JOHN DOE LAWSUIT - UPDATE AND REBUTTAL
DGVREIMAN
JOHN DOE LAWSUIT -UPDATE AND REBUTTAL
Note first that Nigel Brooks and some of his hate/smear/con gang
members maintain a web site and a Google Newsgroup designed to defame
me with fraud, serial lying, outright con man fraud, and of course
libel, which forces me to rebut their fraud with these truthful
rebuttals.
I have offered Nigel Brooks (and/or any of his con/hate/smear gang
members) the opportunity to take their fraud and false accusations to
the American Association of Arbitrators, or to any legal department of
any University they select, and if either of those entities agree with
Nigel Brooks in respect to his accusations about me, I will pay for
their services. HOWEVER, if those legal experts agree that my
rebuttals are correct and accurate, then Nigel Brooks and/or his
smear/hate/con gang members pay for the independent legal analysis.
Nigel Brooks and his gang members run, duck, hide, cower, piss their
pants, and snivel pathetic excuse after pathetic excuse to hide from
and refuse my hundreds of offers to take this issue to independent
legal experts. . . and the reason is obvious - they know they are
lying.
ALSO NOTE THAT I CHALLENGED NIGEL BROOKS TO JUST *NAME* OR PRODUCE ANY
DOCUMENT HE CLAIMS EXISTS IN MY MILITARY RECORDS THAT DISPROVES ANY
STATEMENT OF FACT I HAVE POSTED ABOUT MY MILITARY SERVICE - AND YET
AFTER YEARS OF BROOK'S CLAIMING SUCH A DOCUMENT EXISTS IN MY RECORDS -
HE RUNS, HIDES AND PISSES HIS PANTIES EACH TIME I ISSUE OR POST THIS
CHALLENGE!
Obviously, Nigel Brooks and his other gang members that have
referenced my military records in any manner have been conning, and
using serial lying and fraud about this issue for years - and if you
do not believe Nigel Brooks is a con man and fraud merchant by now
you need to wake up and smell the cons and bullshit burning that comes
from these dregs and clowns.
http://tinyurl.com/lwelno My disclaimer and more information about
Nigel Brooks cons and fraud can be found in the above URL. My
standard disclaimer applies to this post and all of my other USENET
posts, past, present or future.
1. an...@anon.dontreply.com> wrote in message
news:lfs2c5hhlb9omibf7...@4ax.com...
> He has a good case. Anything he can do to stop others from harassing
> people is a good thing. He is within the statute of limitations and
> has a good case. You should mind your own business and stay out of
> it.
>
> You have never had a case against anyone because of your past online
> behavior. You can't go around calling people names and then whine
> because you were called a few names back. In fact you never have
> proved that what Perry and the others called you is false. Why is>
> that?
>
> Mark>
>
Hate to burst your bubble old son, but the action was dismissed in
late
2007.
Nigel Brooks
Doug's Rebuttal to Nigel Brook's outrageous lies about this issue:
The John Doe case was dismissed by my request for reasons stated in
my motion. The Federal Judge approved my motion to delay the case and
file it at a later date. So it is not "completely dismissed " and
never was.
Brooks Fraud About the Case Violating Rules
If the case had violated any rules of the court the Judge would have
stated that fact in his first response. Ergo, the Nigel Brooks claims
that it did are completely false. (No surprise there).
The complaint complied with all rules of the court to a Tee. (Note
that long complaints that are voluminous in complaint that concern
only a single cause of action are not permitted nor will be accepted
by the court. The court will send such cases back immediately to the
Plaintiff if they violate any rule, as their contents cannot even be
heard if they are in violation. Yet complaints that contain several
causes of action, such as mine does (and growing) will contain several
pages, but each cause of action will be set forth in a succinct and
clear manner exactly as my complaint was constructed).
Also note that I paid a Lawyer that practices in the shadow of the
court in which I filed my John Doe complaint to review the complaint
and he agreed it was (1) well constructed, and (2) complied with all
of the Federal Court rules.
Er, is Nigel Brooks a lawyer? BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
So you can either believe a lawyer that has been practicing for forty
years, or a hate gang leader that clearly posts serial lying, fraud,
hate and false accusations to a degree I believe he might be the most
infamous con man on the Internet.
Simply stated; Nigel Brooks' howl and whine that my John Doe complaint
violated a court rule is an outright lie.
The Judge never said anything of the kind, nor even implied any
violation of any rule.
Moreover, I can produce dozens of other Plaintiff complaints
containing many more pages and causes of action than mine that have
went through US District Courts all over this land, and have in fact,
went all the way up to the US Supreme Court. It should be enough that
Nigel Brooks lied about what Judge Ireanas said, now he is lying about
what another Federal Judge said as well!
Fact: The Federal Judge involved with my John Doe complaint did not
mention, imply, state, or even suggest that my John Doe complaint was
incorrect or violated any court rule in any manner, and if it did the
Judge would have been required to state such, and return the case!
Which of course he did not.
The only problem I had with the case was getting a Pro Se subpoena
through the court to determine the real names of the persons behind
several email handles.
This court had more restrictive rules for a pro se Subpoena than
others, and even the Judge wrote back and provided me with directions
on how I could find out the information I wanted without a Subpoena -
which was to file a motion for pre-discovery which he implied he would
approve.
Now why would a Federal Judge go to the trouble to inform me what to
do in respect to determining the real names of those behind some of
the anonymous fraud merchants if he also believed the complaint was in
violation of any of the court's rules? Of course, he would have not
helped me in any manner if what Brooks is saying was true, and the
Judge would have simply not accepted the complaint if it violated any
of the rules of the court.
Nigel Brooks and his smear/hate/gang have been caught lying about *yet
another* Federal lawsuit! Whew! You would think this hate gang would
have learned their lesson when their lies about what Judge Irenas said
about me were exposed for the cons and fraud they are?
Nigel Brooks of course hid the facts about this case in his statement
above.
The case is being restructured for a possible later filing as I write
this. More causes of action will be added. This time a motion for
pre-discovery will be filed with the case - just like the Judge
advised.
Also, the Judge will *not* be required to read through every post on
USENET before he will rule on this case - that is what law clerks are
for, and key summary formats are often used when volumes of evidence
exists, which I suspect the hate gang has never heard of before.
Defamation, malicious false light fraud, libel, false defaming
accusations and such are NOT protected under the first amendment.
Claims they are is beyond preposterous, as recent court rulings have
clearly demonstrated. USENET is not exempt from our laws, including
copyrights.
Doug Grant (Tm)
!Jones
<dgvr...@comcast.net> wrote:
>Nigel Brooks and his gang members run, duck, hide, cower, piss their
>pants, and snivel pathetic excuse after pathetic excuse to hide from
>and refuse my hundreds of offers to take this issue to independent
>legal experts. . . and the reason is obvious - they know they are
>lying.
CURSES! Foiled again!
OK, gang... regroup and attack!
Jones
Pepperoni
news:732mg5h7t0t63rrca...@4ax.com:
>>Nigel Brooks and his gang members run, duck, hide, cower, piss their
>>pants, and snivel pathetic excuse after pathetic excuse to hide from
>>and refuse my hundreds of offers to take this issue to independent
>>legal experts. . . and the reason is obvious - they know they are
>>lying.
>
>
> CURSES! Foiled again!
>
> OK, gang... regroup and attack!
>
> Jones
>
>
*HEY*!!! You can't order the action of alleged NBSM Gang members without
an alleged democratic election to an alleged leadership post.
Besides..... there is no urgent *need* to attack. The allegedly agrieved
party (alleged complainant/ petitioner/ moaning-whiner) is bashing himself
senseless. It would not be sporting to aid his self-destructive
flagellation.
Nigel Brooks
"!Jones" <sws...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:732mg5h7t0t63rrca...@4ax.com...
I'm really perplexed that Mr. Reiman deems a refusal to accept his demands
as being "ducking, hiding, cowering, urinating in clothing, and sniveling.
My refusal to engage Mr. Reiman in any kind of arbitration, submission to
Universities, lawyers, or any other such body is simply due to the fact I am
satisfied that my conclusions concerning his past USENET boasts are correct.
I need no arbitration.
As for any threatened litigation (which he has been threatening now for over
4 very long years) - he is respectfully referred to the answer given to
Arkell in that seminal British Lawsuit - Arkell v. Pressdram.
Nigel Brooks
Old Sarge
On 11/23/09 4:41 PM, in article
Xns9CCCB42915539t...@74.209.136.89, "Pepperoni"
<tras...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Well we could always activate the VAPR GANG, but they are all on the injured
reserve list.
Dai Uy
> It would not be sporting to aid his self-destructive
> flagellation.
Formosa's law
It is common, both on the Internet and in real life, to seek
amusement by ridiculing people who spout bogus nonsense or engage in
silly behavior, on the basis that they have effectively invited this
ridicule by their own overt behavior, usually some combination of
stupidity, hypocrisy, and pomposity, but in any case behavior that
they presumably have control over. However, in some cases, the
behavior is the result of actual mental illness or dysfunction, rather
than mere boneheadedness or intentional misconduct. Formosa's law
states that if someone's weird behavior is caused by an actual
pathology, it is inappropriate for others to increase their suffering
by adding ridicule. Instead, ridicule should be reserved for people
who know better than to engage in their improper conduct.
***
!Jones
<tras...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> CURSES! Foiled again!
>>
>> OK, gang... regroup and attack!
>>
>> Jones
>>
>>
>
>
>*HEY*!!! You can't order the action of alleged NBSM Gang members without
>an alleged democratic election to an alleged leadership post.
I'm the membership secretary, you maroon!
Jones
DGVREIMAN
"DGVREIMAN" <dgvr...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:hZKdnVg-5fran5bW...@giganews.com...
>
New addition to this post below:
NEW U.S. DISTRICT COURT RULES
Rebuttal Begins:
U.S. District Court Rules
Subpoenas
"When documents that exceed 50 pages in length are filed
electronically, a paper copy of
the document shall be delivered to the Clerk's Office for chambers.
The copy for
chambers shall be clearly marked with the words "Courtesy Copy of
Electronic Filing for
Chambers." The copies of all papers must indicate in the upper
right-hand corner of the
first page the name of the district judge or magistrate judge to whom
the copies are to be
delivered."
End excerpt:
Obviously, the United States District Courts receive many Plaintiff
complaints that exceed 50 pages. The total amount of pages of any
complaint are directly related to the amount of causes of actions
contained within the complaint, and the requests for relief.
In the case of Subpoenas, the District Court Rules updated as of today
(I received notice today) now requires for ALL Subpoenas, pro se or
otherwise, clear documentation (evidence) proving the need or basis
for the Subpoena. So the playing field for pro se Plaintiffs has been
finally leveled.
Also, for those that have threatened to file baseless and frivolous
counter suits if I dare to file legal action against them for their
defamation, fraud, false light, harassment and other acts, they should
be advised that if I am forced to defend against such counter suits
then I will be awarded legal fees and costs by the courts to do so.
I am simply defending myself from the hate/con/smear campaign that
Nigel Brooks and his hate gang initiated against me, and has continued
ongoing for the past several years. My rebuttals are exactly that,
rebuttals to their fraud. Countersuits to such rebuttals are
frivolous and baseless and I am told will be treated as such by the
courts.
The hate gang has been told to cease and desist their harassment and
smear campaigns several times, and they are the ones taunting me to
take legal action, not the other way around.
I am sorry this had to go as far as it appears it will need to go to
stop the hate/smear/con gang from attacking me and their other
targeted smear victims. However, their perverse fraud, serial lying,
false light defamation and general con man forgeries and fraud must
stop immediately or further legal action WILL be taken.
Doug Grant (Tm)
>
tankfixer
tras...@hotmail.com says...
I am suprised Doug is not hiding..
It being so close to Thanksgiving and all...
tankfixer
sws...@hotmail.com says...
And looks damn fine in a skirt too I'm sure...
Mac
<dgvr...@comcast.net> wrote:
>JOHN DOE LAWSUIT -UPDATE AND REBUTTAL
*****************************
Poppycock you blathering blubber eating, bilge drinking
maroon.
Given your antics, given the claims you have made, given the threats
you have made, you have REPEATEDLY been challenged to proceed
to Court.
-Mac, the Medic
DGVREIMAN
"Mac" <NoSpa...@NoSpamToday.net> wrote in message
news:ll19i5h5e7hfh2ouc...@4ax.com...
Doug's Rebuttal:
Mr. Dennis M. McDonnell your name calling, taunting, defamation and
harassment of me is continuing to a point that you are forcing me to
take legal action against you. My lawyers have already contacted the
US Attorney general, and we are waiting for replies from other Federal
authorities. Meanwhile I have filed official complaints with Google
and Lycos, and those involved with those hate web sites will be
required to respond under oath. If they do respond in that manner,
they will be sued within two weeks of their response. So I invite you
to contact your Mr. Brooks and tell him to respond. The sooner the
better and then we can get all of your statements and his under oath
and in discovery, and your answers to your reasons for your clear and
repeated deceptions, false accusations and harassment.
Please read the following post:
http://tinyurl.com/ykw4b8u Nigel Brooks served by Google and Lycos.
Doug Grant (Tm)