Rebuttals and Cyberstalkerwebnames Google Group
DGVREIMAN
"Dai Uy" <Dai...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
news:7f33332d-cc1f-4d81...@d36g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 7, 6:17 pm, "Michael Bay's unhealthy fascination with robotic
crotches" <goofin...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jan 5, 1:20 pm, "DGVREIMAN" <dgvrei...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > TOM RAU LIES ABOUT EVIDENCE - AND PURPLE HEART CARD COLORS
>
> Who are these people that you are in constant battle with? Couldn't
> you just create a newsgroup for your imaginary epic struggles?
> alt.dgvreimanvsreality is available.
Already done.
See: http://tinyurl.com/2dq5yn
Doug Says: The above URL proves my rebuttals are not based upon imaginary
libel.
I would NOT be required to post any rebuttals if the smear gang did not
post lies, fraud, forgeries, smears, libel per se, cyberstalking, mind
reading claims and other preposterous fraud and serial lying about me, now
numbering more than eight-thousand posts riddled with such fraud, not to
mention trafficking in my personal information, filing false criminal
charges against me, going to Muslim mosques and inciting them to threaten me
with death and violence, fraudulently claiming I am a pedophile,
fraudulently claiming I deal in child porno, fraudulently claiming am a
murderer, cannibal, war criminal, and lying about the contents of my
military records, and lying about the context and intent of my typist's
past posts, and so on and on.
I have been advised by my lawyers that I have a right to defend myself from
such outrageous fraud and attacks, regardless of whether this issue ends up
in a court of law or not.
That going to court or not issue should be resolved very soon, and I have
even been advised (several times) to file criminal charges against some of
these gang members. The only person I have asked law enforcement to
determine if he is in their jurisdiction so I can file official criminal
charges against whomever he is is the anonymous cyberstalker that goes by
the name of STev...@ntlworld.com - some of the others are fellow Veterans,
and I am trying my best to avoid litigation against them, but now it is up
to the lawyers and once they place their recommendations in writing, then
the dye will be cast.
Meanwhile, the above Google group is open for people that wish to join it
and post rebuttals or whatever. I should also mention that everything
posted on the above web site has also been posted on USENET - so that Google
group is just another forum of many that carries the same information. The
only reason that site exists is because one of the gang members has boasted
about being a "computer consultant" and he has also boasted about removing
my posts from several USENET forums. This same gang member also boasted
about forcing my erred and discarded posts to reappear for the purpose of
cyberstalking with the use of fraud and forgeries he is fraudulently
attributing to me which he dug out of Google's wastebasket.
The gang cannot maliciously interfere with my posts, forge them and remove
them in the above Google group indicated above. Moreover, the Google group
above allows me to send emails with scanned evidence to it. As far as I
know, you cannot do that with USENET forums.
Moreover, if the above Google group disturbs anyone they certainly have not
complained about it. It does maintain a good repository of evidence of
smear gang attacks and exposes their fraud item by item. But of course I
would have no need of it if the smear gang stops all of their fraud and
false accusations.
But somehow I doubt if that is going to happen until a Judge gets involved.
But you never know, they might wise up.
I cannot imagine what they think they are gaining from all of their fraud
and false accusations. Is this what they wanted in their autumn years, to
be exposed as con men and fraud merchants so their families and all their
friends can read about their dishonesty and fraud forever?
They hate my rebuttals because they know they are true and they cannot
honestly refute them. So they usually try to hide them or dance around them
with some "new lie" or "mind reading claim." And that is why one member of
the gang was constantly boasting about "making my posts disappear" and of
course he was also altering and forging them as well when he republishes
them.
So this smear gang is not imaginary, it is real. And I am but a single
person. I have specifically not invited anyone to take my side, and I have
sent private emails to many asking them NOT to post on my behalf. Why?
Because first I do not need them to prove this smear gang is precisely what
I say it is, and because the more people you involve the more smears,
attacks and fraud you will see posted about them - which is something I have
seen before coming from these con man infested smear gangs.
I hope I am not forced to continue to post rebuttals, and this forum would
be a good newsgroup if the Brooks gang would stop attacking me and others
that disagree with them. But it appears these people gain some perverse
pleasure from smearing and defaming people that simply have a difference of
opinion or post something they do not understand or believe.
As long as the gang continues posting their fraud about me, or taking it to
third parties so as to use their fraud to incite hatred against me, I will
continue to defend myself with my rebuttals until I am no longer physcially
able to do so, and then I will do something else. But I do not quit
defending myself. Ever.
Note there have been many times on USENET my opinion has been proved wrong.
I simply admit it, and move on. I do not dwell on issues in which I know I
erred, or said something that gave a false impression.
But when I know I am right, and know better than what the smear gang is
accusing me of, you can expect my reubttals until the end of time.
Doug Grant (Tm)
SteveL
wrote:
>
>That going to court or not issue should be resolved very soon, and I have
>even been advised (several times) to file criminal charges against some of
>these gang members. The only person I have asked law enforcement to
>determine if he is in their jurisdiction so I can file official criminal
>charges against whomever he is is the anonymous cyberstalker that goes by
>the name of STev...@ntlworld.com - some of the others are fellow Veterans,
>and I am trying my best to avoid litigation against them, but now it is up
>to the lawyers and once they place their recommendations in writing, then
>the dye will be cast.
I see you're backpeddling as fast as you can. You said and I quote:
"As for SteveL, you must know by now that law enforcement officers are
looking for him."
Despite your insanity, toning it down afterwards to a milder "I have
asked law enforcement to determine if he is in their jurisdiction"
does erase the fact that you claimed I was being actively sought by
Law Enforcement.
Not to mention other downright *stupid* over-the-top (and ironically,
LIBELOUS) out-of-ass charges that
1) I'm "a criminal that law enforcement is looking for."
2) I "embezzled some money from some of (my) computer clients in the
past"
3) I "conned some people out of their money and then skipped out"
And those were just recently! At a time when you're whining more than
ever about getting even with the "gang" in court.
A spectacularly stupid set of things to say against a potential legal
adversary - should you ever be stupid enough to file. Thanks for the
victory.
Nigel Brooks
news:BMednY1xAa9X2_vU...@giganews.com...
On April 19th of 2008 Reiman posted a multi-line rant in which he sought to
explain away his Purple Heart claim made 5 years previously. In that
explanation which any reasonable observer would find to be incredible, he
also made the claim that law enforcement officers were looking for you.
http://tinyurl.com/5uo4s9.
In the unlikely event that Reiman was telling the truth this time, I made an
offer that if Reiman were to provide the name and agency of the law
enforcement officers who were looking for you - I would immediately contact
them and provide them my complete co-operation.
On May 25, 2008 after no response from Reiman - I further offered my
assistance as follows by saying:"Mr. Reiman, if indeed a legitimate Federal, State, Local , or United
Kingdom law enforcement agency has an interest in the identity of anyone who
posts to these newsgroups, and I have actual knowledge of that individuals
identity - to include their location - I will willingly, without the need
for any judicial or administrative process, cooperate with that agency to
the fullest extent of my ability. My willingness to cooperate includes any
knowledge which I might have in my possession concerning the identity of
SteveL and his location. My willingness to cooperate also includes my
willingness to allow that legitimate law enforcement agency complete and
unrestricted access to the Google Groups over which I exert control."
As expected Reiman refused to provide the name and agency of the "law
enforcement officers" It has now been 228 days since that offer.
Reiman is simply not a man to be believed.
Nigel Brooks
tankfixer
dgvr...@comcast.net says...
> See: http://tinyurl.com/2dq5yn
>
>
> Doug Says: The above URL proves my rebuttals are not based upon imaginary
> libel.
It sure proves your rebuttals are based on something imaginary !
--
Meddle ye not in the Affairs of Dragons, for Thou art Crunchy and taste
Goode with Ketchup.