Talk:Christopher X. Brodeur/Archive 1

Archive 1

Political Campaigns

There are few details and cited links to the campaign info. Perhaps a little research could be done to help explain more about the specifics and the history of this candidate.--Screwball23 17:38, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Replace phrase?

"was a sore in Mayor Rudy Giuliani's backside" should probably be replaced with something more, well, stuffy. Can't think of a good phrase, though. --Richfife 05:42, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

NPOV tag

Added NPOV tag. The Biography section in particular is WAY too Rah-Rah. Richfife 08:21, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

I must agree with the NPOV added to the article. The page is biased and will need some clean-up to make it more presentable for an encyclopedia. It has become more biased now than it was when I started it and I am surprised at the additions made the the article. Something must be done to fix this article's political spin.--Screwball23 ^talk 21:43, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm removing "most interesting or most unusual candidate on the ballot in 2005" because there's no reference for it and a couple of google searches turn up nothing. It's likely that someone said something LIKE that, but I can't look up every possible wording they may have used.

I'm changing "Brodeur proved each arrest false in court" to "None of the arrests resulted in a conviction" even though they aren't necessarily the same thing. Someone who knows the circumstances better may need to change that. I guess the big question is "Has Brodeur ever been convicted?" The article implies no, but doesn't go right out and say it. ```Research Needed``` Richfife 21:46, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

If Wikipedia is based only on mass media articles than how the hell is going to be accurate? Media is exactly as accurate as that kid's game "telephone", ie, NOT AT ALL.

To say CXB proved each arrest false is irrefutable fact. It wasn't like any of his cases ended with a jury saying "the govt didn't prove beyond a reasonable doubt". The govt arrested him for the same bogus charge ("harassment") on over 20 occasions and lost 100% of the time. On 6 occasions the govt dropped the charges completely though CXB didn't want them to. (They couldn't let it get to a jury, because juries WERE quoted in the mass media saying CXB was a hero and "very honest, very intelligent, and very nice".) The govt's own witnesses admitted that CXB was falsely charged as political payback and Bloomberg paid CXB $35,000 in 2003 to settle just one of his false arrest lawsuits. Just because the newspapers covered up this last fact--which they all knew about---doesn't mean it didn't happen. It's public record. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.247.24.19 (talk) 01:49, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Being acquitted is not the same as proving that the arrest was false. You can be legally arrested and acquitted, and you can be falsely arrested and convicted. They are just totally different things altogether.--Cortes0505 16:04, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia ISN'T based only on mass media articles. It tends to lean that way because searches are easier, but that's not Wikipedia's fault. You make certain statements. They're probably true. I don't know. You state they're not on the MSM. Then where are they? Let's see the non-MSM sources. Just saying "It's public record" holds no more weight than saying "People say" or "Everybody knows that..." Be Bold. Post your sources. And remember there are three sides to every story. Wikipedia is looking for the third one. -- Richfife 02:08, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

The New York Press strikes me as a perfectly acceptable Wikipedia source and they probably have lots of info on Brodeur. Use it. -- Richfife 05:50, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Pull NPOV?

Any objections to pulling the NPOV tag? Seems like the article is fairly presentable right now - Richfife 04:10, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

i think the npov should return. his multiple comparisons on winning x% of vote in certain districts compared to better funded candidates, and the several, for lack of a better word, brags about how little he spent, are clearly pov. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.189.175.99 (talk) 03:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

You have a point. For a while there, keeping the POV out of this article was practically a full time job. Riding herd on whoppers made it easier for the little stuff to sneak through. - Richfife 06:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I took a shot at it. The article could probably use a fresh set of eyes, though. If there's another article that doesn't have enough superlative adjectives, I pulled a ton out of this one and we can recycle. - Richfife 06:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Any objections to removing the NPOV tag from this version: [1]. I think it's fairly level. - Richfife (talk) 16:31, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

The word "Gadfly"?

What do you think? POV or NPOV? - Richfife 17:34, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

If that word describes anyone it's Brodeur.

I don't have a problem with the description of the charges against Brodeur-even his more vociferous critics would admit that most of them were frivolous in nature-but the article is still too biased, IMO.

Notwithstanding the legal saga he was involved in during the Giuliani era, there are still many people who find this individual extremely objectionable, annoying, choose your less than laudatory adjective.

The fact that this criticism is not even alluded to disturbs me. Ruthfulbarbarity 23:05, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I actually know hardly anything about Brodeur that I didn't get from the article (I live on the wrong coast). I've been editing any additions that people make down for POV as best I can, but I haven't added any opposing views. My current impression is that he's a not particularly sincere guy who chooses targets based on what his perceived audience wants. All part of the "professional wrestlingization" of politics. Anyway, if you want to be bold and add a different voice to the article, it would be great! - Richfife 19:37, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

WTF? You mean you got the impression that I'm not sincere courtesy of right wingers who posted false info about me? This is crazy. Even my enemies never call me insincere! Look at my political website. I may be the first candidate to LIST ALL THE ILLEGAL DRUGS HE'S USED to show what an HONEST candidate looks like! I didn't even put my PHOTO on my mayoral website b/c I think elections should be about IDEAS and SOLUTIONS rather than the cult of personality nonsense! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.149.34.126 (talk) 06:05, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Touching You and Liquid Tapedeck

Brodeur was also a member of Liquid Tapedeck. He performed under the name of Touching You. None of that is this article.

Liquid Tapedeck released a song entitled "May I Have Your Hand Rachel Trachtenburg?", an ode to Trachtenburg Family Slideshow Players drummer Rachel Trachtenburg. However, on the family's DVD release, the song is titled "Rachel Trachtenburg" by Touching You. Also, the Trachtenburgs seem to be very supportive of Brodeur; Tina is friends with Brodeur's girlfriend, singer Jessica Delfino and Rachel has performed onstage with him. 4:30 31 October 2006 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fanficgurl (talk • contribs)

Go for it. I don't own the article. - Richfife 21:35, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the fact that he actually has a girlfriend is more notable than the band you describe, but as another user said, "go for it."

Any attempt to improve articles is smiled upon here. Ruthfulbarbarity 05:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Accuracy

The "harrassment" section needs to be cleaned up.

That conviction-and the six month prison sentence-was due to threats he made against his landlord-including death threats-and had nothing to do with Mayor Giuliani or Mayor Bloomberg.

http://www.cantstopthebleeding.com/?p=5217

Ruthfulbarbarity 05:51, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

SEE? This RUTH person has no regard for details or facts.

EX: I did TWO jail terms of 6 months each for SPEECH---one year in jail for not even shoving someone (acc to the govt's own charges).

EX: it's a fact that the judges broke laws when they "convicted" and jailed me, and that they were both appointees of the alleged victims, which alone invalidates the jail sentences by flagrantly violating my right to an IMPARTIAL judge (who doesn't owe his job to one of the two arguing parties, duh). Ruth says she's a Republican yet says she trusts govt to do the right thing? Wow!

ONE six-month sentence (I was facing community service if I'd been guilty!) was allegedly for threatening my crooked landlord (who got caught perjuring himself thruout the trial. Want to see the transcripts? I've got them right here.) THE FACT IS that my landlord---a very rich developer caught breaking hundreds of laws----had me arrested DAYS AFTER I'd written a brutal expose of his crimes in a cover story for NYPress. The arrest before that for allegedly "threatening" mayor bloombag? It came a few days after a cover story I wrote for NYPress which was the most damaging expose ever written about Bloombag. Ruth and others who believe govt never lies thinks this is coincidence.

RUTH! IF YOU NEED PHYSICAL EVIDENCE, CONTACT ME: mayorcxb@yahoo.com.

I'm not saying I'm a good person. I break the law everyday! I've just never been arrested for breaking the law. I've only been arrested for exposing the crimes of the rich and powerful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.120.96.244 (talk) 22:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

"Illegally barred from debates"

This article is such a pain in the ass. If someone can come up with a reliable (shouting doesn't count) source as to why Brodeur's non-inclusion in the debates broke a law, the claim can stay. That's going to need to include a law number and un-adulterated quote. Otherwise I'll pull it in a week or two. - Richfife 04:56, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

FACT: I was allowed in major debates in 2001 when I was a marginal candidate on the GREEN PARTY ballot. (Note that some evil person switched it to "write-in" candidate to make me seem less legit.) But since I won those debates easily (it was easy b/c I'm not an empty suit saying dumb things like "we must improve education" with no details) they made sure I wasn't allowed back in 2005. (ASK ME FOR PHYSICAL EVIDENCE IF YOU DOUBT WHAT I SAY: mayorcxb@yahoo.com.)

FACT: most debates are sponsored by NON-PROFIT groups who are NOT ALLOWED to discriminate for or against candidates on the ballot in exchange for taxbreaks. However, most of these groups get monies from... CITY HALL (whom I was destroying with many exposes of Mayor Bloomberg's criminal acts)... and anyone with an IQ over 4 knows you can't really bite the hand that feeds, so I was banned from most debates.

FACT: some groups used the LIE that a 5% threshold of public support must be met to get in the debates, yet Tom Ognibene and Steve S_____ were both polling under 5% and were allowed in most debates, instantly proving this was all a sham. (Also, after 3 false arrests, an official media blacklist on my popular campaign, and being blocked from all debates I STILL got 4% said the NYTimes and so on, PROVING I was ILLEGALLY blocked to subvert a democratic election. (Also, my name was blocked from polls, and this was proven too!) (Also, we went out with a camera crew and proved I was polling higher than all the major candidates combined---when allowed in the poll. ASK FOR DETAILS: Mayorcxb@yahoo.com)

I CAN GO ON WITH DETAILS IF YOU STILL DOUBT ME. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.120.96.244 (talk) 22:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• As I mentioned above, illegal means "breaks a law that is on the books". If you want this included, then you need to find the law which is broken. What is the exact text of the law? What is its index number? Hysterics aren't helping your case. - Richfife (talk) 02:48, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

• Oh, and Wikipedia needs to have a record of the court case that decided that the law in question was broken as well. Forgot to point that out. If the judge in question is corrupted by their connection to RG, then a record of their corruption conviction in a U.S. court of law will do as well. - Richfife (talk) 17:15, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

OKAY, I'm starting to doubt the sincerity of Rich Fife. If I can prove that the judges are appointed by the alleged "victim" then that is BOLDLY illegal. (Sixth Amendment. Why don't you look that one up! Pay close attention to the 'impartiality' part.) It's common knowledge that criminal court judges are appointed by THE MAYOR, so therefore, it's unconstitutional to have a person who can't risk their pension by upsetting the person who is going to reappoint them to the bench, PRESIDE over a conflict-of-interested case involving the mayor DIRECTLY. (Your argument is that, if the judge in Divorce Court is the FATHER of the wife whose case is before him to judge, that isn't corrupt or illegal UNLESS THE JUDGE HAS BEEN ARRESTED OR CONVICTED. That's simply bonkers, no?)

Rich! Is there something you'd like to confess? Little of this seems sincere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.149.34.126 (talk) 06:05, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Subject of article editing

THIS IS CHRISTOPHER X. BRODEUR himself writing, to say that, when I found this entry, I was (not really) shocked by all the factual inaccuracies. I was even more upset to come in here and see some people have a POLITICAL agenda to twist facts. (ex: Ruth belies her corruption with some comment about me having a girlfriend! Real mature.)

It is unethical to use media as a source for all things, as they admit they've gotten the facts wrong millions of times. (I agree with them.)

I'm going to clean up some brazen errors, but I know some dishonest people will try to change them back (hello Team Giuliani!), so, if you have any doubts SEND ME A PERSONAL EMAIL: mayorcxb@yahoo.com. Thanks for showing some courtesy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.120.96.244 (talk) 21:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Discussions of Wikipedia articles should take place on Wikipedia talk pages, not personal email. Everything should remain in the open. - Richfife (talk) 05:38, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Dear Everyone, we KNOW that there are people with political agendas, b/c even my critics acknowledge that i was ON THE BALLOT in 2001 and 2005. No, I didn't win the primaries (i spent on a couple hundred bucks!) You can even do the easiest google searches to resolve this. (There's also a google image of my name on the ballot in a booth.) WHY does someone keep changing it to "write-in" candidate? To smear me and mislead the public into thinking I didn't set records (and even the NYTimes alluded to those facts) or was a "legit" candidate. BUT I DON'T HAVE THE INTERNET OR A WORKING COMPUTER and so it's an unfair battle. - cxb —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.56 (talk) 22:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I didn't write the language, but I agree with it. There's a vast difference between paying to be put on a primary election ballot and winning enough votes to be included in a general election ballot. - Richfife (talk) 15:48, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

CXB HERE... Rich Fife's comments above defy logic. No one pays to be put on an election ballot. You have to submit signatures, which I did. No money was involved! (I spent $120 total on flyers, and still set many election records b/c you'd be surprised how many voters loved my "100 INNOVATIONS FOR NYC". Take a look at it yourself.)

NO ONE votes to put someone on a ballot (unless it's party chairman in a backroom deal).

I was on the ballot in 2001 (Green Party line) and 2005 (Dem line). There isn't even any dispute of this, so WHO is the vandal that keeps trying to rewrite history? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.149.34.126 (talk) 06:05, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, you collected signatures. Still a vast difference. You were not on the general election ballot, you were on the primary ballot. You were not candidate for mayor, you were a candidate to be the Green Party or Democratic Candidate for Mayor. Massive difference. - Richfife (talk) 15:34, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I have an apartment too now. But the FACT that someone posted "chronically-unemployed" (a 100% fabrication that was never sourced and YOU didn't remove that one, ODDLY enough, PROVES by itself there is an agenda going on).

WHY didn't you remove that and all the other unsourced smears of me? And ALSO someone removed stuff that WAS sourced, from the links to my music pages etc. C'mon. Just be honest about what the hell is going on here.

Please, Rich. Tell me WHY you didn't remove "chronically-unemployed" but you did remove facts that were correct. I'd love to hear your side of the story. - cxb —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.149.34.126 (talk) 21:51, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

CAN ANYONE HELP ME?

I just found out one of the administrators, RICH FIFE, is one of the people who keep vandalizing my page, and he's been very evasive to say the least. EX: he allows unsourced material (like the "chronically-unemployed" lie that was up for months) and blocks SOURCED material (like my heckling the 9/11 commission and humiliating them across the globe).

HELP! There are a lot of right wing kooks out there who love Giuliani and Bloombag and Bush/Cheney and so they have no choice but to smear people like me (b/c they can't disprove that I, say, humiliated the Bush regime and the phony 9/11 Commission. - CXB —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.149.34.126 (talk) 16:13, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

SEE? NOW, RICH FIFE HAS PAGE PROTECTED a web page that can be proven by dozens of pieces of evidence to be full of LIES AND SMEARS! EX: where's his source that all of my arrests were for graphic threats of violence! THERE IS NO SOURCE! It's a FABRICATION by liars. But Rich Fife insists things must be sourced! WHERE'S THE SOURCE, RICH?

JUST as the Right Wing uses their stolen riches to, say, create FAKE environmental groups who then defend polluting corporations, Rich appears to be a right winger with an agenda.

HELP!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.149.34.126 (talk) 16:54, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Advice

We have a policy, WP:BLP, which covers living individuals , and a policy on the neutrality of content, WP:NPOV. You appear to be, or be associated with, the subject of Christopher X. Brodeur. Wikipedia aspires to be fair in what it says, even if you don't like it we hope you will acknowledge that we are fair, so if you have issues with specifics of the content, and bearing mind your apparent conflict of interest, I recommend you to discuss matters calmly on the talk pages of the articles concerned. Do avoid any appearance of legal threats, or any uncivil discourse and if you need guidance there are people who can perhaps offer advice at info-en-q@wikimedia.org - although the people who have come to this page may also be able to advise.

However, due to the current edit war, I have temporarily protected this page from editing to all except system administrators. Toddst1 (talk) 17:03, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I've gone through the article and removed an astonishing amount of unsourced and poorly sourced negative information relating to this individual in accordance with WP:BLP. Please be aware that restoring unsourced or poorly sourced negative information to this article may lead to a swift block. Toddst1 (talk) 17:22, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

But, Todd, it's the ADMINISTRATORS (hello, Rich Fife) who keep doing much of the vandalism! EX: "All arrests were for graphic threats of violence"??? WHERE IS THE SOURCE? I was a candidate for mayor ON THE BALLOT, but Rich is dancing hard to try and keep me as a "write-in" candidate to make me appear less "legit". I've tried to reason with Rich but he's more evasive than OJ Simpson and Dick Cheney. Rich is not being honest nor sincere. What can I do? Scrolling down the history, I see that someone claims to have removed that I'm in a bunch of bands that i'm in and can easily verify! I even put LINKS, so we KNOW someone has a dishonest AGENDA! Help! The whole reason I've been arrested many times (all falsely) was to assassinate my character to protect the rich and powerful politicians and businessmen I expose via my investigative journalism, etc! I can back up everything posted that is favorable to me, and can disprove most of what is smearing me, but NOT if the administrators are the vandals! HELP! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.149.34.126 (talk) 17:14, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

For the record, I did not add the "chronically unemployed" line and in fact, was the one who took it out here: [2]. It was placed by an IP editor from Germany (I live in California) here: [3]. I am not an Administrator, nor do I wish to be one. A number of edits (for instance this one [4]) did more harm than good, so I reverted them so I could get a chance to go over them point by point and restore the parts worth keeping, which I did here, here and here plus a number of other places. Brodeur publicly stated he was homeless on Gawker and then later on decried as libel (legal threat? Not sure) the fact that that was included in the article. The article makes very clear that he was on the ballot for the primary elections, but competed as a write in candidate in the general election. The New York City Board of Elections lists him as a write in candidate receiving 35 total votes here on page 8. The general election results of the 2001 Mayoral election here on page 1 do not mention him at all. The board of elections results hold more weight than Brodeur's unsupported claim that he was listed on the ballot. Also, the fact that he was voted for under 5 different spellings of his name indicates that there was no check box to be checked. The other claims (called a "hero" by a complete jury, etc.) lack any sort of reliable sourcing and can not be included per Wikipedia:Reliable sources until they do. - Richfife (talk) 17:30, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

For the record, the history of this article ALONE shows Rich is not being honest. EX: he tried to dance and say "okay, you WERE on the mayoral ballot... b-b-but only on the PRIMARY ballot, so you really weren't on the 'mayoral ballot'!!!" EX: I tested Rich and he responded to changes within MINUTES when I did them, yet he NEVER responded when OTHERS revised the page to print clearly false and unsourced smears. (Please, Rich, tell us WHY you didn't remove the 'chronically-unemployed' line for weeks until AFTER I called you on it? WHY are you so evasive if your actions are sincere?) TELL US WHY you repeatedly allowed totally unsourced nonsense like "All of his arrests were for graphic threats... blah blah"??? Can you explain this? Nope. I can go on and on if you like. At this point, Rich should probably be banned from Wiki, since he's proven to be unfair and not honest and doesn't believe in following Wiki's rules. EX: Rich claims we can't source my May 2004 humiliation of Giuliani and the 9/11 COmmission! Any google search instantly shows it's true, so WHY would Rich try to remove content that is irrefutable (but makes the right wing look bad)?? - Christopher X. Brodeur —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.149.34.126 (talk) 22:03, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and if Rich is NOT an administrator, WHY is he so obsessed with the page about me, in that he responds minutes after any positive revisions to remove them? Does no one find that CURIOUS? Remember: the rich and powerful right wing has unlimited resources to hire trolls and other shady people to cheat truth. (Rich and I both like Mott The Hoople, so how about you just come clean, Rich? If you're not doing anything you're ashamed of, WHY the evasiveness? You can't claim you're too busy, b/c you were on my page within seconds and replied to my emails within seconds! Just come clean, buddy.) - Christopher X. Brodeur —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.149.34.126 (talk) 22:08, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Your first sentence contains a substantive misquote of what I said that changes the meaning significantly. Straw men aren't cool. What I did say is a couple of paragraphs above. Use cut and paste to fix it, then we'll continue. - Richfife (talk) 03:52, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Extended protection

Based on this discussion, I am extending protection on the page. Modifications may still be made but they must be proposed here on the talk page and a consensus formed. Toddst1 (talk) 14:39, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Can anyone tell me what RichFife's interest in my page is all about? He lives in San Francisco. WHY does he monitor my page? Why did he remove the mention of my band Haunted Pussy unless he has some connection to my ex-fiancee, who is also in HP. The link to the websites was 100% legit, so why would someone repeatedly have pulled that?

Likewise, no one can dispute that I made international news humiliating the bogus 9/11 Commission and Giuliani in May 2004. So WHY do some people remove that? B/c it makes me look good or something like that?

Hey Rich Fife, since you're so interested in this page and me, WHY haven't you put up any links to my 9/11 crash? It's one of the things I'm most famous for and it's FAR more important than my 2006 convictions. My fake 2006 convictions (like the prior conviction which was found ILLEGAL by 5 unanimous appellate judges!) aren't what I'm known for almost anywhere! I'm more famous for the dozens of times I was jailed and then CLEARED by judges and juries --- 15 years they made up charges on me so I'd stop exposing City Hall's bullshit in the NYPress, Our Town, and other papers I've written for --- than the 2006 charges you and others keep posting in a very peculiar way.

- Christopher X. Brodeur himself

• • • CXB here again... I was just typing more discussion with Todd or anyone and it disappeared as I was typing it like magic! (Argh!) Isn't THIS the correct place to discuss my page, which is still all screwed up.

EX: most presidents collected enough signatures to appear on the ballot, so it's pretty CLEAR that whomever wrote my opening paragraph had an AGENDA to trivialize the many records I set in the 2005 election in NYC. CXB was ON THE BALLOT. In 2001 and 2005. Check to see if anyone did the same to Mike Bloomberg's page! "Bloomberg hired enough people to collect enough signatures to appear on the ballot"!!

"Barack Obama collected enough signatures to appear on the ballot"!!!!

A JUDGE IN CRIMINAL COURT just decided my freedom the other night (after my umpteenth false "harassment" charge by someone I had exposed the crimes of, PUBLICLY) based ON WIKIPEDIA! (He google'd me to see if my lawyers claims that I'm a well-known investigative reporter / political activist. MOST OF THE FACTS IN MY DEFENSE have been removed from the wiki page and they are all easily verifiable. But even when VERIFIED things about me have been posted over the years, VANDALS REMOVE IT.

THIS IS SERIOUS. IT IS NOT A GAME.

I lose JOBS based on anyone looking at my wikipedia page. (No mention of the newspapers I've written for makes me look like I made it all up!) (No mention of all the positive things about me? All the awards I've won for my films, journalism, etc?)

Lenny Bruce and others are partially most famous for their ARRESTS (and often faked convictions) but I bet you don't see their opening paragraphs include the bizarrely-phrased comments on MY page about me being a "convict". ALSO: I can PROVE my first "conviction" was thrown out by 5 judges in the Appellate court UNANIMOUSLY, b/c they were all ABOVE City Hall's heads. (The "conviction" was by a judge appointed by... the alleged victim: Mayor Giuliani!) I can PROVE that every judge that locked me up owed their job to the alleged victims at City Hall!! But I'm not allowed to post any clear facts if they are positive? (I don't hide "negative" things about me. EX: I don't deny losing every election I've been in or try to cover that up! EX: I don't ever try to hide the fact that I have FOUR "convictions" currently -- all on appeal. (There's a 100% chance I'll be cleared in all 4, except now the govt is screwing with me and getting rid of all my appeal lawyers so no one is working on those comically-fake convictions!

HOW DO WE DISCUSS THIS?? IF NOT HERE, WHERE?

I could really use some help here. I'm drowning in other battles with multiple GOLIATHS. Can someone please understand and explain to me why I can't fix this page about ME. A page people use to JUDGE me both literally and literally!

thanks, CXB April 17th, 2010—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.243.28.227 (talk) 16:31, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Criminal History Section

There needs to be a concise description of his alleged harassment and arrests regarding the mayor's office and a section for his criminal convictions and time served. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.52.153.148 (talk) 09:43, 15 February 2010 (UTC)