Re: Private Eye - false information
Posted by Sharon on 5/17/08
BB, I'm sorry, what did you say your real name was? If, as you say, internet
postings are not truly annonymous and you feel your identity is known to
the point that you would make threatening remarks for one writing they
think a cartoon character of "BB" may have something to do with a Chicago
mold case, then why do you even bother posting under a pseudoname? And how would I know you are not involved in the Chicago case if I don't
know your real name? You don't get it both ways. Either you are annonymous or you are not
annonymous. Choose one. But don't try to choose one and ridiculously
threaten with the other. I am not the one who indicated you were involved in the Chicago mold case.
That was another poster awhile back. I merely indicated that this appears
it may be true to me. To quote myself:
"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." The way to prove my suspecion wrong, is to let me know your real name.
Simple as that. And why wouldn't you want to do that since you are claiming
your annonymous posts are not really anonymous? Again, very dumb argument -
circular logic on your part. BTW, Me thinks thou protests too much on this one. What's up, "BB"? Hit a
nerve? What kind of new car did you say you bought after you ripped the
lungs out of some unprepared plaintiffs? On 5/17/08, BB wrote:
> 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.