NIGEL BROOKS PURPLE HEART FRAUD PROVIDED TO INDEPENDENT MILITARY EXPERTS

April 19, 2008

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