From: "DGVREIMAN" <dgvreiman@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Newsgroups:
alt.war.vietnam,alt.politics,alt.news-media,alt.military,alt.security.terrorism
References: <XsWdnQlCFKL744PVnZ2dnUVZ_qmlnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
<687kooF2rite6U1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Subject: Re: MALICIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH GOOGLE'S CLIENT RELATION****P
Date: Mon, 5 May 2008 16:25:18 -0700
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Unsent: 1
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198
X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Response
Path:
border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!news-lei1.dfn.de!news1.uni-leipzig.de!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: "Nigel Brooks" <nbrooks@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Newsgroups:
alt.war.vietnam,alt.politics,alt.news-media,alt.military,alt.security.terrorism
Subject: Re: MALICIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH GOOGLE'S CLIENT RELATION****P
Date: Mon, 5 May 2008 00:37:26 -0500
Lines: 151
Message-ID: <687kooF2rite6U1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
References: <XsWdnQlCFKL744PVnZ2dnUVZ_qmlnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
X-Trace: individual.net
aMT8TMWfY4y3cjN9kvihsAwSwQtsG72kqBt23Mgz+TMnnYYXw=
Cancel-Lock: sha1:LINW1UMSR9/m/sca5AmzDjJxnbc=
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198
X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Response
Bytes: 9734
Xref: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com alt.war.vietnam:707683
alt.politics:3908790 alt.news-media:236017 alt.military:383234
alt.security.terrorism:339084
"Nigel Brooks" <nbrooks@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:687kooF2rite6U1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> "DGVREIMAN" <dgvreiman@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:XsWdnQlCFKL744PVnZ2dnUVZ_qmlnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> MALICIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH GOOGLE'S CLIENT RELATION****P
>>
>> (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).
>>
>> 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)
>>
>
>
> Mr. Reiman - it seems that you might be accusing me of having caused
> the good folks at Google to reinstate your previously deleted postings
> or have engaged in some kind of violation of federal, state or local
> law.
Doug's Rebuttal: Mr. Brooks, you have been warned several times to
cease and desist violating my copyrighted materials. I am running out
of patience warning you to stop infringing on my copyrights. The next
time you infringe that action will indicate to me you have no intention
of honoring my legal copyrights, and I will be forced to take legal
action against you to force you to cease and desist such outrageous
infringements.
>
> I can assure you that nothing is further from the truth - any action
> that Google took to reinstate the postings had nothing to do with me,
> and I am not aware of anyone who had caused such action.
Doug Says: I am glad you were not involved, but I am somewhat
bewildered that you never heard of SteveLon@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- especially
when you referenced his resurrected post several times, help to
disseminate it over the internet several times, and said on this very
forum that you agree with everything SteveL does and says about me?
You also knew the post was ressurected without my knowledge nor
permission, and yet even with that knowledge you repeatedly posted it on
USENET? I am also astonished that you have never before heard of a
civil or criminal conspiracy?
Moreover, you are now claiming that Google, on its own, reinstated a
post they certified to me in writing they had permanently removed!
Somehow Mr. Brooks, I doubt your veracity in this regard, but I assure
you I will find out precisely who and what have been maliciously
interfering with my account's posts, and my contract with Comcast and
Google. And no, I am not accusing you nor anyone else of any crime, I
said many times the issue is still being investigated. I only provided
the possible statutes that could apply (or not apply) depending upon the
cir***stances. Wait for it Mr. Brooks, the final determination in
respect to this issue will be coming in soon.
>
> That being said - I would not be in the least bit surprised if the
> good folks at google had had an op****tunity to review all of your
> usenet boasts and have come to the conclusion that for the sake of
> accuracy - the posts should be reinstated.
Doug Says: Mr. Brooks, unlike you, Google does not claim to be a
soothsayer that can read minds and know, contrary to what an author said
he really meant something other than what he said. You seem to have
the corner on that ability, and I cannot wait to test your often
repeated mind reading claim in court. There are no boasts I know of,
and certainly nothing I said that represents any intended detailed
autobiographical fact. You seem to be reading your own forgeries and
fraud again Mr. Brooks, or perhaps you actually believe some of the
fraud your gang has posted? Who knows, but your claim that Google
determines the accuracy of content of posts it archives is about the
most idiotic, ridiculous, moronic, dumbest, pathetic claim I have ever
heard from anyone, not to mention a former "Federal Agent."
>
> As a former federal law enforcement officer (Criminal
> Investigator/Special Agent) with 30 years experience in criminal
> investigations, international investigations etc, that involved the
> detection and prosecution of individuals who violated the laws of the
> United States (Primarily Titles 18, 19, and 21 of the United States
> Code) - I'd say that google did the right thing.
Doug Says: We all know the Custom Service hires border patrol and
criminal investigators that investigate smuggling and such. And we all
know you retired from the US Custom Service long ago. But clearly you
should have stuck with your bag sniffing and investigating whether that
white powder was contraband or not, and leave the real investigations up
to the real Federal Agents considering your idiotic belief you posted
above that Google can read minds and thereby determines the accuracy of
content in all USENET posts. No wonder drugs are pouring accross our
borders like a waterfall. Dumb and Dumber Sp4 "criminal - Inspector
Cluso" investigators like Nigel Brooks! If your claim above is any
indication of your efficency when you worked for the Custom Service, I
would opine that no wonder our borders are in the condition they are in.
>
> By the way - you have previously demanded details of investigations I
> conducted or led during my time in the federal government - although
> I'm reluctant to provide such details to an individual who has
> previously been declared by the US Courts to have "mischaracterized
> the facts" (Doug Grant v. Greate Bay et al) - I'm thinking of joining
> http://www.justanswer.com/
- any questions you ask of me will cost you
> $15 per question
Doug Says: Once again your knowledge of our court system is akin to
that of a Chipmunk, and not of a real Federal Agent. No Judge has
declared that I ever "mischaracterized the facts" about anything. We
have been all through this before Mr. Brooks and you really should pay
attention to the facts: Judge Irenas' was not addressing me in any
way as I was not a Plaintiff nor a party nor an author in respect to the
part of the complaint he was admoni****ng - in truth he was admoni****ng
Dr. Professor Steel's (from the University of Pa) opinion and
calculations, as it was Dr. Steel that was the official mathematical
expert listed in that element of the complaint. It was Dr. Professor
Steel that provided all of those "mischaracterizing of facts" that a
Judge with ZERO formal mathematical training was whining about. Not to
mention every expert in the world, including the final authority the
Judge transferred his jurisdiction over the case to, contradicted the
Judge's opinion in that respect. Most people would put their faith in
respect to accurate math in the lap of a Doctor of Mathematics, and a
Full Professor of Mathematics at the University of Pennsylvania, instead
of a Federal Judge with a clear Ax to grind, that was not formally
trained ever in any kind of advanced mathematics, not to mention the
extremely esoteric and convoluted mathematics of the casino game of
Blackjack.
It seems that everyone but Nigel Brooks and Judge Irenas knew and
confirmed that Professor Steel was NOT mischaracterizing any facts, and
since I did NOT set forth any facts at all about this issue, I certainly
did not mischaracterize anything either. Even a retired Bag Sniffer
should be able to read court records Mr. Brooks.
Here is some detailed information about your goofy accusations Mr.
Brooks, read it this time before you continue to make a fool out of
yourself.
http://tinyurl.com/4m3f6u
In respect to you joining justanswer.com of course that is your
business, but I assure you that all of my experts are not coming from
that source. I have occasionally used that service to confirm and
corroborate instantly with real experts that you are lying, or using
false evidence, or fraud, or forgeries, and then we move on to other
experts that can testify in court, which BTW, those experts cannot. I
also should remind you that if you are afraid to reveal any arrests you
made, or any cases you were involved with, that is perfectly
understandable considering your false and fraudulent tactics on this
forum.
Mr. Brooks, in truth I don't know what you did when you worked for the
US Custom Service, but if you don't mind I will find out. Do you mind?
I did find your dissertation about how the Custom Service uses dogs,
and the detailed history of those other bag sniffers to be very
entertaining, so I suspect that might have been your duty since you were
so well versed in that Dog sniffing topic. Nevertheless, and again,
why not simply tell us about some cases you were involved with and some
of the arrests you made while you were enforcing all those Federal
Statutes? Why hide? Albeit with goofy claims like you are making
herein, are you sure you want to reconnect yourself with your former
employer? You may just taint their image further if you do.
So if you stop howling " I is a Federal Agent and I is a criminal
investigator" and I say that Google checks all posts for accuracy and
removes or resurrects all posts based upon Google's mind reading
abilities," then I will stop asking you what you really did for the US
Custom Service and just let others figure that out for themselves.
DUHHHHHHHHH!
Doug Grant (Tm)
Doug Grant (Tm)
>
> Nigel Brooks
>
|
