UCMJ ADDS STALKING -OREGON COMPUTER CRIMES
DGVREIMAN
I know all this will certainly come out during discovery, but I
thought it might make for some interesting reading by some.
Article 92 -violation of regulation involving misuse of computers or
government time:
Depending on the type of crime COMPUTER CRIMES ARE prosecuted under
Article 134, or Article 92, UCMJ. If it is misuse of government
computers or IT systems that will be prosecuted under Article 92
because there are regulations on that misuse - such as using
government computers for personal use or for any authorized use as
stated below.
Computer Crimes Defined
http://tinyurl.com/5utfz9n Oregon Computer Crimes
(h) "Property" includes, but is not limited to, financial instruments,
information, including electronically produced data, and computer
software and programs in either computer or human readable form,
intellectual property and any other tangible or intangible item of
value.
1. (i) "Proprietary information" includes any scientific, technical or
commercial information including any design, process, procedure, list
of customers, list of suppliers, customers' records or business code
or improvement thereof that is known only to limited individuals
within an organization and is used in a business that the organization
conducts. The information must have actual or potential commercial
value and give the user of the information an opportunity to obtain a
business advantage over competitors who do not know or use the
information.
(j) "Services" include, but are not limited to, computer time, data
processing and storage functions.
(Note stealing or transmitting "Intellectual property" (copyrighted
materials) and even using "computer time" is defined as a basis for a
crime).
From the Oregon Computer Crime statute:
4) Any person who knowingly and without authorization uses, accesses
or attempts to access any computer, computer system, computer network,
or any computer software, program, documentation or data contained in
such computer, computer system or computer network, commits computer
crime.
(*Without Authorization* seems to be the key requirement for a crime
to be committed in the paragraph above).
US Army counts and specifications against others that have unlawfully
used computers:
UCMJ 92 (Failure to obey a lawful order or regulation): 9 counts.
Mostly related to computers.
Army Regulation 25-2, para. 4-5(a)(3): Modifying or installing
unauthorized software to a system, using it for 'unintended' purposes.
(Doug says: Obviously, using a giganews account program to facilitate
harassment, stalking and false light incitements of hate and violence
against someone would represent "unintended purposes.")
Army Regulation 25-2, para. 4-5(a)(4): Circumventing security
mechanisms
UCMJ 134 (General article): 24 counts. Most of these counts
incorporate civilian statutes from the United States Code:
18 U.S.C. � 641: Embezzlement and Theft of Public Money, Property or
Records.
(Doug Says: I wonder if the theft of private medical information would
apply to this statute? They certainly are things of value, they are
also clearly "documents" and they do also represent the property of
someone else and of course they are "records." One might also
wonder if those that helped or participated in the conspiracy to steal
such documents/ property/or records would also be indictable under
this statute?)
18 U.S.C. � 1030(a) 1 & 2: These are from the Computer Fraud and Abuse
Act of 1986. 1030(a)(1) is sometimes called the 'Computer Espionage'
law as it borrows much of it's language from the Espionage Act. It was
modified by the USA Patriot Act of 2001, which added it to the
'Federal Crimes of Terrorism' list, as well as making it prosecutable
under RICO (Racketeering) law.[6]
General Computer Crimes defined:
UNAUTHORIZED USE OF COMPUTER
1. / Definitions / "computer program" / "computer service" / "computer
system" / "data" / "electro-magnetic, acoustic, mechanical or other
device" / "function" / "intercept" .
342.1. [1] Every one who, fraudulently and without colour of right,
[a] obtains, directly or indirectly, any computer service,
[b] by means of an electro-magnetic, acoustic, mechanical or other
device, intercepts or causes to be intercepted, directly or
indirectly, any function of a computer system, or
[c] uses or causes to be used, directly or indirectly, a computer
system with intent to commit an offence under paragraph [a] or [b] or
an offence under section 430 in relation to data or a computer system
is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a
term not exceeding ten years, or is guilty of an offence punishable on
summary conviction.
[2] In this section,
An interesting case (PDF) (also reported here) on this same matter
has just come out of an appeals court in New Jersey. A police officer
accessed video files from a central computer that showed cameras in
other squad cars. One officer, who apparently disliked another
officer, accessed the files, and viewed a recording which allegedly
showed him breaching protocol during a traffic stop (allowing a drunk
driver to urinate in the bushes before being taken in). He then
apparently showed the video to officers below the minimum rank allowed
to view it, for the purpose of harming and embarrassing the other
officer.
He was charged under New Jersey's equivalent of the Computer Fraud and
Abuse Act, which criminalizes unauthorized access to computer systems.
Although the court has ruled simple access is not a crime, it is the
use that the user makes of the information that might make it a crime,
obviously. For example, he could disclose confidential material.. . "
(Doug Says: I wonder if this would apply to disclosing private medical
information stolen from Government computers, and then also
trafficking in those private "documents" "property" to other fellow
co-conspirators?" - I am sure this question will be answered as well
during discovery.)
Article 134
"Though not specifically mentioned in this chapter, all disorders and
neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed
forces, all conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed
forces, and crimes and offenses not capital, of which persons subject
to this chapter may be guilty, shall be taken cognizance of by a
general, special, or summary court-martial, according to the nature
and degree of the offense, and shall be punished at the discretion of
that court."
(Doug;s Note: I don't know if a malicious and obviously deliberate
campaign of stalking, harassment, defamation riddled with false
accusations and false light fraud, while claiming to be on active duty
and posting from a Military office with the term "army" in your email
address would be considered " bringing discredit on the armed
forces???" You be the Judge - but I guess discovery will answer this
question as well.)
It is noteworthy to mention that Stalking has now been added to
punitive courts martial reasons under the UCMJ - both on a Federal
Level and on a State National Guard level.
Personal Jurisdiction
1. The UCMJ applies to all members of the Uniformed services of the
United States: the Air Force, Army, Coast Guard, Marine Corps, Navy,
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Commissioned Corps,
and Public Health Service Commissioned Corps. The Coast Guard is
administered under Title 14 of the United States Code when not
operating as part of the U.S. Navy. However, commissioned members of
the NOAA and PHS are only subject to the UCMJ when attached or
detailed to a military unit or are militarized by presidential
executive order.
Members of the military Reserve Components under Title 10 of the
United States Code (Army Reserve, Navy Reserve, Marine Forces Reserve,
and Air Force Reserve) or Title 14 of the United States Code, Coast
Guard Reserve when not operating as part of the U.S. Navy, are subject
to the UCMJ if they are either (a) active duty Full-Time Support
personnel such as FTS or Active Guard and Reserve (AGR), or (b)
traditional part-time reservists performing either (a) full-time
active duty for a specific period (i.e., Annual Training, Active Duty
for Training, Active Duty for Operational Support, Active Duty Special
Work, One Year Recall, Three Year Recall, Canvasser Recruiter,
Mobilization, etc.), or (b) performing Inactive Duty (i.e. Inactive
Duty Training, Inactive Duty Travel and Training, Unit Training
Assembly, Additional Training Periods, Additional Flying Training
Periods, Reserve Management Periods, etc., all of which are
colloquially known as "drills").
Soldiers and airmen in the National Guard of the United States are
subject to the UCMJ only if activated in a Federal capacity under
Title 10 by an executive order issued by the President or during their
Annual Training periods, which are orders issued under Title 10.
Otherwise, members of the National Guard of the United States are
exempt from the UCMJ. However, under Title 32 orders, National Guard
soldiers are still subject to their respective state codes of Military
Justice.
End references. (I am sure this post will be met with bluster and
bullshit as usual - boy are they in for a surprise as I have only
mentioned about ten percent of what else is going to come out in
discovery).
Doug Grant (Tm)
Tankfixer
dgvr...@comcast.net spouted !
> UCMJ ADDS STALKING -OREGON COMPUTER CRIMES
>
> I know all this will certainly come out during discovery, but I
> thought it might make for some interesting reading by some.
>
> Article 92 -violation of regulation involving misuse of computers or
> government time:
> Depending on the type of crime COMPUTER CRIMES ARE prosecuted under
> Article 134, or Article 92, UCMJ. If it is misuse of government
> computers or IT systems that will be prosecuted under Article 92
> because there are regulations on that misuse - such as using
> government computers for personal use or for any authorized use as
> stated below.
>
Doug,
you might look into the penalties for lying to the FBI..
Since you are so obviously barking up the wrong tree
Nigel Brooks
news:MPG.286efbe4...@news.eternal-september.org...
This idiot is a raving lunatic.
Scene changes to United States District Court - (the raving lunatic is being
examined by defense counsel).
Defense Counsel - "Mr Reiman, did you state in a usenet exchange - I was
introduced to General Clark, and I answered several of his questions - and
therefore, I knew the man. Of course I did, he inspected my section at
Aberdeen Proving Ground. - Just answer Yes or No"
Defense Counsel - "Mr Reiman, did you state in a usenet exchange - I spent
30 years in the military. First the US Marine Corps, then the United States
Army. My last command was an MI command."
Defense Counsel - "Mr Reiman, did you state in a usenet exchange - No
Stephen, I am retired from the American Military"
Defense Counsel - "Mr Reiman, did you state in a usenet exchange - I have
a PhD, speak five languages."
Defense Counsel - "Mr Reiman, did you state in a usenet exchange - after my
three tours in Vietnam, I would say it is impossible to intimidate me into
doing anything"
Defense Counsel - "Mr Reiman, did you state in a usenet exchange - I have a
Purple Heart also, and I received mine in a real war."
Defense Counsel - "Mr Reiman, did you state in a usenet exchange - I
personally captured, interrogated and imprisoned NVA regulars on several
occasions in Vietnam"
Defense Counsel - "Mr Reiman, did you state in a usenet exchange - I will
never forget the day when a smiling girl of no more than 4 or 5 years old
started walking towards me trying to give me a pack of cigarettes. I was
forced to shoot her."
Defense Counsel - "Mr Reiman, did you state in a usenet exchange - So I
went to the 25th Infantry Division Commander and begged him to at least dig
out that single side hole to find the tunnel. He refused and ordered me not
to continue to claim that the VC had dug tunnels under out base camp."
Defense Counsel - "Mr Reiman, did you state in a usenet exchange - I went
to OCS and returned as a butter bar myself. Half of my graduating class in
OCS Ft. Benning ended up dead or wounded"
Defense Counsel - "Mr Reiman, did you state in a usenet exchange - I was
assigned an 11B MOs when I first entered the Army and held that MOS as a
primary or a secondary MOS for the duration of my time in the US Army"
Defense Counsel - "Mr Reiman, did you state in a usenet exchange - Yes, I
was in the 5th"
Defense Counsel - "Mr Reiman, did you state in a usenet exchange - Chirpy
tried to claim that my records were destroyed in a fire that occurred in
1973, some were, but most were not."
Defense Counsel - "Mr Reiman, did you state in a usenet exchange - I fought
Cuban soldiers personally, they actually ran faster than the Viet Cong"
Should be a hoot.
Tankfixer
nbr...@msn.com spouted !
Especially after each defense counsel gets their turn on him..
DGVREIMAN
I know all this will certainly come out during discovery, but I
thought it might make for some interesting reading by some.
Article 92 -violation of regulation involving misuse of computers or
government time:
Depending on the type of crime COMPUTER CRIMES ARE prosecuted under
Article 134, or Article 92, UCMJ. If it is misuse of government
computers or IT systems that will be prosecuted under Article 92
because there are regulations on that misuse - such as using
government computers for personal use or for any authorized use as
stated below.
Computer Crimes Defined
General Computer Crimes defined:
Personal Jurisdiction
Doug Grant (Tm)
"Dai Uy" <Dai...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
news:5ff90bd2-c019-4c86...@q29g2000prj.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 24, 5:54 pm, Tankfixer <paul.carr...@gmail.coom> wrote:
> you might look into the penalties for lying to the FBI..
It appears they don't like it very much...
http://tinyurl.com/3lks8yt
What a maroon! (not intended as a racist remark)
***
Doug's Rebuttal:
Mr. Rau, that is a great idea! But why did you try to hide this
post? I replaced it above so you can read it in more detail. I will
look up "lying to the FBI" per your request and post what I find.
Also, whether you intend it or not "Maroon" is a well-known racist
remark and comment. You should not use that term as it offends many.
Please cease and desist with that racist remark, you have been asked
to not use that term before.
Also, are you aware of the legal statute against using the name of the
FBI for nefarious purposes - such as defamation, harassment or
stalking? Have you read that staute? Would you like for me to post
it also again?
I should also mention that everything that will be furnished the FBI
from me will be through my law firm, who has completed a six month
study on your posts, actions, and other members of the Nigel Brooks
gang, and my rebuttals. I will stand with the conclusions of my law
firm, they certainly were very comprehensive in respect to their
investigaton of this issue. (Note the primary issues are (1) breaking
into my medical files, sabotaging them, and trafficking in them, and
publishing some of them on the Internet - those files represent my
property and the VA's, and are obvious documents stolen from a
Government computer - so instead of trying to hide the above post you
should read it carefully - just my opinion of course) - the 2nd key
issue is copyright infringement, and the 3rd is incitements to create
hatred and violence, and the 4th is the misue of forged FBI reports to
further incite hatred and violence against me, and the 5th is of
course harassment and stalking.
BTW, do you have a lawyer or are you going to lie to the FBI and
others the same as you have lied on this forum?
PLEASE continue with your typical bluster and false accusations, you
might as well as you will be answering for them anyway.
I would suspect you would want this issue to be finally resolved by
independent investigators and in court? Why not simply file your
defenses as soon as possible? Get those lies out there Mr. Rau, I
cannot wait to address them!
BTW, have you researched computer crimes and/or trafficking in stolen
documents and property, and the conspiracy to do so in the State of
Hawaii? Would you like for me to research that topic as well?
Doug Grant (Tm)
DGVREIMAN
I know all this will certainly come out during discovery, but I
thought it might make for some interesting reading by some.
Article 92 -violation of regulation involving misuse of computers or
government time:
Depending on the type of crime COMPUTER CRIMES ARE prosecuted under
Article 134, or Article 92, UCMJ. If it is misuse of government
computers or IT systems that will be prosecuted under Article 92
because there are regulations on that misuse - such as using
government computers for personal use or for any authorized use as
stated below.
Computer Crimes Defined
General Computer Crimes defined:
Personal Jurisdiction
Doug Grant (Tm)
"Nigel Brooks" <nbr...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:96lcc7...@mid.individual.net...
Doug Says: Mr. Brooks, this issue is not about General Clark nor
about USENET posts that I have posted in the past. Pathetic. Also, I
provided you with a statement of facts that I answered truthfully in a
Polygraph, those questions will be reconfirmed on cross. . . moreover,
you cannot demand a "yes or no" question in court and expect the
opposing attorney to not reveal your deciet to the court - meaning
that you are lying by omission again. What you are omtting is that I
said "I was not sure it was General Clark or not." But by all means,
KEEP IT UP! These kinds of posts and questions are precisely what I
expected!
>
> Defense Counsel - "Mr Reiman, did you state in a usenet exchange -
> I spent 30 years in the military. First the US Marine Corps, then
> the United States Army. My last command was an MI command."
Doug's Rebuttal: No, of course not. The 30 year was a stated typo
and it was removed from the Google archive with the statement to
Google for removal that it was a typographical error. (This can be
verified by subponaing Google's records). Prosecution Attorney: Mr.
Brooks, are you not trying to present known typos as "statements of
fact" from your smear victim so that you can use that fraud to defame
your targeted victim ? Were you ever told that 30 year statement was
a typo? Did you ever respond to any post in which Mr. Reiman told you
he made that error and the 30 year was a simple error? Did you ever
respond to any of Mr. Reiman's dozens of posts in which he said he
spent less than 30 years in the US Miltiary? If you did respond to
those posts in which he clearly stated he spent about ten years
rounded to the nearest decade in military service, then why did you
continue to reproduce a known error and claim it was the intent of Mr.
Reiman? Why did you use known errors to try and smear and defame Mr.
Reiman and incite hatred and loathing against him with the use of such
obvious fraud?
Once again, Nigel Brooks is true to his "lies by key omission form" -
And we see the same in the following questions -MR. BROOKS, I LOOK
FORWARD to you attempting to defend the break into my medical records,
the infringing of my copyrights, the trafficking in my medical records
and my property, the sabotaging of my medical records, fraudulent
posting of forged FBI reports about me, and the contacting of third
parties so as to incite hatred and violence against me due to the
preposterous "lies by key omission" as you have excerpted out of
context, intent and meaning below. This issue is about your smear and
hate campaign, but if you want to demonstrate to the court how you
manage to take excerpts and then lie about them, or hide key issues
about them, or hide the fact you have already, many times, been told
the true context, meaning, intent, error, etc... yet you keep
repeating the false and misleading context for the purpose of
defamation, I cannot think of anything I would like better! Keep it
up please!
> Defense Counsel - "Mr Reiman, did you state in a usenet exchange -
> No Stephen, I am retired from the American Military"
Doug's Rebuttal: Of course, I am no longer on active duty. Mr.
Brooks, are you aware the quip you are attributing to Mr. Reiman was
removed from a non-military forum, and then you placed it on a
military forum? Why did you not mention the quip you are referencing
was not mentioned on a miltiary forum? Of course you did that to try
and change the meaning of the word "retired." Are you aware the
dictionary defines "retired" as its FIRST definition of simply leaving
a job? Did Mr. Reiman claim to have "retired with benefits?' No of
course not. You are obviously mistating a known meaning of a term for
the malcious purpose of placing my client in a false and defaming
light to further your incitement of hatred and violence.
Defense Counsel - "Mr Reiman, did you state in a usenet exchange - I
have
> a PhD, speak five languages."
See above.
>
> Defense Counsel - "Mr Reiman, did you state in a usenet exchange -
> after my three tours in Vietnam, I would say it is impossible to
> intimidate me into doing anything"
>
See above.
> Defense Counsel - "Mr Reiman, did you state in a usenet exchange -
> I have a Purple Heart also, and I received mine in a real war."
See above. (Hiding the true context again).
>
> Defense Counsel - "Mr Reiman, did you state in a usenet exchange -
> I personally captured, interrogated and imprisoned NVA regulars on
> several occasions in Vietnam"
See above.
>
> Defense Counsel - "Mr Reiman, did you state in a usenet exchange -
> I will never forget the day when a smiling girl of no more than 4 or
> 5 years old started walking towards me trying to give me a pack of
> cigarettes. I was forced to shoot her."
See above.
>
> Defense Counsel - "Mr Reiman, did you state in a usenet exchange -
> So I went to the 25th Infantry Division Commander and begged him to
> at least dig out that single side hole to find the tunnel. He
> refused and ordered me not to continue to claim that the VC had dug
> tunnels under out base camp."
See above - also see polygraph -
>
> Defense Counsel - "Mr Reiman, did you state in a usenet exchange -
> I went to OCS and returned as a butter bar myself. Half of my
> graduating class in OCS Ft. Benning ended up dead or wounded"
See above.
>
> Defense Counsel - "Mr Reiman, did you state in a usenet exchange -
> I was assigned an 11B MOs when I first entered the Army and held
> that MOS as a primary or a secondary MOS for the duration of my time
> in the US Army"
See above.
>
> Defense Counsel - "Mr Reiman, did you state in a usenet exchange -
> Yes, I was in the 5th"
See above.
>
> Defense Counsel - "Mr Reiman, did you state in a usenet exchange -
> Chirpy tried to claim that my records were destroyed in a fire that
> occurred in 1973, some were, but most were not."
See above.
>
> Defense Counsel - "Mr Reiman, did you state in a usenet exchange -
> I fought Cuban soldiers personally, they actually ran faster than
> the Viet Cong"
See above.
>
> Should be a hoot.
In each and every case Mr. Brooks is lying about either error,
context, intent, meaning or purpose in his quips above. Regardless,
what does Mr. Brooks knowingly distorting excerpts from my past posts
have to do with the break into my private medical records at the VA,
then trafficking and distributing those records (my property) to third
parties, and infriging on my copyrights, and waging a smear campaign
designed to incite hatred and violence against me?
I have hundreds of statements by Nigel Brooks and his gang members
they have posted on USENET that in ANY context are clearly false. And
I have not asked for any explanation as they are simply not germane to
the issue, but if Nigel Brooks wants to involved USENET posts, I will
be more than happy to do so. In fact I look forward to it!
I guess Nigel Brooks must believe that his blustering and bullying
fraud tactics will somehow deter me from defending myself - boy did he
miscalculate - all these repeated lies by key omission posted above is
just another means for Brooks to repeat his cons and fraud about me -
and all that does is provide me with more resolve to go forward in my
defense.
Doug Grant (Tm)
>
DGVREIMAN
I know all this will certainly come out during discovery, but I
thought it might make for some interesting reading by some.
Article 92 -violation of regulation involving misuse of computers or
government time:
Depending on the type of crime COMPUTER CRIMES ARE prosecuted under
Article 134, or Article 92, UCMJ. If it is misuse of government
computers or IT systems that will be prosecuted under Article 92
because there are regulations on that misuse - such as using
government computers for personal use or for any authorized use as
stated below.
Computer Crimes Defined
General Computer Crimes defined:
Personal Jurisdiction
Doug Grant (Tm)
"Tankfixer" <paul.c...@gmail.coom> wrote in message
news:MPG.286fa180...@news.eternal-september.org...
MAC
<dgvr...@comcast.net> wrote:
>UCMJ ADDS STALKING
snip Codswalop
===============
MAC
<dgvr...@comcast.net> wrote:
>UCMJ ADDS STALKING -OREGON COMPUTER CRIMES
snip Codswalop
===============
MAC
<dgvr...@comcast.net> wrote:
>UCMJ ADDS STALKING -
snip Codswalop
===============
Tankfixer
dgvr...@comcast.net spouted !
>
> End references.
Irrelevant references at that...
> (I am sure this post will be met with bluster and
> bullshit as usual - boy are they in for a surprise as I have only
> mentioned about ten percent of what else is going to come out in
> discovery).
>
Be careful what you ask for Doug..
Your lawyer may not like the answers..
That is assuming you actually HAVE a lawyer this time..
>
> Doug Grant (Tm)
>
> "Tankfixer" <paul.c...@gmail.coom> wrote in message
> news:MPG.286fa180...@news.eternal-september.org...
> > [quoted text muted]
DGVREIMAN
I know all this will certainly come out during discovery, but I
Computer Crimes Defined
General Computer Crimes defined:
Personal Jurisdiction
Doug Grant (Tm)
"Dai Uy" <Dai...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
news:5ff90bd2-c019-4c86...@q29g2000prj.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 24, 5:54 pm, Tankfixer <paul.carr...@gmail.coom> wrote:
> you might look into the penalties for lying to the FBI..
It appears they don't like it very much...
http://tinyurl.com/3lks8yt
***
Doug's Rebuttal:
Doug Grant (Tm)
<MAC ---NoSPAM...@NoSpamToday-abc.zoo> wrote in message
news:mcnc07t10mv58tvtu...@4ax.com...
DGVREIMAN
Computer Crimes Defined
General Computer Crimes defined:
Personal Jurisdiction
Doug Grant (Tm)
"Dai Uy" <Dai...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
news:5ff90bd2-c019-4c86...@q29g2000prj.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 24, 5:54 pm, Tankfixer <paul.carr...@gmail.coom> wrote:
> you might look into the penalties for lying to the FBI..
It appears they don't like it very much...
http://tinyurl.com/3lks8yt
***
Doug's Rebuttal:
Doug Grant (Tm)
news:5bnc075rk2fbpftev...@4ax.com...
See above what Mr. McDonnell is trying to hide.
DGVREIMAN
Computer Crimes Defined
General Computer Crimes defined:
Personal Jurisdiction
Doug Grant (Tm)
***
Doug's Rebuttal:
Doug Grant (Tm)
<MAC ---NoSPAM...@NoSpamToday-abc.zoo> wrote in message
news:dfnc0759m53rvatgk...@4ax.com...
DGVREIMAN
Computer Crimes Defined
General Computer Crimes defined:
Personal Jurisdiction
End references. (I am sure this post will be met with bluster and
bullshit as usual - boy are they in for a surprise as I have only
mentioned about ten percent of what else is going to come out in
discovery).
Doug Grant (Tm)
"Dai Uy" <Dai...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
news:5ff90bd2-c019-4c86...@q29g2000prj.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 24, 5:54 pm, Tankfixer <paul.carr...@gmail.coom> wrote:
> you might look into the penalties for lying to the FBI..
It appears they don't like it very much...
http://tinyurl.com/3lks8yt
***
Doug's Rebuttal:
Doug Grant (Tm)
"Tankfixer" <paul.c...@gmail.coom> wrote in message
news:MPG.28701d43...@news.eternal-september.org...
I have no idea why this non-Vietnam veteran Paul Carrier wants to
continue to stalk and harass a real combat Vietnam Senior NCO. . . not
to mention lie about what I said and present me in the most fraudulent
false light he can dream up out of thin air, not to mention support
his fellow gang member that posts all that Hate America/Hate our
Troops propaganda. (See a sampling of the hate America propaganda
below in the Tiny URL). Also review the "Stalking" references below
from the Psychiatrists. . .that might answer the question. But to
support and defend hate our troops propagandists while claiming he is
some kind of "National Guard Solider" is also beyond my understanding.
. . also note that all of Paul Carrier's cons and lies about me have
been disproved via my recent Polygraph - questions and answers listed
below.
There is obviously something wrong with these stalkers. . . what makes
someone want to maliciously cause someone else extreme emotional harm
by lying about him, and inciting hatred and violence against him via
defamation, harassment cons, and false accusations? And this is
especially questionable when the stalker has been notified to cease
and desist dozens of times. I really have no idea what is wrong
with these pathetic clowns - but soon it will be up to the courts to
figure that one out.
http://tinyurl.com/4mgxwxz The key Nigel Brooks hate gang member and
chief Hate America propagandist forges my posts, and a sampling of
his hate America posts that is supported by his fellow gang members,
AND this is the hate America/hate our troops con man that Nigel Brooks
says "never lies!"
(See the Stalking reasons presented below by the Doctors - which
should answer the question why these pathetic dregs stalk and harass).
CEASE AND DESIST STALKING AND HARASSMENT NOTICE
To: Mr. Paul Carrier: (A.K.A. "Tankfixer" A.K.A. and/or "Political
Pagan" and/or other false names Mr. Paul Carrier may have used, is
using, or might use in the future to continue to stalk, harass, incite
hatred and violence against me, and to cause me and my family extreme
harm).
***This RESPONSE notice and rebuttal to Mr. Paul Carrier is to again
notify him to cease and desist his stalking, harassment and fraud he
has been perpetrating against me for years.***
***I am being forced to post this notice and rebuttal on USENET due to
Mr. Paul Carrier's repeated and malicious personal attacks, harassment
and stalking as the headers and contents of this post from Mr.
Carrier clearly represents.***
Note the headers of this post clearly prove this hate post about me
was initiated by Mr. Paul Carrier, and not by me.
If Mr. Carrier would cease and desist his smear, harassment and
stalking campaign against me as I have requested dozens of times, I
would not need to post this notice and rebuttal to his false
accusations. I have no desire whatsoever to communicate in any manner
with Mr. Carrier or anyone like him.
Notice and Rebuttal Forced to Repeat by Mr. Carrier
As with anyone else that has been attacked with thousands of false
accusations and fraudulent posts published on USENET and elsewhere by
Mr. Paul Carrier, I do have a right to defend myself from Mr. Carrier's
repeated outrageous and proved false accusations, hate, incitements of
hate and violence against me. I have no idea what is wrong with this
person, and frankly, I do not want to know. All I can do is respond
to his fraud and false accusations with a rebuttal that provides the
truth.
I am being forced to repeat this notice and rebuttal as a response
to defend myself against Mr. Carrier's hate post about me due to Mr.
Carrier's malicious and repeated refusal to abide by my notice to
cease and desist his defaming personal attacks, stalking, harassment
and his proved false light hate and outrageous false accusations.
You be the judge why Mr. Carrier is posting his thousands upon
thousands of repeated proved false accusations about me.
Notice date:
To: Mr. Paul Carrier: (A.K.A. "Tankfixer - Political Pagan and other
false names Mr. Carrier has used, is using, or might use in the
future).
Cease and Desist
Mr. Paul Carrier: I have notified and asked you several times to
cease and desist your malicious stalking and harassment, and your
false-light incitements of hatred, threats and violence against me
that you continue to publish and electronically communicate about and
to me on USENET and elsewhere.
Your Stalking and Harassment are Causing me and my Family Extreme
Emotional Harm - Cease and Desist Immediately!
Once again, I hereby inform you that your stalking, harassment and
smears have become intolerable, are causing me and my family extreme
emotional harm, and I again hereby ask and demand that you cease
and desist your hateful and malicious stalking and harassment
campaign you have been waging against me for years.
I further hereby ask and demand that you immediately cease and
desist inciting hatred and violence against me with your electronic
and otherwise malicious communications to USENET and other third
parties about me.
I have also asked you several times to stop invading my privacy and
to stop violating my copyrights.
I hereby repeat my demands to you in all regards.
You Are Not Qualified to Judge My Military Service
2. Based upon your published biography about your military service,
you never attained any senior NCO rank, and you never served in the
Regular nor Reserve U.S. Army as a Senior NCO (SFC E-7) as I did.
Moreover, you were not even connected to the US Army during the time I
was on active duty. Ergo, your defaming statements about my military
service and my duties as a Senior NCO in general are not only
grossly unqualified and uninformed, they are deliberately defaming,
malicious, preposterous and crackbrained. Not to mention every NCO
I have consulted about your and Nigel Brooks preposterous accusations,
including a First Sergeant with 30 years of service, and the head of
the NCO association and several others *including an NCO that has been
posting on this forum for years** has, in writing, disclaimed your
accusations about me and my duties in Vietnam as either "false" or
"grossly uninformed."
2.a. Based upon your military service background, it is impossible
for you to know or even comprehend the myriad of different duties I
performed while I was in the U.S. Army no more than a child could
comprehend. You presently operate as a "part time assistant"
property book junior NCO for the Oregon National Guard. None of your
duties as a "part time property book assistant" NCO for the Oregon
National Guard have any connection, bearing nor relationship to my
duties as a Regular Army Senior NCO SFC E-7 during the Vietnam era and
war, in respect to my combat duties nor any other duties. I never
served in the "National Guard" I served exclusively in the "Regular
Army." I also never had anything to do with being "an assistant
property book junior NCO."
3. Based upon your own published biography about your military
service, you never served in the U.S. Army in the same units as I
did, nor did you ever perform Infantryman nor any other duties I
performed as a senior NCO.
3.a. You also NEVER served in Vietnam although you mysteriously post
your personal attacks, defamation, harassment and stalking against
*real Vietnam Veterans* on a Vietnam veterans forum. Ergo, it is
impossible for you to know or even comprehend the duties I performed
in Vietnam no more than any other part time "assistant property book"
manger in the National Guard could comprehend. Also, since you are
not a Vietnam veteran, even you must realize your claimed knowledge
about my duties in Vietnam are not only preposterous, they are also
obviously arrogantly uninformed and sophomoric.
3.b. Your repeated defaming false accusations and statements about
my military service in general are not only grossly unqualified and
uninformed, but also are deliberately defaming, malicious,
preposterous and idiotic, and directly contradicts not only my
military records, but volumes of Army regulations as well. Not to
mention contradicts every NCO I have consulted about your and Nigel
Brooks preposterous accusations, including a First Sergeant with 30
years of service, and the head of the NCO association and several
others *including an NCO that has been posting on this forum for
years** have, in writing, disclaimed your accusations about me and
your accusations about my duties in Vietnam as either "false" or
"grossly uninformed."
4. Based upon your own biography, you never served in the U.S. Army
as a senior NCO. Moreover, regardless of the fact you spent a few
years in the US Army Reserve, the top rank you could ever achieve was
that of a junior NCO. Moreover, you were never assigned to an
Infantry unit (or any other unit) during a time of war. Ergo, your
defaming statements about my military service duties as a SFC E-7
senior NCO assigned to a famous Infantry Unit in Vietnam, with duty
in SF Reactionary and other duties, are not only grossly unqualified
and uninformed, but also are deliberately defaming, malicious,
preposterous and idiotic, and your false accusations contradicts my
military records and contradicts US Army regulations.
Mr. Paul Carrier; Please Stop Stalking Me!
5. I Do Not Want to exchange posts with you nor communicate with you
nor communicate with people like you in any manner. We have nothing
in common, and your *volumes* of hate and attack posts directed
against me and several others indicates to me that perhaps something
is seriously wrong with you. I suggest you seek counseling in respect
to your obvious obsession with me. I have no idea why you seem so
obsessed with harassing and stalking me me. If you feel that we have
something in common, I assure you that we do not.
5.a. Regardless of my past several notices to you (posted on USENET
which you acknowledged by responding to each time) to cease and desist
your hateful attacks, defamation, stalking and harassment as are
outlined herein, and my past notices to you that I want nothing
whatsoever to do with you, do not wish to converse with you, nor
exchange ideas nor communications with you in any manner, nor have any
desire to know anything about you nor any others like you, you
persist with your malicious electronic communications on USENET and to
third parties containing false, hateful and defaming personal attacks
against me.
5.b. Thus far you have posted thousands of such proved false personal
defaming attacks about me on USENET alone. Not to mention repeatedly
presented me in a false and defaming light in your electronic
communications to USENET and elsewhere for the obvious malicious
purpose to incite hated, threats and violence against me.
You are Distorting and Misrepresenting my Past Posts for the obvious
Purple of Malicious Stalking, harassment and false light defamation.
6. You repeatedly riddle your malicious and harassing electronic
communications on USENET about me with your long disproved fraud,
false accusations, false contexts and false light ludicrous,
child-like and cockamamie distorted and "framed" forged
interpretations of my past posts - always distorted in the most
malicious, defaming and false light manner you can dream up.
6.a. You use these fraudulent defaming tactics regardless of the fact
you have been told several times your goofy interpretations and
distortions of my past posts are false, misleading, and in fact,
ridiculous.
6.b. You have been told dozens of times you cannot read minds, and
the only possible person that knows his true intent and meaning of any
post is the author of the post, not to mention is the ONLY PERSON
that knows whether he made an error or typo or just wrote something
poorly. Your claims to know what an author was thinking when he
wrote something is beyond preposterous, it is akin to drooling
insanity in my opinion.
7. Regardless of my numerous past notices to you to cease and desist
your personal attacks, stalking, harassment and false light
defamation about me - you are continuing with your distortions of my
past posts, including distorting and misrepresenting known errors and
typos as intentional statements and entries by me.
7.a. You post copies of my posts containing known errors and typos
that you knew I removed from the Google archive due to the stated
error and/or typo and that you also knew were long corrected. Yet
you fraudulently and repeatedly state as a statement of fact on USENET
and elsewhere that all errors and typos that I have long discarded or
corrected were intentionally stated by me. Again, such
misrepresentations are preposterous to a degree they indicate to me
something is seriously wrong with the way you process information.
What you *want to think* is not true - what is true is what the author
says is true. Again, claiming to know the mind set of any author is
so idiotic, preposterous and ridiculous, in my opinion such claims
represent an obsessive pathology - or simply put - insanity.
8. You further deceptively hide by omission all of my post
corrections, repeatedly post the exact same defaming false accusations
based upon your own lies by key omission of facts and evidence, and
you further hide the fact you know you are posting known errors and
typos that were dug out of my electronic waste basket by an associate
of yours AFTER they were long removed from the Google archive and/or
corrected or explained.
8.a. The mere fact you are REPEATEDLY posting "out of context
selected excerpts" from my past posts that you know were previously
discarded and/or corrected as a means to smear, harass and stalk me is
clearly malicious, deceptive and deliberately dishonest, or insane. I
cannot possibly know your mental state, so I can only speculate why
you attack me and so many others as well with your fraud and hate. If
you find yourself enamored with me for some reason, I assure you the
feeling is not mutual.
9. You repeatedly use these said deceptive methods of false light
defamation and incitements of hatred against me (and against many
others) regardless of the fact you have been told several times the
context, meaning and intent of my past posts you are referencing did
NOT and do not represent the false contexts, meanings and intents you
are distorting and/or maliciously misrepresenting in the most defaming
manner you can preposterously conjure up.
10. Please note that each one of your demeaning, false, defamatory
and idiotic accusations about me you have posted in this electronic
publication and otherwise communicated to me on USENET and to third
parties, and those you have posted in the past, have been proved
false by me and independent experts dozens of times.
10.a. My recent Polygraph and my Military Records and several
independent Military Experts, and US Army regulations and archives,
and fellow NCO's that post on this forum, have completely disproved
your false accusations. If you disagree, please name or produce any
record from my military records that proves I lied about anything in
the context I presented.
11. Your false accusations about me have been clearly proved FALSE by
not only my military records, but also by several independent military
experts and legal authorities, and of course by a certified Polygraph
examination conducted by a former law enforcement officer and a
federally qualified examiner. (See the URL below for the questions I
was asked on the said Polygraph. Once again you will see the
*certified* truthful and correct answers, contexts, meanings and
intents of all my past posts dealing with each subject issue).
12. Please understand that my answers on the said Polygraph have been
certified as true. Consequently, any other representation on any
issue contained in my "Statement of Facts" that were asked and
answered under the scrutiny of a Polygraph that are contrary to my
answers to the subject question has then also been proved false by the
same Polygraph certification.
12.a. Simply put, since it has been certified that I am telling the
truth then any other version of what I said is false.
13. You have also been advised that my law firm has contacted the
U.S. Attorney about you and other members of the Nigel Brooks gang.
Your electronic communications and/or other publications about me are
being monitored and saved, and they can and will be used against you
in a court of law.
13.a. If you wish to receive a copy of the said letter to the U.S.
Attorney please email me at legal...@comcast.net and request it.
We invite you to respond to the said letter with your smears and
accusations you have communicated about me stated in writing and
complete with your evidence. Please email me, or have your lawyer
email me and request the said letter. I will not post such
information on USENET as before several members of the hate gang
anonymously harassed my former lawyer.
http://tinyurl.com/3bjzzsy REIMAN PASSES POLYGRAPH!
http://tinyurl.com/4542e9s REIMAN'S POLYGRAPH CONFIRMED VALID -
SUPREME COURT AND OTHER EXPERTS SPEAK.
http://tinyurl.com/3f6532w REIMAN'S POLYGRAPH - MOST RELIABLE EVER!
http://tinyurl.com/3oqlq5p NIGEL BROOKS LIES ABOUT POLYGRAPH. Nigel
Brooks posted that I should take a Polygraph test, and he even offered
some sample questions. So when I took the very test he recommended,
certified by a Polygraph examiner that he also recommended, and since
I completely passed the Polygraph on 79 key questions, (my answers
were all certified as truthful by the Polygraph examiner) **Nigel
Brooks then suddenly decided that Polygraphs were not valid.** You be
the Judge why.
14. Please also note that I have offered to pay for a similar
polygraph test for Mr. Paul Carrier, Dennis M. McDonnell, Nigel
Brooks or any of their "associates" or gang members that wish to take
a Polygraph in respect to their accusations about me. I will pay for
the test provided the examiner certifies they are telling the truth.
(See my post "Reiman Passes Polygraph" above for this offer.) Thus
far, Nigel Brooks and his hate cabal have ALL refused this offer
although I have agreed to pay for the test up front!
15. Once again, Mr. Paul Carrier, - I hereby ask and demand that you
Cease and Desist using electronic communications and other methods of
communications and/or publications to harass, stalk and defame me, and
do so immediately.
15.a. Once again Mr. Carrier, I hereby ask and demand that you cease
and desist your personal attacks against me, and cease and desist all
similar procedures and accusations stated heretofore and herein
immediately.
15.b. If you persist with your personal attacks, smears, harassment
and stalking campaigns against me after this notice, I can only
consider such future malicious and deliberate acts by you as you
notifying me that you intend to continue with your smear, stalking and
harassment campaigns against me until I am forced to take legal action
against you.
15.c. If you continue with your personal attacks, smear campaigns,
stalking and/or harassment against me after this notice, (under your
present name or under any other false name) please be advised that if
I am forced to file a civil legal action against you to stop your
malicious and deliberate stalking, smears, incitements of hatred and
violence against me, and harassment, I will have the right to ask the
court for an award of all legal fees, expenses and punitive damages.
Douglas Reiman (a.k.a. Doug Grant (Tm))
The following is posted for reference only.
I am not a Doctor, and since I cannot read minds like Nigel Brooks and
some of his gang members claim they can do, I cannot correctly
diagnose anyone's mental state. I do not know why Mr. Paul Carrier is
so apparently enamored and/or obsessed with me. However, the
following information might be useful to all readers:
stalkers
1. Main article: Stalker (stalking)
Psychologists often group individuals who stalk into two categories:
psychotic and nonpsychotic.[10] Stalkers may have pre-existing
psychotic disorders such as delusional disorder, schizoaffective
disorder, or schizophrenia. Most stalkers are nonpsychotic and may
exhibit disorders or neuroses such as major depression, adjustment
disorder, or substance dependence, as well as a variety of Axis II
personality disorders (such as antisocial, avoidant, borderline,
dependent, narcissistic, or paranoid). Some of the symptoms of
"obsessing" over a person is part of obsessive compulsive personality
disorder. The nonpsychotic stalkers' pursuit of victims can be
influenced by various psychological factors, including anger,
hostility, projection of blame, obsession, dependency, minimization,
denial, and jealousy. Conversely, as is more commonly the case, the
stalker has no antipathic feelings towards the victim, but simply a
longing that cannot be fulfilled due to deficiencies either in their
personality or their society's norms.[11]
In "A Study of Stalkers" Mullen et al.. (2000)[12] identified five
types of stalkers:
Rejected stalkers pursue their victims in order to reverse, correct,
or avenge a rejection (e.g. divorce, separation, termination).
Resentful stalkers pursue a vendetta because of a sense of grievance
against the victims - motivated mainly by the desire to frighten and
distress the victim.
Intimacy seekers seek to establish an intimate, loving relationship
with their victim. To many of them the victim is a long-sought-after
soul mate, and they were 'meant' to be together.
Incompetent suitors, despite poor social or courting skills, have a
fixation, or in some cases a sense of entitlement to an intimate
relationship with those who have attracted their amorous interest.
Their victims are most often already in a dating relationship with
someone else.
Predatory stalkers spy on the victim in order to prepare and plan an
attack - often sexual - on the victim.
The 2002 National Victim Association Academy defines an additional
form of stalking: The vengeance/terrorist stalker. Both the vengeance
stalker and terrorist stalker (the latter sometimes called the
political stalker) do not, in contrast with some of the aforementioned
types of stalkers, seek a personal relationship with their victims but
rather force them to emit a certain response favourable to the
stalker. While the vengeance stalker's motive is "to get even" with
the other person whom he/she perceives has done some wrong to them
(e.g., an employee who believes is fired without justification from
their job by their superior), the political stalker intends to
accomplish a political agenda, also using threats and intimidation to
force his/her target to refrain and/or become involved in some
particular activity, regardless of the victim's consent.[13]
Many stalkers[quantify] fit categories with paranoia disorders.
Intimacy-seeking stalkers often have delusional disorders involving
erotomanic delusions. With rejected stalkers, the continual clinging
to a relationship of an inadequate or dependent person couples with
the entitlement of the narcissistic personality, and the persistent
jealousy of the paranoid personality. In contrast, resentful stalkers
demonstrate an almost "pure culture of persecution," with delusional
disorders of the paranoid type, paranoid personalities, and paranoid
schizophrenia.[12]
One of the uncertainties in understanding the origins of stalking is
that the concept is now widely understood in terms of specific
behaviors[14] which are found to be offensive and/or illegal. As
discussed above, these specific (apparently stalking) behaviors may
have multiple motivations.
Stalking by groups
According to a U.S. Department of Justice special report[16] a
significant number of people reporting stalking incidents claim that
they had been stalked by more than one person, with 18.2% reporting
that they were stalked by two people, 13.1% reporting that they had
been stalked by three or more. The report did not break down these
cases into numbers of victims who claimed to have been stalked by
several people individually, and by people acting in concert.
According to a United Kingdom study by Sheridan and Boon,[17] in 5% of
the cases they studied there was more than one stalker, and 40% of the
victims said that friends or family of their stalker had also been
involved. In 15% of cases, the victim was unaware of any reason for
the harassment"
End References.
DGVREIMAN
I know all this will certainly come out during discovery, but I
thought it might make for some interesting reading by some.
Article 92 -violation of regulation involving misuse of computers or
government time:
Depending on the type of crime COMPUTER CRIMES ARE prosecuted under
Article 134, or Article 92, UCMJ. If it is misuse of government
computers or IT systems that will be prosecuted under Article 92
because there are regulations on that misuse - such as using
government computers for personal use or for any authorized use as
stated below.
Computer Crimes Defined
General Computer Crimes defined:
Personal Jurisdiction
Doug Grant (Tm)
"Dai Uy" <Dai...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
news:5ff90bd2-c019-4c86...@q29g2000prj.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 24, 5:54 pm, Tankfixer <paul.carr...@gmail.coom> wrote:
> you might look into the penalties for lying to the FBI..
It appears they don't like it very much...
http://tinyurl.com/3lks8yt
***
Doug's Rebuttal:
Doug Grant (Tm)
"Nigel Brooks" <nbr...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:96nnlh...@mid.individual.net...
>
>
> "Tankfixer" <paul.c...@gmail.coom> wrote in message
> news:MPG.28701df3...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> In article <penc079u925s9eo8i...@4ax.com>, - MAC ---
>> NoSPAM-T...@NoSpamToday-abc.zoo MAC ---NoSPAM-Today-
>> x...@NoSpamToday-abc.zoo spouted !
>>>
>>> On Sat, 25 Jun 2011 14:45:10 -0700, "DGVREIMAN"
>>> <dgvr...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> >UCMJ ADDS
>>>
>>>
>>> snip Codswalop
>>> ===============
>>
>> > Interesting subject line here - and obviously yet another attempt
>> > by the
> litigious loon to bully individuals into submission.
Doug's Reply: Mr. Brooks, "submission?" You mean my notices to you
and your hate gang to stop your stalking, harassments, threats of
violence, false light fraud and cons, forging my posts, violating my
copyrights is asking you to "submitt to something?" Where did you
study the English language - the slums of Manchester?
>
> Believe you me - Reiman is the lowest of the low. Lower than a
> snakes belly. If he gets into a war of words with anyone, he will
> stoop as low as he can to get one up.
>
> He'll complain to your employer if he discovers who you work for,
> he'll complain to your ISP, he'll complain to law enforcement, he'll
> threaten lawsuit. If he knew who your neighbors were, he'll
> complain to them.
>
> He is a sorry piece of human detritus.
Doug's Rebuttal: Nigel Brooks is delusional. I have not contacted
anyone's employer (unless invited to do so) nor anyone's neighbor. I
have complained to ISP's about Nigel Brooks hate/smear/con/fraud/false
light/incitement for hate and violence web sites (which the web
managers have agreed and forced the web sites down due to said
infractions), and I have complained to law enforcement about stalking,
harassment and other overt acts perpetrated against me by some, and I
have notified Nigel Brooks and his hate gang members dozens of times
that if they do not stop their hate, stalking and harassment I will be
forced to file more legal action against them.
Nigel Brooks wants to be able to stalk, bully, lie, con, forge
contexts and meanings in someone's writings, violate copyrights, and
generally violate the law any way he wishes in respect to smearing
anyone he wants, and then complain when he victim mentions filing
legal action if he does not stop! What a con man!
BHWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
This post is a keeper and is classic Nigel Brooks!
Doug Grant (Tm)
>
>
DGVREIMAN
I know all this will certainly come out during discovery, but I
thought it might make for some interesting reading by some.
Article 92 -violation of regulation involving misuse of computers or
government time:
Depending on the type of crime COMPUTER CRIMES ARE prosecuted under
Article 134, or Article 92, UCMJ. If it is misuse of government
computers or IT systems that will be prosecuted under Article 92
because there are regulations on that misuse - such as using
government computers for personal use or for any authorized use as
stated below.
Computer Crimes Defined
General Computer Crimes defined:
Personal Jurisdiction
Doug Grant (Tm)
"Tankfixer" <paul.c...@gmail.coom> wrote in message
news:MPG.286efbe4...@news.eternal-september.org...
Tankfixer
dgvr...@comcast.net spouted !
> Article 92 -violation of regulation involving misuse of computers or
> government time:
>
You really are three kinds of stupid.
Tankfixer
dgvr...@comcast.net spouted !
> malicious, preposterous and crackbrained
>
I'd say that sums you up fairly well.
DGVREIMAN
DGVREIMAN
I know all this will certainly come out during discovery, but I
thought it might make for some interesting reading by some.
Article 92 -violation of regulation involving misuse of computers or
government time:
Computer Crimes Defined
General Computer Crimes defined:
Personal Jurisdiction
Doug Grant (Tm)
"Tankfixer" <paul.c...@gmail.coom> wrote in message
news:MPG.2872bf6...@news.eternal-september.org...
> In article <aPydnfhV1fELkJTT...@giganews.com>, -
> DGVREIMAN
> dgvr...@comcast.net spouted !
>> Article 92 -violation of regulation involving misuse of computers
>> or
>> government time:
>>
>
>snip fraud
DGVREIMAN
Computer Crimes Defined
General Computer Crimes defined:
Personal Jurisdiction
Doug Grant (Tm)
news:MPG.2872bfe3...@news.eternal-september.org...
Tankfixer
dgvr...@comcast.net spouted !
> "Tankfixer" <paul.c...@gmail.coom> wrote in message
> news:MPG.2872bfe3...@news.eternal-september.org...
> >> malicious, preposterous and crackbrained
> >>
> >
> >
> > I'd say that sums you up fairly well.
>
>
> I have no idea why this non-Vietnam veteran Paul Carrier wants to
> continue to stalk and harass a real combat Vietnam Senior NCO.
>
Like I said.. sums you up pretty well
DGVREIMAN
"Tankfixer" <paul.c...@gmail.coom> wrote in message