Tourette support - Brad Jesness STILL More than Complicit in Stalking/Harassment/Lies/Defamation

Author

Brad Jesness STILL More than Complicit in Stalking/Harassment/Lies/Defamation

Borked Pseudo Mailed

2006-02-16, 11:30 am

Brad <cyberper@concentric.net> made a valiant effort to post coherently
in news:43F12419.1283@concentric.net:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> "Kevin" , you hypocritical anonymous stalking PUNK!!: You say
> (quoting):
>
>
> (end quote)
>
> Kevin, you are just a damned LIAR!! If you had been in good-faith
> contact
> with the BCA, they would have informed you that I HAVE * NEVER, EVER
> * BEEN
> INVESTIGATED. The Statute of Limitations for NOT being and
> Investigated
> and NOT EVEN CLOSE TO GETTING CHARGED is ** ZERO seconds ***.
>
Statute of limitations doesn't run out when the criminal behaviour is
ongoing. And if you were never investigated at all, then it follows that
you were never found innocent or cleared of any charges. If you really
want to prove your innocence, you should insist that they investigate the
charges fully.

> Second, if you had been in contact with the MN Law Enforcement
> Agency,
> you would have found it to be affirmed that the letter at
> http://cyberper.cnc.net/fullDocumentation.htm IS COMPLETELY VALID AND
> TRUE.

As is the letter Agent DiPrima sent you with a cc to Dr. P.

> Assist. Super. O'Malley has been in that position since BEFORE
> 1999 and affirms in his letter that I HAVE NEVER BEEN INVESTIGATED.
> If you were in contact with O'Malley and the letter were NOT valid
> and
> true, I would be in big trouble (and would have been in big trouble
> MONTHS ago).
>
> Another thing: I have gotten wilhelp.com kicked off of 4 or 5
> services
> already. Finally, it seems that this anonymous abuse domain has
> found
> an ABUSE HOST that will not kick it off even though it is a falsely
> registered anonymous domain, under ONLY a FALSE NAME AND A P.O. BOX,
> making it completely anonymous.
>
> wilhelp.com continues to exist ONLY BECAUSE IT IS ON AN ABUSE HOST
> THAT
> DOES NOT CARE ABOUT A MAJOR ICANN VIOLATOR -- a falsely registered,
> anon
> domain.

And your concentric.net pages continue to exist only because they are on
a spam-friendly ISP that does not enforce its own AUP/TOS and is shielded
by the CDA.

Payback's a XXXXX, ain't it, Brad?

>
> - -- Brad Jesness (the only short list I am on is YOUR list of victims
> to harass, "Kevin")

False. You're also on another "short list." You know, the one you say LP
put you on, oh "dickless" one.
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.2 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
>
> iQA/AwUBQ/Ej5b5mfd8AI17qEQIB8gCglb7iFIUmfQpfk70sUDZ9FJjigdEAnjQw
> hZGV0+dnNvfZPOGzldKSECHN
> =oEP5
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
Keep your shite out of AST, Brad.

------- BEGIN NON-PGP SIGNATURE------
http://www.bradjesness.com
keywords: Jesness, Brad Jesness, cyberstalker, harasser, spammer,
Bradley L. Jesness, stalker, harassment, dickless
------- END NON-PGP SIGNATURE------

Borked Pseudo Mailed

2006-02-16, 11:30 am

"Archiver" <Indomitable2@netzero.com> made a valiant effort to post
coherently in news:1140002476.752666.72920@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

> Brad wrote:

So the BCA probably only told LP that the BCA was the wrong legal agency
according to this latest statement from Brad. No evidence that they
thought her a kook as Brad tried to claim. Only that they were the wrong
agency to contact.

Once again Brad has proven his own lies were lies.
[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> Here's raw evidence she was deemed an out and out Spammer
>
> http://groups.google.com/groups?q=l...ing+Summary%22&
> start=0&scoring=d&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&num=100&
>
>
> Automated data gathering mechanisms have collected the data presented
> in this report.
>
> BI Posts Bytes Data
> ---------- ------- ----------- ------------
>
> Posting Summary (Wed, 30 Dec 1998 16:01:25 CST)
> 26.803 ... 24 66500 lpacker@nassau.REMOVETHIS.cv.net (lpacker)
>
> Usenet Posting Summary (Tue, 22 Sep 1998 00:00:47 CDT)
> 25.878 23 61728 lpacker@nassau.cv.net ...
>
> Usenet Posting Summary (Wed, 02 Sep 1998 16:01:20 CDT)
> 22.828 22 53081 lpacker@nassau.cv ...
>
> Usenet Posting Summary (Wed, 05 Aug 1998 16:01:57 CDT)
> 28.447 24 68365 lpacker@nassau.cv ...
>
> Usenet Posting Summary (Fri, 24 Jul 1998 20:01:40 CDT)
> 20.071 18 62689 lpacker@nassau. ...
>
> Usenet Posting Summary (Thu, 23 Jul 1998 16:01:12 CDT)
> 24.657 23 65352 lpacker@nassau.REMOVETHIS.cv.
> net (lpacker)
>
> Usenet Posting Summary (Thu, 16 Jul 1998 00:01:15 CDT)
> 634 21.828 21 79592 lpacker@nassau.REMOVETHIS ...
>
> Usenet Posting Summary (Mon, 13 Jul 1998 20:01:32 CDT)
> 29.899 27 62450 lpacker@nassau.cv ...
>
>
> Usenet Posting Summary (Sun, 12 Jul 1998 20:01:41 CDT)
> 25.414 25 79699 lpacker@nassau.cv.net ...
>
>
> Usenet Posting Summary (Sat, 11 Jul 1998 20:01:00 CDT)
> 20.828 20 55728 lpacker@nassau.cv ...
>
>
> Usenet Posting Summary (Fri, 26 Jun 1998 16:02:16 CDT)
> 23.071 21 50661 lpacker@nassau.cv ...
>
> Usenet Posting Summary (Tue, 06 Jan 1998 20:04:03 CST)
> 24.099 16 44003 lpacker@pipeline.com ...
>
> Usenet Posting Summary (Wed, 31 Dec 1997 00:04:10 CST)
> 23.735 16 68711 lpacker@pipeline.com ...
>

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Did you actually read the material on that url you
posted or are you going to claim your visual impairment prevented you
from reading the big explanation at the top of the report:

"Please remember that BI is a general formula to measure the
number of groups posted to in a manner which favors crossposting.
The fact that the posts of a single poster may have a BI of 20
does not imply that the articles are spam, as each article may
have been completely different and unrelated.

The Al Geiersbach "Duh, I Still Don't Get It" Paragraph:

For the completely dense among us, who are unable to grasp the
obvious, that means that this isn't a "spam list". It also does
not mean that your posts are being cancelled, filtered, or anything
else... on the other hand, it doesn't mean that they're not. This
service merely counts 'em.

(A memorial to a dunce who just refused to "get it" even after it
was explained to him in excruciating detail, repeatedly, over the
period of about a year. It's still not a spam report, Al, even if
you desperately want to think so.)"

So LP had some active weeks of posting. It could have been discussions
in AST. Nothing to do with spamming.

Once again Gore fails to provide raw evidence of anything other than her
ignorance.