On Mon, 5 May 2008 10:54:48 -0700, "DGVREIMAN" <dgvreiman@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
<snip fake legal bull****>
>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.)
>
OK Doug let's see if you are still capable of address a post point by
point.
>
>
>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).
I am not aware of any legal contract between you and Google, no. But
even so it would be a contract between umm you and Google!!! and
absolutely ZERO to do with anyone else.
Oh and a slight correction to your diatribe there: Google agreed to
remove your posts from Public view PERIOD.
They didn't agree to remove them from the archive (because they do not
do that for evidentiary reasons), and certainly not to remove them
from USENET(!!) over which Google has absolutely ZERO control!!
>
>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.
Firstly. Hang on a minute. First you claimed very loudly that it was a
big lie that your posts were indeed back on Google. That I'd posted
them to a "private" site, and was pretending they were on Google etc.
etc.
You must have started about 7 headline threads accusing me of lying
over the issue and (once again) threating lawsuits.
Since you now *finally* acknowledge that your posts are indeed back on
display in the Google archive, I suggest you APOLOGIZE for those false
accusations.
Secondly, nobody (certainly not me) got Google to put back those
posts! Nor did anyone "hack Google" or bribe Google technicians, nor
any of the other ridiculous fact evidence free charges you've thrown
out there.
Not quite up there with"SteveL is being sought by Law Enforcement" in
the ironic projection libellous bull**** stakes, but even so......
Doogie. I merely re****ted on the fact that your posts are back where
they belong.
That doesn't make me responsible for their reappearance.
Fact.
>
>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:
I pleased you are suffering emotional distress over your lies
resurfacing, but I am not responsbilbe for your lies resurfacing.
Fact.
<snip>
|
