Re: Private Eye - false information
Posted by BB on 5/17/08
Sharon, It was a chevy Malibu. I like it. I've previously informed you, on three prior occasions, that 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? This doesn't need to be a big
thing, just don't make it one. On 5/17/08, Sharon wrote:
> 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.