| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"DGVREIMAN" |
| Date: |
21 Jan 2006 06:32:42 PM |
| Object: |
SADDAM TIES WITH 911 |
SADDAM'S TIES WITH 911
© Copyright 2006 by DGVReiman, all rights reserved.
For years I have been posting that Saddam was involved in the 911
massacres. I also reminded everyone about a mural that was found
at Republican Guard HQ that depicted planes flying into the World
Trade Center, and the caption under that mural was "Saddam's
Revenge."
I also said many times that Saddam was training international
terrorists in various terrorist training camps throughout Iraq.
In the Salman Pak terrorist training camp, south of Baghdad, as
just one example, Saddam was training terrorist cells, in groups
of five, one of the cell members being a qualified pilot, so he
could take over the aircraft after the hijacking. That
information game directly from the former Commandant of that camp
that had defected to the West.
It seemed to me that Saddam had to know about the 911 plot or he
would not be training terrorists to do precisely what the 911
hijackers did. Sounded logical to me. But when I posted such
information, you would have thought that I was posting that
Saddam flew one of the planes on 911!
The left-wingers screamed, howled, barked, danced, demeaned,
defamed, lied, ridiculed, and generally poo-poohed and discounted
everything I said about Saddam ties to 911 and to radical Muslim
terrorists.
I was chided and told that "Saddam was a secularist - he hated
radical Muslims" Sure he did.
I also mentioned that Saddam was training his own terrorist army,
the so-called "Saddam Fedayeen" that we all saw dressed in their
white martyr uniforms, replete with ski masks, AK 47's and
suicide bomb belts on parade for Saddam. Nevertheless that we all
saw these films of the parading terrorists, the nay sayers even
tried to duck and dodge that film we all saw on the news dozens
of times. The lefties, dogmatically, would just not admit that
Saddam, was, in any way involved with terrorists or terrorism
regardless of the mountains of evidence I posted to the contrary.
Why?
Because if the left-wingers admit that Saddam was involved in
training terrorists, or with terrorism in general, or especially
in any way was involved with the 911 plot, then the Congressional
Resolution of War, passed in October 2001 by our Congress, would
apply to the invasion of Iraq. That is a no no for the lefties as
the left-wingers do not want the liberation of Iraq to be clearly
sanctioned as a war against terrorism. The lefties want to try
and keep the fighting in Iraq separate from our war on terror,
therefore, they can hail and encourage our troops in Afghanistan,
demoralize our troops in Iraq, and blame President Bush for not
sending more troops to Afghanistan instead of liberating Iraq.
But now, evidence has surfaced proving that, as usual, I was
absolutely correct. And the lefties are running for cover!
Last week Newsweek revealed a 2002 Pentagon document that lists
"numerous meetings and communications" between Saddam's agents
and Osama Bin Laden himself, and with Osama's agents, starting in
1990 and ending in 2002.
The document's findings also reveal "possible Iraqi coordination
with Al-Qaeda specifically related to the 911 massacres." The
document also all but proves outright that the ringleader of the
911 radical Muslim butchers, Mohammed Atta, met with Iraqi
operatives in Prague.
And if that is not enough, the "Weekly Standard" also reported
this week that documents captured in Iraq, prove that in the four
years before Saddam was removed from power, he and his sons, and
his agents, in Iraq, "trained thousands of Islamic terrorists in
Iraqi terrorist training camps!"
And all this is just being revealed due to the fact we have only
read about 2.5% of all the documents we captured from Saddam's
Government! Only 2.5%! Wait until the "final authority" has been
heard from - boy will the lefties be boiling up those crow flocks
once again.
I suspect more about all this will come out long before the 2008
Presidential election. Then the American people will go into that
election knowing that President Bush and the Republican Party was
absolutely correct to remove Saddam for the immediate protection
and preservation of the citizens of the USA - and the voters will
be able to compare what President Bush did to protect us to those
"cut and runners" and "Bush bashers" and "appeasers of radical
Muslim goons" that we see dominate the Dimocratic party. (Pun
intended).
No doubt this new information will not make a very big "splash"
with Senator Kennedy (pun intended) nor the other members of the
screaming liberal army. But facts are facts.
Saddam was harboring, training, creating, financing, arming
terrorists, and Saddam WAS involved in the 911 massacres.
I told you so.
Doug Grant (Tm)
.
|
|
| User: "Joe S." |
|
| Title: Re: SADDAM TIES WITH 911 |
21 Jan 2006 06:51:08 PM |
|
|
"DGVREIMAN" <DGVREIMAN@COMCAST.NET> wrote in message
news:NMCdneRSFrY0T0_eRVn-pg@comcast.com...
SADDAM'S TIES WITH 911
© Copyright 2006 by DGVReiman, all rights reserved.
For years I have been posting that Saddam was involved in the 911
massacres. I also reminded everyone about a mural that was found at
Republican Guard HQ that depicted planes flying into the World Trade
Center, and the caption under that mural was "Saddam's Revenge."
[ Brain fart snipped. ]
I told you so.
Doug Grant (Tm)
Say, there, Doug, does the phrase "verbose, confused, overreaching and
immature" ring any bells? I'd say that's a damn fine description of
everything you write.
QUOTE
DOUG GRANT, INC., et al., Plaintiffs, v. GREATE BAY CASINO CORP., et al.,
Defendants.
CIVIL ACTION NO. 97-4291(JEI) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
May 1, 1998, Original Filed
DISPOSITION: All of the claims relating to the alleged violations of the CCC
regulations (First, Second, Third, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, and Thirteenth
Counts) dismissed with prejudice. Remainder of the claims (Eighth, Ninth,
Tenth, Eleventh, and Lawyer Defendant claims) remanded to state court.
Permission to reinstate the Consumer Fraud Act count (Fourth and Twelfth
Counts) denied.
"Plaintiffs' complaint is a verbose, confused, overreaching and immature
work product, and its allegations of cheating, RICO, consumer fraud,
constitutional violations, defamation and civil conspiracy confuse rather
than elucidate the essential nature of the dispute."
MAY 1, 1998 JOSEPH E. IRENAS, United States District Judge
END QUOTE
Doug Grant is the plaintiff whose work was described by the judge as being
"verbose, confused, overreaching and immature."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Political Pagan" |
|
| Title: Re: SADDAM TIES WITH 911 |
21 Jan 2006 07:51:07 PM |
|
|
"Joe S." <anon@mous.com> wrote in
news:1-ednVZjvYl4S0_enZ2dnUVZ_tidnZ2d@comcast.com:
"DGVREIMAN" <DGVREIMAN@COMCAST.NET> wrote in message
news:NMCdneRSFrY0T0_eRVn-pg@comcast.com...
SADDAM'S TIES WITH 911
© Copyright 2006 by DGVReiman, all rights reserved.
For years I have been posting that Saddam was involved in the 911
massacres. I also reminded everyone about a mural that was found at
Republican Guard HQ that depicted planes flying into the World Trade
Center, and the caption under that mural was "Saddam's Revenge."
[ Brain fart snipped. ]
I told you so.
Doug Grant (Tm)
Say, there, Doug, does the phrase "verbose, confused, overreaching and
immature" ring any bells? I'd say that's a damn fine description of
everything you write.
QUOTE
DOUG GRANT, INC., et al., Plaintiffs, v. GREATE BAY CASINO CORP., et
al., Defendants.
CIVIL ACTION NO. 97-4291(JEI) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
May 1, 1998, Original Filed
DISPOSITION: All of the claims relating to the alleged violations of
the CCC regulations (First, Second, Third, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, and
Thirteenth Counts) dismissed with prejudice. Remainder of the claims
(Eighth, Ninth, Tenth, Eleventh, and Lawyer Defendant claims) remanded
to state court. Permission to reinstate the Consumer Fraud Act count
(Fourth and Twelfth Counts) denied.
"Plaintiffs' complaint is a verbose, confused, overreaching and
immature work product, and its allegations of cheating, RICO, consumer
fraud, constitutional violations, defamation and civil conspiracy
confuse rather than elucidate the essential nature of the dispute."
MAY 1, 1998 JOSEPH E. IRENAS, United States District Judge
END QUOTE
Doug Grant is the plaintiff whose work was described by the judge as
being "verbose, confused, overreaching and immature."
ROFLMFAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
--
"It's interesting. I see all these political ads and all these
commentators say it's our job as Americans to vote. Let me tell
you something, with Bush in charge of the economy, this might
be the only job you have all year." -Jay Leno
.
|
|
|
| User: "DGVREIMAN" |
|
| Title: Re: SADDAM TIES WITH 911 |
22 Jan 2006 12:41:30 PM |
|
|
SADDAM’S TIES WITH 911
© Copyright 2006 by DGVReiman, all rights reserved.
For years I have been posting that Saddam was involved in the 911
massacres. I also reminded everyone about a mural that was found
at Republican Guard HQ that depicted planes flying into the World
Trade Center -the caption under that mural was "Saddam’s
Revenge."
I also said many times that Saddam was training international
terrorists in various terrorist training camps throughout Iraq.
In the Salman Pak terrorist training camp, south of Baghdad, as
just one example, Saddam was training terrorist cells, in groups
of five, one of the cell members being a qualified pilot, so he
could take over the aircraft after the hijacking. That
information game directly from the former Commandant of that camp
that had defected to the West.
It seemed to me that Saddam had to know about the 911 plot or he
would not be training terrorists to do precisely what the 911
hijackers did. Sounded logical to me. But when I posted such
information, you would have thought that I was posting that
Saddam flew one of the planes on 911!
The left-wingers screamed, howled, barked, danced, demeaned,
defamed, lied, ridiculed, and generally poo-poohed and discounted
everything I said about Saddam ties to 911 and to radical Muslim
terrorists.
I was chided and told that "Saddam was a secularist - he hated
radical Muslims" Sure he did.
I also mentioned that Saddam was training his own terrorist army,
the so-called "Saddam Fedayeen" that we all saw dressed in their
white martyr uniforms, replete with ski masks, AK 47's and
suicide bomb belts on parade for Saddam. Nevertheless that we all
saw these films of the parading terrorists, the nay sayers even
tried to duck and dodge that film we all saw on the news dozens
of times. The lefties, dogmatically, would just not admit that
Saddam, was, in any way involved with terrorists or terrorism
regardless of the mountains of evidence I posted to the contrary.
Why?
Because if the left-wingers admit that Saddam was involved in
training terrorists, or with terrorism in general, or especially
in any way was involved with the 911 plot, then the Congressional
Resolution of War, passed in October 2001 by our Congress, would
apply to the invasion of Iraq. That is a no no for the lefties as
the left-wingers do not want the liberation of Iraq to be clearly
sanctioned as a war against terrorism. The lefties want to try
and keep the fighting in Iraq separate from our war on terror,
therefore, they can hail and encourage our troops in Afghanistan,
demoralize our troops in Iraq, and blame President Bush for not
sending more troops to Afghanistan instead of liberating Iraq.
But now, evidence has surfaced proving that, as usual, I was
absolutely correct. And the lefties are running for cover!
Last week Newsweek revealed a 2002 Pentagon document that lists
"numerous meetings and communications" between Saddam’s agents
and Osama Bin Laden himself, and with Osama’s agents, starting in
1990 and ending in 2002.
The document’s findings also reveal "possible Iraqi coordination
with Al-Qaeda specifically related to the 911 massacres." The
document also all but proves outright that the ringleader of the
911 radical Muslim butchers, Mohammed Atta, met with Iraqi
operatives in Prague.
And if that is not enough, the "Weekly Standard" also reported
this week that documents captured in Iraq, prove that in the four
years before Saddam was removed from power, he and his sons, and
his agents, in Iraq, "trained thousands of Islamic terrorists in
Iraqi terrorist training camps!"
And all this is just being revealed due to the fact we have only
read about 2.5% of all the documents we captured from Saddam’s
Government! Only 2.5%! Wait until the "final authority" has been
heard from - boy will the lefties be boiling up those crow flocks
once again.
I suspect more about all this will come out long before the 2008
Presidential election. Then the American people will go into that
election knowing that President Bush and the Republican Party was
absolutely correct to remove Saddam for the immediate protection
and preservation of the citizens of the USA - and the voters will
be able to compare what President Bush did to protect us to those
"cut and runners" and "Bush bashers" and "appeasers of radical
Muslim goons" that we see dominate the Dimocratic party. (Pun
intended).
No doubt this new information will not make a very big "splash"
with Senator Kennedy (pun intended) nor the other members of the
screaming liberal army. But facts are facts.
Saddam was harboring, training, creating, financing, arming
terrorists, and Saddam WAS involved in the 911 massacres.
I told you so.
Doug Grant (Tm)
"Political Pagan" <pookinpnub@allthewrongplaces.biz> wrote in
message news:Xns9752CC312EF3pookinpnuballthewron@69.28.186.121...
"Joe S." <anon@mous.com> wrote in
news:1-ednVZjvYl4S0_enZ2dnUVZ_tidnZ2d@comcast.com:
"DGVREIMAN" <DGVREIMAN@COMCAST.NET> wrote in message
news:NMCdneRSFrY0T0_eRVn-pg@comcast.com...
SADDAM'S TIES WITH 911
© Copyright 2006 by DGVReiman, all rights reserved.
For years I have been posting that Saddam was involved in the
911
massacres. I also reminded everyone about a mural that was
found at
Republican Guard HQ that depicted planes flying into the
World Trade
Center, and the caption under that mural was "Saddam's
Revenge."
[ Brain fart snipped. ]
I told you so.
Doug Grant (Tm)
Say, there, Doug, does the phrase "verbose, confused,
overreaching and
immature" ring any bells? I'd say that's a damn fine
description of
everything you write.
QUOTE
DOUG GRANT, INC., et al., Plaintiffs, v. GREATE BAY CASINO
CORP., et
al., Defendants.
CIVIL ACTION NO. 97-4291(JEI) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
May 1, 1998, Original Filed
DISPOSITION: All of the claims relating to the alleged
violations of
the CCC regulations (First, Second, Third, Fifth, Sixth,
Seventh, and
Thirteenth Counts) dismissed with prejudice. Remainder of the
claims
(Eighth, Ninth, Tenth, Eleventh, and Lawyer Defendant claims)
remanded
to state court. Permission to reinstate the Consumer Fraud Act
count
(Fourth and Twelfth Counts) denied.
"Plaintiffs' complaint is a verbose, confused, overreaching
and
immature work product, and its allegations of cheating, RICO,
consumer
fraud, constitutional violations, defamation and civil
conspiracy
confuse rather than elucidate the essential nature of the
dispute."
MAY 1, 1998 JOSEPH E. IRENAS, United States District Judge
END QUOTE
Doug Grant is the plaintiff whose work was described by the
judge as
being "verbose, confused, overreaching and immature."
ROFLMFAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Doug Says: The conclusions of Judge Ireanas were proved false
and were overrulled. See below:
BS BROOKS GANG EXPOSED
© Copyright 2006 by DGVReiman, all rights reserved.
Date: MAY 1, 1998
JOSEPH E. IRENAS, U.S.D.J
Who was lying, Doogie?
Are you saying this is not a true copy of Judge Irenas'
decision?
Doug Says: In many cases before the US Supreme Court and many
other courts there exist completely different opinions and
conclusions. Dissenting opinions if you will. In our Supreme
court there are many verdicts five to four, with five agreeing
with the decision and four disagreeing. The majority writes the
reasons why they rendered the verdict they did, and the minority
dissenters write their version of why they disagreed with the
majority of the Justices.
This process works the same in lower courts, Appellate courts,
etc. Moreover, it is not unusual for an US court (including the
US Court of Appeals) to defer to the rulings of a State Supreme
Court (if a State issue is involved) or to a regulatory State
Agency that is in control of the State activity, such as a state
SEC or in this case a state Gaming commission.
The issue with my last lawsuit against the casinos, and the BS
Brook’s gang reporting of its outcome, is now what the final
ruling of the case really was, but the fact the BS Brook’s gang
is reporting only on what the Judges that were overturned and
overruled by the final authority in the case had to say about it.
That is analogous to reporting only what the losing Judges had to
say about a case in the Supreme court without mentioning the fact
the majority of the Justices disagreed with that *version* of the
case.
Now why would someone do that? Why would someone "cherry pick"
rulings and conclusions that were proved false by the very
authority the Judge that is being quoted deferred his final
authority and jurisdiction to, while *never* mentioning the real,
factual and ending final conclusion that contradicted that Judge
completely? The reason is obvious. To defame me.
Since the original Judge clearly was very negative about my case
and especially the way the mathematicians helped to write it
(complex and detailed) and since the original Judge clearly did
not understand the math the Math Professors had used to confirm
my math, the BS Brooks gang for the exclusive purpose of
defamation, is deceptively posting exclusively what that original
Judge said about my case while hiding the fact that Judge was
overturned and completely refuted by the NJ CCC. Note it was the
NJ CCC that was the very agency that very Judge transferred his
authority and jurisdiction over our claims to for a final ruling
and determination as to the validity of our claims.
Moreover, since I did not write the complaint, and several
lawyers did, along with math Professor input, trying to claim
that because the Judge did not understand the details of the case
because it was written by me is just another lie. The case is
complicated. The Math Professors attempted to prove their math,
the original Judge did not understand the math and he erroneously
believed the math and arguments the casino lawyers put forth.
However, when the NJ CCC, which has math experts on the game of
Blackjack at their disposal reviewed our claims, they agreed that
what we said was happening in the casinos was in fact happening
just like we said it was.
Yet when I post the decisions of the final authority that had
"exclusive jurisdiction" over our claims, the BS Brooks gang
tries to hide that decision by claiming the US Supreme Court
refused to hear our case. But BS Brooks is hiding the fact we
were appealing the decision of the court that the NJ CCC had
total jurisdiction, and that is what they refused to hear. Even
the US Court of Appeals for the Third District confirmed that the
NJ CCC had "exclusive jurisdiction" over our case and claims.
Moreover, the US Court of Appeals overturned Judge Irenas’s
dismissal of our libel charges against cyberstalkers, and those
cases were refilled in various state courts.
Those libel cases were filed in New Jersey, Pennsylvania,
California, Arizona, and Washington State. ALL of those cases
were settled to our satisfaction.
The BS Brooks gang lied and said those cases were never filed. I
have the docket numbers if anyone is interested to prove, once
again, that BS Brooks et al has been caught lying again.
BS Brooks even tried to lie and say that in my casino case the
courts ruled that a patron could just "walk away" from the
cheating. True. But that ruling was also overturned when the NJ
CCC said that patrons could not even identify the casino cheating
methods. So how can you walk away from something you cannot see?
BS Brooks caught lying again.
The BS Brooks said that our claims were "fatuous" because the
Casinos said the "Shuffle-At-Will" did not alter the game of
Blackjack. Of course we never claimed it did, and that claim was
put forth by the casino lawyers. They tried to convince the Judge
we were complaining about "apples" (the Shuffle-At-Will) instead
of the "oranges" which was the "Preferential Shuffle." Those are
completely two different casino maneuvers, as the NJ CCC
instantly recognized but Judge Ireanas simply did not have the
math background to understand the difference - as most Blackjack
laymen will not. But in this case, BS Brooks was caught lying
again.
Then BS Brooks said the US Court of Appeals and the US Supreme
Court represented the "final authority" over our case. And that
lie contradicted precisely what these various courts said, which
was the "NJ CCC had the exclusive authority over our claims
against the casinos."
So why would BS Brooks even stoop so low as to lie about what a
Federal Judge actually said (as evidenced below by his actual
quotation)? Of course, to try and further his smear campaign
against me.
BS Brooks in this latest exchange even tried to claim he filed a
FOIA request to the Federal Election Committee, and according to
BS Brooks, the FEC said they did not have any record of my filing
the Hanoi John Kerry’s indictment or the reply I said I received
from the FEC. However, according to the telephone call I made to
the FEC right after BS Brooks made that claim, they never
received any such FOIA request - period - from anyone. So why did
BS Brooks lie? To defame me of course.
Most of the BS Brook’s gang’s smear victims do not fight back. IN
the case of Lt. Abrams, a Silver Star Winner, according to his
publisher, he just "considered the low life source" of BS Brooks
lies and "selective defamation" and let it go at that.
However, when the BS Brook’s gang started to lie about my
military service, and when they started to fraudulently claim I
was a child molester, and when they started to publish my
personal VA medical information on the Internet, and when they
threatened me and my family with violence, and to publish the
address of my home, and last but not least, when they started to
publish forged FBI documents about me, I said enough is enough,
and it is time I started to set the record straight.
The unethical and immoral practices of the BS Brooks gang seem to
be boundless, and they are forcing me to contact lawyers, launch
criminal investigations, and to write indictments for a lawsuit.
It appears to me at this time they do not intend to stop their
lies, distortions and fraud for the purpose of defaming me, and
that I will have no other choice but to at least sue them in a
court of law before they will stop their most unethical and
immoral smears, defamation, fraud and personal attacks. I tried
to avoid naming them in this lawsuit as they claim to be Vietnam
Veterans, but now I am not so sure of their claims, and it
appears that regardless of their Veteran status they do not
possess the morality nor the ethics of what I consider a comrade
in arms.
I sincerely believe something is seriously wrong with these
people. They constantly use personal attacks and defamation based
upon lies and "selective interpretations" of facts to attack and
defame those that disagree with their political ideologies or
their desire for everyone to embrace ***** hole #one, a.k.a.
Communist Vietnam. They ignore the fact the Communist Vietnamese
are still holding our POW’s and MIA, s and they try their best to
get Vets to return to Vietnam and stay in hotels that are
partially owned by the Communist Government. My best advice is to
not get involved with this smear merchant gang regardless of
whether you like to visit Vietnam or not. If you do, and you
support their libel with more libel, or repost it, unfortunately
you also could be named in the forthcoming litigation.
Remember, cyberstalking, cyberharassment, malicious libel, fraud
and forgery are criminal acts in many states. This is starting to
become serious business especially since there is a criminal
investigation underway. I have posted the criminal statutes for
Cyberharassment, libel, forgeries and fraud for several states. I
strongly urge you to check with your own lawyer to determine
whether anything you might post or say in the future would
violate any of those criminal statutes.
Unlike other BS Brooks gang smear victims, I will not sit by and
do nothing about it. I will defend myself on USENET and also in
the courts.
Below is the irrefutable proof that BS Brooks is lying about my
last casino case - and everything else I have said he lied about,
and I have not even started posting the proof of BS Brooks and
his gang’s lies and fraud. As long as they keep posting their
lies and defamation, I will keep posting the proof of their lies,
fraud and other unethical practices.
Doug Says: Judge Irenas deferred his jurisdiction and authority
over our claims to the NJ CCC. Ergo, Judge Irenas's preliminary
conclusions about our case (he did not appoint a court appointed
math expert) were later proved wrong, incorrect, false,
ridiculous, erroneous and completely off the wall by the NJ CCC.
When the math experts got involved, they proved what we were
claiming was true. Judge Irenas could not figure out why a
shuffle would change the game of Blackjack in the casinos favor -
most Blackjack laymen would agree. But it can. That was the
issue Judge Irenas missed. Yet he really did not care because he
knew he was deferring his authority and jurisdiction to the NJ
CCC - and that agency verified what we were claiming, and
completely contradicted Judge Irenas.
Here is the excerpt from the Judge's ruling that supercedes
everything else. This is where he says the NJ CCC has the
"exclusive authority and jurisdiction" to adjudicate our
complaints against the casinos.
JUDGE IRENAS
"Even were we to conclude that the CCC has acted improperly or
illegally in adopting these regulations or permitting these
practices, this court would not be a proper forum in which to
recover damages or seek equitable relief. The Appellate Division
of the New Jersey Superior Court has recently held that the CCC
has exclusive jurisdiction over claims that a casino has violated
the rules of play and has clearly stated that "there is no
private cause of action against a casino for its alleged
violation of [CCC] regulations governing the manner in which
games are played." Campione, 302 N.J. Super. at 118, 694 A.2d
1048. We had earlier agreed with this position in a footnote
appearing in Tose v. Greate Bay Hotel Casino, 819 F. Supp. 1312,
1316 n.8 (D.N.J 1993), aff'd, 34 F.3d 1227 (3d Cir. 1994).
Ouranalysis was subsequently approved by the Third Circuit in
Hakimoglu v. Trump Taj Mahal Associates, 70 F.3d 291, 293-94 (3d
Cir. 1995)."
Date: MAY 1, 1998
JOSEPH E. IRENAS, U.S.D.J.
Doug Says: Judge Irenas said that was the reason he was
dismissing our case. He did not have jurisdiction.
After Judge Irenas dismissed our case due to his lack of
authority and jurisdiction over our claims, and our claims were
transferred to the NJ CCC, the NJ CCC had a completely different
perspective on our claims than the Judge Irenas court did.
Mostly because we brought in two math professors, Professor
Steele from the University of Pa, and they brought in Professor
Peter Griffin from Cal State. Both of those Math professors
confirmed my math (that Judge Irenas did not believe could be
true) - and that set the stage for the NJ CCC to say the
following about our claims against the casinos:
Here is what else the NJ CCC ruled on the case the Judges
provided it to provide the final ruling:
"As the CCC implicitly recognized, even the least sophisticated
player would view a game where casinos controlled the
result to be a rigged game. That is why those patrons would
refuse to play.
Though this Court has held that patrons must be on clear notice
of the rules of the game, the CCC has never publicly disclosed
the
existence of such procedures. Campione v. Adamar of New
Jersey,Inc., 155 N.J. 245, 264 (1998). The Act also requires that
casinos notify patrons of the "conduct of gaming." N.J.S.A.
5:12-100(f).The
Appellate Division erred in failing to require full disclosure of
procedures the CCC itself stated have "grievous consequences on
the basic fairness of the game." Da53.
Doug says: Note above where the NJ CCC contradicted both Judge
Irenas and the Appellate Division false conclusions. The opinion
of the NJ CCC was that the tactic we proved the casino was using
"have "grievous consequences on the basic fairness of the game."
Da53.
NC CC Table of Authorities continues:
The record spans more than a thousand pages and twenty years of
regulatory history. The underlying facts establish the public
importance of this case and the palpable unfairness of a decision
that gives casinos the discretion to conduct a game under false
pretenses-- in a way patrons would refuse to play if the true
rules and playing conditions were disclosed.
Petitioners challenge the validity of several blackjack
regulations, rules and procedures, primarily on grounds that
casinos
deliberately use these procedures against patrons that the
casinos know are not counting cards, either to increase profits
or to give favored players an unfair opportunity to win. See,
e.g., N.J.A.C.19:47-2.5(a), N.J.A.C. 19:47 8,2(d). Pr2-3.
CCC Commissioner Leanna Brown agreed with the petitioners that
such procedures "challenge[] the integrity of the game of
Blackjack,"
"open the door for a discriminatory application of the rules of
the game" and are legally . . .impermissible." Pa774.
Doug says: ALL of our claims that were so negatively treated by
an very uninformed Judge (who wrongly believed the false math and
false arguments of the casino lawyers) were proved true and
correct by the NJ CCC. And since the NJ CCC was give the
"exclusive jurisdiction" by Judge Irenas, and the Appellate
Division, then it should be the opinions and conclusions of the
NJ CCC that are quoted, and not some preliminary and quite false
observations made by a Judge that transferred his entire
authority and jurisdiction to the NJ CCC.e
That is if you are interested in ethics, truth, honesty, etc...
which the BS Brooks gang clearly is not. They are about as
ethical as General Giap. The Butcher of Hue. Posting what a
Judge said about a case that was later proved false, and that did
not have any jurisdiction or authority over those claims, is akin
to posting a typical BS Brooks brain fart - which he posts very
often. Such action is deceptive, dishonest and is clearly so
dishonest it is meant to defame with the use of fraud.
You're getting famous, Doodly.
Of course the true holder of the "Doug Grant" copyright gets
mention sometimes, too. For example:
http://home.comcast.net/~thuxton/douggrant.htm
Pepperoni
Doug Says: When we exposed casino cheating we also exposed all
of the con man hucksters that sell worthless casino systems to
the public with the false promise those systems can win money
from casinos. That claim is false as long as the casinos can use
cheating tactics to alter the real percentage advantages or
disadvantages of the game. That revelation meant the shadow
industry of the casino industry, the selling of books, software,
etc proposing how to beat the casinos, was a complete and total
fraud. So the casino book hucksters lined up with the casinos to
attack me and my lawsuit. In fact, two of the most infamous book
hucksters showed up at the casino depositions in the Campione v.
Adamar case to testify for the casinos! They lost of course when
Campione was awarded 1.5 million dollars by a jury, but
considering these two infamous hucksters were selling hundreds of
books on how to beat the casinos, were actually and secretly
working for the very casinos they claimed their systems could
beat, was a revelation that I publized often.
Ergo, I incurred the wrath of almost every con man and system
huckster out there because these two hucksters sell most of the
"beat the casino systems" through their two major publishing
outlets. Now con men are con men. They are void of ethics, do not
care about the truth, and they will say or do anything to
discredit anyone that is blowing the whistle on their false
promises, scams and misrepresentations. (Sound familar?) (I
consider that almost as bad as creating false light controversy
with fraud and distortions, then using that fraud and
distortions, forgeries, etc. to direct people to a web site, and
then try to sell people merchandise or use banner ads on those
web sites - would you call that "fraud for profit?" I would.)
I could have went to every attorney general in every state in the
union with what I had uncovered about their false claims. I did
not do that, as once we tracked them down they whined their
apologizes for their lies and libel, and we let it go at that.
But recently, I see that the BS Brooks gang is reusing lies and
libel they posted as a means to again fraudulently defame me. If
BS Brooks and his gang members want to climb in bed with a group
of known con men, that is their business. But if the con men
again resurface, then I will start a campaign to ask the State
Attorney Generals to investigate their claims, and I will provide
those said Attorney General's with absolute irrefutable evidence
these con men are duping and lying to the public.
So am I known in the respect that casino huckster con men hate me
universally? And the casinos hate me as well for exposing their
cheating? That is a matter of opinion, but when we traced all of
the hate cyberstalking emails and postings back from our lawsuit
period, they ALL came from casino employees or their agents, or
from system hucksters.
Now, based upon all this old *admitted* false libel being dredged
up by the BS Brooks gang, it appears the BS Brooks gang is
affiliating themselves with known con men and *admitted* libel
and lies. Talk about the lack of ethics and morals. But with BS
Brooks, such is no surprise.
Doug Grant (Tm)
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "DGVREIMAN" |
|
| Title: Re: SADDAM TIES WITH 911 |
22 Jan 2006 12:38:28 PM |
|
|
SADDAM’S TIES WITH 911
© Copyright 2006 by DGVReiman, all rights reserved.
For years I have been posting that Saddam was involved in the 911
massacres. I also reminded everyone about a mural that was found
at Republican Guard HQ that depicted planes flying into the World
Trade Center -the caption under that mural was "Saddam’s
Revenge."
I also said many times that Saddam was training international
terrorists in various terrorist training camps throughout Iraq.
In the Salman Pak terrorist training camp, south of Baghdad, as
just one example, Saddam was training terrorist cells, in groups
of five, one of the cell members being a qualified pilot, so he
could take over the aircraft after the hijacking. That
information game directly from the former Commandant of that camp
that had defected to the West.
It seemed to me that Saddam had to know about the 911 plot or he
would not be training terrorists to do precisely what the 911
hijackers did. Sounded logical to me. But when I posted such
information, you would have thought that I was posting that
Saddam flew one of the planes on 911!
The left-wingers screamed, howled, barked, danced, demeaned,
defamed, lied, ridiculed, and generally poo-poohed and discounted
everything I said about Saddam ties to 911 and to radical Muslim
terrorists.
I was chided and told that "Saddam was a secularist - he hated
radical Muslims" Sure he did.
I also mentioned that Saddam was training his own terrorist army,
the so-called "Saddam Fedayeen" that we all saw dressed in their
white martyr uniforms, replete with ski masks, AK 47's and
suicide bomb belts on parade for Saddam. Nevertheless that we all
saw these films of the parading terrorists, the nay sayers even
tried to duck and dodge that film we all saw on the news dozens
of times. The lefties, dogmatically, would just not admit that
Saddam, was, in any way involved with terrorists or terrorism
regardless of the mountains of evidence I posted to the contrary.
Why?
Because if the left-wingers admit that Saddam was involved in
training terrorists, or with terrorism in general, or especially
in any way was involved with the 911 plot, then the Congressional
Resolution of War, passed in October 2001 by our Congress, would
apply to the invasion of Iraq. That is a no no for the lefties as
the left-wingers do not want the liberation of Iraq to be clearly
sanctioned as a war against terrorism. The lefties want to try
and keep the fighting in Iraq separate from our war on terror,
therefore, they can hail and encourage our troops in Afghanistan,
demoralize our troops in Iraq, and blame President Bush for not
sending more troops to Afghanistan instead of liberating Iraq.
But now, evidence has surfaced proving that, as usual, I was
absolutely correct. And the lefties are running for cover!
Last week Newsweek revealed a 2002 Pentagon document that lists
"numerous meetings and communications" between Saddam’s agents
and Osama Bin Laden himself, and with Osama’s agents, starting in
1990 and ending in 2002.
The document’s findings also reveal "possible Iraqi coordination
with Al-Qaeda specifically related to the 911 massacres." The
document also all but proves outright that the ringleader of the
911 radical Muslim butchers, Mohammed Atta, met with Iraqi
operatives in Prague.
And if that is not enough, the "Weekly Standard" also reported
this week that documents captured in Iraq, prove that in the four
years before Saddam was removed from power, he and his sons, and
his agents, in Iraq, "trained thousands of Islamic terrorists in
Iraqi terrorist training camps!"
And all this is just being revealed due to the fact we have only
read about 2.5% of all the documents we captured from Saddam’s
Government! Only 2.5%! Wait until the "final authority" has been
heard from - boy will the lefties be boiling up those crow flocks
once again.
I suspect more about all this will come out long before the 2008
Presidential election. Then the American people will go into that
election knowing that President Bush and the Republican Party was
absolutely correct to remove Saddam for the immediate protection
and preservation of the citizens of the USA - and the voters will
be able to compare what President Bush did to protect us to those
"cut and runners" and "Bush bashers" and "appeasers of radical
Muslim goons" that we see dominate the Dimocratic party. (Pun
intended).
No doubt this new information will not make a very big "splash"
with Senator Kennedy (pun intended) nor the other members of the
screaming liberal army. But facts are facts.
Saddam was harboring, training, creating, financing, arming
terrorists, and Saddam WAS involved in the 911 massacres.
I told you so.
Doug Grant (Tm)
"Joe S." <anon@mous.com> wrote in message
news:1-ednVZjvYl4S0_enZ2dnUVZ_tidnZ2d@comcast.com...
"DGVREIMAN" <DGVREIMAN@COMCAST.NET> wrote in message
news:NMCdneRSFrY0T0_eRVn-pg@comcast.com...
SADDAM'S TIES WITH 911
© Copyright 2006 by DGVReiman, all rights reserved.
For years I have been posting that Saddam was involved in the
911 massacres. I also reminded everyone about a mural that was
found at Republican Guard HQ that depicted planes flying into
the World Trade Center, and the caption under that mural was
"Saddam's Revenge."
[ Brain fart snipped. ]
I told you so.
Doug Grant (Tm)
Say, there, Doug, does the phrase "verbose, confused,
overreaching and immature" ring any bells? I'd say that's a
damn fine description of everything you write.
QUOTE
DOUG GRANT, INC., et al., Plaintiffs, v. GREATE BAY CASINO
CORP., et al.,
Defendants.
CIVIL ACTION NO. 97-4291(JEI) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
May 1, 1998, Original Filed
DISPOSITION: All of the claims relating to the alleged
violations of the CCC
regulations (First, Second, Third, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, and
Thirteenth
Counts) dismissed with prejudice. Remainder of the claims
(Eighth, Ninth,
Tenth, Eleventh, and Lawyer Defendant claims) remanded to state
court.
Permission to reinstate the Consumer Fraud Act count (Fourth
and Twelfth
Counts) denied.
"Plaintiffs' complaint is a verbose, confused, overreaching and
immature
work product, and its allegations of cheating, RICO, consumer
fraud,
constitutional violations, defamation and civil conspiracy
confuse rather
than elucidate the essential nature of the dispute."
MAY 1, 1998 JOSEPH E. IRENAS, United States District Judge
END QUOTE
Doug Grant is the plaintiff whose work was described by the
judge as being "verbose, confused, overreaching and immature."
BS BROOKS GANG EXPOSED
© Copyright 2006 by DGVReiman, all rights reserved.
Date: MAY 1, 1998
JOSEPH E. IRENAS, U.S.D.J
Who was lying, Doogie?
Are you saying this is not a true copy of Judge Irenas'
decision?
Doug Says: In many cases before the US Supreme Court and many
other courts there exist completely different opinions and
conclusions. Dissenting opinions if you will. In our Supreme
court there are many verdicts five to four, with five agreeing
with the decision and four disagreeing. The majority writes the
reasons why they rendered the verdict they did, and the minority
dissenters write their version of why they disagreed with the
majority of the Justices.
This process works the same in lower courts, Appellate courts,
etc. Moreover, it is not unusual for an US court (including the
US Court of Appeals) to defer to the rulings of a State Supreme
Court (if a State issue is involved) or to a regulatory State
Agency that is in control of the State activity, such as a state
SEC or in this case a state Gaming commission.
The issue with my last lawsuit against the casinos, and the BS
Brook’s gang reporting of its outcome, is now what the final
ruling of the case really was, but the fact the BS Brook’s gang
is reporting only on what the Judges that were overturned and
overruled by the final authority in the case had to say about it.
That is analogous to reporting only what the losing Judges had to
say about a case in the Supreme court without mentioning the fact
the majority of the Justices disagreed with that *version* of the
case.
Now why would someone do that? Why would someone "cherry pick"
rulings and conclusions that were proved false by the very
authority the Judge that is being quoted deferred his final
authority and jurisdiction to, while *never* mentioning the real,
factual and ending final conclusion that contradicted that Judge
completely? The reason is obvious. To defame me.
Since the original Judge clearly was very negative about my case
and especially the way the mathematicians helped to write it
(complex and detailed) and since the original Judge clearly did
not understand the math the Math Professors had used to confirm
my math, the BS Brooks gang for the exclusive purpose of
defamation, is deceptively posting exclusively what that original
Judge said about my case while hiding the fact that Judge was
overturned and completely refuted by the NJ CCC. Note it was the
NJ CCC that was the very agency that very Judge transferred his
authority and jurisdiction over our claims to for a final ruling
and determination as to the validity of our claims.
Moreover, since I did not write the complaint, and several
lawyers did, along with math Professor input, trying to claim
that because the Judge did not understand the details of the case
because it was written by me is just another lie. The case is
complicated. The Math Professors attempted to prove their math,
the original Judge did not understand the math and he erroneously
believed the math and arguments the casino lawyers put forth.
However, when the NJ CCC, which has math experts on the game of
Blackjack at their disposal reviewed our claims, they agreed that
what we said was happening in the casinos was in fact happening
just like we said it was.
Yet when I post the decisions of the final authority that had
"exclusive jurisdiction" over our claims, the BS Brooks gang
tries to hide that decision by claiming the US Supreme Court
refused to hear our case. But BS Brooks is hiding the fact we
were appealing the decision of the court that the NJ CCC had
total jurisdiction, and that is what they refused to hear. Even
the US Court of Appeals for the Third District confirmed that the
NJ CCC had "exclusive jurisdiction" over our case and claims.
Moreover, the US Court of Appeals overturned Judge Irenas’s
dismissal of our libel charges against cyberstalkers, and those
cases were refilled in various state courts.
Those libel cases were filed in New Jersey, Pennsylvania,
California, Arizona, and Washington State. ALL of those cases
were settled to our satisfaction.
The BS Brooks gang lied and said those cases were never filed. I
have the docket numbers if anyone is interested to prove, once
again, that BS Brooks et al has been caught lying again.
BS Brooks even tried to lie and say that in my casino case the
courts ruled that a patron could just "walk away" from the
cheating. True. But that ruling was also overturned when the NJ
CCC said that patrons could not even identify the casino cheating
methods. So how can you walk away from something you cannot see?
BS Brooks caught lying again.
The BS Brooks said that our claims were "fatuous" because the
Casinos said the "Shuffle-At-Will" did not alter the game of
Blackjack. Of course we never claimed it did, and that claim was
put forth by the casino lawyers. They tried to convince the Judge
we were complaining about "apples" (the Shuffle-At-Will) instead
of the "oranges" which was the "Preferential Shuffle." Those are
completely two different casino maneuvers, as the NJ CCC
instantly recognized but Judge Ireanas simply did not have the
math background to understand the difference - as most Blackjack
laymen will not. But in this case, BS Brooks was caught lying
again.
Then BS Brooks said the US Court of Appeals and the US Supreme
Court represented the "final authority" over our case. And that
lie contradicted precisely what these various courts said, which
was the "NJ CCC had the exclusive authority over our claims
against the casinos."
So why would BS Brooks even stoop so low as to lie about what a
Federal Judge actually said (as evidenced below by his actual
quotation)? Of course, to try and further his smear campaign
against me.
BS Brooks in this latest exchange even tried to claim he filed a
FOIA request to the Federal Election Committee, and according to
BS Brooks, the FEC said they did not have any record of my filing
the Hanoi John Kerry’s indictment or the reply I said I received
from the FEC. However, according to the telephone call I made to
the FEC right after BS Brooks made that claim, they never
received any such FOIA request - period - from anyone. So why did
BS Brooks lie? To defame me of course.
Most of the BS Brook’s gang’s smear victims do not fight back. IN
the case of Lt. Abrams, a Silver Star Winner, according to his
publisher, he just "considered the low life source" of BS Brooks
lies and "selective defamation" and let it go at that.
However, when the BS Brook’s gang started to lie about my
military service, and when they started to fraudulently claim I
was a child molester, and when they started to publish my
personal VA medical information on the Internet, and when they
threatened me and my family with violence, and to publish the
address of my home, and last but not least, when they started to
publish forged FBI documents about me, I said enough is enough,
and it is time I started to set the record straight.
The unethical and immoral practices of the BS Brooks gang seem to
be boundless, and they are forcing me to contact lawyers, launch
criminal investigations, and to write indictments for a lawsuit.
It appears to me at this time they do not intend to stop their
lies, distortions and fraud for the purpose of defaming me, and
that I will have no other choice but to at least sue them in a
court of law before they will stop their most unethical and
immoral smears, defamation, fraud and personal attacks. I tried
to avoid naming them in this lawsuit as they claim to be Vietnam
Veterans, but now I am not so sure of their claims, and it
appears that regardless of their Veteran status they do not
possess the morality nor the ethics of what I consider a comrade
in arms.
I sincerely believe something is seriously wrong with these
people. They constantly use personal attacks and defamation based
upon lies and "selective interpretations" of facts to attack and
defame those that disagree with their political ideologies or
their desire for everyone to embrace ***** hole #one, a.k.a.
Communist Vietnam. They ignore the fact the Communist Vietnamese
are still holding our POW’s and MIA, s and they try their best to
get Vets to return to Vietnam and stay in hotels that are
partially owned by the Communist Government. My best advice is to
not get involved with this smear merchant gang regardless of
whether you like to visit Vietnam or not. If you do, and you
support their libel with more libel, or repost it, unfortunately
you also could be named in the forthcoming litigation.
Remember, cyberstalking, cyberharassment, malicious libel, fraud
and forgery are criminal acts in many states. This is starting to
become serious business especially since there is a criminal
investigation underway. I have posted the criminal statutes for
Cyberharassment, libel, forgeries and fraud for several states. I
strongly urge you to check with your own lawyer to determine
whether anything you might post or say in the future would
violate any of those criminal statutes.
Unlike other BS Brooks gang smear victims, I will not sit by and
do nothing about it. I will defend myself on USENET and also in
the courts.
Below is the irrefutable proof that BS Brooks is lying about my
last casino case - and everything else I have said he lied about,
and I have not even started posting the proof of BS Brooks and
his gang’s lies and fraud. As long as they keep posting their
lies and defamation, I will keep posting the proof of their lies,
fraud and other unethical practices.
Doug Says: Judge Irenas deferred his jurisdiction and authority
over our claims to the NJ CCC. Ergo, Judge Irenas's preliminary
conclusions about our case (he did not appoint a court appointed
math expert) were later proved wrong, incorrect, false,
ridiculous, erroneous and completely off the wall by the NJ CCC.
When the math experts got involved, they proved what we were
claiming was true. Judge Irenas could not figure out why a
shuffle would change the game of Blackjack in the casinos favor -
most Blackjack laymen would agree. But it can. That was the
issue Judge Irenas missed. Yet he really did not care because he
knew he was deferring his authority and jurisdiction to the NJ
CCC - and that agency verified what we were claiming, and
completely contradicted Judge Irenas.
Here is the excerpt from the Judge's ruling that supercedes
everything else. This is where he says the NJ CCC has the
"exclusive authority and jurisdiction" to adjudicate our
complaints against the casinos.
JUDGE IRENAS
"Even were we to conclude that the CCC has acted improperly or
illegally in adopting these regulations or permitting these
practices, this court would not be a proper forum in which to
recover damages or seek equitable relief. The Appellate Division
of the New Jersey Superior Court has recently held that the CCC
has exclusive jurisdiction over claims that a casino has violated
the rules of play and has clearly stated that "there is no
private cause of action against a casino for its alleged
violation of [CCC] regulations governing the manner in which
games are played." Campione, 302 N.J. Super. at 118, 694 A.2d
1048. We had earlier agreed with this position in a footnote
appearing in Tose v. Greate Bay Hotel Casino, 819 F. Supp. 1312,
1316 n.8 (D.N.J 1993), aff'd, 34 F.3d 1227 (3d Cir. 1994).
Ouranalysis was subsequently approved by the Third Circuit in
Hakimoglu v. Trump Taj Mahal Associates, 70 F.3d 291, 293-94 (3d
Cir. 1995)."
Date: MAY 1, 1998
JOSEPH E. IRENAS, U.S.D.J.
Doug Says: Judge Irenas said that was the reason he was
dismissing our case. He did not have jurisdiction.
After Judge Irenas dismissed our case due to his lack of
authority and jurisdiction over our claims, and our claims were
transferred to the NJ CCC, the NJ CCC had a completely different
perspective on our claims than the Judge Irenas court did.
Mostly because we brought in two math professors, Professor
Steele from the University of Pa, and they brought in Professor
Peter Griffin from Cal State. Both of those Math professors
confirmed my math (that Judge Irenas did not believe could be
true) - and that set the stage for the NJ CCC to say the
following about our claims against the casinos:
Here is what else the NJ CCC ruled on the case the Judges
provided it to provide the final ruling:
"As the CCC implicitly recognized, even the least sophisticated
player would view a game where casinos controlled the
result to be a rigged game. That is why those patrons would
refuse to play.
Though this Court has held that patrons must be on clear notice
of the rules of the game, the CCC has never publicly disclosed
the
existence of such procedures. Campione v. Adamar of New
Jersey,Inc., 155 N.J. 245, 264 (1998). The Act also requires that
casinos notify patrons of the "conduct of gaming." N.J.S.A.
5:12-100(f).The
Appellate Division erred in failing to require full disclosure of
procedures the CCC itself stated have "grievous consequences on
the basic fairness of the game." Da53.
Doug says: Note above where the NJ CCC contradicted both Judge
Irenas and the Appellate Division false conclusions. The opinion
of the NJ CCC was that the tactic we proved the casino was using
"have "grievous consequences on the basic fairness of the game."
Da53.
NC CC Table of Authorities continues:
The record spans more than a thousand pages and twenty years of
regulatory history. The underlying facts establish the public
importance of this case and the palpable unfairness of a decision
that gives casinos the discretion to conduct a game under false
pretenses-- in a way patrons would refuse to play if the true
rules and playing conditions were disclosed.
Petitioners challenge the validity of several blackjack
regulations, rules and procedures, primarily on grounds that
casinos
deliberately use these procedures against patrons that the
casinos know are not counting cards, either to increase profits
or to give favored players an unfair opportunity to win. See,
e.g., N.J.A.C.19:47-2.5(a), N.J.A.C. 19:47 8,2(d). Pr2-3.
CCC Commissioner Leanna Brown agreed with the petitioners that
such procedures "challenge[] the integrity of the game of
Blackjack,"
"open the door for a discriminatory application of the rules of
the game" and are legally . . .impermissible." Pa774.
Doug says: ALL of our claims that were so negatively treated by
an very uninformed Judge (who wrongly believed the false math and
false arguments of the casino lawyers) were proved true and
correct by the NJ CCC. And since the NJ CCC was give the
"exclusive jurisdiction" by Judge Irenas, and the Appellate
Division, then it should be the opinions and conclusions of the
NJ CCC that are quoted, and not some preliminary and quite false
observations made by a Judge that transferred his entire
authority and jurisdiction to the NJ CCC.e
That is if you are interested in ethics, truth, honesty, etc...
which the BS Brooks gang clearly is not. They are about as
ethical as General Giap. The Butcher of Hue. Posting what a
Judge said about a case that was later proved false, and that did
not have any jurisdiction or authority over those claims, is akin
to posting a typical BS Brooks brain fart - which he posts very
often. Such action is deceptive, dishonest and is clearly so
dishonest it is meant to defame with the use of fraud.
You're getting famous, Doodly.
Of course the true holder of the "Doug Grant" copyright gets
mention sometimes, too. For example:
http://home.comcast.net/~thuxton/douggrant.htm
Pepperoni
Doug Says: When we exposed casino cheating we also exposed all
of the con man hucksters that sell worthless casino systems to
the public with the false promise those systems can win money
from casinos. That claim is false as long as the casinos can use
cheating tactics to alter the real percentage advantages or
disadvantages of the game. That revelation meant the shadow
industry of the casino industry, the selling of books, software,
etc proposing how to beat the casinos, was a complete and total
fraud. So the casino book hucksters lined up with the casinos to
attack me and my lawsuit. In fact, two of the most infamous book
hucksters showed up at the casino depositions in the Campione v.
Adamar case to testify for the casinos! They lost of course when
Campione was awarded 1.5 million dollars by a jury, but
considering these two infamous hucksters were selling hundreds of
books on how to beat the casinos, were actually and secretly
working for the very casinos they claimed their systems could
beat, was a revelation that I publized often.
Ergo, I incurred the wrath of almost every con man and system
huckster out there because these two hucksters sell most of the
"beat the casino systems" through their two major publishing
outlets. Now con men are con men. They are void of ethics, do not
care about the truth, and they will say or do anything to
discredit anyone that is blowing the whistle on their false
promises, scams and misrepresentations. (Sound familar?) (I
consider that almost as bad as creating false light controversy
with fraud and distortions, then using that fraud and
distortions, forgeries, etc. to direct people to a web site, and
then try to sell people merchandise or use banner ads on those
web sites - would you call that "fraud for profit?" I would.)
I could have went to every attorney general in every state in the
union with what I had uncovered about their false claims. I did
not do that, as once we tracked them down they whined their
apologizes for their lies and libel, and we let it go at that.
But recently, I see that the BS Brooks gang is reusing lies and
libel they posted as a means to again fraudulently defame me. If
BS Brooks and his gang members want to climb in bed with a group
of known con men, that is their business. But if the con men
again resurface, then I will start a campaign to ask the State
Attorney Generals to investigate their claims, and I will provide
those said Attorney General's with absolute irrefutable evidence
these con men are duping and lying to the public.
So am I known in the respect that casino huckster con men hate me
universally? And the casinos hate me as well for exposing their
cheating? That is a matter of opinion, but when we traced all of
the hate cyberstalking emails and postings back from our lawsuit
period, they ALL came from casino employees or their agents, or
from system hucksters.
Now, based upon all this old *admitted* false libel being dredged
up by the BS Brooks gang, it appears the BS Brooks gang is
affiliating themselves with known con men and *admitted* libel
and lies. Talk about the lack of ethics and morals. But with BS
Brooks, such is no surprise.
Doug Grant (Tm)
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "don" |
|
| Title: Re: SADDAM TIES WITH 911 |
21 Jan 2006 08:22:09 PM |
|
|
*****. If there had been such a pic, it would have been all over the
news. You would be able to find all kinds of webpages today with the pic
available for any and all to see. Just did a search, can't find ***** on
it...
"DGVREIMAN" <DGVREIMAN@COMCAST.NET> wrote in message
news:NMCdneRSFrY0T0_eRVn-pg@comcast.com...
SADDAM'S TIES WITH 911
© Copyright 2006 by DGVReiman, all rights reserved.
For years I have been posting that Saddam was involved in the 911
massacres. I also reminded everyone about a mural that was found at
Republican Guard HQ that depicted planes flying into the World Trade
Center, and the caption under that mural was "Saddam's Revenge."
.
|
|
|
| User: "BigRedWingsFan" |
|
| Title: Re: SADDAM TIES WITH 911 |
21 Jan 2006 09:30:47 PM |
|
|
"don" <soneone@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:Ps6dnZWNoLDPcU_eRVn-jA@giganews.com...
*****. If there had been such a pic, it would have been all over the
news. You would be able to find all kinds of webpages today with the pic
available for any and all to see. Just did a search, can't find ***** on
it...
Get some lessons on how to use Google from a local grade-schooler, chum:
http://impiousdigest.com/iraq_twin_towers.jpg
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/26/sprj.irq.mural/
http://www.snopes.com/rumors/mural.php
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Iraq+mural+twin+towers&btnG=Google+Search
Have a nice day.
"DGVREIMAN" <DGVREIMAN@COMCAST.NET> wrote in message
news:NMCdneRSFrY0T0_eRVn-pg@comcast.com...
SADDAM'S TIES WITH 911
© Copyright 2006 by DGVReiman, all rights reserved.
For years I have been posting that Saddam was involved in the 911
massacres. I also reminded everyone about a mural that was found at
Republican Guard HQ that depicted planes flying into the World Trade
Center, and the caption under that mural was "Saddam's Revenge."
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: SADDAM TIES WITH 911 |
21 Jan 2006 11:06:35 PM |
|
|
I think what kills me about anyone who is pro-iraq war is that they
only think there is one way to solve the problem. There are much
better options. Options that wouldn't cost us so much in lives and
money.
This war is just a repeat of Vietnam. A perceived threat, in this case
terrorism, during Vietnam it was the worry of communism spreading.
Instead of wasting billions on a war that will have no impact on our
safety over the long run, why not focus that effort on making
vulnerable areas more secure. We can't possible kill or convert every
terrorist, but we have a chance of making nuclear power plants,
airplanes, trains, bridges, and such much safer.
Another sad fact is how many people believe this war is about
terrorism. I'm not sure what its really about, probably oil and kick
backs. Maybe revenge for the attempt on Bush Seniors life. No way to
know, but it's not about terrorism. Even junior should know that Iraq
is just a blip on the map. There are many other countries training
terrorists right now. We don't have the resources to invade them all.
We don't even have the resources to turn Iraq around. When we leave,
it will revert back to it's original state just as Vietnam did.
Leftist or whatever you want to call anti-war folks understand that the
towers were a tragedy and something needs to be done. Going off half
cocked with both barrels blazing is not the answer though. As angry as
we might have been, it's just not a smart move. Because we did that,
there will be many war vets having to live the rest of their lives
without arms and legs. Many are going to end up bitter and mean as the
reality of their situation hits them.
As for the rest of us, we will have to work harder than ever to pay off
the debt this war has created. The world will hate us more than they
ever did. Most Iraq citizens will not have fond memories of our
occupation. We are invaders in their eyes, not liberators. And
because of this, I expect even more terrorists will be created. Other
countries will also trust us less. Many of them will view us as a much
bigger threat.
Truth is, Bush is nothing more than a crook. He has repeatedly screwed
over the middle and lower class. Look at his policies. Those tax
cuts for the rich are nothing more than just what they seem. It's
not an attempt to stimulate the economy, it's just him helping out
himself and his rich friends. The cuts against social programs are
exactly what they seem. Just him sticking it to Americans in an
attempt to relieve the upper class of some taxes.
This is supposed to be the land of opportunity. It's pretty dang
hard to find opportunity when your jobs are being sent overseas by the
thousands, social programs are being cut, student loans are being cut,
bankruptcy laws are getting tighter. All these things serve one
purpose, to put more money in the hands of the very rich.
I know a lot of you think Bush cares because he is against unnatural
gay marriage and brutal abortion laws. Well, believing those things
does not automatically make you a righteous person. There are plenty
of religious nuts that believe those things, but you wouldn't want
them running the country. So, maybe he is religious, he still
doesn't give a crap about the average American. That is not right,
no matter how you look at it.
If you don't care about 90% of Americans, then fine. Bush, might be
your man. If you think only the rich have rights, then maybe Bush is
your guy. If you think that the middle and lower class should have an
opportunity at the American dream, then why do you think junior is a
good guy?
The war is a ruse.
Junior is a crook.
If you can't see this, then your gullible.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: SADDAM TIES WITH 911 |
22 Jan 2006 07:02:33 PM |
|
|
Do you really think the US couldn't have gotten Saddam without a war?
I know they could have gotten him. Bush just wanted revenge and
wanted HIS WAY... And I find it amazing that Saddam is still alive.
Why did many thousands of other people have to die, with most being
innocent, yet Saddam is getting special treatment...
On 21 Jan 2006 21:06:35 -0800, wrote:
I think what kills me about anyone who is pro-iraq war is that they
only think there is one way to solve the problem. There are much
better options. Options that wouldn't cost us so much in lives and
money.
This war is just a repeat of Vietnam. A perceived threat, in this case
terrorism, during Vietnam it was the worry of communism spreading.
Instead of wasting billions on a war that will have no impact on our
safety over the long run, why not focus that effort on making
vulnerable areas more secure. We can't possible kill or convert every
terrorist, but we have a chance of making nuclear power plants,
airplanes, trains, bridges, and such much safer.
Another sad fact is how many people believe this war is about
terrorism. I'm not sure what its really about, probably oil and kick
backs. Maybe revenge for the attempt on Bush Seniors life. No way to
know, but it's not about terrorism. Even junior should know that Iraq
is just a blip on the map. There are many other countries training
terrorists right now. We don't have the resources to invade them all.
We don't even have the resources to turn Iraq around. When we leave,
it will revert back to it's original state just as Vietnam did.
Leftist or whatever you want to call anti-war folks understand that the
towers were a tragedy and something needs to be done. Going off half
cocked with both barrels blazing is not the answer though. As angry as
we might have been, it's just not a smart move. Because we did that,
there will be many war vets having to live the rest of their lives
without arms and legs. Many are going to end up bitter and mean as the
reality of their situation hits them.
As for the rest of us, we will have to work harder than ever to pay off
the debt this war has created. The world will hate us more than they
ever did. Most Iraq citizens will not have fond memories of our
occupation. We are invaders in their eyes, not liberators. And
because of this, I expect even more terrorists will be created. Other
countries will also trust us less. Many of them will view us as a much
bigger threat.
Truth is, Bush is nothing more than a crook. He has repeatedly screwed
over the middle and lower class. Look at his policies. Those tax
cuts for the rich are nothing more than just what they seem. It's
not an attempt to stimulate the economy, it's just him helping out
himself and his rich friends. The cuts against social programs are
exactly what they seem. Just him sticking it to Americans in an
attempt to relieve the upper class of some taxes.
This is supposed to be the land of opportunity. It's pretty dang
hard to find opportunity when your jobs are being sent overseas by the
thousands, social programs are being cut, student loans are being cut,
bankruptcy laws are getting tighter. All these things serve one
purpose, to put more money in the hands of the very rich.
I know a lot of you think Bush cares because he is against unnatural
gay marriage and brutal abortion laws. Well, believing those things
does not automatically make you a righteous person. There are plenty
of religious nuts that believe those things, but you wouldn't want
them running the country. So, maybe he is religious, he still
doesn't give a crap about the average American. That is not right,
no matter how you look at it.
If you don't care about 90% of Americans, then fine. Bush, might be
your man. If you think only the rich have rights, then maybe Bush is
your guy. If you think that the middle and lower class should have an
opportunity at the American dream, then why do you think junior is a
good guy?
The war is a ruse.
Junior is a crook.
If you can't see this, then your gullible.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jason A. Kaatz" |
|
| Title: Re: SADDAM TIES WITH 911 |
21 Jan 2006 11:39:44 PM |
|
|
I hate to say it, but the government was more than justified in going into
Iraq.
<bill_smith_701@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1137906395.365656.30850@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
I think what kills me about anyone who is pro-iraq war is that they
only think there is one way to solve the problem. There are much
better options. Options that wouldn't cost us so much in lives and
money.
This war is just a repeat of Vietnam. A perceived threat, in this case
terrorism, during Vietnam it was the worry of communism spreading.
Instead of wasting billions on a war that will have no impact on our
safety over the long run, why not focus that effort on making
vulnerable areas more secure. We can't possible kill or convert every
terrorist, but we have a chance of making nuclear power plants,
airplanes, trains, bridges, and such much safer.
Another sad fact is how many people believe this war is about
terrorism. I'm not sure what its really about, probably oil and kick
backs. Maybe revenge for the attempt on Bush Seniors life. No way to
know, but it's not about terrorism. Even junior should know that Iraq
is just a blip on the map. There are many other countries training
terrorists right now. We don't have the resources to invade them all.
We don't even have the resources to turn Iraq around. When we leave,
it will revert back to it's original state just as Vietnam did.
Leftist or whatever you want to call anti-war folks understand that the
towers were a tragedy and something needs to be done. Going off half
cocked with both barrels blazing is not the answer though. As angry as
we might have been, it's just not a smart move. Because we did that,
there will be many war vets having to live the rest of their lives
without arms and legs. Many are going to end up bitter and mean as the
reality of their situation hits them.
As for the rest of us, we will have to work harder than ever to pay off
the debt this war has created. The world will hate us more than they
ever did. Most Iraq citizens will not have fond memories of our
occupation. We are invaders in their eyes, not liberators. And
because of this, I expect even more terrorists will be created. Other
countries will also trust us less. Many of them will view us as a much
bigger threat.
Truth is, Bush is nothing more than a crook. He has repeatedly screwed
over the middle and lower class. Look at his policies. Those tax
cuts for the rich are nothing more than just what they seem. It's
not an attempt to stimulate the economy, it's just him helping out
himself and his rich friends. The cuts against social programs are
exactly what they seem. Just him sticking it to Americans in an
attempt to relieve the upper class of some taxes.
This is supposed to be the land of opportunity. It's pretty dang
hard to find opportunity when your jobs are being sent overseas by the
thousands, social programs are being cut, student loans are being cut,
bankruptcy laws are getting tighter. All these things serve one
purpose, to put more money in the hands of the very rich.
I know a lot of you think Bush cares because he is against unnatural
gay marriage and brutal abortion laws. Well, believing those things
does not automatically make you a righteous person. There are plenty
of religious nuts that believe those things, but you wouldn't want
them running the country. So, maybe he is religious, he still
doesn't give a crap about the average American. That is not right,
no matter how you look at it.
If you don't care about 90% of Americans, then fine. Bush, might be
your man. If you think only the rich have rights, then maybe Bush is
your guy. If you think that the middle and lower class should have an
opportunity at the American dream, then why do you think junior is a
good guy?
The war is a ruse.
Junior is a crook.
If you can't see this, then your gullible.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robert R." |
|
| Title: Re: SADDAM TIES WITH 911 |
21 Jan 2006 11:47:35 PM |
|
|
Jason A. Kaatz wrote:
I hate to say it, but the government was more than justified in going into
Iraq.
I can see why you'd hate to say that. It's asinine.
Robert R.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jason A. Kaatz" |
|
| Title: Re: SADDAM TIES WITH 911 |
22 Jan 2006 03:08:05 PM |
|
|
Have you have been in Iraq ?
"Robert R." <robertr1234@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1137908855.042477.266230@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Jason A. Kaatz wrote:
I hate to say it, but the government was more than justified in going
into
Iraq.
I can see why you'd hate to say that. It's asinine.
Robert R.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Weber" |
|
| Title: Re: SADDAM TIES WITH 911 |
22 Jan 2006 10:14:10 AM |
|
|
On 21 Jan 2006 21:47:35 -0800, "Robert R." <robertr1234@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Jason A. Kaatz wrote:
I hate to say it, but the government was more than justified in going into
Iraq.
I can see why you'd hate to say that. It's asinine.
But it is the type of bumper sticker that marks the propaganda of the
less intelligent Bush supporter.
You know, it is a sort of "if it doesn't fit on a bumper sticker they
can't understand it" type of thing.
Let's just remember a few of the bumper stickers they use to try to
comprehend a complex reality:
cut and run
flip-flop
Hanoi John Kerry
etc.
Robert R.
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "SurveySam" |
|
| Title: Re: Re: SADDAM TIES WITH 911 |
22 Jan 2006 02:19:34 AM |
|
|
Smith, this is not a repeat of Vietnam (Saddam had no communist Soviet
Union to supply his country with constant arms in 2003, though he had
potential Soviet support back in the 1980's he has none in the last 10
years before this current conflict started). Also, there is no military
draft in the USA in this conflict unlike the Vietnam conflict. Reversion
after the US leaves you say. You expect Saddam to get his old job back as
leader of Iraq when the US withdraws?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Weber" |
|
| Title: Re: SADDAM TIES WITH 911 |
22 Jan 2006 10:14:10 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 21 Jan 2006 21:30:47 -0600, "BigRedWingsFan" <me@privacy.net>
wrote:
"don" <soneone@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:Ps6dnZWNoLDPcU_eRVn-jA@giganews.com...
*****. If there had been such a pic, it would have been all over the
news. You would be able to find all kinds of webpages today with the pic
available for any and all to see. Just did a search, can't find ***** on
it...
Get some lessons on how to use Google from a local grade-schooler, chum:
http://impiousdigest.com/iraq_twin_towers.jpg
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/26/sprj.irq.mural/
http://www.snopes.com/rumors/mural.php
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Iraq+mural+twin+towers&btnG=Google+Search
Have a nice day.
Nonsense! I checked the sources that the Bush supporters claims a
"local grade-schooler" could find. I didn't find anything.
Of course the real claim made by the Grants as that the mural was
found at the "Republican Guard HQ" which was, I believe, in the
capital of Iraq, not far outside in Nasiriya as the news reports
claims.
But what's a little accuracy and concern for fact among Bush's
supporters, particularly when they can throw terms like "local
grade-schooler" about.
It also shows their desperate quality as they strain for evidence.
I've got art from white rightwing Xtian terrorists calling for WMDs
against NYC targeted by the WTC. They put out the art long before
9/11. But that isn't proof that Xtians launched the attack.
It is, however, far closer to proof than the claims by Bush's
supporters over their mural.
"DGVREIMAN" <DGVREIMAN@COMCAST.NET> wrote in message
news:NMCdneRSFrY0T0_eRVn-pg@comcast.com...
SADDAM'S TIES WITH 911
© Copyright 2006 by DGVReiman, all rights reserved.
For years I have been posting that Saddam was involved in the 911
massacres. I also reminded everyone about a mural that was found at
Republican Guard HQ that depicted planes flying into the World Trade
Center, and the caption under that mural was "Saddam's Revenge."
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
.
|
|
|
| User: "BigRedWingsFan" |
|
| Title: Re: SADDAM TIES WITH 911 |
22 Jan 2006 03:04:13 PM |
|
|
<Weber> wrote in message news:deb7t1p11rudi1rtisa7o45qr7ubf7i39k@4ax.com...
On Sat, 21 Jan 2006 21:30:47 -0600, "BigRedWingsFan" <me@privacy.net>
wrote:
"don" <soneone@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:Ps6dnZWNoLDPcU_eRVn-jA@giganews.com...
*****. If there had been such a pic, it would have been all over the
news. You would be able to find all kinds of webpages today with the
pic
available for any and all to see. Just did a search, can't find ***** on
it...
Get some lessons on how to use Google from a local grade-schooler, chum:
http://impiousdigest.com/iraq_twin_towers.jpg
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/26/sprj.irq.mural/
http://www.snopes.com/rumors/mural.php
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Iraq+mural+twin+towers&btnG=Google+Search
Have a nice day.
Nonsense! I checked the sources that the Bush supporters claims a
"local grade-schooler" could find. I didn't find anything.
Of course the real claim made by the Grants as that the mural was
found at the "Republican Guard HQ" which was, I believe, in the
capital of Iraq, not far outside in Nasiriya as the news reports
claims.
But what's a little accuracy and concern for fact among Bush's
supporters, particularly when they can throw terms like "local
grade-schooler" about.
Hey *****. Read this:
"don" <soneone@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:Ps6dnZWNoLDPcU_eRVn-jA@giganews.com...
*****. If there had been such a pic, it would have been all over the
news. You would be able to find all kinds of webpages today with the
pic
available for any and all to see. Just did a search, can't find ***** on
it...
The *ONLY* thing being addressed by "don" was the picture he couldn't find.
Nothing about connecting Iraq with alqeida or WMD. Perhaps you should ask
one those grade-schoolers you spend time with at the local playground for
reading comprehension lessons.
BTW, HAND.
It also shows their desperate quality as they strain for evidence.
I've got art from white rightwing Xtian terrorists calling for WMDs
against NYC targeted by the WTC. They put out the art long before
9/11. But that isn't proof that Xtians launched the attack.
It is, however, far closer to proof than the claims by Bush's
supporters over their mural.
"DGVREIMAN" <DGVREIMAN@COMCAST.NET> wrote in message
news:NMCdneRSFrY0T0_eRVn-pg@comcast.com...
SADDAM'S TIES WITH 911
© Copyright 2006 by DGVReiman, all rights reserved.
For years I have been posting that Saddam was involved in the 911
massacres. I also reminded everyone about a mural that was found at
Republican Guard HQ that depicted planes flying into the World Trade
Center, and the caption under that mural was "Saddam's Revenge."
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet
News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000
Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
.
|
|
|
| User: "Weber" |
|
| Title: Re: SADDAM TIES WITH 911 |
22 Jan 2006 05:40:07 PM |
|
|
Calling somebody an "*****" when you flop doesn't alter anything
except to make it evident that the "grade schooler" is the person who
thinks that "*****" is a proper refutation of an argument.
The issue, first pushed by one of the various Doug Grants, was never
about some generic mural. It was about a specific mural at Guard
Headquarters.
There hasn't been any proof of that as far as I can see.
Now there were earlier tales of how Hussein had pictures of Hitler in
his bedroom. The proof would be photos of Hussein's bedroom with the
pictures of Hitler. Only an idiot or a dishonest propagandist would
claim that posting a web location for a Hitler picture was proof that
they were in Hussein's bedroom.
Only an idiot or a dishonest propagandist would post some generic web
location of a mural as a contribution that it was found in Hussein's
Guard HQ as the Grants claimed.
On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 15:04:13 -0600, "BigRedWingsFan" <me@privacy.net>
wrote:
<Weber> wrote in message news:deb7t1p11rudi1rtisa7o45qr7ubf7i39k@4ax.com...
On Sat, 21 Jan 2006 21:30:47 -0600, "BigRedWingsFan" <me@privacy.net>
wrote:
"don" <soneone@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:Ps6dnZWNoLDPcU_eRVn-jA@giganews.com...
*****. If there had been such a pic, it would have been all over the
news. You would be able to find all kinds of webpages today with the
pic
available for any and all to see. Just did a search, can't find ***** on
it...
Get some lessons on how to use Google from a local grade-schooler, chum:
http://impiousdigest.com/iraq_twin_towers.jpg
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/26/sprj.irq.mural/
http://www.snopes.com/rumors/mural.php
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Iraq+mural+twin+towers&btnG=Google+Search
Have a nice day.
Nonsense! I checked the sources that the Bush supporters claims a
"local grade-schooler" could find. I didn't find anything.
Of course the real claim made by the Grants as that the mural was
found at the "Republican Guard HQ" which was, I believe, in the
capital of Iraq, not far outside in Nasiriya as the news reports
claims.
But what's a little accuracy and concern for fact among Bush's
supporters, particularly when they can throw terms like "local
grade-schooler" about.
Hey *****. Read this:
"don" <soneone@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:Ps6dnZWNoLDPcU_eRVn-jA@giganews.com...
*****. If there had been such a pic, it would have been all over the
news. You would be able to find all kinds of webpages today with the
pic
available for any and all to see. Just did a search, can't find ***** on
it...
The *ONLY* thing being addressed by "don" was the picture he couldn't find.
Nothing about connecting Iraq with alqeida or WMD. Perhaps you should ask
one those grade-schoolers you spend time with at the local playground for
reading comprehension lessons.
BTW, HAND.
It also shows their desperate quality as they strain for evidence.
I've got art from white rightwing Xtian terrorists calling for WMDs
against NYC targeted by the WTC. They put out the art long before
9/11. But that isn't proof that Xtians launched the attack.
It is, however, far closer to proof than the claims by Bush's
supporters over their mural.
"DGVREIMAN" <DGVREIMAN@COMCAST.NET> wrote in message
news:NMCdneRSFrY0T0_eRVn-pg@comcast.com...
SADDAM'S TIES WITH 911
© Copyright 2006 by DGVReiman, all rights reserved.
For years I have been posting that Saddam was involved in the 911
massacres. I also reminded everyone about a mural that was found at
Republican Guard HQ that depicted planes flying into the World Trade
Center, and the caption under that mural was "Saddam's Revenge."
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet
News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000
Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
.
|
|
|
| User: "BigRedWingsFan" |
|
| Title: Re: SADDAM TIES WITH 911 |
22 Jan 2006 06:03:01 PM |
|
|
<Weber> wrote in message news:ce48t15ta3k5jve5cjmh5e8hgcc5rkgenh@4ax.com...
Calling somebody an "*****" when you flop doesn't alter anything
except to make it evident that the "grade schooler" is the person who
thinks that "*****" is a proper refutation of an argument.
The issue, first pushed by one of the various Doug Grants, was never
about some generic mural. It was about a specific mural at Guard
Headquarters.
There hasn't been any proof of that as far as I can see.
Now there were earlier tales of how Hussein had pictures of Hitler in
his bedroom. The proof would be photos of Hussein's bedroom with the
pictures of Hitler. Only an idiot or a dishonest propagandist would
claim that posting a web location for a Hitler picture was proof that
they were in Hussein's bedroom.
Only an idiot or a dishonest propagandist would post some generic web
location of a mural as a contribution that it was found in Hussein's
Guard HQ as the Grants claimed.
Sorry, you top-posting asshat, but yes, you are an *****. I had nothing
to do with Grant's post, I only posted a response to "don" to show the
pictures of the mural he was "unable to find".
It was found in an Iraqi military HQ as reported by CNN (a "generic web
location" previously provided):
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/26/sprj.irq.mural/
HAND.
On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 15:04:13 -0600, "BigRedWingsFan" <me@privacy.net>
wrote:
<Weber> wrote in message
news:deb7t1p11rudi1rtisa7o45qr7ubf7i39k@4ax.com...
On Sat, 21 Jan 2006 21:30:47 -0600, "BigRedWingsFan" < | | | | | | |
