LIES, FRAUD AND BULLSHIT -MIND READING REBUTTAL
DGVREIMAN
Mr. Dennis M. McDonnell has recently claimed that he did not know the
context of my reply to Chip was about purple heart cards and not
medals. In fact, Mr. McDonnell lied about the context of that post
*he or one of his gang members dug out of my waste basket* for the
obvious purpose of harassment, malicious defamation and fraudulent
vilification.
I find his claims "he did not know" preposterous considering the
history of this issue, and I believe the clear intent and purpose of
Mr. Dennis M. McDonnell's recent posts about me are to further his
smear and hate campaign against me, and this belief is based upon his
past pattern of similar malicious attacks against me in various forms.
I also know that Mr. McDonnell has been informed several times by me
that (1) the Chip reply post (Feb 2003) was removed from the Google
archive due to a possible perceived ambiguity by someone that was
never in the military and did not understand the last sentence, and
was also removed to instantly remedy any question about the post, and
(2) that Mr. McDonnell has acknowledged that post was removed, and
me posting several times that I do not have a purple heart medal. Yet
he hides those posts, and (3) Mr. McDonnell cannot possibly know the
context, nor intent of any post from anyone other than himself, or
even if an error occurred writing it, or a typo, or an ambiguity
surfaced - why?
*Because Mr. McDonnell is NOT a mind reader and only the author of the
post in question could ever know such facts.*
Mr. Dennis M. McDonnell is repeatedly and fraudulently exploiting
long discarded posts he and his gang have dug out of my waste basket,
which were in that waste basket due to their error, typo or possible
ambiguity. Most rational people know that when something is thrown
into their waste basket they have discovered something wrong with it -
and the error, typo or ambiguity found was not their intent - DUH!
(If they intended to convey the error, typo or ambiguity contained in
the post, then why would anyone remove the post in the first place???)
DOUBLE DUH!
Mr. McDonnell then uses pure conjecture (a.k.a. lies, bullshit and
fraud) and pure speculation (a.k.a. lies, bullshit and fraud) to
change and distort the true intent, context and meaning of those
long discarded posts he and his hate gang have dug out of my waste
basket.
Could anything be more unethical that Mr. McDonnell's deliberate fraud
and smear campaign? You be the Judge. We all know that Mr. McDonnell
cannot read minds, and his claim of context contrary to any author's,
is, well beyond crackpots, it is downright loony.
Here is some more information in rebuttal to Mr. McDonnell's fraud,
lies, and bullshit in respect to this issue, and keep in mind I will
continue to post my rebuttals and prove them in a legal arena as well,
along with expert testimony.
GANG'S "DOCTORED" POSTS REVEALED
(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
(nor in
any of my past posts) 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 1. 1.
1. 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 wrong and only their
"special
interpretations of the English language can apply to all English
terms, and
the gang's standard nonsensical mind reading claims) that (1) I was a
CIA
cross border assassin that sniper killed Ho Chi Minh, HOORAH - (2)
that Ipersonally 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 are of course,
not
true. No more than 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 and the post
the gang
tries to distort was clearly talking about cards as the last sentence
proves) (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 of course
this
includes the fact I have received notice from Google stating that
several of
the posts the gang has used to defame me "did not originate from any
account
I used at the time." Which is of course something we (not less than 60
people swore to this fact under oath that our accounts had been
hacked)
stated in our lawsuit against the casino agents when we complained
about
them forging posts under our account names - this is of course
something on
the public record that is always ignored by the present smear gang,
but not
for long I suspect.
Moreover, giggle, Google is NOT reading my posts (nor anyone else's)
and
determining which posts to keep and which to discard like one of the
smear
gang leader's recently preposterously whined and barked - and no,
soldiers
in Vietnam that knew how to call in Artillery strikes, Air strikes,
and knew
how to set trip wires and Claymores are NOT "phonies" just because
they knew
how to do those simple and common things while serving in a combat
zone
during a time when there really was combat. (Of course this does not
include those that were in Vietnam to just guard lonely borders, play
S-3,
or to ride around in stolen jeeps while playing Village Rat).
End of Disclaimer:
GANG'S "DOCTORED" POSTS REVEALED
Rebuttal to the following Moronic
Path:
Xl.tags.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local02.nntp.dca.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2008 04:45:18 -0600
From: SteveL <2.
Newsgroups"stev...@deletethisbitntlworld.com>Newsgroups:
alt.war.vietnam,alt.military,alt.military.retired,alt.politics,alt.news-media
Subject: Re: TOM RAU REQUESTED FRAUD PROOF
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2008 10:45:06 +0000
References: <a_OdncRT7cg43tTU...@giganews.com>
<PqWdncD_L9Fs_9TU...@giganews.com>
<KOqdncCW68uVsdfU...@giganews.com>
<l8OdnaRC_41nqNfU...@giganews.com>
<ErmdneZyVuVsodfU...@giganews.com>
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 4.2/32.1118
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <eIOdncBD3KOj5tbU...@giganews.com>
Lines: 212
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace:
sv3-GjCAMux2sQtgvSsEHNL1NVKalK8dSPCOw463Aj5ZbgLSv+9dn5wEewiK4lv2tJuq0vzZaGzBDunt7aY!gEvnwC0jhpMCHDC0I9O6n0NPN9XpYtfs3WR2K9eckG/KMDnsCET8X4PXhl59NvuYJmfESw==
X-Complaints-To: ab...@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your
complaint
properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.39
Bytes: 10047
Xref: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com alt.war.vietnam:734290
alt.military:423114 alt.military.retired:440890 alt.politics:4280238
alt.news-media:259610
> <snip>>
>>
>>"SteveL" <stev...@deletethisbitntlworld.com> wrote in message
>>news:l8OdnaRC_41nqNfU...@giganews.com...
>>> On Thu, 18 Dec 2008 02:54:58 -0800, "DGVREIMAN"
>>> <dgvr...@comcast.net> wrote:>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Doug Grant (Tm)
>>>>>> Feb 16 2003, 12:22 pm http://tinyurl.com/68fgfj
>>>>>> (I have a
>>>>>>Purple Heart VA ID Card - )
>>>>>>>>>> No Doug. That's "I have a Purple Heart also, and I received
>>>>>>>>>> mine
>>>>>>>>>> in a
>>>>> real war", as you well know. You wrote it after all.
>>>>
Doug Says: The above is a classic example of the SteveL con man
cyberstalker fraud. Of course I did not write that and these con men
know
it.
>>>
>>Doug Says: The above post provides volumes of proof. The SteveL
>>cyberstalker acknowledged the post was removed for clarification
>
> I acknowledge you had it removed. I don't acknowledge for one second
> it was for "claification". You removed it because it caught you in a
> lie.
Doug's Rebuttal to Gang fraud: First note that Mr. SteveL, the person
that
conducted the search to find any old posts he KNEW were long removed
and
discarded and clarified, has admitted herein the post he keeps forging
about
Purple Heart ID Cards the VA issued back in 2003 which was the date of
this
post, was long removed from Google and clarified BEFORE he and his
gang
members republished it.
The SteveL's anonymous cyberstalker and self acclaimed member of the
Nigel
Group voluntary confession in regards to this crime is noteworthy as
will
be presented later in this document.
Rebuttal continues:
Mr. SteveL, and gang members et al: The post in question was removed
before
you or anyone else said a word about it. There was no lie caught, no
lie
accused, and no lie involved.
The only lie is your and your gang's utterly preposterous and clearly
fraudulent claims about this post.
The true intent of the post was about VA Purple Heart ID cards that
were
being issued back in 2003 when this extemporaneous comment was
published on
USENET, as the last sentence of the post in question clearly proves.
As
experts on military service have noted, a simple irrefutable proof of
thecontext of the discarded and long clarified typist post you and
your gang
keep republishing for the purpose of defaming me with fraud is found
in the
last sentence of the very post you keep trying to lie about:
Most people know (rational people) the order of the Purple Heart Medal
CANNOT be awarded during non-combat situations, and the last sentence
of the
typist's post you keep republishing referenced an item that WAS
received
during non-combat situations. Ergo, her context and intent could NOT
have
possibly been the order of the purple heart medal as you and your
fraud gang
are fraudulent and falsely claiming. The only possible Purple Heart
reference she made could have been precisely what she and I (the
author and
dictator) of the post say it was: The Purple Heart VA ID card that I
had
often mentioned, and was what she believed Chip was also referencing
with
his strange use of terms. Add the fact that prior to this post and
after
it, several times *I* had posted I did NOT have the order of the
purple
heart medal, and her stated context of ID Cards is thereby
corroborated and
proved. Those are just some of the reasons all of the military experts
I
have provided this issue to have agreed the topic and context was
precisely
what the author said it was, the Purple Heart VA ID Card that was
issued
back during the time this post was originally published - 2003.
Only a complete moron, or someone that has never served their country
(like
you) in the US Military would erroneously believe the order of the
Purple
Heart Medal could be awarded during non-combat situations, but then
since
obviously such morons exist, the post you keep forging and
republishing was
removed and then disambiguated and clarified. (I must also mention
that
apparently Sp4 personnel clerks also did not know that the order of
the
purple heart medal had to be awarded during combat situations, and
since the
reference in the last sentence in the old discarded post is clearly
about
non combat items, just as clearly the context of the post could not be
referencing medals. This glaring fact did prompt Mr. Brooks to offer a
retraction as to his fraudulent claim the post was about Medals and
not
Cards. See the URL below):
http://tinyurl.com/55xefk Nigel Brooks admitting he maliciously lied
about
forging the term Medal into a post he knew was about Cards, and his
offer to
retract his lie and fraud. Mr. Rau and gang likes to ignore the fact
his
fellow gang leader has already admitted what Mr. Rau and SteveL and
other
gang members are posting has been admitted by Brooks to be fraudulent.
I
don't blame him for wanting to hide that fact.
Further, as the following URL clearly proves, I stated several times
prior
to and subsequent to the typist's post that I DID NOT have a Purple
Heart
Medal. DUH! Any fool, even a con man, would understand that the
typist'sintent was not to contradict what I had posted in the past
with some secret
code that only a smear merchant or con man could distort into
something that
completely contradicts at least a half-dozen posts that *I* did write
and
post.
http://tinyurl.com/6z2thj Rebuttal to the Nigel Brooks' smear gang
fraud and
false accusations about wounds and purple heart medals. Mr. Rau
ignores all
of the URL references in which I have said before and after the post
in
question that I DO NOT have a purple heart medal. To provide those
posts
would be evidence that Mr. Rau is lying, and of course he will
compound his
fraud and serial lying by repeatedly hiding such exculpatory evidence
that
his false accusations are a complete fraud.
However, when someone way back in 2003 indicated they thought the
typists
posts was about medals, I replied that such was a "complete
distortion" and
when my attention was drawn to the poorly written post I removed it
and
disambiguated and clarified it, as I and thousands of other authors
have
also done to their posts thousands of times according to Google.
Gang Often Acknowledged I Said I did not Have the order of the Purple
Heart
Medal
Note that SteveL and Nigel Brooks and Tom Rau and others repeatedly
replied
to my posts in which I stated I did not have the order of the Purple
Heart
Medal, before and after the post they are forging claiming I did. That
evidence alone proves their claim's are malicious and deliberately
deceptive and fraudulent. The gang is employing a criminal and
desperate
attempt to rewrite and forge a post that they knew was not written nor
posted by me into a completely contradictory context and meaning
compared to
all those other posts *I did write and post* which clearly states the
exact
opposite of the context, intent and meaning the smear gang is lying
about!
This repeated malicious act is representative of nothing more than
malicious
libel per se, criminal libel, cyberstalking, invasion of privacy,
unlawful
harassment, defamation and publishing forgeries for the purpose of
defamation and demonizing.
>
>>, and it
>>was he that republished it on USENET not me.
>
> You're not even trying to give the semblance of being truthful now.
Mr. SteveL, and gang members et al that are involved with republishing
thisforgery, YOU were the one that republished the original typist's
post
although you already knew it had been removed disambiguated in respect
to
the meaning of a Purple Heart Card, and clarified. In fact you and
other
gang members boasted about completing searches to find posts that you
knew
I or others removed due to an error, typo or for clarification.
You retrieved the original post and purple heart cards and then
republished
it on USENET with a false meaning and context that you *knew* was
false and
deceptive, and your gang members have repeated your fraudulent
publishing of
this post and others like it dozens of times for the obvious purpose
of
malicious defamation and fraud. Further, you have repeatedly stated
that I
was the original author of the post in question, which is of course a
lie
and a lie that you often repeat for the purpose of defamation.
You nor any of your fellow smear merchants had access to my USENET
accounts
(other than when they were hacked as our previous lawsuit proves). You
were
not a part of my group that posted USENET posts under a cooperative
account.
You could not possibly know who wrote what when. Ergo, your claims to
the
contrary of what the rational world already knows is impossible, and
only
reinforces proof of your malicious deception and fraud in respect to
the
smear campaign you have been waging against me for years.
If you disagree please name the author of all posts you have found
that were
posted under accounts that I used, as the following URL proves that
several
people other than me were in fact posting USENET posts under those
accounts:
http://tinyurl.com/6d4aay TYPISTS' GALORE POST proves there were about
71
previous posts prior to Nigel Brooks lie that I never mentioned others
posting under the same accounts I used until after Brooks 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 Brooks own words added into or subtracted from the hodgepodge of
different context post fragments so as to fraudulently alter their
meaning
or context. (Note that Brooks even admits in the above URL he lied
about not
knowing there were several other people also posting under the same
account
I used, and Brooks even admitted he could not know for sure who wrote
what
or what they really meant).
> Nobody "republished" it (unless you mean "quoted it"; are you
> claiming
> that's illegal now? On Usenet?)
Legal Forgery?
Mr. SteveL, con man, when a post is removed from the Google archives
due to
error, ambiguity, whatever, and a new post is published by the author
or the
dictator that provides additional information clarifying intent and
context,and then a con man/fraud merchant deliberately and maliciously
completes
searches for the express purpose of finding the old long discarded
erred
posts so the con man/fraud merchant can then republish them (quote
them) for
the purpose of fraudulently accusing and/or libeling and/or defaming
and/or
harassing a smear victim, OF COURSE that act is illegal in most
jurisdictions, including the UK.
You are the one that is republishing the original discarded article
the
typist wrote and posted, along with your fraudulent context about that
post,
not me. You are referencing your own forgery in your URL references to
that
post not me, and then you and your gang are fraudulently claiming the
discarded post that you republished was republished by me! We all know
that is a lie, and you are also claiming your forgery contained a
context
and meaning that it did not contain, which is yet another lie and
fraud.
The con man that perpetrates such an act knows he is deliberately
"quoting"
or referencing (which is the same as publishing) a post fraudulently
which
was long removed and clarified. When the con man "quotes" or
references a
post that was not intended to be published by the author, then
fraudulently
claims the post was in fact intended by the author, and also changes
and
fraudulently misrepresents the context of the discarded erred post
contrary
to the stated intent of the author, for the purpose of libel and
defamation
and unlawful harassment, in further direct contradiction to the
authors
disambiguation or clarification of said article, OF COURSE, even a
complete
moron and con man would know that process is illegal, not to mention
every
Judge, lawyer and investigator in the land.
SteveL said:
> You doctored your original post and "published" it yourself to your
> loony cyberstalkers site.
Doug Says: Bwhahahahahahaha. Now we arrive at the true bizarre
mind-set
of the SteveL cyberstalker:.
According to the SteveL gang member, and his chums, anyone that
corrects a
post, adds more information (such as noting that several people were
firing
at a mortar pit instead of just me) or similar clarifications,
disambiguations, typo corrections, such as the several we have seen
from
Nigel Brooks and his gang members, are all "doctoring" their posts,
and the
original post must stand - original TYPO, ERROR OR WHATEVER -
forever -
regardless of the true intent and meaning by the author or dictator!
BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. No wonder these guys appear to be recent graduates
of
the 6th grade playground - they are either feeble minded, idiots, or
have
child like minds.
SteveL's "doctoring" misrepresentation also means, according to the
SteveLanonymous cyberstalker, that all of those hundreds of thousand
of posts
other authors have modified, removed and/or clarified were all
"doctored"
and the revised and properly clarified post that reveals the true
clear and
disambiguated intent of the author is all fraud, and the original typo
or
erred post must remain as the intended post and the "doctored"
(clarified)
post can never represent the true intent of the author!
Bwhahahahahahahahahaha. Is this guy stupid or what?
I guess someone had better tell Google that all of those clarified
posts
those thousands of authors clarified were really "doctored" posts that
were
designed to hide some sinister plot, or statement.
Can anyone actually believe the drooling bullshit and outright fraud
this
SteveL moron keeps spewing forth post after post? Sometimes his
idiotic,
sophomoric, and criminal acts are so bizarre they make the clown
appear as
if he is a raving lunatic or a reprobate high on something.
But then his smear gang follows his lead and they too start
hyperventilating through their ass the same as this anonymous SteveL
cyberstalking twit. Makes you wonder. . . . drugs? Booze?
No wonder they rave and lie so much - hell they must have IQ's of 12
or
something.
As an example: Here is the definition of "Clarification."
transitive verb 1 : to make (as a liquid) clear or pure usually by
freeing
from suspended matter 2 : to free of confusion <needs time to clarify
his
thoughts> 3 : to make understandable <clarify a subject> intransitive
verb :
to become clear
Obviously, my purpose of any post removal was to clarify or
disambiguate
what the typist intended as the true context of the post, as she and I
have
confirmed was about VA ID Cards about twenty times. I have removed, or
clarified and/or disambiguated dozens of other posts during the past
several years, as has Nigel Brooks, Tom Rau, SteveL and all members of
the
gang. Moreover, when you are involved in an extemporaneous exchange
with
someone on USENET, and you mention something, and then think of
something
else later that should be added to the conversation to help clarify or
disambiguate your previous statements, and then add that new
remembrance,
that is not "doctoring" a post like this screaming moron SteveL is
claiming - it is simply adding more details or clarifications to the
conversation - as most humans' do when they are having an honest
conversation.
Please remember and note all of the clarifications or disambiguations
NigelBrooks and other gang members have used in respect to their
USENET posts.
Certainly they do not expect rational people to believe all of those
lawyers, judges and investigators are going to agree and accept their
claim
that only Nigel Brooks, SteveL and other gang members have the right
to
clarify their past posts on USENET and everyone else, especially their
smear
victims, are "doctoring" their USENET posts when they openly clarify
or
disambiguate any of their past posts? Like I said, are these gang
members
idiots or what?
This is especially true when clarification is necessary and proper
because
segments of an author's past posts are being fraudulently modified,
forged
and distorted by smear merchants and con men to reflect a completely
different context and meaning that was intended by the original author
or
dictator. There is not a judge, nor lawyer in the land that is going
to
believe con men know true context, and clarifications are "doctoring"
like
this screaming moron has stated.
I know the above is something the gang wants to duck, but here we have
the
rub:
SteveL says I doctor my posts, while all of his gang members and he
just
"clarify" theirs. I can't wait to hear that preposterous argument in
front
of a Judge. BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
SteveL's and other Gang Members Forgeries and False Document Smear
Campaign
If you happen to be a smear merchant, con man, or a criminal that uses
fake names to cyberstalk, harass, defame and forge FBI documents and
traffic
in personal information, then of course you hate it when your smear
victim
actually posts any kind of rebuttal clarification to your trumped up
defamation and false accusations about one of his past posts. Those
clarifications of course proves the con man that is forging context
and
document is a complete fool, idiot, and is clearly lying and using
false
accusations and fake documents to do so. Con men don't like the light
of
"clarification" or "truth" shone upon them. They will run back to the
woodwork when that happens:
Forgery Definition: http://tinyurl.com/yf6bv8
Forgery is the process of making, adapting, or imitating objects,
statistics, or documents (see 1. false document), with the intent to
deceive. The similar crime of fraud is the crime of deceiving another,
including through the use of objects obtained through forgery. Copies,
studio replicas, and reproductions are not considered forgeries,
though they
may later become forgeries through knowing and willful
misrepresentations.When the object forged is a record or document it
is often called a false
document.
1. Fact: Mr. SteveL admitted above he knew I had long removed the post
he
republished without my nor the original author's knowledge nor
authority.
He completed several malicious intent Google searches that were
designed to
find posts that were previously removed from my old accounts - that he
knew
were removed for the purpose of correction, clarification or
disambiguation. Once he managed to find such posts by writing search
codes
to do so, he then along with a conspiracy involving other gang
members, and
with an obvious intent to deceive and MISREPRESENT, republished those
long
discarded posts that he knew were NOT the correct nor intended posts
by the
author he fraudulently named.
He further lied about those posts coming from an author that did not
write
them, and of course he and his gang, while operating with a common
purpose
to defame, altered the context of the long discarded posts for the
malicious
and clear and express purpose to use that false document to deceive
and
misrepresent.
Once an article has been modified with clarification or
disambiguation, and
the old article retracted and discarded as the post in question was,
the
old article no longer exists. Then when someone based upon a malicious
search finds remnants of that article, and then he republishes it,
then it
is an outright deception, misrepresentation and fraud to claim it is
the
original author's publication.
The key issue is when gang members use any such article or
extemporaneous
post to claim ownership by an author that has long since discarded it
and
entered a clarification about it is generating a forgery for the
purpose of
deception and misrepresentation.
2. Mr. SteveL boasted about maliciously completing searches to find
documents he *knew* that had been discarded and clarified so as to use
them
to lie about their intent and context for the purpose of fraudulent
defamation and outright libel.
3. Mr. SteveL and all other gang members were well aware the long
discarded
post was removed due to its need to be clarified, and a new and more
clear
post containing the same information and Purple Heart Card
disambiguation
was republished by me. Yet with that knowledge they continued to
publish a
post they knew was removed and subsequently clarified by the author,
and
continued to claim the post *they* published ( a reference to a post
discarded represents a willful republishing by the person that posts
the
reference to that discarded post) was being republished by the
originalauthor or dictator. This claim is clearly outright fraud,
represents a
clear verisimilitude, and the document the gang keeps referencing is
clearly
a "false document."
(Note that Case Law in respect to forgeries and false documents have
made it
clear such events do represent an intent to deceive and represent a
clear
forgery and fraud).
False Document: A false document is a form of verisimilitude that
attempts
to create a sense of authenticity beyond the normal and expected
suspension
of disbelief for a work of art. The goal of a false document is to
fool an
audience into thinking that what is being presented is actually a
fact.
In practice, false document effects can be achieved in many ways,
including
use of faked police reports, (faked FBI reports) newspaper articles,
bibliographical references, documentary footage or using the legal
names of
performers or writers in a fictional context. The effect can be
extended
outside of the confines of a text by supplementary material such as
badges,
I.D. cards, diaries, letters or other artifacts.
Verisimilitude in its literary context is defined as the fact or
quality of
being verisimilar, the appearance of being true or real; likeness or
resemblance of the truth, reality or a fact's probability.
Verisimilitude
comes from Latin verum meaning truth and similis meaning similar.
A false document is usually created simply as an artistic exercise,
but
occasionally are promoted in conjunction with a criminal enterprise
like
fraud, forgery or a confidence game.
In the broadest sense, a fraud is a deception made for personal gain
or to
damage another individual. The specific legal definition varies by
legal
jurisdiction. Fraud is a crime, and is also a civil law violation.
Some interesting reading in regards to forgeries, stealing someone's
signature and likeness and the trafficking in such personal
information for
the purpose of furthering other crimes, like harassment, criminal
libel,
etc.
State v. Romig, 700 p.2d 293, 73 Or. App. (Or.App.1985)
"If any person shall designedly, by any false pretense, or by any
privy or
false token, and with intent to defraud, obtain from any other person
any
money, or goods, wares or merchandise, or shall obtain with such
intent the
signature of any person, to any written instrument, the false making
whereof
would be punishable as forgery, he shall be subject to imprisonment in
the
penitentiary not more than five years, nor less than one year." Or
Laws1854, ch 4, �...
Decided March 5, 1997.
1. Page 558
Kelly E. Ford, Beaverton, argued the cause and filed the briefs for
appellants.
Linda Reed Haase, Bend, argued the cause and filed the briefs for
respondent.
Before RIGGS, P.J., and LANDAU and LEESON, JJ.
[146 Or.App. 697] LANDAU, Judge.
At issue in this case is whether punitive damages constitutionally may
be
awarded against a defendant on a verdict of common-law fraud.
Defendants
contend that such awards are prohibited, because they effectively
punish
constitutionally protected speech. Plaintiff contends that the speech
protections of the Oregon Constitution constitute no impediment to
such an
award. The trial court agreed with plaintiff and included in its
judgment
against defendants an award of punitive damages on a common-law fraud
verdict. We affirm.
End excerpts:
Does SteveL's and the gangs repeated publishing of documents they know
to be
false, a forgery, and not intended to be published by the author they
fraudulently claim is republishing the article, provide the gravamen
of
all the legal requirements to be considered a deliberate common-law
fraud,
forgery and a false document? The evidence seems to support that
conclusion. See below.
1. Are the gang's actions malicious? Clearly Yes.
2. Does the gang know the document they are publishing and
misrepresenting
as coming from an author that did not publish the document was
previously
removed, disambiguated and clarified by the original author or
dictator?
Yes.
3. Is the gang deliberately and maliciously publishing the known
incorrect,
altered or modified document, and many others, for the purpose of
deception?
Yes of course.
4. Is the gang aware that only the author or dictator could possibly
know
the true intent and context of the discarded article, and is the gang
ignoring or hiding that true content and intent as a form of deception
and
fraud? Of course, Yes.
5. Is the gang using the forged and false document as a means to
commit or
facilitate another crime, such as cyberstalking, or unlawful
harassment, or
criminal libel, or invasion of privacy, as is so defined in the their
victim's
legal jurisdiction? Yes of course.
Considering the above information that I have received from lawyers
over the
past few months, one would seriously believe that I am dealing with a
gang
of smear merchants that are willfully ignoring our criminal statutes.
How
stupid of them.
Sad really.
They should really pay attention to Walter Scott's ;
"Oh what a tangled web we weave when we intend to deceive."
The next level to this issue is right around the corner. I have not
even
started to defend myself from these fraud merchants. I do have better
things to do than prepare legal actions against gang members and rebut
their
fraud and false accusations, but as long as they continue to publish
such
fraud and vile false accusations, expect to see my rebuttals. (Note I
have
just been provided some very interesting criminal statutes from the
State of
Virginia - more to come on this issue later after the lawyers finish
their
investigations).
Doug Grant (Tm)
"Dai Uy" <Dai...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
news:0e599525-b529-46cc...@w1g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 20, 12:41 am, "DGVREIMAN" <dgvrei...@comcast.net> wrote:
> GANG'S "DOCTORED" POSTS REVEALED
> The true intent of the post was about VA Purple Heart ID cards that
> were
> being issued back in 2003 when this extemporaneous comment was
> published
> on
> USENET,
The VA has never issued "Purple Heart ID Cards."
VA FORM 10-1124-e, JUN 1978, the one with the purple triangle, to
which you allude, was a "VA Patient Data Card, Service -- Connected"
-- not a Purple Heart card.
> as the last sentence of the post in question clearly proves. As
> experts on military service have noted, a simple irrefutable proof
> of the> context of the discarded and long clarified typist post you
> and your gang
> keep republishing for the purpose of defaming me with fraud is found
> in
> the
> last sentence of the very post you keep trying to lie about:
This sentence? BTW, bragging about a Purple Heart not received
in combat is about as cowardly as it gets.
No one disagrees with that assertion. And simple irrefutable
proof of the context of the post is that bragging about a Purple
Heart not received in combat is about as cowardly as it gets. There
is no mention of bragging about imaginary VA Purple Heart Cards.
Doug's Rebuttal: I referenced the Purple Heart VA ID Card myself on
USENET
several times prior to you or your gang saying a word about it. And
the VA
of course issued a purple and white ID card with a large purple V on
the
face of the card. Even independent military experts have verified the
existence of this card, and I carried one for years, and I have used
the
slang Purple Heart Card in the VA, and heard it from VA operatives and
from
other Vets, and further, I actually posted about that Purple Heart
Card
several times on USENET, using the specific reference, Purple Heart
Card.
So ALL of the evidence proves Tom Rau has been caught in yet another
lie.
Moreover, since it is impossible to get a Purple Heart Medal in
non-combat
situations, how could the typist think Chip was boasting about
receiving one
in non-combat situations? DUH. Her clearly and unmistakable reference
was
about something that CAN be issued during non-combat situations, and
that
was the Purple Heart VA ID card that was issued back during the time
this
post was posted by the typist. Her reference to a non-medal is clear
and
unmistakable.
In addtion, if I wanted to lie about this issue I could have said that
she
simply made a mistake and I removed and corrected it. But that was NOT
what
happened, and she has signed a written statement confirming precisely
what
she remembered and what her notes reflected. The context of the post
was
about Cards. Chips reference to CAR threw her, and when she read his
post
to me on the phone she specifically said Purple Heart Card. I
responded
that I had a Purple Heart Card also, and I earned mine in a real war
while
he earned his during non-combat situations. Considering those
statements it
is impossible that her reference could have been about medals, as it
was
not. Period, end of story.
Here are the URL's that prove Tom Rau is lying again:
http://tinyurl.com/59hbuj Clarified and corrected Purple Heart Card
post,as so clairified by the original author. (Note only the author(s)
could
possibly know the true context of anything they wrote - and those con
men
that claim mind reading skills, and crystal balls to add terms or take
them
away from someone's else's post, well, I suspect the terms "con man"
fits
their description about as well as anything).
http://tinyurl.com/55xefk Nigel Brooks admitting he maliciously lied
about
forging the term Medal into a post he knew was about Cards, and his
offer to
retract his lie and fraud.
http://tinyurl.com/6e6d3h Purple Heart Card post provided to an
independent
expert on the US Military (30 year retired) and he confirms the post
was
about cards and not medals.
http://tinyurl.com/6z2thj Rebuttal to the Nigel Brooks' smear gang
fraud
and false accusations about wounds and purple heart medals.
http://tinyurl.com/6syqvv Nigel Brooks - Law Dog experts will not
change
their opinion.
http://tinyurl.com/5o59lr Nigel Brooks lies about receiving medals he
never
received, and serving in war campaigns long after he had already left
active
duty.
http://tinyurl.com/2ah57c SteveL caught in fraud about PH Medal.
1. http://tinyurl.com/2obwh3 In this June 2006 post I again state
the only post that was ever removed that had anything to do with
a Purple Heart was about Purple Heart Cards and was not written
nor posted by me. This post was posted more than 18 months ago,
confirming
again the true context of Post 17 that was removed.
1. http://tinyurl.com/3b59wt May 17, 2006 long before Brooks started
posting his forged version of what Chip and my typist said:
In this post I again reference a Purple Heart Card that I
possessed:
Note the key passage above:
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" Ido 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 and whine when the Google
archives prove them the forgers and liars I know they are . . .
And Nigel Says in the same post above:
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.
1. Why didn't you just explain it when challenged in 2006?" Nigel
Brooks went on to say in the above post?"
Nigel Brooks
Doug's Rebuttal: What Nigel Brooks is stating above is that because I
did not mention Purple Heart Cards when he first brought up my
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. Mr. Brooks is, in the alternative, 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
that the post in question was about Cards and not Medals. Well
surprise Mr. Brooks, because I DID precisely state that post was about
Cards
when you first brought up my discarded post, and I also stated clearly
way
back then that someone else had typed 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 the
discarded purple heart post on June 10th, and Brooks said I did not
reply with any "Card" reference to his post until 2007, and Brooksalso
said 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! According to Brooks, since I DID mention Cards 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.
Mr. Brooks also posted the following 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 claims about that I never mentioned the PH post was about
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.
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
notreply 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 - so what else is new?
More evidence the intended topic was Cards:
1. http://tinyurl.com/yhrpg2 In this URL I mention that I am forced to
show
my "Purple Heart Card" (May 17, 2006). Note the date, long before Mr.
Brooks said a word about this post which he says above started on June
10, 2006.
http://tinyurl.com/yxkndv June 12, 2006: Victoria Crosses and purple
hearts posts where I again state clearly "Purple Heart Card" "(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
HeartCard" in a follow up conversation about VA benefits.)" (Note the
date, Brooks said he first mentioned the purple heart post on June
10th, and I did not reply with any Card reference to the post until
2007, and had I replied right away about the Card then that would have
been proof positive that the topic was Cards and not Medals. BUT THAT
IS PRECISELY WHAT I SAID ON JUNE 12, 2006, IN REPLY TO BROOKS, 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 about URL
from Google clearly proves:
"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 along proves Mr. Brooks lied about
when I first said anything about removing a post about Purple Heart
Cards, and in fact this post even mentions that someone else other
than me wrote the post! According to Brooks, since I DID mentionCards
at the very time he started to question me about this post, the
topic was clearly Cards and not Medals, and no wonder Mr. Brooks
offered to retract his forgery that it was Medals, he knew he was
caught lying and the proof was overwhelming the context was Cards.
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. "
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
and I was the only person that brought up that subject. Then he
switches back and lies and says my typist and I were talking about
medals. One 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, to an outright
claim that I was.
Weeeeeeeeoooooeoeoeo - This Nigel Brooks character 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: "
Doug Says: I said it was a forgery, and it was as 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.
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"
Doug Says: Brooks says my typist's reply was about medals, then he
says it wasn't, then he says he never said that it was, then he
offersa retraction of him saying it was about medals, then he ignores
his
own retraction offer and again claims the topic 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:
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
> "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 this post Mr. Brooks confirmed 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." Mr.
Brooks also appointed a third party, a Mr. Henry Cook to accept the
proof he had requested and I agreed to provide:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.war.vietnam/msg/529102b2a
15528a5?
http://tinyurl.com/5j8ums
Doug Grant (Tm)
>
"SteveL" <stev...@deletethisbitntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:bpmdnTqso_S1ZNDU...@giganews.com...
> On Sat, 20 Dec 2008 22:37:59 -0800, "DGVREIMAN"
> <dgvr...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Path:
> Xl.tags.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local02.nntp.dca.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2008 02:07:04 -0600
From: SteveL <stev...@deletethisbitntlworld.com>
Newsgroups:
alt.war.vietnam,alt.military,alt.military.retired,alt.politics,alt.news-media
Subject: Re: GANG'S "DOCTORED" POSTS REVEALED
Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2008 08:07:01 +0000
References: <0_OdndO2nuJyVtHU...@giganews.com>
<s8-dncrWXu5pR9HU...@giganews.com>
<z8OdnXjBdpLWedDU...@giganews.com>
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 4.2/32.1118
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <bpmdnTqso_S1ZNDU...@giganews.com>
Lines: 69
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace:
sv3-1qJ1Xpp78lnAnFkJEYyMgpwjE3DMbWPSQjhsTtzU8xb/OspQt/cRhGocVHbuIQKL9b/rUKxAQyd7MwD!2x3jLZtgJT63zX+WsXec+q7TSkosGsQmxsJFwTtIe8elV4RP+Eywjyu0UkeQRoLYdbdP6g==
X-Complaints-To: ab...@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your
complaint
properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.39
Bytes: 3911
Xref: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com alt.war.vietnam:734444
alt.military:423386 alt.military.retired:441043 alt.politics:4283202
alt.news-media:259850
>>>>GANG'S "DOCTORED" POSTS REVEALED
>>
>
> <snip>
>
> OK Doug I've already addressed all this in the previous post. But
> you
> snipped that reply out and replaced it with a quote from my earlier
> post, which you then replied to again!
>
>>Most people know (rational people) the order of the Purple Heart
>>Medal
>>CANNOT be awarded during non-combat situations
>
>>
> WHY DO YOU KEEP CALLING BEIRUT A NON-COMBAT SITUATION????????
>
> The Beirut bombing that killed over 200 marines *was* a combat
> situation!!.
>
> Purple Hearts *were* awarded!!
Doug's Rebuttal: Of course Beirut was a a combat situation if you were
in
those barracks when they were attacked. Are you claiming that Chip
said in
his post that he was in those barracks when they were attacked? Of
course
not, and if he did ever at some other time in cyberspace I did not
know
about it and neither did my typist. But that is still not the point
cyberstalker:
The key is what the typist believed Chip was referencing with his
"CAR"
statement. That "CAR"term he inserted after his the Purple Heart
references clearly threw her as she read the post to me on the
telephone
she said "Purple Heart Card." Considering all the times I have used
that
phrase, I told her to reply in kind. (Moreover, are you now agreeing
that
Chip was had been lying about me all along? Are you not the one that
supported and confirmed his fraud several times?)
(If I wanted to lie about this post all I would have needed to say was
that
she made a mistake and I removed the post to correct her mistake, as I
clearly was not the person that wrote the post nor posted it. But
since
that is NOT the truth, and the intended reply was referencing Purple
Heart
VA ID cards, then as usual, I always stick with the truth).
The typist clearly believed Chip was talking about an award he
received
during a *non-combat situation,* as she clearly stated in her last
sentence.
The order of the purple heart medal *cannot be awarded* during
non-combat
situations, only the purple heart VA ID card that reflected service
connected disabilities which were provided due to non-combat and
combat
service connected disabilities can be awarded during non-combat
situations.
All of the military experts I consulted figured that out as soon as
they
read the typist's post, but then they were not a con man like you are
either
that never served a day in the US Military. The post was removed and
clairified just for morons like yourself that did not know the order
of the
purple heart medal HAD TO be awarded exclusively during combat
situtations.
If the typist believed Chip was referencing a Purple Heart Medal, she
could
*not* have possibily stated in her last sentence that he was bragging
about
receiving that medal in a non-combat situation as she knew and I knew
and
everyone generally knows that ALL purple heart *medals* MUST BE
awarded
during combat situations.
Her last sentence to wit: "BTW, bragging about a Purple Heart not
received
in combat is about as cowardly as it gets."
The typist's last sentence clearly and irrefutably proves her context
could
not have been about medals, and Nigel Brooks has also confirmed the
context
was not about medals and was about cards. See above.
Here is the disambigued claification that provides additional
clairification
to her intention and post:
http://tinyurl.com/59hbuj Clarified and corrected Purple Heart Card
post,
as so clarified by the original author. (Note only the author(s) could
possibly know the true context of anything they wrote - and those con
men
that claim mind reading skills, and crystal balls to add terms or take
them
away from someone's else's post, well, I suspect the terms "con man"
fits
their description about as well as anything).
Your fraud has been exposed once again SteveL. What you need to do is
reveal your real name and jurisdiction so I can file criminal charges
against you in the proper jurisdiction. If you were telling the truth
you
would not be hiding.
Doug Grant (Tm)
Update:
The SteveL's desperate attempt to place "Chip" (Daniel Ciammaichella)
in Lebanon or in a combat situation where he could have received a
purple heart medal in a combat scenario has been once again revealed
as standard fraud coming from the SteveL/Chip smear combo. (Note
these two guys smeared Vets right and left and SteveL/Chip each posted
confirmation of what the other was fraudulently writing for years).
Fact: Mr. Ciammaichella (Chip's) public records clearly show that
Chip never set foot in Lebanon, nor in any other combat area during
his time in the USMC service. He does not have any expeditionary
medals, no combat campaign medals, and the only time he left the USA
was aboard ship. He worked in an administration center for Navel
Aviation Maintenance, and he was schooled by the Marine Corps for that
purpose. His highest rank was Corporal.
Doug Grant (Tm)