Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.

Dismiss

GOOGLE CONFIRMS GANG LIED ABOUT PURPLE HEART CARDS

0 views

Skip to first unread message

DGVREIMAN

unread,

Jan 4, 2009, 6:52:21 AM1/4/09

GOOGLE CONFIRMS GANG LIED ABOUT PURPLE HEART CARDS

(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
legal...@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, libeled, 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).

SMEAR MERCHANT DISCLAIMER TWO: Considering the typical ridiculous, absurd
and obviously false claims about my military service that originates from
the crackpot smear and con gang that operates on alt.war.Vietnam, I also
hereby certify and attest this article is NOT a secret coded message that
only gang members can decode with their secret Federal Agent/Sp4
draftee/former Junior Reserve Officer/ midget decoder and mind reading
rings.
This means the Brownie crackpots' inevitable accusations and howls that this
article is really me claiming in a special soothsaying code (a code only
crackpots et al smear gang can only read of course which involves their
typical claim the American Heritage Dictionary's definitions of simple
terms, such as "we" "estimated" "involved" "retired from" and "not
representing any biographical claim" are all incorrect, and only their
"special interpretations of the English language can apply to all English
terms I use, and of course the gang's standard nonsensical mind reading and
soothsaying claims that (1) I was a CIA cross border assassin that sniper
killed Ho Chi Minh, HOORAH - (2) that I personally killed 1803 enemy
soldiers in Vietnam and then feasted on their bodies (burp) (3) that I was a
secret member of the Mi Lai massacre, (let god sort them out) that I hunted
down and murdered unarmed Priests (take that choir boy) (4) that I was
trained by the Martian Army on Mars, and I have green blood, and retractable
fangs (slurp), (5) that the movie "Rambo" was copied after my deeds in
Vietnam and I still live in caves in the northwest (6) and best of all, I
went to the Carlise War College to study WWII tactics even before I was
born!!!! BWHAHAHAHAHHA.

Needless to say, the smear gang misrepresentations of my past posts are of
course, not true.

I have posted dozens of times on USENET that I will not post
autobiographical facts about my life on USENET in any detail. Only a quip
now and then. And, if anyone wants to know the true facts, or a
clarification of any quip, or more information and details about an issue
which are clearly missing in my quips they must first contact me via email,
identify themselves, and then I will determine if I want to exchange such
personal information with them.

Although the above is my standing offer, I should mention that NOT ONE
member of the gang has ever contacted me directly over any one of my posts.
It is clear the gang does not want to know about obvious typos, errors, and
occasional ambiguities, nor clarifications, nor corrections, nor do they
even want verification whether I was the actual author of the post in
question.

As experts on Investigations and the US Military have noted, the gang
leaders and their members clearly want to avoid the truth whenever it
contradicts their contrived and conspired defaming parsing and fraudulent
misrepresentations and distortions of what I have written in the past, or
contradicts their lies and fraud in respect to what is and is not truly
contained in my military records, and of course, their fraudulent use of
USENET posts they know others have written to use to smear me, defame me,
hold me up to public ridicule, stalk me, and otherwise further their years'
long demonizing and vilification campaign they have been regularly waging
against me.

In short, the gang does not want to know the truth, and they are desperate
to stop me from defending myself as they know my truthful rebuttals, which
they cannot defend as they know what I am posting is true, reveals them for
what they really are.

The gangs lies and fraud border on the pathological, and include the gang'
preposterous and goofy fraud that (7) a Purple Heart VA card is the same as
a Purple Heart Medal (I have posted on USENET dozens of times I did not
receive a Purple Heart Medal) (8) Nor that removing hundreds of typos,
errors, misstatements made by typists and I found so far in about
thirty-five THOUSAND extemporaneous posts under accounts I used, and then
replacing the errors with the true intended context and meaning by the
author is somehow "sinister" and the original discarded post was the correct
intended post and the corrected version is false! (Giggle).
Such glaring preposterous crackpot et al smear and fraud gang claims about
me are, as usual, blatantly false and equally ridiculous. (Ask the gang
leaders for proof of their claims the next time they make such ludicrous
claims and watch them scurry for their rocks or produce their own forgeries,
or perhaps typos, errors and such that have long been detected and discarded
in my waste basket they have dug out of that trash). And no, regardless of
forgeries and discarded posts found in my waste basket that were thrown
there because of an error or typist misstatement by one of our typist's, I
have posted about two dozen times in the past that my time in South America
was spent (other than an assignment and short visit to Southern Command
after I left Vietnam) exclusively as a Civilian working for Montana Western
Oil and Gas or PCA, which evidence was scanned and posted years ago.)
Also, in response to the smear gang's et al repeated and convenient
outright lie and fraud that I never said that others were using the same
accounts to post on USENET as I did until the smear gang leaders started
their fraud, con and smear campaign against me and thereby forced me to post
on this newsgroup to defend myself, please see the following proof that of
course the gang leaders et al have been caught lying again:

http://tinyurl.com/6d4aay TYPISTS' GALORE POST proves there were about 71
previous posts prior to the gang's glaring lie that I never mentioned
others posting under the same accounts I used until after the gang leaders
started to use a few typos, errors and post fragments written by many
different people, years apart, never written on any military forum,
deceptively spliced together with forged words added into or subtracted from
the hodgepodge of different context post fragments so as to fraudulently
alter their meaning or context.

http://tinyurl.com/7kfaqz Experts on Smear Gangs reveal what the Nigel
Brooks con and smear gang is all about.

http://tinyurl.com/9nmo4u Tom Rau caught again forging documents and serial
lying.

http://tinyurl.com/8tsbpb Where the Veterans Administration Confirmed the
Existence of the Purple Heart Card that Tom Rau attempted to con the readers
about "never existing."

End Disclaimer - Rebuttal Begins below:

Rebuttal to Nigel Brooks and gang's repeated fraud about my typist's past
reply to Chip. (Note that I am being forced to defend myself from Nigel
Brooks and his gang's outrageous lies and fraud about me and my past. In
post references herein I irrefutably prove that even the US Government is
confirming Brooks and Rau and other gang members lied about my typist's
Purple Heart Card reply to Chip, along with two former expert NCO's, and
one former VA employee, and the DAV Headquarters and Seattle Office all
confirming the same fact. Now we even see Google proving that Brooks and
gang are blatant liars and smear merchants - when will they ever learn?

"Oh What a Tangled Web We Weave When we First try to Deceive" is something
Brooks and gang should repeat to themselves every day in the mirror instead
of fraudulently claiming everyone else is a liar but their hypocritical
selves.

Once again the Nigel Brooks smear gang has be exposed for what it is:

A smear and fraud gang that regularly uses serial lying, forgeries, fraud,
false accusations, obloquy and just about anything else they can dream up,
or be told to do by smear and con experts that post how to "get people" on
USENET and steals personal and private information from the Veterans
Administration (talk about zero ethics - whew what a criminal!)

And the gang does all this just to destroy the reputation of any person
they have targeted!

You could be next if I do not do anything to bring this gang to justice.
That is why a major law firm is reviewing and investigating the gang's
smear campaign against me (and against others) as we speak.

THE GANG'S FALSE ACCUSATION:

"I NEVER MENTIONED PURPLE HEART CARDS BEFORE BROOKS SAID SOMETHING ABOUT MY
TYPIST'S REPLY TO CHIP" OUTRIGHT LIE AND FRAUD

Note in the URL below Nigel Brooks states that he first mentioned my typist's
reply to Chip about purple heart cards on June 10th 2006, and he and Tom Rau
both (and other gang members) fraudulently claimed that I never said
anything about Purple Heart Cards before that date, and not until years
later.

The gang leaders knew they had to further this particular lie and fraud as
they know if I *did* mention purple heart cards before the issue of my
typist's reply to Chip was retrieved from Google's wastebasket and forged in
respect to context and who republished it, then I would have hard and
irrefutable evidence the gang is and has been lying when they claim I made
up the story about Purple Heart cards to cover my typist's discarded and
clarified reply to Chip.

GOOGLE PROVES THE GANG IS LYING ABOUT THE CONTEXT OF MY TYPIST'S REPLY TO
CHIP

The gang also forgot that when you remove a post from the Google archive you
must provide a sworn reason to Google for doing so. The gang also forgot
that once Google removes a USENET post from its archives, it sends the
person requesting the removal a certification in writing the confirming the
post in question was permanently removed from the original account. Once
the post is removed from the account, it can no longer be associated in
any way with the original account or writer if the post is later dug out of
Google's wastebasket. (Such fraud is similar to someone digging around in
an office wastebasket for discarded errors, and then publishing those erred
documents as "intentional" by the original author. Or even worse, forging
the intended context of the discarded document so as to maliciously defame
the author and cast him in a false and defaming light to others - which is
of course precisely what Nigel Brooks and his gang has done in this case).

Note that smear and con gangs do this all the time - as the following
information from experts on Nigel Brooks type smear and con gangs clearly
reveal:

http://tinyurl.com/7kfaqz Experts on Smear Gangs reveal what the Nigel
Brooks con and smear gang is all about.

THE PERSON(S) REPUBLISHING A DISCARDED POST ARE THOSE RESPONSIBLE FOR ITS
PUBLISHING - NOT THE ORIGINAL AUTHOR - THIS IS ESPECIALLY TRUE IF THE POST
IN QUESTION HAS BEEN CLARIFIED AND THAT CLARIFICATION REPUBLISHED BY THE
ORIGINAL AUTHOR

The only publisher and account involved in reconstructing and replacing a
discarded post on USENET are those that retrieved the post from Google's
wastebasket, and then republished it on USENET. The evidence of the real
author and publisher routing of that post can be found in the republished
forgery.

Google maintains in its files the reasons the author stated why the post
was removed, and the post that was removed itself in a special file for
legal purposes. The specific reason for any post removed by me can be
retrieved via my permission or by a subpoena (even in pre-discovery like a
Federal Judge recently recommended). The reason I removed the typist's
post was to clarify the original and intended context of the post was
about VA ID cards, and that is *precisely* what I told Google.

So "years" before the gang ever said a word about my typist's reply to Chip
I had already told Google the post was about Purple Heart VA ID Cards and
not Medals. (Please contact me for my permission to allow Google to release
their records on this issue, I will grant that permission to anyone that
asks. This will abate any whines and fraud from the gang in respect to what
I say Google is saying is false - get the post yourself, I know my lawyers
are).

Note that Tom Rau, Nigel Brooks and other gang members have stated as a fact
I never posted anything about Purple Heart Cards before Brooks and gang
started their questioning of my typist's reply to Chip. Moreover, the gang
has been howling and conning readers for months that I never posted
anything about "Purple Heart Cards" prior to 2008 (see the gang's statements
below in this regard).

The above information irrefutably and unquestionably proves Brooks, Rau
and the gang have been caught in mid con and malicious libel once again:

IRREFUTABLE PROOF BROOKS HAS BEEN CAUGHT AGAIN

Here is Nigel Brooks' statement in which he states that he FIRST said
something about my typist's post reply to Chip on June 10, 2006. Note the
above date of my Purple Heart Card reference to another Vet that clearly
knew what I was talking about: May 17, 2006! And to top all that here is
what they gang has been hiding all along:

Nigel said in the URL posted below:
1. "My reporting of that post was on June 10, 2006. You immediately
responded, claiming forgeries and denying authorship of the post. It wasn't
until just over a year later in 2007 that you came up with the "Purple Heart
Card" explanation.

2. Why didn't you just explain it when challenged in 2006?"

Nigel Brooks

BROOKS AND RAU HIDING THIS POST THAT PROVES THEM BOTH LIARS

http://tinyurl.com/3b59wt Note the date of this post evidenced by the
URL, *May 17, 2006* long before Brooks started posting his forged version of
what my typist said in her reply to Chip:

In the above post I again reference a Purple Heart Card that I possessed
AND I CLEARLY STATE I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT THE MEDAL! No wonder in all of
the gang's searches about this issue they seem to have "overlooked" this key
post above? Brooks and goons knew if they mentioned it that Google archived
post would prove them all liars, fraud merchants and would further prove
their malicious libel in respect to this issue - no wonder they "overlooked"
the above key post.

Note precisely what I wrote on May 17, 2006 a full month before Nigel Brooks
said a word about my typist's reply to Chip:

1. " I am an American Veteran, and when I arrive at the VA I am forced to
show my Purple Heart card ID before they will even talk to me (note before
the cyberstalkers start to wail and howl about what I just said be assured
that I am not saying possession of a Purple Heart card indicates that I have
a "Purple Heart Medal" I do not have that medal - and that is just the old
slang for the card as it used to contain the image of a purple V -the newer
ones have an American flag background on them)"

**Strange how Brooks, Rau and gang howl, duck, run, hide and snip and whine
when the Google archives prove them the forgers and liars I know they are .
. . ***

Watch the rats start edging for their sewers now that this post has been
exposed. How can they lie their way out of this irrefutable proof they have
been maliciously defaming me over this issue for years? It sure does reveal
Nigel and his gang's true colors now doesn't it?

NIGEL BROOKS ADMITTED MY TYPIST'S TOPIC IN HER REPLY TO CHIP WAS ABOUT
CARDS AND NOT MEDALS

What Nigel Brooks is stating above is that because I did not mention Purple
Heart Cards when he first brought up my typist's discarded post in 2006,
and I did not even mention the missing term "Cards" until 2007, then I was
lying about the post meaning Cards and not Medals.

Obviously, Nigel Brooks and his gang have been caught in MID CON yet again.
(Whew - how many times have these fools been caught lying about these
issues - I am starting to keep count and you will not believe the summary of
their lies, day in and day out).

Mr. Brooks is stating if I DID bring up the term "Cards" back when he first
brought up my discarded post, then of course that "Cards" reference would
have been proof positive the typist's reply to Chip was about Cards and not
Medals.

Well surprise, surprise, surprise Mr. Brooks! Because as the URL's clearly
prove above and below, I DID precisely state that post was about Cards when
you first brought up my typist's long discarded post, and I also stated
clearly way back then that someone else had written and posted the post in
question!

Here are my Google archived Purple Heart URL's that not only prove Mr.
Brooks claim that I never mentioned "Cards" before 2007 an outright lie and
fraud, but because I did mention precisely what he claims I should have said
Brooks has now admitted he was wrong and the true
context of the post was Cards and not Medals, just like I said it was:

Purple heart card Google references:
http://tinyurl.com/yxkndv June 12, 2006: Victoria Crosses and purple hearts
posts where I again state clearly "Purple Heart Card" I state:
"(The only post removed by Google that contained the terms "Purple Heart"
associated with the dggrant universal account used by dozens of other people
was a post typed by EH that was talking about a "Purple Heart Card" in a
follow up conversation about VA benefits.)"

(Note the date of my post. Brooks said he first mentioned my typist's
discarded purple heart card reply to Chip post on June 10th, 2006, and
Brooks said I did not reply with any "Purple Card" reference to his post
until 2007, and Brooks also stated that had I replied right away about the
"Card" issue then that prompt reply would have represented proof positive
that the intended topic of the discarded post was Cards and not Medals. YET
THAT PROMPT REPLY IS PRECISELY WHAT I SAID AND DID ON JUNE 12, 2006, IN
REPLY TO BROOKS JUNE 10, 2006 POST AS THE ABOVE GOOGLE ARCHIVE CLEARLY
PROVES!

Here is the paragraph I stated on June 12, 2006 TWO DAYS after Mr. Brooks
started his BS about this long discarded post, as the above URL from Google
clearly proves:

From my June 12, 2006 Post:

"And what "post" is BS Brooks talking about above? I never made any claim
for any medal that I did not receive. Not once, ever. If BS Brooks claims
otherwise then let's see it along with proper Message ID's and evidence that
it was posted by me. (The only post removed by Google that contained the
terms "Purple Heart" associated with the dggrant universal account used by
dozens of other people was a post typed by EH that was talking about a
"Purple Heart Card" in a
follow up conversation about VA benefits.)"
Apparently, this Google archive alone proves Mr. Brooks lied about when I
first said anything about removing a post about Purple Heart Cards. In fact
this post even mentions that someone else other than me wrote the post!
(Also note there is yet an earlier post that I wrote mentioning Purple Heart
Cards and the fact I am NOT talking about the medal on May 17, 2006, which
was long before Nigel Brooks said a single word about my typist's response
to Chip. Brooks stated above he first brought up my typist's reply to Chip
on June 10, 2006. Yet I was clearly posting about Purple Heart Cards long
before that date).

BROOKS OFFERS AND ADMITS THE TOPIC WAS ABOUT CARDS - THEN HE HIDES FROM
HIS OWN UNSOLICITED OFFER AND ADMISSION

According to Brooks, since I DID mention Cards before and at the very time
he started to question me about this post, the topic was clearly Cards and
not Medals. No wonder Mr. Brooks offered to retract his forgery that the
post context was Medals - he knew he was caught lying and the overwhelming
proof was the context of the post was Cards.

(I should also draw reference again to my May 17, 2006 post which was
copyrighted and predated the smear gang's June 10, 2006 initial questioning
of my typist's reply to Chip).

Bottom line: I clearly was referencing purple heart cards long before Nigel
Brooks said a word about my typist's reply to Chip. Tom Rau's outright
libel and fraud, and Brooks clear and unmistakable lie and fraud that I
"made up" the Card issue only to CYA after the smear and con gang started
howling about finding my discarded typist's reply to Chip, has just revealed
its unethical depths of malicious fraud and outright con games the Nigel
Brooks gang uses and publishes on a regular basis.

Or, "Da Gang" has been caught red handed lying to the group...again!

Mr. Brooks also posted the following blatant lie:

> "The URL

http://tinyurl.com/3n7wvg which you provided, leads one to a
> post you made to your private google group just over 5 years after the
> initial Purple Heart post, and about 2 years after you were challenged> on
> the initial post. It is self serving, and most certainly not evidence."
Nigel Brooks

Nigel Brooks fraudulently states above that I never mentioned the typist's
reply to Chip was about Purple Heart Cards until TWO YEARS after I was
challenged on the initial post by him, which of course means he fraudulently
claimed the topic was Medals, which of course he denies saying below. . .
again. Weooooooo. (Note how Brooks always compounds his serial lying with
yet more lies when he is caught in the first lie).

In fact, as all the Google URL's clearly prove, I was talking about Purple
Heart Cards long before Brooks ever said a word about my typist's reply to
Chip.

The Victoria Crosses and Purple Hearts post URL below first proves that
Brooks has again been caught in an outright lie in his "I did not reply with
Cards until 2 years after first challenged" which also again reverses his
claim that because I did not reply my typist's correction post was not
evidence.

However, since Brooks has been caught lying, and in fact I DID reply that
the topic was Cards almost immediately after he challenged that post, then
clearly the alternative is true and my typist's corrected post DOES
represent yet more evidence that (1) the true topic of the post in question
was Cards and not Medals, and ONCE AGAIN Nigel Brooks and his gang
have been caught in mid con and lie - YET AGAIN!!!

More evidence the intended topic was Cards:
http://tinyurl.com/y3yvb9

In this post I make it clear that I referenced a Purple Heart Card and not a
Purple Heart Medal - and the difference between the two. In the above URL,
Mr. Brooks also told the following lie:

"He's doing the same now - by trying to insert the word "medal" into the
argument. Well no-one is accusing him of claiming to have had a "Purple
Heart Medal" - but the record shows he has claimed to have had a Purple
Heart, and that he received it in a real war. "

Nigel Brooks

Doug Says: First Mr. Brooks says the context of my typist's post was about
medals, then he says *he never said the context was about medals!* He also
lies and claims that I was the only person that brought up the medals issue!
Then Brooks switches back and lies and says my typist and I were talking
about medals all along! One glaring lie after another, flip and flopping
between lies, offers to retract, lies about my posts about Cards, back to
the lie of him never fraudulently claiming I was talking about medals, then
flopping to an outright claim that I was.

Weeeeeeeeoooooeoeoeo - This Nigel Brooks smear merchants needs some serious
help if you ask me.

Nigel Brooks next lie: "Make up your mind - you have previously denied
removing the post. In fact on June 29, 2006 you commented as follows on the
posting: "

Nigel Brooks
Doug Says: I said it was a forgery, and it was as the post SteveL retrieved
from Google's waste basket was long removed from my account, and it did not
reference anywhere the term Medals as you were misrepresenting, and in fact
the last sentence of the post alone proves the context was not medals, and I
did not write it nor post it as my June 12, 2006 post referenced above
clearly proves.

Moreover, the reference route on the post clearly proves this post was
re-published by someone that has a different account than I ever held, and
that clearly IS NOT ME! That certainly sounds like a forgery to me and
every other rational person in the world.

CERTIFICATION FROM GOOGLE THE POST WAS LONG REMOVED

I have certification in writing from Google the post you and your gang is
republishing was removed permanently from my account years ago. So your
gang had to write a malicious code to retrieve or search for discarded posts
from Google's waste basket, and when you or your gang retrieved that post
from that waste basket, you DID NOT find that post on my account or anywhere
related to my account. Yet you con and lie that your republished post came
from me! This is just more incredible fraud from Nigel Brooks and his gang.

Nigel Brooks next lie: (Now he is refuting his own claim above):

""You are the one who first used the term "medal" in connection with that
post. My commentary was directly related to your use of the term. I was
observing that were playing your usual games with words. Post number 17 said
the following: " I have a Purple Heart also"
Nigel Brooks

Doug Says: Brooks fraudulently says my typist's reply was about medals, then
he says it wasn't about medals, then he says he never said that it was about
medals, then he offers a retraction of him saying it was about medals, then
he ignores his own retraction offer and again claims the topic of my typist's
reply to Chip was about medals. . . This man lies so much and is so
convoluted he must meet himself when he goes around corners.

On April 20, 2008 Nigel Brooks made the following unsolicited offer to
me:
http://tinyurl.com/6zxk3y

Nigel Said:

> "I'll offer you the following - If you post the confirmation you
> received > 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 to your > >
> http://groups.google.com/group/namesofcyberstalkers
> group in an appropriate format that would tend to prove its > authenticity
> (a jpeg > of the document showing the US Army logo should be
> sufficient - an > example would be the one you have previously posted to
> your group here
> http://tinyurl.com/3wymqc) - I will do the following:

> I will author and post to the forums an original posting which
> indicates that I have reviewed all of your evidence concerning the
> exchange in question and am satisified that your most recent revision
> of the post is supported by the evidence.

> The only proviso that I include with this offer is that I reserve the
> right to file an FOIA with the US Army for a copy of the communication
> that you claim to have received from them regarding Mr. Ciamaichella
> (" 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.")

> Awaiting your reply

> Nigel Brooks"

In his post Mr. Brooks confirms his retraction offer, his verification that
my typist's correction which includes the terms Cards is true and correct
and is "supported by the evidence."

(Note Brooks "only proviso" above. His FOIA confirmation that Chip never
had a purple heart medal and he could not be referencing one in his
comments. That fact has been established irrefutably, and certainly Mr.
Brooks has received his FOIA request back by now confirming precisely what I
said about Chip NOT having the medal).

So we have Nigel Brooks confession above that if Chip (only provisio) did
not have the medal, then my typist had to be talking about cards and not
medals.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.war.vietnam/msg/529102b2a
15528a5?
http://tinyurl.com/5j8ums

MORE INDEPENDENT REFERENCES TO THE PURPLE HEART CARD BY OTHER VETERANS

2. New VA Benifit Card. - The Patriot Files Forums My white plastic card has
a large purple triangle right in the middle and small purple VA Department
logo in the upper right hand corner. Thanks to you,. ...
www.patriotfiles.com/forum/showthread.php?t=37380 - 68k - Cached - Similar
http://tinyurl.com/9pm4kg Purple V card

1. CHAPTER TEN
It was a VA Hospital card with a purple "V" indicating priority patient
status. Service-connected disability. Murphy kept one in his top dresser
drawer for ... It was a VA Hospital card with a purple "V" indicating
priority patient status. Service-connected disability.

PDF]
1. Re: NEW IMMIGRATION SOLUTIONS File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as
HTML
I am an American Veteran, and when I arrive at the VA I. am forced to show
my Purple Heart card ID before they will even ...
newsgroups.derkeiler.com/pdf/Archive/Alt/alt.politics/2006-05/msg01582.pdf -
Similar pages -

http://tinyurl.com/9uv7ul You should contact your local VA Med Center to
apply for a replacement ID - they no longer have purple triangles on them
but do identify you and indicate the percent of service connected disability
you are entitled to, which in turn determines which priority category you
fit in to. You should be in Category 3.

http://tinyurl.com/7ldhsa Card with Purple Triangle indicates priority
treatment - purple heart card.
Enrollment is completed once veterans are assigned to a Primary Care Team
(often denoted by colors: "red', "green", etc.) and are scheduled for Team
intake examinations---after which referral to specific departments and
clinics for ongoing care is arranged and scheduled. **After either the
enrollment interview or the intake examination, they're issued plastic VA
patient identity cards, usually with photos (those with purple triangles
indicate the coveted, priority status of "service connected").** (Emphasis
added).

END EXCERPTS:

Doug Says:

I have more evidence the gang is lying and using malicious libel, and more
independent verification of that fact. Would you like to see more evidence?
It is really starting to pile up. It is like once the gang commits to a
fraud, they cannot back down from it once they are caught in mid con dozens
of times - then they slink away and start some new con and fraud - until
they are exposed again - then it is slink away time again. On and on, lie
after lie, fraud after fraud, con after con - and these unethical dregs call
me "Insane?" BWHAHAHAHAHAHA.

I, on the other hand will admit when I am wrong. And you can be sure I will
do precisely that if it ever happens. (A joke son).

The Gang should pay attention to: Sir Walter Scott's: "Oh what a tangled web
we weave when we first attempt to deceive."

And they should also read Uncle Remus. http://tinyurl.com/vc6o

RAU'S LIBELOUS "INSANE" FALSE ACCUSATIONS

Tom Rau likes to repeatedly and libelously state as a fact that I am
insane - but I bet he has never met entire groups of people that are truly
insane like I have.

This smear gang had better hope and pray they never start smearing and
defaming someone that is really insane like I have often encountered in my
Blackjack team and school business in New York, Nevada and New Jersey.
Smearing and defaming people they have never met for their perverse pleasure
of getting away with conning and using fraud to destroy the reputation of
people that reveal their true colors might provide some sick perverse high
for these gang dregs, but what will happen to them when they start attacking
someone that is really insane?

I have heard of entire families being wiped out over such acts where I
come from. The gang has have nothing to fear from me as I am a law and
order type guy - but those that are really nuts are not, and they deal with
such assholes in a very different way:

I don't know if you have heard of the old "bucket list" hits, but that is
when one of these insane types' places your name on his "bucket list."
That means if he gets really sick, Cancer, Heart Disease, etc. . . he or
someone he pays (usually the Russian mob) will take you out AND your entire
family, including your Wife and kids. That means you and your entire family
will live only as long as the sicko.

I have been told by some of these guys that since the Russians are very
cheap when it comes to hunting down and murdering entire families that is
why they like to use them, and some even pay for the Bucket List hits in
advance in case if they die suddenly they know the hit will still occur.

I know all about these "people" because I was threatened with a bucket list
hit from some of these people that took my card counting courses and joined
my teams. According to "those people" if my system did not work the way I
say it did then my name would be on their list. Of course my systems always
worked the way we say they would, and these people later became very strong
supporters and advocates of my schools - one group even wanted to be my
partner, but I would never in million years go into business with these wise
guys.

We were never really "friendly" but they loved us because we never lied to
them (or anyone else for that matter) - and of course we were polite and
smiled when they came around, but deep down no one really wanted to be
associated with them - some were really nice guys but they were just too
dangerous to be friends with. Regardless, they were very happy customers,
and we had to be nice, and of course, we were always. (Some used to bring
my instructors gifts frequently, and one even gave one of our teams a free
car to use for about three years. I do not recommend that you turn down
their gifts - not ever!)

NOW THAT is truly insane! Please note before the smear merchants start
distorting and lying about what I am saying I am not suggesting nor
implying in any manner that I would do anything these very insane wise guys
would do. As all already know, I believe the courts and law enforcement is
the answer to smear merchants and stalkers. So this information is NOT
meant as any kind of threat, implied, veiled or otherwise. It is just an
observation that I suspect some day the Nigel Brooks/Tom Rau smear gang is
going to run into someone that is really insane, (or they will succeed in
driving someone insane) and then I wonder how much fun and sport they will
be getting from their fraud and defamation then?

Nothing worse than losing your entire family and your own life just because
you wanted to be a smear merchant and destroy other people's reputations and
lives to bolster your own pathetic ego.

Doug Grant (Tm)

SteveL

unread,

Jan 4, 2009, 7:13:35 AM1/4/09

On Sun, 4 Jan 2009 03:52:21 -0800, "DGVREIMAN" <dgvr...@comcast.net>
wrote:

>
>GOOGLE CONFIRMS GANG LIED ABOUT PURPLE HEART CARDS

Sorry Doug. I'm not wading through 700 lines of self-serving twaddle
in the hopes of finding something that remotely supports your
headline.

Please confirm directly that "GOOGLE CONFIRMS GANG LIED ABOUT PURPLE
HEART CARDS".

Said confirmation should quote Google itself, and not your commentary
on what you allege they told you.

In the meantime. Here is real proof. Succinct and to the point.

"I have a Purple Heart also and I received mine a real war"
Click Post 17 of all links
How about Google Groups UK - alt.politics archive
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/alt.politics/browse_frm/thread/d03599a95c75a331
How about Google Groups USA - alt.politics archive
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics/browse_frm/thread/d03599a95c75a331
Hell Maybe I've hacked Germany's server?
http://groups.google.de/group/alt.politics/browse_frm/thread/d03599a95c75a331
Or France's?
http://groups.google.fr/group/alt.politics/browse_frm/thread/d03599a95c75a331
Russia's?
http://groups.google.ru/group/alt.politics/browse_frm/thread/d03599a95c75a331
Sweden's?
http://groups.google.se/group/alt.politics/browse_frm/thread/d03599a95c75a331
Norway alt.politics?
http://groups.google.no/group/alt.politics/browse_frm/thread/d03599a95c75a331
Austria alt.politics.usa?
http://groups.google.at/group/alt.politics.usa/browse_frm/thread/d03599a95c75a331
Ireland alt.security terrorism?
http://groups.google.ie/group/alt.security.terrorism/browse_frm/thread/d03599a95c75a331
Poland?
http://groups.google.pl/group/alt.security.terrorism/browse_frm/thread/d03599a95c75a331

Or instead of alt.politics how about the thread as archived in the
"alt.politics.usa" group?
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/alt.politics.usa/browse_frm/thread/d03599a95c75a331
Or maybe I've hacked Google UK.
Let's try Google US again.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.usa/browse_frm/thread/d03599a95c75a331

Let's see. it was also posted to alt.security.terrorism
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.security.terrorism/browse_frm/thread/d03599a95c75a331

Or how about the individual message at different google sites all over
the world (to get back to the thread in each case click "more options"
and then "view thread" (assuming you can read the language)).

etc. etc.

A normal person would drop his gaze, hunch his shoulders, and slope
off in embarassment at such a humilating defeat.

DGVREIMAN

unread,

Jan 4, 2009, 8:16:42 AM1/4/09

GOOGLE CONFIRMS GANG LIED ABOUT PURPLE HEART CARDS

(Smear Merchant Disclaimer: Please note this article (the same as all of my

Nigel Brooks

that I am not saying possession of a Purple Heart card indicates that I have

> "The URL

Nigel Brooks

Nigel Said:

> Awaiting your reply

> Nigel Brooks"

END EXCERPTS:

Doug Says:

Doug Grant (Tm)

"SteveL" <stev...@deletethisbitntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:cvCdnb-wzMZuOv3U...@giganews.com...

> On Sun, 4 Jan 2009 03:52:21 -0800, "DGVREIMAN" <dgvr...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>GOOGLE CONFIRMS GANG LIED ABOUT PURPLE HEART CARDS
>

Snip forgeries posted by STeveL who clearly retrieved a discarded post that
was certified removed by Google for clairification. The SteveL
cyberstalker is reposting a forgery that he has created with false attibutes
to my name. Complete a Google search on my name and the terms "Purple
Heart" to confirm this fraud merchant SteveL has been caught using
forgeries and fraud to smear and defame again.

Also, if you wish, contact Google and ask them if they certify in writing
that a post has been removed once it is removed. The SteveL con man has
whined that I removed my typist's post for clarification and that he had to
write a malicious code search to find the discarded post in my waste basket.
If the post was ever removed by Google, and even the SteveL cyberstalker has
said it was, then Google had to send a written certification that it was
removed to me, just like I said. Go to the Google group and ask their team
if this process is correct -when you do you will find that you have proved
SteveL has been caught in mid con yet again.

No amount of forgeries from STeveL can change the true and correct context
of my typist's posts, which now has been confirmed by several experts as
being Cards and not Medals, just like I said it was when the post was
removed for clarification years ago, and was confirmed as the reason for
removal by Google.

Doug Grant (Tm)

Nigel Brooks

unread,

Jan 4, 2009, 11:58:01 AM1/4/09

"SteveL" <stev...@deletethisbitntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:cvCdnb-wzMZuOv3U...@giganews.com...

I really find it hilarious that Reiman's "proof" consists of links to his
frantic assertions previously posted in USENET.

No matter how much attempts to obfuscate the issue - the simple fact is that
on February 16, 2003 he was engaged in a pissing contest with ChipC, and on
that date he made a post to alt.security.terrorism in a thread entitled "Al
Qaeda Says Saddam an Infidel".

http://tinyurl.com/kfz36 it will take you to that thread.

If you click on post number 15 by DGVREIMAN you will see that he said: "I
suspect that you do not have clue about what you are talking about, and I
further suspect you have never seen a shot fired in anger in your life."

Post number 16 responds directly to that comment and ChipC says: "I have a
Purple Heart and a CAR that proves you wrong, Dougie."

At post number 17, Reiman responds directly to ChipC's post 16 comment by
saying: "Doug Says: I have a Purple Heart also, and I received mine in a
real war, I can't imagine where you got yours since you have never fought in
a war. About the only place you could have received a purple heart was in
Lebanon, and that was not a shooting war, just a bombing due to the
ineptitude of a gang of Marine officers. In respect to deposing Saddam, I
am the one advocating removing Saddam, you are the one advocating cowering,
hiding, and doing nothing. It is pretty clear who the coward is around
here. BTW, bragging about a Purple Heart not received in combat is about as
cowardly as it gets."

It is clear that in the exchange, both Reiman and ChipC were claiming to
have been awarded the United States Military decoration - the Purple Heart.
That conclusion is further buttressed by the fact that on prior occasions to
the February 16th post - both Reiman and ChipC had posted about being
wounded whilst they were in the military:

REIMAN
a. May 21, 1998 - I think I was wrong a few times. I certainly was wrong
when I volunteered for my second tour in Vietnam. And I was wrong to think
the VC that fired at me would not hit me.

b. Sep 12, 2001 - War is a terrible thing to behold. I know, I fought in
one for a very long time, and I was wounded and almost lost my life.

c. Oct 24, 2001 - I abhor war, having fought and wounded in Vietnam. I know
its ugly face....close up.

d. May 27, 2002 - And yes, I fought for my country, and I killed the enemy
and I was wounded in the process.

CHIPC
"a. September 11, 2002 - You forgot the nearly 300 of my fellow Marines who
were killed by terrorists in Beirut in 83... I have the scars and purple
heart to ensure that I will never forget it.

b. September 12, 2002 - I was born in the us, I spent 9 years in the Marine
Corps and got my butt shot off in Beirut, a Vice President named Bush pinned
a cute little medal on me

c. January 20, 2003 - I did nine years in the USMC and got myself a few of
them extra holes in Beirut in 83.

d. February 5, 2003 - Among my decorations are a Combat Action Ribbon and
a Purple Heart I have the dubious honor of winning after being wounded in
action in Beirut in 1983.

e. March 10, 2003 - For one think, I already did serve my country, 9 years
in the USMC, and a little bitty scar on my belly, along with a bigger scar
on my back that I earned in Beirut in 83."

In order to accept Reiman's frantic attempts to claim that the February 16,
2003 post was about a card, one would have to abandon all logic and reason.

Nigel Brooks
cc: (JAR)

SteveL

unread,

Jan 4, 2009, 1:42:20 PM1/4/09

On Sun, 4 Jan 2009 05:16:42 -0800, "DGVREIMAN" <dgvr...@comcast.net>
wrote:

>
>GOOGLE CONFIRMS GANG LIED ABOUT PURPLE HEART CARDS
>

730 lines of self serving twaddle doesn't cut it any more than 693
lines did.

Prove your accusations Doug.

Mac

unread,

Jan 4, 2009, 10:03:07 PM1/4/09

On Sun, 4 Jan 2009 03:52:21 -0800, "DGVREIMAN" <dgvr...@comcast.net>
wrote:

Your Obviously FALSE subject heading was:

>GOOGLE CONFIRMS GANG LIED ABOUT PURPLE HEART CARDS

PoppyCock, you looney marroon !
Here are the specific posts, from GOOGLE.
Please verify the HEADERS, the dates, etc., etc.

***********************************
ITEM ONE:

Newsgroups: alt.news-media, alt.politics, alt.politics.usa,
alt.politics.usa.congress, alt.security.terrorism
From: "DGVREIMAN" <dggr...@worldnet.att.net>
Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2003 19:56:03 GMT
Local: Sun, Feb 16 2003 11:56 am
Subject: Re: Al Qaeda Says Saddam an Infidel
Reply to author | Forward | Print | Individual message | Show original
| Report this message | Find messages by this author

"Chip C" <c...@chipcom.net> wrote in message

news:MPG.18b8843e7...@news-server.neo.rr.com...

- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
> On Sat, 15 Feb 2003 20:18:38 GMT, DGVREIMAN allegedly wrote...

> > "Chip C" <c...@chipcom.net> wrote in message
> > news:MPG.18b65e43...@news-server.neo.rr.com...
> > > On Thu, 13 Feb 2003 00:15:03 -0800, Mark Jones allegedly
> > wrote...

> > > > "Chip C" <c...@chipcom.net> wrote in message
> > > > news:MPG.18b50b05a...@news-server.neo.rr.com...
> > > > > On Wed, 12 Feb 2003 17:49:46 GMT, DGVREIMAN allegedly
> > wrote...

> > > > > > "Mark Jones" <mark_jo...@relaypoint.net> wrote in
message
> > > > > > news:IrmdnVQJ4Lc...@vel.net...

> > > > > > > "Jim McCulloch" <mccull...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote
in
> > message
> > > > > > > news:BA6F214A.49173%mccu...@mail.utexas.edu...
> > > > > > > > "DUBAI (Reuters) - A taped message believed to be
> > from
> > > > > > fugitive militant
> > > > > > > > Osama bin Laden on Tuesday warned Arab nations
> > against
> > > > > > supporting a war
> > > > > > > > against Iraq as threatened by the United
States --
> > but
> > > > > > branded Saddam
> > > > > > > > Hussein an infidel."

> > > > > > > This seems to lower the likelihood that al-Qaida
and
> > Iraq will
> > > > > > swap WMD.
> > > > > > > Saddam probably thinks al-Qaida would use it on
him.

> > > > > > > Mark Jones
> > > > > > > mark_jo...@relaypoint.net

> > > > > > Doug Says: Al-Qaeda is telling all of its allies,
and
> > the
> > > > > > entire Islamic world to lay down their lives to
protect
> > Iraq from
> > > > > > the Americans. If Al-Qaeda wants its operatives and
the
> > entire
> > > > > > Islamic world to protect Saddam, then only a complete
> > drooling
> > > > > > baboon would not interpret that as supporting Saddam
or
> > becoming
> > > > > > a partner with Saddam.

> > > > > And anyone other than an idiot would realize that Osama
> > could give
> > > > > two-shits about Saddam, but for useful idiots like you
> > giving him yet
> > > > > another war he can use to increase his recruitment. Yes
> > Doug, you are
> > > > > one of Osama's Useful Idiots.

> > > > I would add that after being called an "infidel" by bin
> > Laden, I think
> > > > Saddam is understatedly less than anxious to give bin
Laden
> > WMD.

> > > No, I don't agree. If Saddam feels like he is going out, I
> > don't
> > > think he cares who he gives them to, as long as they help
him
> > go out
> > > with a bang. The warmongers remind me of the dipshit
hunters I
> > used
> > > to guide who thought it was *fun* to corner a bear or a
> > mountain
> > > lion...until they did.

> > > --

> > Doug Says: "Warmongers?" You mean people that are trying
to
> > defend themselves from tyrants and murderers don't you?
Also, if
> > you like hunting try hunting things that can shoot back, then
you
> > might understand what war is all about. I fought in war, and
I
> > don't like it, and no person in the military wants war
because
> > they are the ones that must fight it. But sometimes war is
> > necessary, just as necessary as killing a rabid lion or bear.

> > Doug Grant (Tm)

> I got my scars from war, Dougie...caused by the same bunch who
> thought they could *remake* the middle east into some pillar of
> democratic values.

Doug Says: You need to be more specific. Are you talking about
the Gulf war?

The point is that this war is NOT necessary...not

> *now*, but we have boxed ourselves into having no other choice.
If
> you served and can't see the stupidity here, I have to assume
you
> caught a golden b-b in the head and lost the ability to think
> clearly.

Doug Says: We declared war on terrorism. Saddam is supporting,
financing, arming, training, aiding and harboring terrorists.
Duh. I suspect that you do not have clue about what you are

talking about, and I further suspect you have never seen a shot
fired in anger in your life.

If you think this war is about *defending ourselves*, you

> are indeed delusional. If we wanted to defend ourselves by
invading
> someone, Iran, North Korea, Syria, Pakistan and France (hee
hee, why
> not?) would be at the top of the list...Iraq ain't shit. You
are
> acting like a panic-stricken wimp...if you are a vet, stand up
and
> show some balls.

Doug Says: Let me see, you want to cower, run, hide, whine, cry,
appease, and leave Saddam alone, and you call me a
"panic-stricken wimp?" Hmmmmm. Saddam is dangerous, and he
needs to be removed from power. Once Saddam is gone we will have
the means and the bases to deal with Iran, which is clearly our
next target. And yes I am a vet, and clearly you are not.

Doug Grant (Tm)
===================
ITEM TWO:

On Sun, 16 Feb 2003 19:56:03 GMT, DGVREIMAN allegedly wrote...
> Doug Says: We declared war on terrorism. Saddam is supporting,
> financing, arming, training, aiding and harboring terrorists.
> Duh. I suspect that you do not have clue about what you are

> talking about, and I further suspect you have never seen a shot
> fired in anger in your life.

I have a Purple Heart and a CAR that proves you wrong, Dougie.
There are other countries, some that are our allies, who are much
more active in supporting and arming terrorists...yet you want to go
after Iraq because you don't have the will to go after them. That, to
me is cowardice.

- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
> If you think this war is about *defending ourselves*, you
> > are indeed delusional. If we wanted to defend ourselves by
> invading
> > someone, Iran, North Korea, Syria, Pakistan and France (hee
> hee, why
> > not?) would be at the top of the list...Iraq ain't shit. You
> are
> > acting like a panic-stricken wimp...if you are a vet, stand up
> and
> > show some balls.

> Doug Says: Let me see, you want to cower, run, hide, whine, cry,
> appease, and leave Saddam alone, and you call me a
> "panic-stricken wimp?" Hmmmmm. Saddam is dangerous, and he
> needs to be removed from power. Once Saddam is gone we will have
> the means and the bases to deal with Iran, which is clearly our
> next target. And yes I am a vet, and clearly you are not.

Just because you think not going to war tomorrow mean giving Saddam a
free ride doesn't make it any more factual. Open your eyes and look
at the entire battlefield instead of just through your narrow gun-
site. Saddam ain't shit, and puffing him up into some major threat
while ignoring the more imminent threats is the sign of a cowering
coward. I hate to call a vet a coward...but if you wish to be
considered such, it is of your own choosing.

--
Chip C
Personal site: http://www.chipcom.net/
Christmas Stories: http://www.christmas-stories.com/

"It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees."
-- Emiliano Zapata
==================
ITEM THREE:

Newsgroups: alt.news-media, alt.politics, alt.politics.usa,
alt.politics.usa.congress, alt.security.terrorism
From: "DGVREIMAN" <dggr...@worldnet.att.net>
Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2003 22:22:46 GMT
Local: Sun, Feb 16 2003 2:22 pm
Subject: Re: Al Qaeda Says Saddam an Infidel
Reply to author | Forward | Print | Individual message | Show original
| Report this message | Find messages by this author

"Chip C" <c...@chipcom.net> wrote in message

news:MPG.18b9c7081...@news-server.neo.rr.com...

- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
> On Sun, 16 Feb 2003 19:56:03 GMT, DGVREIMAN allegedly wrote...

> > Doug Says: We declared war on terrorism. Saddam is
supporting,
> > financing, arming, training, aiding and harboring terrorists.
> > Duh. I suspect that you do not have clue about what you are

> > talking about, and I further suspect you have never seen a
shot
> > fired in anger in your life.

> I have a Purple Heart and a CAR that proves you wrong, Dougie.
> There are other countries, some that are our allies, who are
much
> more active in supporting and arming terrorists...yet you want
to go
> after Iraq because you don't have the will to go after them.
That, to
> me is cowardice.

Doug Says: I have a Purple Heart also, and I received mine in a
real war, I can't imagine where you got yours since you have
never fought in a war. About the only place you could have
received a purple heart was in Lebanon, and that was not a
shooting war, just a bombing due to the ineptitude of a gang of
Marine officers. In respect to deposing Saddam, I am the one
advocating removing Saddam, you are the one advocating cowering,
hiding, and doing nothing. It is pretty clear who the coward is
around here. BTW, bragging about a Purple Heart not received in
combat is about as cowardly as it gets.

- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

> > If you think this war is about *defending ourselves*, you
> > > are indeed delusional. If we wanted to defend ourselves by
> > invading
> > > someone, Iran, North Korea, Syria, Pakistan and France (hee
> > hee, why
> > > not?) would be at the top of the list...Iraq ain't shit.
You
> > are
> > > acting like a panic-stricken wimp...if you are a vet, stand
up
> > and
> > > show some balls.

> > Doug Says: Let me see, you want to cower, run, hide, whine,
cry,
> > appease, and leave Saddam alone, and you call me a
> > "panic-stricken wimp?" Hmmmmm. Saddam is dangerous, and he
> > needs to be removed from power. Once Saddam is gone we will
have
> > the means and the bases to deal with Iran, which is clearly
our
> > next target. And yes I am a vet, and clearly you are not.

> Just because you think not going to war tomorrow mean giving
Saddam a
> free ride doesn't make it any more factual. Open your eyes and
look
> at the entire battlefield instead of just through your narrow
gun-
> site. Saddam ain't shit, and puffing him up into some major
threat
> while ignoring the more imminent threats is the sign of a
cowering
> coward. I hate to call a vet a coward...but if you wish to be
> considered such, it is of your own choosing.

Doug Says: What you call me is irrelevant as you certainly do
not have the knowledge nor the information to pass judgment, not
to mention make condescending remarks. Saddam is supporting
terrorism, financing it, and arming terrorists. These terrorists
that Saddam is financing and supporting have already murdered
Americans. Now if you think we should attack someone else, then
say so. But right now Saddam is providing a major resource for
Al-Qeada, Haamas and the Islamic Jihad. All three of those
terrorist organizations have murdered Americans. Further, I am
the one advocating the removal of Saddam, you are the one that is
advocating appeasement, so which of us is the coward again?

If you knew anything about this issue you would realize our war
on terrorism and our desire to depose Saddam are interlinked. We
cannot continue to defeat terrorism unless we eliminate the
resources that terrorism is feeding upon, and one of the main
sources is Saddam. Further, you clearly are not aware that
Saddam declared war on the USA, Britain and Israel on December
27,2000 just ten months prior to the 911 massacres. Now even you
should agree that we remove a tyrant that has openly and public
declared war on the USA.
Doug Grant (Tm)
*****************************************************

DGVREIMAN

unread,

Jan 5, 2009, 4:18:01 PM1/5/09

GOOGLE CONFIRMS GANG LIED ABOUT PURPLE HEART CARDS

(Smear Merchant Disclaimer: Please note this article (the same as all of my

Nigel Brooks

that I am not saying possession of a Purple Heart card indicates that I have

> "The URL

Nigel Brooks

Nigel Said:

> Awaiting your reply

> Nigel Brooks"

END EXCERPTS:

Doug Says:

Doug Grant (Tm)

"SteveL" <stev...@deletethisbitntlworld.com> wrote in message

news:cvCdnb-wzMZuOv3U...@giganews.com...
> On Sun, 4 Jan 2009 03:52:21 -0800, "DGVREIMAN" <dgvr...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>GOOGLE CONFIRMS GANG LIED ABOUT PURPLE HEART CARDS
>

Also, if you wish, contact Google and ask them if they certify in writing
that a post has been removed once it is removed. The SteveL con man has

whined that I removed my typist's post for clarification and that he had to

write a malicious code search to find the discarded post in my waste basket.
If the post was ever removed by Google, and even the SteveL cyberstalker has
said it was, then Google had to send a written certification that it was
removed to me, just like I said. Go to the Google group and ask their team
if this process is correct -when you do you will find that you have proved
SteveL has been caught in mid con yet again.

No amount of forgeries from STeveL can change the true and correct context

of my typist's posts, which now has been confirmed by several experts as
being Cards and not Medals, just like I said it was when the post was
removed for clarification years ago, and was confirmed as the reason for
removal by Google.

Doug Grant (T

"Nigel Brooks" <nbr...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:6sc850F...@mid.individual.net...

> "SteveL" <stev...@deletethisbitntlworld.com> wrote in message
> news:cvCdnb-wzMZuOv3U...@giganews.com...
>> On Sun, 4 Jan 2009 03:52:21 -0800, "DGVREIMAN" <dgvr...@comcast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>GOOGLE CONFIRMS GANG LIED ABOUT PURPLE HEART CARDS
>>
>> Sorry Doug. I'm not wading through 700 lines of self-serving twaddle
>> in the hopes of finding something that remotely supports your
>> headline.
>>
>> Please confirm directly that "GOOGLE CONFIRMS GANG LIED ABOUT PURPLE
>> HEART CARDS".

Doug Says: You should read it again. Google has the original reason why I
removed my typist's post for clarification. You and gang claimed that I
never mentioned purple heart cards until after you and your fellow smear
merchants said something about my typist's reply to Chip, which was June 10,
2006. Google's records alone prove that fraud what it clearly is, fraud.

Moreover, you are republishing a post that you know was discarded for
clarification, and was in fact clarified. Yet after retrieving the
discarded post from Google's waste basket after completing malicious
searches to find something you could forge to defame me with, you have
republished the erred and discarded post and fraudulently claimed it was
republished by me or my account, which we both know is a complete con and
fraud and since you have also forged the context into something different
than the clarified post that *I* did post, you are deliberately using your
forgery for the purpose of cyber staling and malicious libel.

>>.

> > REIMAN
> a. May 21, 1998 - I think I was wrong a few times. I certainly was wrong
> when I volunteered for my second tour in Vietnam. And I was wrong to
> think the VC that fired at me would not hit me.

Doug Says: So? Your Point?

>
> b. Sep 12, 2001 - War is a terrible thing to behold. I know, I fought in
> one for a very long time, and I was wounded and almost lost my life.

Doug Says: So? Your Point?

>
> c. Oct 24, 2001 - I abhor war, having fought and wounded in Vietnam. I
> know its ugly face....close up.

Doug Says: So? Your Point?

>
> d. May 27, 2002 - And yes, I fought for my country, and I killed the
> enemy and I was wounded in the process.

Doug Says: So? Your Point?

Below Nigel Brooks proves that SteveL fellow gang member was lying through
his teeth along with SteveL. But also note that Brooks omits the fact he
found these statements from Chip NOT involved with me in any way, and Brooks
is hiding the fact he knows I never saw or read any of the the statements he
is attributing to Chip below. Brooks hides the URL's so as to give the
fraudulent impression that I knew about Chip had said before in posts that
had nothing to do with me and that Brooks knows the evidence shows I never
read nor knew about. ERgo, more evidence of (1) Nigel Brooks deliberate and
malicious fraud (2) his deliberate falsifying of evidence (3) and the fact
that SteveL and his chums are perhaps the most flagrant liars on USENET.

>
> CHIPC
> "a. September 11, 2002 - You forgot the nearly 300 of my fellow Marines
> who were killed by terrorists in Beirut in 83... I have the scars and
> purple heart to ensure that I will never forget it.
>
> b. September 12, 2002 - I was born in the us, I spent 9 years in the
> Marine Corps and got my butt shot off in Beirut, a Vice President named
> Bush pinned a cute little medal on me
>
> c. January 20, 2003 - I did nine years in the USMC and got myself a few
> of them extra holes in Beirut in 83.
>
> d. February 5, 2003 - Among my decorations are a Combat Action Ribbon
> and a Purple Heart I have the dubious honor of winning after being wounded
> in action in Beirut in 1983.
>
> e. March 10, 2003 - For one think, I already did serve my country, 9
> years in the USMC, and a little bitty scar on my belly, along with a
> bigger scar on my back that I earned in Beirut in 83."
>
> In order to accept Reiman's frantic attempts to claim that the February
> 16, 2003 post was about a card, one would have to abandon all logic and
> reason.
>
>
> Nigel Brooks
> cc: (JAR)

Doug Grant (Tm) ( Since Brooks is sending his fraud to third parties, I
suspect he knows that they will be asked about what libel he is furnishing
them).

>
>

DGVREIMAN

unread,

Jan 5, 2009, 4:22:01 PM1/5/09

GOOGLE CONFIRMS GANG LIED ABOUT PURPLE HEART CARDS

(Smear Merchant Disclaimer: Please note this article (the same as all of my

Nigel Brooks

> "The URL

Nigel Brooks

Nigel Said:

> Awaiting your reply

> Nigel Brooks"

END EXCERPTS:

Doug Says:

Doug Grant (Tm)

> On Sun, 4 Jan 2009 03:52:21 -0800, "DGVREIMAN" <dgvr...@comcast.net>

> wrote:
>
>>
>>GOOGLE CONFIRMS GANG LIED ABOUT PURPLE HEART CARDS
>

Doug Grant (T

"Nigel Brooks" <nbr...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:6sc850F...@mid.individual.net...

> "SteveL" <stev...@deletethisbitntlworld.com> wrote in message
> news:cvCdnb-wzMZuOv3U...@giganews.com...

>> On Sun, 4 Jan 2009 03:52:21 -0800, "DGVREIMAN" <dgvr...@comcast.net>

>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>GOOGLE CONFIRMS GANG LIED ABOUT PURPLE HEART CARDS
>>

>> Sorry Doug. I'm not wading through 700 lines of self-serving twaddle
>> in the hopes of finding something that remotely supports your
>> headline.
>>

>> Please confirm directly that "GOOGLE CONFIRMS GANG LIED ABOUT PURPLE
>> HEART CARDS".

Doug Says: You should read it again. Google has the original reason why I

Doug Grant (Tm)

>
>

"SteveL" <stev...@deletethisbitntlworld.com> wrote in message

news:07ednar8nuWSnvzU...@giganews.com...

> On Sun, 4 Jan 2009 05:16:42 -0800, "DGVREIMAN" <dgvr...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>GOOGLE CONFIRMS GANG LIED ABOUT PURPLE HEART CARDS
>>
>
> 730 lines of self serving twaddle doesn't cut it any more than 693
> lines did.

Doug Says: The above post proves irrefutably that you and your smear gang
have been lying about this issue for years. Hardly twaddle. And of course
that is why you are trying to hide the post.

Doug Grant (Tm)

>
> Prove your accusations Doug.
>
>
>

0 new messages