Re: Rebuttal SteveL and anothercease Notice

What's so funny is that you guys sound so serious.  You are just kidding aren't you?

SteveL wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Apr 2008 22:46:05 -0700, "DGVREIMAN"
> <dgvreiman@comcast.net> wrote:
> 
> <snip my headers, which for some reason Dougie thinks he needs to
> quote>
> 
> 
>>>> If you reveal your true name then I can then
>>>>determine if law enforcment is truly looking for you under your real
>>>>name,
>>>
>>>What are you. Three years old?
>>
>>Doug Says:  Was that too hard for you to understand?
> 
> 
> No it was apparently too hard for *you* to understand. It was a lame
> LAME attempt by you to get me to reveal my details to *you*
> personally, not to law enforcement!
> 
> An insult to a three year old's intelligence.
> 
> That's what this whole thing is about.
> 
> You want my personal details for YOUR purposes.
> 
> 
> 
>> The only name I 
>>have is the SteveLon@ntlworld.com and I have filed a complaint against 
>>that anonymous name, and when I find out who is behind that name I will 
>>file more complaints.
> 
> 
> Why do you need to wait for a full name? You issued a suit against
> 3000 John Does last year (except it failed.....)
> 
> 
>>>>but I assure you they want to know who you are under the name of
>>>>SteveLon@NTLworld.com.
>>>
>>>Good. Give me their contact details or tell them they can email me.
>>
>>>Be warned though. I *will* set them straight about you.
>>>
>>>Count on it.
>>>
>>>So beware Doug. If you have actually been crazy enough to file a
>>>complaint, I'm sure that they've already figured you out as a
>>>relatively harmless kook.
>>
>>Once they find out that you've parlayed that kook complaint into a
>>
>>>public smear that a citizen is being actively sought by law
>>>enforcement, I'm fairly sure that will rebound on your head.
>>
>>Doug Says:  More threats from SteveL,  and yet another FBI forgery 
>>below, how quaint, and how typical.  And his promise to lie to law 
>>enforcement about me is making me giddy.  However, let me be clear on 
>>this issue.  If I provide you with the law enforcement contact you are 
>>saying you will contact them yourself and reveal your true identity to 
>>them?
> 
> 
> What goes on between me and them is between me and them. Are you
> claiming dominion over law enforcement now? Your wishes are not a
> factor. And your obstructive demands even less so.
> 
> 
>> Moreover, if I file a complaint against SteveLon@ntlworld, then 
>>you can bet the law enforcement officer is looking for that person to 
>>determine (1) jurisdiction, (2) his real name, and (3) his side of the 
>>story. 
>>It is called an "investigation" and you can bet that is going on 
>>and will continue at every level necessary until you are brought into 
>>court and a Judge gets to listen to all of your lies, fraud and 
>>cyberstalking, replete with all the past evidence.
> 
> 
> Weasel words and backpedaling. If it even exists, your alleged
> complaint is in someone's inbox and awaiting "investigation"
> (i.e.trashing). 
> 
> I strongly suggest you stop making claims like "you must know by now
> that law enforcement officers are looking for SteveL". Or else you may
> find that your local police department or FBI office has a complaint
> on their file against you!
> 
> 
>>>I will certainly do my best to ensure that happens.
>>
>>Doug Says:  I have absolutely no doubt you will continue your 
>>cyberstalking, lies, fraud and forgeries, not to mention your false 
>>accusations directly to law enforcement, in fact, I am counting on it. 
>>Please do, PLEASE do.
> 
> 
> Great. Either give me the contact details of the person(s) handling
> the case and the case number, or tell them to email me. 
> 
> They have my full permission to do so.
> 
> DO NOT supply the generic contact details of the police station or FBI
> office. Supply the phone number or email address of the person(s)
> handling the case. Before I do anything I want proof that there really
> is a case; that it's not yet another burp of your imagination.
> 
> If you've had paperwork back from them then scan it and post it to
> your "cyberstalkers" web thingie. If you've really had such, you
> should be jumping at the chance to prove something for a change.
> 
> Of course those pre-conditions can all be pre-empted if they contact
> me by email.
> 
> 
>>>You trust "law enforcement" to see through lies and make the right
>>>calls don't you?
>>>
>>>So lets's have their contact details or tell them they can email me.
>>
>>Doug Says:  I agree completely, but why do you want the contact details? 
> 
> 
> How stupid are you?
> 
> To contact them!! You just claimed in public that "law enforcement
> officers" were "looking for" me.
> 
> That's a very serious accusation.
> 
> And it needs sorting out.
> 
> Or are you admitting that statement is over-spun lying bullshit?
> 
> "Libel" even?
> 
> 
>>Are you going to contact them and reveal your true name, or just more 
>>anonymous cyberstalking replete with your forgeries, fraud and lies, in 
>>a desperate hope they will believe your hype and fraud?
> 
> 
> Don't you trust them to be able to see through the lies? Or is that
> what's worrying you?
> 
> Anyway, why are you hindering "law enforcement" from talking to the
> person you say they are "looking for"?
> 
> Some might call that Obstruction of Justice.
> 
> 
> 
>>Moreover, they 
>>are not going to deal with you via email while you remain anonymous, 
> 
> 
> Did they tell you that? Can I quote you there?
> 
> 
>>they are trying to determine if they have any jurisdiction over you, or 
>>if I need to file complaints with other law enforcement, such as the FBI 
>>or even Interpol since you claim to be posting in the UK and therefore 
>>are subject to the 1967 UK anti-harassment act.
> 
> 
> So who's investigating this "case" anyway, you or "law enforcement"?
> 
> What makes you think you can prevent "law enforcement" from contacting
> their man, by whatever means necessary?
> 
> Seeing that your previous post went out of its way to say in the
> strongest terms that I am being sought by the law, this sudden coyness
> and hesitation might be a little confusing. But considering its source
> it's not surprising in the least.
> 
> Some little corner of your brain is going "uh oh".
> 
> 
>>This sounds like when you promised to have your lawyer contact my lawyer 
>>when my lawyer emailed you. 
> 
> 
> No it doesn't.
> 
> It sounds like *you*. 
> 
> SAME SCAM. DIFFERENT DAY.
> 
> Then: "Tell me your real name so I can sue you"
> 
> Now : "Tell me your real name so law enforcement can question you.
> Never mind about contacting them yourself!. You'll tell ME FIRST Get
> it? ME ME ME!!!!!"
> 
> 
>> Now 
>>if you can verify through your lawyer that you will provide your true 
>>name to law enforcement then you can bet I will provide the details of 
>>my offical complaint, and the name of the law enforcement officer that 
>>is presently investigating that complaint to your lawyer within five 
>>minutes after my lawyer receives contact from him.  If you refuse this 
>>offer, then you are clearly lying again, I will just wait for inevitable 
>>revealing of your true identity.
> 
> 
> I'm sure that "law enforcement" will be very interested to learn that
> you are controlling their "investigation", and their access to
> information, and are setting obstructive conditions under which they
> can contact the person they are "looking for".
> 
> You know. If I had a tiny fraction of your overwhelming pathological
> dishonesty, I would use your response here to claim that you are
> guilty of obstructing justice, quote statutes and shout that they
> prove you are a criminal. Then I'd phone the police or FBI about it.
> and then I'd make a post saying that the authorities are "looking for"
> DGVREIMAN!
> 
> Sound familiar?
> 
> Of course I might also be worried about leaving myself open to a
> charge of false filing. But then again, unlike you, I'm sane.
> 
> BTW, is false filing a felony or misdemeanor in Washington state?
> 
> Stop claiming that "law enforcement officers" are "looking for" me in
> one post, and then invoke spurious reasons to prevent them from
> contacting me in the next.
> 
> <snip a bunch of repetitive back pedaling>
> 
>>This is the last response on this issue you will receive from me, 
> 
> 
> So does this mean that you're NOT going to give me the contact details
> of the person handling the case, or the case number, or tell them they
> have permission to email me?
> 
> That you're NOT going to scan and post the official paperwork proving
> that there has been an official complaint filed?
> 
> I understand. You realize at some level what you've done and you're
> looking for a way out. Good Idea.
> 
> If that's your way of realizing your mistake and ceasing your false
> accusation that "law enforcement officers" are "looking for" me, then
> I can live with that in lieu of an actual apology.
> 
> But I'd better see no further such accusations.
> 
> 
>>however, I will continue to download your posts as evidence against you. 
>>I will however provide you with additional cease and desist notices from 
>>several sources.
> 
> 
> DO NOT email me personally. The "law enforcement officers" have
> permission, NOT you. 
>