Re: Theater of the Absurd
Posted by v on 5/20/08
Ey ... I know i'm not anonomoose. But i was on a web site today called LawBB.com.
Hmmmm ......
On 5/18/08, Myco X wrote:
> Whoah! This is getting interesting -- maybe the next Big Thing!
>
> WHO exactly is being accused of being associated with False Information here?
>
> Family Under Attack, could you help to clarify the question, please?
>
> Myco
>
> On 5/17/08, BB wrote:
>> 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.