MALICIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH GOOGLE'S CLIENT RELATIONSHIP
(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 legalcoach@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
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, 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).
The smear gang seems to be extremely nervous about my post that
indicated Google may be interested in the gang's re-posting my typist's
and my long removed posts back on USENET and back on the Google archive.
We have a couple of letters into Google at the time of this writing
about this issue, and I cannot wait to hear their response, I bet they
will not like what is going on.
My lawyer said he would be willing to include Google in a lawsuit
especially if they would agree to assist him in a third party complaint
against persons that are maliciously interfering with my account with
Google and my news server, and interfering with Google's business of
offering to permanently remove USENET and Google posts from the Google
archive.
Malicious interference in my personal accounts and Google's business is
a serious tort, and it can apply to individuals and companies equally.
No doubt if any of Google's employees were involved that fact will
surface as well during this investigation, but I doubt if they were. It
appears Mr. SteveL and Nigel Brooks and others found a way to not only
maliciously interfere with my personal Internet accounts, but also to
maliciously interfere with one of Google's most prized services it
offers to its clients.
Some of the preliminary information we have received on this issue
indicates that people are not allowed to interfere with someone else's
posts or posting or their removal processes. That act might even evoke
what is known as "computer crimes" in the USA, but that is still being
researched. So far, we have seen two posts that I remember removing
replaced on the Google archive, and this was after Google approved the
removal and sent me an email confirming a "permanent removal." (And of
course I still have the email from Google). So it is going to be very
interesting how Google reacts to this issue. Some of the gang members
might find out how they will react while being served at their front
door instead of on this forum - who knows. My lawyers are still
researching, but so far, "Malicious Interference" and "Computer Crimes"
are at the top of the list.
It appears that Malicious or Tortuous Interference in someone's computer
processes, such as being able to post on USENET or permanently remove
posts from USENET is considered the same as sending or using a virus or
a controlling program to interfere with someone's private use and access
to the internet and all of its resources. Or, what is known as computer
crimes. (I pay Comcast for my access and that involves USENET and Google
access. Interference in any way with my Internet access, either by
virus, other controlling software or by writing code or using a means to
contradict or counter my approved actions are most certainly considered
"computer crimes.").
Example: http://tinyurl.com/llxjf
"Computer crime can broadly be defined as criminal activity involving an
information technology infrastructure, including illegal access
(unauthorized access), illegal interception (by technical means of
non-public transmissions of computer data to, from or within a computer
system), data interference (unauthorized damaging, deletion,
deterioration, alteration or suppression of computer data), systems
interference (interfering with the functioning of a computer system by
inputting, transmitting, damaging, deleting, deteriorating, altering or
suppressing computer data), misuse of devices, forgery (ID theft), and
electronic fraud."
One of the worst kinds of Computer Crime is: "altering or misusing
existing system tools or software packages, or altering or writing code
for fraudulent purposes. This requires real programming skills and is
not common."
Example: Attempting to replace a long removed and discarded erred post
on USENET for the purpose of cyberstalking, harassment and extortion,
without the express permission of the owner of the post or the service
that removed the post from the USENET archive is a clear computer crime.
The code to retrieve such posts for the nefarious purposes described
seems to fit well within the statutes of several criminal or tortuous
acts, but we cannot be sure until the research has been completed.
Doug Says: I am being told that replacing a post on USENET that I
removed and Google confirmed was removed for error, without my
permission, was an "illegal interception by technical means of
non-public data." (It was removed from public view by me and Google).
The jury is still out on this one - but it appears to me the gang has
gotten itself in deeper in connection with its obsession to harm me and
my business and now harm my computers and my internet uses for the
obvious purpose to further its smear and extortion campaign against me.
If nothing else, they are pathetic and stupid. What's next an entire
Google newsgroup full of copyright violations and resurrected posts
fraudulently replaced on USENET?
Doug Grant (Tm)
|
