Doogie getting himself into some really deep doo doo.
Who says stupidity isn't a terminal disease?
On Mon, 5 May 2008 10:54:48 -0700, "DGVREIMAN" <dgvreiman@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
>
>MALICIOUS INTERFERENCE CRIMINAL AND CIVIL
>
>© Copyright all materials written by Author DGV Reiman 2008, all rights
>reserved. By posting or publi****ng this article and other copyrighted
>articles on USENET and/or elsewhere, Author is expressly NOT granting
>any implied authorization to reproduce his copyrighted work in any
>manner. The Author further does not accept as "Fair Use" under U.S. Code
>Title 17, nor will condone, the reproduction of any ****tion of his
>copyrighted materials IN ANY MANNER for the purpose of harassing,
>stalking or defaming the Author, or in conjunction with any violation of
>any civil or criminal statutes. Violators will face legal action. If
>anyone wishes to reproduce my copyrighted materials all they need to do
>first is email me and receive back via email my written permission to do
>so - such permission will not be unreasonably withheld. As I have often
>stated, I post copyrighted articles on USENET for a pre-review by the
>public prior to placing those articles in a book to be sold in
>international commerce. All those that read these articles already know
>or should already know my copyrighted articles cannot be infringed upon
>in any manner simply because they were first posted on USENET. Moreover,
>according to case law and expert answers in respect to this issue, the
>general stated policy of newgroups, such as to invite comment, DOES NOT
>preclude, supercede nor abrogate the author's right of copyright
>protection. Moreover, case law has further provided a precedent that
>"Fair Use" cannot be claimed by an infringer to disguise the spiteful
>and defaming reproduction of an author's work.
>
>
>
>(Smear Merchant Disclaimer: Please note this article (the same as all of
>my past articles and exchanges with posters) represents an editorial on
>contem****ary 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
>op****tunity to retract, apologize and remove said post from the Google
>archive).
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Civil Malicious Interference Causes of Action Requires:
>
>
>
>1. A contract: (Such as my contract with Google to remove my erred posts
>from USENET and from the Google archive.)
>
>
>
>2. Knowledge of the contract on the part of the Defendant: (The
>anonymous cyberstalker SteveLon@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
and Nigel Brooks and some
>members of the Nigel Brooks smear gang all knew that Google had agreed
>to remove the posts in question from public view, USENET and the Google
>archive due to errors or typos in the posts).
>
>3. Malice on the part of the Defendant: (The SteveLon@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
with
>the help of Nigel Brooks and some members of the Nigel Brooks smear gang
>conspired to and did replace the removed post(s) back on public view,
>back on USENET, and back on the Google archive, without the permission
>of the author nor of Google, for the purpose of using those long removed
>erred posts to defame, harass, cyberstalk, threaten, extort, incite
>threats, incite public hatred, besmirch my reputation and cause me
>extreme emotional harm and distress.
>
>4. Damages suffered by the Plaintiff: ( Emotional distress, damage to
>reputation, time cost due to lawyer fees and posting rebuttals and
>defenses to the false accusations and fraud being perpetrated by the
>Nigel Brooks gang due to this Malicious Interference. Time cost
>calculated at $150 per hour, loss of time in respect to finalizing
>books, etc. . . ) In addition, the following claims can be presented due
>to the gang's malicious interference:
>
>(1) malicious interference with contract, 2) civil conspiracy, (3)
>negligent infliction of emotional distress, (4) intentional infliction
>of emotional distress ("IIED"), (5) loss of consortium, and (6) punitive
>damages.
>
>
>
>In addition the following Torts also apply depending upon the State and
>Federal Statutes involved:
>
>5. Malicious Interference with Prospective Business Relations.
>
>6. Malicious Interference with Contract.
>
>7. Malicious Interference with right of Contract.
>
>8. Tortious Interference.
>
>9. Unjustifiable interference with one's business a wrongful and
>malicious interference with the making of a contract is also actionable
>as some of the posts resurrected (I believe) were erred posts that were
>replaced by the original copyrighted posts.
>
>9-a. Ten years before the 1984 Pleading Code was adopted, we held in
>Crystal Gas Co. v. Oklahoma Natural Gas Co.,529 P.2d 987, 990 (Okla.
>1974), a case in which the plaintiff sought to recover damages for
>interference with contractual and business relations. However, we
>recognized that the plaintiff could plead causation in general terms."
>
>Criminal Codes that Could be Applicable
>
>
>
>10. "Any malicious interference with such business is an unlawful act
>and an ..... were privileged by virtue of 12 O.S. 1981 § 1443.1."
>
>11. "A criminal complaint filed Wednesday afternoon charges Gerritsen
>with a felony charge of malicious interference with a communications
>system."
>
>12. http://tinyurl.com/53l7nl
"U.S. Attorney Stern stated: "The
>defendant gained illegal access to several computers, either causing
>substantial business loss, defacing a web page with hacker graphics,
>copying personal information, or, in the case of a NASA computer,
>effectively seizing control. All in all, the defendant used his home
>computer to leave a trail of cybercrime from coast to coast." Stern
>added: "Investigating and prosecuting this sort of intentional and
>malicious activity is a high priority for federal law enforcement."
>
>13. Criminal Malicious Interference Using a Computer: This includes, but
>is not limited to: (a) Access, alteration or removal of other users'
>files. (b) Theft of printed output. © Attempting to determine the
>passwords of other users. (d) Interfering with an account. (e) Sending
>mail or messages to other users which is likely to annoy or offend them.
>(f) Knowingly using the system in a manner which adversely impacts the
>computing resources of other users. (g) Attempting to break system
>security in any way.
>
>(Note Item "F" in the above).
>
>14. "Article 361 protects the proprietor's right of inviolability of
>information in computers, systems or networks. The owner of automated
>system is any person that legally uses services of information
>processing as the proprietor of such system (computer, systems or
>networks) or as the person authorized to use such system.
>
>Criminal act, responsibility for which is provided by Article 361,
>should consist of illegal intervention in the work of computers, systems
>or networks. It always has a character of certain actions FULFILLMENT,
>and can be a penetration into computer system using special technical
>means or software that allow to overcome installed systems of protection
>from illegal application of obtained passwords or posing as a legal user
>to penetrate into the computer system [3]."
>
>
>15. "The U.S. Dept. of Justice has asked the U.S. Sentencing Commission
>to promulgate a new federal sentencing guideline, Sec. 2F2.1,
>specifically addressing the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1988 (18 USC
>1030), with a base offense level of 6 and enhancements of 4 to 6 levels
>for violations of specific provisions of the statute. The new guideline
>practically guarantees some period of confinement, even for first
>offenders who plead guilty. For example, the guideline would provide
>that if the defendant obtained ``protected'' information (defined as
>``private information, non-public government information, or proprietary
>commercial information), the offense level would be increased by two; if
>the defendant disclosed protected information to any person, the offense
>level would be increased by four levels, and if the defendant
>distributed the information by means of ``a general distribution
>system,'' the offense level would go up six levels. The proposed
>commentary explains that a ``general distribution system'' includes
>``electronic bulletin board and voice mail systems, newsletters and
>other publications, and any other form of group dissemination, by any
>means.''
>
>(Doug Says: Note: (1). Accessing private information, and then (2)
>disclosing such information over a "general distribution system" the
>offense level would go up to six.)
>
>16. STATE OF WA****NGTON STATUTES
>
>The malicious mischief statute is found at
>
>RCW 9A.48.070
>
>*.
>
> "A person is guilty of malicious mischief in the first degree if he
>knowingly and maliciously . . . causes physical damage to the property
>of another in an amount exceeding one thousand five hundred dollars . .
>."
>In RCW 9A.48.100* physical damage is defined as follows:
>
> "Physical damage", in addition to its ordinary meaning, shall include
>the total or partial alteration, damage, obliteration, or erasure of
>records, information, data, computer programs, or their computer
>representations, which are recorded for use in computers or the
>impairment, interruption, or interference with the use of such records,
>information, data, or computer programs, or the impairment,
>interruption, or interference with the use of any computer or services
>provided by computers. "Physical damage" also includes any diminution in
>the value of any property as the consequence of an act.
>The computer trespass statutes can be found at RCW 9A.52.110* and RCW
>9A.52.120*.
>
> 9A.52.110
> (1) A person is guilty of computer trespass in the first degree if the
>person, without authorization, intentionally gains access to a computer
>system or electronic data base of another; and (a) The access is made
>with the intent to commit another crime; or (b) The violation involves a
>computer or data base maintained by a government agency. (2) Computer
>trespass in the first degree is a class C felony.
> 9A.52.120
> (1) A person is guilty of computer trespass in the second degree if
>the person, without authorization, intentionally gains access to a
>computer system or electronic data base of another under cir***stances
>not constituting the offense in the first degree. (2) Computer trespass
>in the second degree is a gross misdemeanor.
>In addition to these two computer specific statutes, some computer crime
>cases can be prosecuted under the general theft statutes at: RCW 9A.56*.
>
>Copyright Infringement
>Federal copyright law pre-empts state enforcement. Thus, a criminal
>charge that is based solely on a copyright violation cannot be
>prosecuted outside federal courts. If, however, additional criminal
>acts, above and beyond the copyright violation are involved, the case
>may be prosecuted in state court.
>
>State v. Smith, 115 Wash. 2d 434, 798 P.2d 1146, 17 U.S.P.Q.2d 1480
>(1990) is an example of a copyright violation involving other criminal
>acts which can be prosecuted at the state level. The case explains the
>law in this area.
>
>Suspected criminal copyright violations should be referred to the FBI.
>That agency's Seattle phone number is: 206-622-0460.
>
>
>This Information Provided By:
>King County Prosecutor's Office
>Complex Prosecutions and Investigations Division
>500 Fourth Avenue, Room 840
>Seattle, WA 98104
>206-296-9010
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>17. "What is Cyber Crime & Computer crime?
>
>The Encyclopedia Britannica defines Cyber crime as any crime that is
>committed by means of special knowledge or expert use of computer
>technology. United Nation Manual on prevention & Control of computer
>crime and Oxford Reference Online gives list of cyber crimes committed
>over internet.[ 1 ] Cyber crime includes a wide variety of criminal
>offenses and activities Because of lack of physical evidences
>investigating a cyber crime becomes very difficult. Scope of this
>definition becomes wider with a frequent companion or substitute term
>"computer-related crime". Cyber crimes are harmful acts committed from
>or against a computer or network."
>
>
>
>18. Criminal conspiracy: Were there two or more individuals involved in
>the common purpose of retrieving and disseminating my private
>information on the Internet? Of course.
>
>
>
>End Excerpts:
>
>And this is just the beginning. I am being told there is much more to
>this issue, and we are waiting for Google's reply and more legal
>research to be completed. I have also been told that Google will
>prosecute people that maliciously interfere with their contractual
>relations with their clients.
>
>I cannot imagine why anyone would want to participate in a smear gang
>like the Nigel Brook's smear and defamation gang, especially when such
>participation makes each gang member individually and severally culpable
>and responsible for the acts of all other conspirators or gang members.
>Consider the anonymous cyberstalker SteveLon@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
as an example:
>
>It is clear that he has followed me from newsgroup to newsgroup for the
>deliberate and reckless obsessive desire to do me harm in any way he can
>dream up, and clearly malicious and criminal acts are his stock and
>trade.
>
>Below is some very applicable information for all gang members and
>prospective gang members to consider. This issue has not gone this far
>yet, but if the attacks continue, it will:
>
>USING THE NAME OF THE FBI WITHOUT PERMISSION
>
>
>
>Doug Says: It appears a quick trip to sections 701, 709 and 712 of
>Title 18 U.S.C. is something worth reading:
>
>http://tinyurl.com/yp73fs
Title 701 (Probably does not apply)
>
>http://tinyurl.com/yv54rb
Title 709 This criminal statute has a six-
>year statute of limitation and clearly applies to someone stupid
>enough to use the name of the FBI to harass, smear and defame or in any
>USENET post regardless of intent:
>
>Here is the key passage.
>
>"Whoever, except with the written permission of the Director of the
>Federal Bureau of Investigation, knowingly uses the words "Federal
>Bureau of Investigation" or the initials "F.B.I.", or any colorable
>imitation of such words or initials, in connection with any
>advertisement, circular, book, pamphlet or other publication, play,
>motion picture, broadcast, telecast, or other production, in a manner
>reasonably calculated to convey the impression that such
>advertisement, circular, book, pamphlet or other publication, play,
>motion picture, broadcast, telecast, or other production, is approved,
>endorsed, or authorized by the Federal Bureau of Investigation;
>
>Shall be punished as follows: a cor****ation, partner****p, business
>trust, association, or other business entity, by a fine under this
>title; an officer or member thereof participating or knowingly
>acquiescing in such violation or any individual violating this
>section, by a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than
>one year, or both.
>
>
>http://tinyurl.com/265zuz
Title 712 - Misuse of Names - this could
>apply especially if it is connected with threats to repeat FBI
>forgeries or blackmail. (Also can be used to prosecute if the name of
>the Veterans Administration is used to facilitate any defamation,
>harassment, or obloquy against a Veteran.)
>
>Other Smear Gang Crimes that Are Actionable
>
>In addition to the above, what if you knew that members of a
>hypothetical smear merchant gang were stupid enough to perpetrate the
>following criminal acts against someone. We will name the gang members
>(and remember this includes all of them regardless of whether they
>actually did the crime due to the conspiracy laws) as "Defendants" and
>their target victim as "Plaintiff."
>
>1. Gang members hacked into Plaintiff's computer without authorization
>and removed both Plaintiff's and his family's personal information and
>trade secrets. And then boasted about doing
>so on USENET! (Stupid, stupid, stupid). (See computer crimes).
>
>2. Gang members forged Plaintiff's name to US Government forms
>requesting military and personal records, and the gang member then
>boasted about doing so on USENET!! (Six Year Statutes). (See forging
>government do***ent crimes, fraud, general forgery and invasion of
>privacy).
>
>3 Gang members forged Plaintiff's name to electronic communications and
>USENET posts, for profit!!!
>
>4. Gang members "repeatedly" published through international commerce
>false and forged FBI re****ts about Plaintiff, and tried to blackmail
>Plaintiff to stop posting on USENET by stating those forged FBI re****ts
>would continue to be posted unless he stopped posting.
>(See blackmail, extortion, etc . . . ).
>
>5. Gang members falsely and repeatedly published through international
>commerce that Plaintiff is a pedophile, and a child ****ographer. (That
>false accusation carries automatic defamation
>damages. Damages do not need to be proved due to the outrageous nature
>of these accusations). One gang member even contacted third parties and
>fraudulently claimed Plaintiff was receiving child ****o on his
>computer. (Some of these false child ****o accusations also carry
>criminal penalties in some states). Gang members also repeatedly and
>fraudulently published that Plaintiff was (1) Never in the US Army, (2)
>Never went to Vietnam (3) Never achieved the rank of
>SFC E-7 in Vietnam (4) was a murderer, war criminal, thief, wife beater,
>car thief, a rapist and of course a "cannibal" and a "murderer of
>unarmed priests" in Vietnam, lied about attending RVN training and CBR
>training, and the gang further fraudulently forged past posts the
>Plaintiff wrote, or dictated in general, or did not write, and then used
>their OWN FORGERIES to fraudulently claim that Plaintiff had been
>awarded the Order of the Purple Heart Medal, and that he had falsely
>claimed that he was a 2nd Lieutenant in Vietnam.
>
>6. Gang members repeatedly threatened Plaintiff with violence and death
>and they published those threats through international commerce, and
>gang members deliberately visited third parties about Plaintiff such as
>Muslim Mosques, and delivered and published hate filled and fraudulent
>accusations about Plaintiff to incite public hatred and to incite those
>third parties to hate Plaintiff and to send him threats of death and
>violence. (Six year statutes - lots of criminal statutes too many to
>list - including obstruction of justice and conspiracy if someone tried
>to hide these threats after they were revealed to a Government agency).
>
>7. Gang members conspired to and did file a malicious and false criminal
>complaint against Plaintiff. (Abuse of process and malicious prosecution
>statutes apply). Also, the gang members actually boasted about this
>malicious act on USENET!!!
>
>8. Gang members through international commerce repeatedly stalked,
>tortured, harassed, and tormented Plaintiff by almost every
>psychological means and process imaginable. (Lots of criminal statutes
>depending on State).
>
>10. Gang members did publicly and through international commerce
>impersonate an U.S. Army General Officer to defame and misrepresent
>Plaintiff's military records.
>
>11. Gang members did publicly and through international commerce mislead
>Plaintiff to believe a gang leader was a Federal Agent and was in that
>capacity confirming the false accusations, fraud and forgeries published
>by him and his gang of smear merchants about Plaintiff.
>
>12. Gang members did publicly and through international commerce,
>fraudulently misrepresent that harassing and libelous publications about
>Plaintiff were coming from an agent of the US Army.
>
>13. Gang members did publicly and through international commerce, lied
>about and/or misrepresented and deliberately omitted key contents of
>Plaintiff's military records for the purpose of defaming Plaintiff and
>to paint Plaintiff in a false light.
>
>14. Gang members did publicly and through international commerce,
>maliciously forged, distorted and altered what Plaintiff might have
>written and published or dictated to be published in the past on USENET
>so as to distort, falsify and force such publications to appear untrue,
>or as preposterous false claims of military bravado, or to paint
>Plaintiff in a false light.
>
>Doug Says: I know all must be wondering "who in the world would be
>soooooo stupid as to not only post forged FBI do***ents on USENET, but
>then to repeat that FBI forgery more than thirty times, and then use
>that FBI forgery as blackmail to force someone not to post on specific
>newsgroups?" And who in their right mind for "s****t" would perpetrate
>all those criminal acts listed above and be a part of a gang that does
>so?
>
>You must be thinking NO ONE is that stupid! Wanna bet? Also, six years
>is a long time to have crimes hanging over your head - now that IS
>stupid!
>
>One gang member replied to one of his target victims that if the target
>victim tried to take the gang member's libel and criminal acts to court
>it will be very expensive for the target victim. Of course that is not
>true. Honest prosecution is your right and it will cost
>you nothing.
>
>Why Gangs?
>
>Why do people join gangs and perpetrate these kinds of crimes on the
>Internet when they would never in a million years commit the same crimes
>on the street?
>
>I am no Doctor, but it is clear to me at least some of these gang
>members are very very sick, and they need psychiatric attention
>immediately. And if you are stupid enough to join in with a USENET smear
>gang you are as criminally vulnerable as the sickest member of that
>gang. (Dumb and dumber).
>
>Is it worth it? Just because gang members have not been prosecuted so
>far that does not mean when they least expect it the shoe will drop.
>Sometimes, hypothetical plaintiffs just want to see how far an
>emboldened gang will go before they take action against them, and then
>sometimes plaintiffs' want to avoid tying up their time in lengthy
>prosecutions. But then that is something that is weighed by the
>Plaintiff each day against how far the gang is furthering their
>attacks and obloquy. Each new attack will probably bring the plaintiff
>closer to doing something he really does not want to do.
>
>Also, what if some of the crackpot criminals are fellow war Veterans?
>Could they be suffering from some post traumatic stress or from some
>personalty disorder they contracted fighting the same war you fought? It
>is hard to file charges against a brother Vet unless of course he
>or she filed malicious criminal charges against you or attempted to do
>so - and that fact can be easily determined with a flurry of Freedom of
>Information Act requests, which I highly recommend.
>
>Public Funds to Invade Privacy
>
>Note also if any gang member, government employee, former government
>employee, used or caused to be used public funds or public servants in
>any manner to assist his smear and defamation campaign then the doo doo
>will really hit the fan in respect to the agency involved, and the
>persons involved.
>
>Say hypothetically someone in a government agency used public funds to
>tip off a smear merchant that someone had investigated some of his false
>claims. Is that Government Agency person now involved in helping the
>smear merchant defame and smear his victims? Of course.
>How about if a smear merchant used past law enforcement connections to
>review files or obtain information on his victims, and one of those
>screaming morons actually boasted about doing so on USENET!!!! What if
>someone filed a FOIA request and asked for all that accessed his
>file, and why? What if someone was stupid enough to post private
>information that was obtained illegally or by false pretenses (such as
>lying on Government requests or using past connections) on a private or
>secret newsgroup or web site? Do you believe anyone could be that
>stupid?
>
>It is im****tant to understand that illegally or under false pretenses
>accessing information about anyone from a Government file of any kind,
>including Pass****t applications, is a criminal act. But then if such
>information is actually published somewhere by the perpetrator or one
>of his conspirators, then several other criminal acts are also invoked.
>In many cases one criminal act bleeds into another.
>
>Helping a smear gang victimize and demonize its target victim is stupid,
>dangerous and is a very slippery slope when it comes to civil or
>criminal charges being filed against you. Personal attacks, and
>demonism, especially with the use of past extem****aneous statements,
>errors, typos and outright forgeries, does not accomplish anything
>except provide sick satisfaction for some pathetic con man with an
>inferiority complex as big as his fragile ego.
>
>http://tinyurl.com/qpopt
Statute of Limitations (remember when one gang
>member does something ALL gang members are culpable).
>
>http://tinyurl.com/235ypr
Normal Statute of Limitations for Non- Capital
>offenses are five years - UNLESS the person committing the crime is not
>known - such as an anonymous cyberstalker - then the statute does not
>start until the identity of the person has been
>determined.
>
>End excerpts.
>
>Think about what you are doing people. Is it worth it? I have said I
>have not even started to defend myself, and that is a very true
>statement. There is much more I could have done that I have not yet
>done. Apparently the gang leaders believe my desperate attempts to avoid
>litigation represents some kind of weakness or fear, yet nothing could
>be further from the truth.
>
>I have been though bitter litigation before. I know what kind of ****
>storm it is. It will intertwine and interfere with every element of your
>life. And since I have been through it all before you can bet the Casino
>lawyers uncovered and found every smidgen of dirt they could find on me,
>and yet they found nothing simply because I have nothing to hide. But
>most people do, and you can bet everything about you is going to surface
>during discovery. Your house will be locked up, your loans, your
>business, your life, all due to this looming litigation for a long long
>time, and either you will admit to what you have posted on USENET, or
>you will lie about it, and in either case you are going to lose this
>case. And that will probably cost you everything you have and will ever
>have. And once I start litigation I have learned not to accept
>settlement offers from Smear merchants, they will just change their
>names and start the defamation all over again.
>
>Do you really believe no action will be taken against you? If you do,
>you are going to be in for a big surprise. Stop the attacks, stop the
>cyberstalking, stop the lies and the fraud and the false readings of my
>military records, stop the computer crimes, the hackings, and the false
>accusations, stop the invasions of my privacy, and stop the malicious
>interference of my life and property, or I absolutely assure you that I
>will bring this issue into a court of law and you will be standing in
>front of a Judge explaining your and your gang member's actions.
>
>Note my desperate pleadings to stop the gang attacks before litigation
>becomes inevitable is directed to those people that are rational, and
>not to the gang members that have child like minds and thereby gain a
>perverse pleasure in using fraud, false accusations, lies and obloquy to
>defame others. I doubt seriously if they are smart enough to find a cure
>for their sickness, but for those of you that were sucked into this
>Nigel Brooks fraud and hype, I urge you to distance yourself from this
>gang forever, because I absolutely assure you I have not yet begun to
>defend myself from their attacks should they continue.
>
>Doug Grant (Tm)
>
>
>
>
|
