind).
According to her notes and sworn statement in regards to this issue, the
above is precisely what I told her to respond to Chip with. She wrote my
reply in her notes clearly (she has her note books dating all the way
back to 2001). However, when she did actually respond she left out the
term "Card" and simply said; "I have a purple heart also and I earned
mine in a real war. . . . " (I am not sure she really knew the
difference). Then also according to her notes and sworn affidavit she
said she thought she mentioned something about VA cards at the bottom of
the page of her reply. Yet when Chip cut and pasted an element of my
typist's reply to respond to in the next thread, he omitted the entire
bottom of the page including the signature section and any reference my
typist made to VA Cards.
KEY NOTE: About three weeks after my typist's reply was written and
posted on USENET by my typist. Someone that was reading Chip's
incomplete cut and paste of my typist's reply suggested that I was
talking about Purple Heart Medals. I replied to that person with the
following statement as the following URL proves: "THAT IS AN IDIOTIC
INNUENDO AND A COMPLETE DISTORTION."
http://tinyurl.com/2ggyxc Nigel Brooks PH Medal Forgery.
Regardless of the overwhelming evidence to the contrary and the general
use of USENET by all that use it, the Nigel Brooks smear merchant that
resurrected this long removed erred post from the waste basket
ridiculously claims that everything posted by anyone on USENET
automatically represents an "autobiographical" claim by the author. Yet
I have clearly stated the opposite dozens of times in my posts, and in
respect to the post in question with Chip back in 2003 long before the
smear merchant started his smear campaign against me with forgeries and
fraud, I wrote the following as the above URL will also prove:
KEY NOTE: "Further, people do not post their personal background
information on newsgroups. I have no intention of doing so unless you
and Chirpy will agree to do the same. Further, when I offered to post my
discharges Chirpy said that if I did they would be forgeries." (Note
this statement was written subsequent to the Purple Heart Card typo post
in question).
So much for the smear merchant's outright lie that all of my USENET
posts were being presented as an"autobiographical" claim about my
military service. In fact, as my statement above clearly indicates,
nothing could be further from the truth.
As the Google archives prove irrefutably, I stated the exact opposite of
the Nigel Brooks claim that "all USENET statements are meant to be
autobiographical claim" years before the smear merchants started to
forge some of my post fragments and use typos and errors as a means to
fraudulently claim I said something that I clearly did not. The
following post also proves the SteveL anonymous cyberstalker and Nigel
Brooks gang member was also caught in a mid con about this issue:
http://tinyurl.com/2ah57c
The smear merchant and his gang members also carefully avoid mentioning
that almost immediately after the ambiguous and incomplete cut and paste
from my typist's reply appeared from Chip in respect to Purple Heart ID
Cards, a person by the name of McCulloch/SteveL asked me (suggested) if
I was referencing a Purple Heart Medal, and I replied with "that is an
idiotic innuendo and a distortion" of what was written. So even back in
2003 when Chip's first incorrect and incomplete cut and paste of my
typist's reply occurred, and LONG BEFORE the smear merchant forged the
false context of "Medals" into this long removed erred post that was
thrown into the waste basket, I said that concluding I was referencing a
Purple Heart "Medal" in my reply to Chip was an "idiotic innuendo and a
complete distortion." (See the above URL for evidence).
I also stated very clearly that I was NOT providing any autobiographical
information about my military service on USENET. How could anyone claim
a person was claiming (in code) that he had earned the Order of the
Purple Heart Medal if he also said in the very same USENET exchange that
he refused to provide any autobiographical information about his
military service? Any such smear merchant misrepresentation, even from
the Nigel Brooks smear merchant, is far beyond even idiotic.
KEY NOTE: (Obviously it is impossible to claim you were awarded a Purple
Heart Medal unless you are also posting your personal autobiographical
military information on USENET, which I clearly stated I was NOT doing).
Smear Merchants Hide Posts that Contradict their Fraudulent Claims
It is also important to mention this unethical Nigel Brooks smear
merchant and his gang all very carefully avoid, duck, hide and never
mention all of those other USENET posts in which I did write, (before
and after the Chip cut and paste post they falsely claim I wrote) which
states I DID NOT have a Purple Heart Medal. Why do you suppose the smear
merchants duck, cower, hide from, ignore, lie about and avoid all of the
overwhelming Google archived evidence that directly contradicts their
trumped claims that my typist and I, and Chip, were all talking about
Medals and not ID cards?
Chip Confirms the Context was Cards and Not possibly Medals
I cannot read Chip's mind, but I know for sure my typist and I thought
he was talking about cards and not medals. Moreover, when I contacted
Chip directly via email twice about this issue he said in his first
reply that he had to be talking about Cards and not medals because he
does not possess a Purple Heart Medal! He confirmed that statement in my
second more recent email to him. (I will send a copy of my latest
correspondence with him replete with verification he was never awarded
that medal so he could not have possibly been referencing a Medal in his
post).
KEY NOTE: All three participants in the original USENET conversation in
question (Chip, my typist and I) ALL have confirmed that the true
context of the conversation was "Cards" and NOT "Medals." Yet the Nigel
Brooks smear merchant and his gang "inserted" "forged" "added" the term
"medals" into the context of this long removed erred post for the
purpose of fabricating a means to claim that I was claiming a purple
heart medal that I had not earned - while deliberately hiding and
ignoring the half dozen times or so I had stated unequivocally that I
had NOT received a purple heart medal.
The preponderance of Evidence
http://tinyurl.com/2ggyxc Nigel Brooks PH Medal Forgery.
Of course the smear merchants avoid, hide, cower, duck and dodge all
those posts in which I said I did not have a Purple Heart medal and
never said I did (WHICH POSTS THE SMEAR MERCHANTS RESPONDED TO AND
AGREED WITH BEFORE ONE OF THEM RESURRECTED A TYPO POST THAT WAS
DISCARDED AND THEN FORGED ITS CONTEXT) because they know if those other
posts I posted about this issue (which were posts they acknowledged and
responded to) are revealed, then the preponderance of evidence in
respect to this matter proves irrefutably their accusations in respect
to the typo resurrected post issue are not only false, fraudulent and
forged, but also deliberately contrived for the purpose of defamation
and obloquy. (Please see the above URL "Nigel Brooks PH Medal Forgery"
for a listing of all the posts I posted stating the exact opposite of
the forged context long discarded typo post the smear merchants are
forging out of context).
Also note the many times in the above URL these same smear merchants
agreed that I did not have a purple heart medal, and agreed I never said
I had one. Yet "they completely changed their story" when one of their
gang resurrected a long removed waste basket post removed from the
Google archive due to an admitted typo. And once the gang's forgery was
complete on the post they removed from my waste basket, the gang then
deliberately used their forged and false "Medals" context of the erred
waste basket located typo post for the purpose of lodging false and
defaming accusations for the obvious purpose of deliberate stalking and
harassment.
Lack of Corroboration Obvious
Moreover, if someone was claiming he had a Purple Heart Medal on USENET
there would be many more USENET posts stating that claim instead of just
a single badly forged copy of an incomplete post written by someone else
and resurrected from a waste basket group of erred posts that Google had
already authorized for removal due to their errors or ambiguities.
The only corroboration of any statement in respect to this issue exists
in the several posts in which I stated the exact opposite of what the
smear gang and con men are claiming! And that is why the smear merchants
always hide those posts I wrote stating I did not have a Purple Heart
Medal.
Removal of the Ambiguous and Typo PH Card Post from the Google Archive
After I received the question/suggestion from Mr. McCulloch whether my
typist's reply context was about medals, I then took the time to
carefully read Chip's post about this issue and my typist's reply to his
post. It was clear the post my typist composed, wrote and posted could
be misconstrued due to the typist's typo of not clearly stating "card"
after "I have a purple heart also" sentence. I then contacted Chip
directly and asked him if he was talking about Medals or Cards like I
was told? He said that since he DID NOT have a Purple Heart Medal he
must have been talking about Cards and not medals. Regardless, my typist's
reply if cut and pasted incomplete like Chip had done, did contain a key
typo. Consequently for that purpose it was removed from the Google
archives (thrown in the electronic waste basket) MONTHS before any Nigel
Brooks smear merchant said a word about it or tried to use that post to
falsely claim I was claiming a Purple Heart Medal I did not have.
(KEY NOTE: The fact the Nigel Brooks and his gang of smear merchants
could not find the Purple Heart Card original post on the Google
archives, and used a cut and paste from Chip who had cut and pasted an
incomplete element of that post in his reply to it, proves irrefutably
and unequivocally the post in question was long removed as an erred post
from the Google archives, and discarded in Google's electronic waste
basket long before any of the smear merchants ever mentioned it.)
When the Nigel Brooks smear merchant in question resurrected my typist's
post that was removed long ago for its typo and then forged the term
"Medal" into the post for the purpose of false accusations and
defamation, I again emailed Chip and confirmed that he was talking about
Cards and not medals. I also have since received confirmation from the
US Army that Chip was telling the truth about him not being awarded any
Purple Heart medals or ever being in combat or earning combat badges.
(If you so require before you render your expert opinion on this matter,
I will send you a copy of my confirmation that Chip was not talking
about medals - and a statement from my typist affirming everything I
told you so far about what she had said and written).
However, even with the said confirmations by Chip that he was NOT
talking about Medals, (simply because he said he did not possess that
medal) my typist's typo still existed in Chip's cut and paste of my
typists' reply. So I contacted Google and asked them if I could modify
that original post to add the missing word. Google said that I could
not, but I could simply remove and discard the entire post in their
electronic waste basket as it clearly contained a typo or error.
Prior to allowing me to discard the post, Google required me to provide
them with a sworn statement as to the reason I was removing the post,
and I replied to Google (long before the Nigel Brooks smear merchants
said a word about this post) that it was being removed because the post
was referencing and talking about Cards and not Medals, and because of
the typo (the missing term "card" after my typist's comments) the post
could be and had been misinterpreted by those with the intent to defame
me over typos. (Google keeps a record of the reasons all posts are
removed from its archives. I removed this post long before the Nigel
Brooks smear merchants attempted to smear me with their forged term
"medals" into that post. My past statement as my reason for the removal
of this post from the Google archive can be requested with my permission
from the Google files. I will immediately provide Google with my
permission to release that reason for removal to you).
Typos and Errors in USENET Posts are Common
Everyone knows that typos, misstatements, errors can be and will be made
in USENET posts especially when typists are being used to post
dictation, and/or extemporaneous retorts are being published, and those
errors should be removed/discarded from the Google archive as soon as
they are identified. Resurrecting an erred dead file post that was long
removed and tossed into the electronic waste basket due to its admitted
typo, and then altering the true intended context of that discarded
erred post by forging into it a new word "medals" which was never used
in the post in any manner, for the purpose of defamation and libel, is,
in my opinion, about as unethical as it gets. Moreover, such acts
clearly, in my opinion, reflects a deliberate and contrived attempt to
use outright fraud and false accusations to defame, smear, harass and
cast in a false light, a targeted smear victim.
We await your written opinions in respect to this issue, and your
answers and opinions in respect to the following questions after you
receive all of the information you required that has been offered in
this background:
Douglas G. Reiman
Questions:
KEY NOTE: Due to the obvious fact this was a conversation on USENET and
clearly represented extemporaneous comments by all parties involved, had
I simply misspoke or made a mistake myself by omitting the term "Card" I
would readily admit such a common extemporaneous error and put an end to
this issue once and for all. Yet as all the evidence proves, that was
NOT what happened, and the truth will be told regardless of how the
smear merchants attempt to spin and distort it).
Quick summary:
1. The post the smear merchants are attempting to insert words into and
thereby change the intended context for the purpose of using their fraud
to defame, was discarded and removed as a flawed, erred and a post with
an obvious typo from the Google archives long before the smear merchants
ever even mentioned it. The smear merchants are clearly using typos and
errors that have been discarded in an electronic waste basket to smear
and defame.
2. When the post was first posted by my typist, and within a few days
after and when someone asked or suggested we were talking about Purple
Heart Medals and not Purple Heart ID Cards, I clearly responded to that
person with the following statement: "THAT IS AN IDIOTIC INNUENDO AND A
COMPLETE DISTORTION of what was written." If I had intended to claim a
Purple Heart Medal I certainly would have confirmed that claim at that
time, and I certainly would not have stated otherwise.
3. Subsequent to the post in question I was also asked to provide
personal information about my past military service on USENET. I
responded with the following:
"Further, people do not post their personal background information on
newsgroups. I have no intention of doing so unless you and Chirpy will
agree to do the same. Further, when I offered to post my discharges
Chirpy said that if I did they would be forgeries."
4. Some of the Nigel Brooks smear merchants attempted to claim that I
did not remove the PH Card post in question until after they brought
it up and questioned it. That of course is an outright lie, and the mere
fact the smear merchants did not possess a Google archived copy of the
post and used an incomplete cut and paste of it posted by Chip as
evidence the post originally existed is clear and irrefutable evidence
the PH card post was long discarded and removed as an erred post from
the Google archive. This fact also proves the smear gang used
resurrected dead file removed typo posts, long thrown into the waste
basket due to its errors, as a means to falsely accuse, defame and
smear. (Yes the gang is rummaging around in my electronic waste baskets
to try and find anything long discarded due to error to use to defame
and smear me - as hard as that is to believe as coming from grown men,
it is true).
5. All three participants in the original conversation in question
(Chip, my typist and I) ALL have confirmed that the true context of the
conversation was "Cards" and NOT "Medals." Yet the Nigel Brooks smear
merchant and his gang "inserted" "forged" "added" the term "medals" into
the context of this long discarded waste basket erred post for the
purpose of fabricating a means to claim that I was claiming a purple
heart medal that I had not earned - while deliberately hiding and
ignoring the half dozen times or so I had stated unequivocally that I
had not received a purple heart medal.
6. My typist also wrote at the bottom of her reply something else I
mentioned to her in respect to replying to Chip (which the smear
merchants now admit):
"BTW, bragging about a Purple Heart not received in combat is about as
cowardly as it gets."
This final sentence in her reply clearly indicates the topic was PH ID
cards and NOT MEDALS! Why? Simply due to the fact that we all know
Purple Heart Medals can only be provided during a period of combat.
Consequently, it is clear our impression that Chip was talking about
Purple Heart ID cards which CAN be provided by the VA based upon
non-combat events. If you replace the terms "Purple Heart" with "service
connected disability" you have the correct context of my reply and my
typist's intention. Although poorly worded, it is impossible for me or
anyone else to reference purple heart medals that were not earned in
combat, this sentence alone proves we had to be talking about something
other than medals.
7. All six of these summarized key points can be easily proved by
reviewing the Tiny URL's referencing Google archived post I have
provided in this unmasking of the smear merchants' clearly fraudulent
claims about this issue:
Question # One:
In your expert opinion, and considering the information I have provided
herein, (which I hereby attest to being the truth to the best of my
knowledge) do you believe a person that would resurrect a dead-file post
long discarded into an electronic waste basket due to its typo, via
someone's else's incomplete cut and paste of elements of that old dead
post - and then forge the context of the dead erred post, and insert new
words into that long removed and admittedly flawed and erred post so as
to defame the author, while ignoring the correct context provided by the
author, is an honest investigator that is providing truthful and honest
information about the context intent of the original author of the
resurrected from the waste basket erred post?
(1-1). Yes: In my opinion any person that would use the tactics
described above is an honest and/or competent investigator.
(1-2). No: In my opinion any person that would use the tactics described
above is not an honest and competent investigator.
(You may add comments if you wish).
Question # Two: If you replied extemporaneously to a USENET post, and
then later spotted an error in it in your reply, and realized due to the
typo the context of the post could be misinterpreted and was thereby
somewhat ambiguous, you decided to remove the post and place it in a
erred post dead file (an electronic waste basket) with the Google
archive. Then, months after you discarded and removed that erred post,
and because someone involved in the original extemporaneous USENET
conversation had cut and pasted an incomplete (thereby forged) element
of that long removed post in a cut and paste reply on USENET, a person
then used that incomplete and long discarded cut and paste element for
the purpose of forging words into that post to defame you, would you
believe that person is attempting to smear and defame you by using
forgeries and false accusations?
(2-1). Yes, I would agree any such person that did as you described
above would be attempting to smear and defame with the use of fraud,
false accusations and forgeries:
(2-2). No, the person in question is using an honest and truthful means
of investigation:
(You may add comments if you wish).
Question # Three: Do you believe that an honest and ethical
"investigator" would ever claim all posts on USENET automatically
represent an "autobiographical statement of fact" by the author, EXCEPT
those posted by the Investigator himself, his friends, and associates,
and only he has the mind reading skills to determine which posts are
meant to be autobiographical facts or simply sarcasm, fiction or
extemporaneous quips?
Answer:
(3-1). Yes, it is proper for an investigator to claim that all
statements on USENET are autobiographical statements by anyone he
decides are publishing such autobiographical claims via his mind reading
investigative skills.
(3-2). No, an honest, ethical and impartial investigator would NOT claim
that everything written on USENET, including typos and errors, would
represent autobiographical claims by the author.
(You may add comments if you wish).
Question # Four: Considering an impartial and honest investigation of
the facts as I have presented in respect to this above and in my
background information, and the preponderance of evidence involved, do
you believe the true context of my typist's extemporaneous reply to the
Chip post in question was about "Cards" or "Medals?"
Answer:
(4-1). In my expert opinion, and based upon the evidence you have
provided herein, I believe your typist's reply to Chip, which was posted
by her based upon your instructions to her, was in context about Purple
Heart ID cards provided by the Veterans Administration and not about
Medals.
(4-2). In my expert opinion and based upon the evidence you have
provided herein, I believe your and your typist's reply was about Purple
Heart Medals and not about Purple Heart ID cards.
(You may add comments if you wish).
Question # Five: Recently, one of the smear gang members claimed that
the entire post containing my Typist's reply suddenly reappeared on the
Google Archives because Google allowed it. I contacted Google and they
said that claim was a lie, and it was impossible for that post to
"reappear in their archives after it was removed by them from their
archives." An alleged copy of this long removed post was re-posted on
the Internet by the smear merchants. The article that was posted by the
gang clearly came from a well-doctored personal computer archive, and
NOT from Google! The smear gang also attempted to post this doctored
post with a forged header over a well-doctored personal computer
archived post, and then further fraudulently panned it off as coming
from the Google archive so as to bolster their fraud and false
accusations in respect to this issue. (A copy of this post will be sent
to you).
We all know that anyone can "recreate" a post and doctor it anyway they
wish on their own computer and then fraudulently present it as the
complete post that was originally posted - especially when that post has
been removed from the Google archive so a direct comparison cannot be
compared to the forgery. Please confirm or disagree that it is possible
for a post removed by Google to suddenly reappear on the Google Archive
without the knowledge of Google.
Answer:
(You may add comments if you wish).
Question # Six: Mind reading skills: One of the most questionable claims
by the Nigel Brooks smear merchant (and by some of his gang) is that due
to their mind reading skills and past military experience (one gang
member was a junior officer that spent nine months of duty in Vietnam
helping to guard a lonely outpost, and another was a Sp4 personnel clerk
in Long Binh that took his discharge in Vietnam) they can always
determine the true context of all USENET posts about Vietnam even if the
author of that post disagrees with their imposed and conjured context.
It has been my experience, after spending fifteen months in Vietnam
(2&1/2 tours) that each Vietnam vet has his own version of that war
based upon the time he spent fighting it, the units he was assigned to,
the duties he performed, and the precise years he spent in country. (My
years were 1968-69 with a brief visit to Vietnam in 1963).
In your expert opinion, do you agree that such mind reading skills
exist, and do you agree that anyone with the experience in Vietnam as
indicated above can subjectively determine the true context of anything
written about Vietnam, even if the author disagrees with the imposed new
and opposite context the author states he was trying to convey?
Answer:
(6-1). Yes, investigators all possess such mind reading skills, and with
the use of those skills and the time served in Vietnam as indicated
above, investigators and former junior officers can determine true
context of anything written about Vietnam even if their imposed context
contradicts that of the author that wrote or composed the writing or
article in question.
(6-2). No, any claim of mind reading skills connected with the Vietnam
experience stated above that can determine the context of anything
written about Vietnam is ridiculous on its face. The only individuals
that could possibly know the true context of anything written are the
persons that actually composed and/or published the writing. Many
articles can be easily misconstrued, especially if the misinterpretation
is deliberate and is being done for the purpose of defaming the author.
This is especially true if the article or writing involves
extemporaneous comments during a USENET conversation.
(You may add comments if you wish).
Question Seven:
Here is the verbatim disclaimer I post on the top of my USENET posts.
(Once it is posted I do not repeat it in threads or exchanges involving
the same topic). I also stated very clearly in 2003 that I do not reveal
personal autobiographical information on USENET (who would?)
"(Smear Merchant Disclaimer: Please note this article (the same as all
of my past articles and exchanges with posters) represents an editorial
on contemporary issues and events - my opinion. Nothing in this article
represents in any manner any asseveration of biographical fact, nor is
about, directed toward or against any particular person - other than
those specifically mentioned herein. This article is being posted for
entertainment purposes only. If any person finds this post personally
annoying, abusive, defaming or otherwise disturbing, please notify me of
your specific reasons for annoyance via email at legalcoach@comcast.net.
If we find your detailed objections reasonable (considering the
"reasonable person" doctrine and case law) we will then remove this
post, or the offending passages contained therein, from the Google
archive, publicly apologize and retract. My intent is to entertain, and
to present articles to USENET readers prior to publication to determine
interest, and not to annoy, abuse, humiliate, or in any way cause anyone
emotional harm by posting on USENET or elsewhere. Please note that
defending myself from harassment and obloquy with rebuttal posts has
been deemed a "lawful and legitimate" publication by my legal counsel.
If I am not attacked, defamed or harassed, or my copyrighted articles
not interrupted nor infringed upon, I clearly do not have a reason to
respond with a rebuttal. Please also note that I intend to notify any
and all ISP's and web hosts of any annoying or calumnious post, web site
or other similar entity about me after I give the offender an
opportunity to retract, apologize and remove said post from the Google
archive).
Question Seven: Do you believe that a qualified and expert investigator
would, after reading the above disclaimer, claim that whatever the
author ever wrote on USENET represented a autobiographical statement of
fact?
(You may add comments if you wish).
End Seven questions on this topic. Other topics are being prepared and
will be sent to you as soon as they are complete. As we agreed, please
understand that we reserve the right to publish your answers, and use
them as evidence and in a court of law.
Based upon the answers from all three military and law experts
consulted, the following is presented as the "Corrected Copy" containing
the true context of my typist's reply to Chip:
CORRECTED ANSWER TO CHIP'S FEB 16, 2003 STATEMENT
> On Sun, 16 Feb 2003 19:56:03 GMT, DGVREIMAN allegedly wrote...
> > Doug Says: We declared war on terrorism. Saddam is
supporting, financing, arming, training, aiding and harboring
terrorists.
> > Duh. I suspect that you do not have clue about what you are
> > talking about, and I further suspect you have never seen a
shot > fired in anger in your life.
> I have a Purple Heart and a CAR that proves you wrong, Dougie.
> There are other countries, some that are our allies, who are
much more active in supporting and arming terrorists...yet you want
to go after Iraq because you don't have the will to go after them.
That, to me is cowardice.
"Doug Says: I have a Purple Heart Card also, and I received mine in a
real war, I can't imagine where you got yours since you have
never fought in a war. About the only place you could have
received a purple heart card was in Lebanon, and that was not a
shooting war, just a bombing due to the ineptitude of a gang of
Marine officers. In respect to deposing Saddam, I am the one
advocating removing Saddam, you are the one advocating
cowering, hiding, and doing nothing. It is pretty clear who the coward
is
around here. BTW, bragging about a Purple Heart card not received in
combat is about as cowardly as it gets."
Note the above post reply that was written and posted by my typist was
originally discarded in Google's "waste basket" because my typist did
not properly place the term "Card" in the three places indicated above.
As the statement from my typist confirms, I was read the above post from
Chip on the telephone, and my typist took his statement above to say "I
have a purple heart and a car" as meaning I have a purple heart card
(meaning a VA purple heart ID card that was a topic of conversation I
had with others before). I told her to respond as the above post
correction indicates. After someone brought her key typo omissions to my
attention, I of course replied to that person (in 2003) that any
representation that my reply was about medals was a "complete distortion
and innuendo of what was written."
However, due to the typo, and because Google offers an "electronic waste
basket" for erred or posts containing such typographical errors, I
removed it from Google, told Google the reason it was being removed, and
Google placed the typo post in its "waste basket" dead file.
However, smear merchants, being what smear merchants are, decided to
retrieve the erred post from the waste basket and then he FORGED the
term "Medals" into the post after the purple heart terms, thereby
fraudulently changing and altering the true context of the long
discarded typo post from "Cards" into "Medals." Then Nigel Brooks and
his gang used their own forgery to claim I was falsely claiming a
"medal" I did not possess. Yet Chip confirmed (in writing) he did not
have a Purple Heart medal and therefore could not have been talking
about medals, my typist confirmed (in writing) she took his purple heart
statement to be about Cards and not Medals, and she also confirmed (in
writing) that my answer to Chip clearly stated Purple Heart Cards three
times. Yet she also said that because she really did not know the
difference she simply mistakenly omitted the term "Card" from the
original reply to Chip. Of course when I replied to the first person
that questioned this post back in 2003 that it did not mean medals, I
spotted the typo, and consequently, threw it in the electronic waste
basket which Google provides for such erred posts.
Yet since the smear merchants have been caught digging around in my
waste basket for erred and typo posts that have been long discarded to
try and find some unethical way to defame me, I have been advised to
provide this explanation and replace the post the way it was originally
intended. (My typist also states that she mentioned the topic was about
cards at the bottom of the post because it was impossible to earn a
purple heart medal in a non-combat situation, which I clearly indicated
Chip had done).
I have submitted this issue to an independent expert on the military and
the law, and he has replied that he agrees with me that the true context
of my typist's reply post was about "Cards" and NOT "Medals" contrary to
the misrepresentations and forgery by Nigel Brooks and his gang.
Any continued forgery of "medals" into this post will be recognized as a
typical Nigel Brooks forgery, just one more of many.
Doug Grant (Tm)
ai-Uy-568E03.05304219042008@news-server.hawaii.rr.com...