Re: Private Eye - false information
Posted by BB on 5/17/08
Sharon, You and I both know that internet posting is not truly anonymous. This is
extremely well established. Therefore, I repeat, for your benefit, what I
have now told you on two prior occasions: I have no knowledge of a chicago mold case. Or even an illinois case. Stop
suggesting that I do, as you are deliberately dessiminating FALSE
INFORMATION and may incur liabilities for doing so. On 5/17/08, Sharon wrote:
> BB,
>
> Deliberately dissiminating false information about WHO? What potential
> liabilities may incur? From Annonymous Plaintiff BB? You are such a
> joke.
>
> Now back to some serious stuff. Oh never mind. You are waste of my
> time. Back to not reading your diatribes.
>
>
>
>
> On 5/17/08, BB wrote:
>> Dear Sharon,
>>
>> I've previously informed you I have no knowledge of a chicago mold
>> case. Or even an illinois case. Stop suggesting that I do, as you are
>> deliberately dessiminating FALSE INFORMATION and may incur liabilities
>> for doing so. Is that clear?
>>
>> That said, I'm curious what case you are talking about. What is it?
>> Have a name or identifier?
>>
>>
>> On 5/17/08, Sharon wrote:
>>> Dear All,
>>>
>>> I think it is looking more and more like BB does have something to
>>> do with the Chicago mold case that has been discussed on this board.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 5/17/08, BB wrote:
>>>> That is your 'admission' huh? Looks like you are trying to defame
>>>> me. You are on notice to cease. Have a nice weekend.
>>>>
>>>> On 5/17/08, David wrote:
>>>>> Deborah, here's the info that was posted recently about
>>>>> wiretapping.
>>>>> ***************************************************
>>>>>
>>>>> Posted by BB on 4/04/08
>>>>>
>>>>> My pleasure. Have a good weekend.
>>>>>
>>>>> On 4/04/08, Marcus wrote:
>>>>>> BB, thanks for the written admission regarding the wiretaps
>>>>> and secret
>>>>>> videos. I have passed it on to the attorneys.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 4/04/08, BB wrote:
>>>>>>> Marcus,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Any chance you can post the key documents that defense
>>>>> might want to
>>>>>>> see? We don't need any of the wiretaps or secret videos,
>>>>> because they
>>>>>>> are case specific, but anything that identifies the
>>>>> plaintiff experts
>>>>>>> or there silly testimony would be appreciated.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Look outside. Who's in that car? Smile!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *************************************************
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 5/17/08, Deborah wrote:
>>>>>> David,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Do you have link to this article?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Where did someone admit wiretapping, do you have a copy?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In the last 6 months I had, once again, my mail tampered
>>>>> with,
>>>>>> and odd problems with my phone service. Also, someone
>>>>> actually
>>>>>> tried to get into my medical records. Tracking it down and
>>>>>> proving it is almost impossible due to constraints of man
>>>>>> power and access.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I get a bit anxious when this sort of stuff happens in
>>>>>> proximity of place or time after what I have been through.
>>>>>> The additional insult of having your privacy violated, mail
>>>>>> tampering, phone tampering, burglaries, etc... after having
>>>>>> the audacity to stand up for yourself in a civil arena after
>>>>>> having had chemical assaults on your person, in your own
>>>>> home,
>>>>>> by persons who regularly made unauthorized entries into your
>>>>>> home is just SOOO CREEPY. Then to have some ignorant buffoon
>>>>>> suggest you are paranoid because you get jumpy when odd
>>>>> things
>>>>>> begin to occur is the ultimate irony.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 5/16/08, David wrote:
>>>>>>> To the person on this chatboard who recently admitted
>>>>>>> wiretapping...here's a news article that may be of
>>>>>>> interest.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "A Hollywood private investigator was convicted Thursday
>>>>>>> on federal racketeering and other charges for digging up
>>>>>>> dirt for his well-heeled clients to use in lawsuits,
>>>>>>> divorces and contract disputes..."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> He was accused of wiretapping and running names through
>>>>>>> law enforcement databases to help clients.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "The jury found (him) guilty of racketeering and
>>>>>>> racketeering conspiracy, along with wire fraud, identity
>>>>>>> theft, conspiracy to intercept or use wire communications
>>>>>>> and manufacture or possession of a wiretapping device, 76
>>>>>>> counts in all."
Posts on this thread, including this one
- Private Eye Convicted of Racketeering, 5/16/08, by David.
- Re: Private Eye Convicted of Racketeering, 5/17/08, by Deborah.
- Re: Private Eye Convicted of Racketeering, 5/17/08, by Deborah.
- Re: Private Eye Convicted of Racketeering, 5/17/08, by David.
- Re: Private Eye Convicted of Racketeering, 5/17/08, by David.
- Re: Private Eye Convicted of Racketeering, 5/17/08, by Deborah.
- Re: Private Eye Convicted of Racketeering, 5/17/08, by BB.
- Re: Private Eye Convicted of Racketeering, 5/17/08, by Sharon.
- Re: Private Eye Convicted of Racketeering, 5/17/08, by BB.
- Re: Private Eye Convicted of Racketeering, 5/17/08, by Sharon.
- Re: Private Eye - false information, 5/17/08, by BB.
- Re: Private Eye - false information, 5/17/08, by Sharon.
- Re: Private Eye - false information, 5/17/08, by BB.
- Re: Private Eye - false information, 5/18/08, by Sharon.
- Re: Private Eye - false information, 5/18/08, by BB.
- Re: Theater of the Absurd, 5/18/08, by Myco X.
- Re: Private Eye - false information, 5/18/08, by educator.
- Re: Private Eye - false information, 5/18/08, by Sharon.
- Re: Private Eye - false information, 5/18/08, by BB.
- Re: Private Eye - false information, 5/18/08, by BB.
- Re: Theater of the Absurd, 5/20/08, by v.
|
1996 - 2007. All Rights Reserved. Please review our Terms of Use, Mission Statement, and Privacy Policy.