Quote:


$12,000?!?!?   Well George, it looks like your hero lawyer buddy is showing his real shyster colors.  Are you getting a big referral fee or some kind of cut for all the free advertisement you have been giving him.

Suing the FBI for not hiring some lying sack of shit has nothing to do with "International Security Law".  It has more to do with ambulance chasing and that is exactly what shysters do.

Hey triple prick, all I said was that George's hero lawyer buddy Zaid is starting to look like a shyster lawyer and that suing the FBI has nothing to do with "National Security Law".  And congratulations on your thousand dollar a day "tour" in Iraq as a contractor.  My tax money at work....  what a country!  Now you are back at your full time job of being the PC police for this board.

Hey Triple Excrement, don't tell me what is "warranted".  Look at the subject of this thread.  You are the one who is going on and on about unwarranted bullshit.  And I take it back about your being a thosand dollar a day man - you are obviously too stupid for that.  Probably just one of Cheney's chumps cooking food for Haliburton Services. my ass

Quote:

Very witty Triple Excrement.   

I on the other hand am sure you are a bafoon.  And your response is needed.  It is so easy for me to get your panties in a wad and you are so very funny when you are mad - and you just have to have the last word don't you girl?

The Truth,

Assuming you are a polygrapher, it is quite easy to appreciate your embarrassment over many of the alleged government documents to have appeared on this site.  But (for the sake of conversation only) assuming Mr. Zaid has no security clearances and/or any documents he might have released had no marked restrictions in terms of dissemination (do you know otherwise?), is there any reason whatsoever that any unclassified materials the government makes available to him and his clients should not be posted on this site (or anywhere else for that matter)?  Your red-faced chagrin and the red-bottomed stink of the perpetually poopy one (he should check his own pants for the source of the constant foul odors he detects) have little bearing on the right of the public and the constant stream of victims produced by your community to know about that which you and friends foist upon them.  Furthermore, I would suggest it is very much in the interest of Mr. Zaid’s clients for the public to know and to react in outrage to the "thinking" and conduct reflected in some of the documents contained on this site.  And finally, it would appear a little disingenuous to question Mr. Zaid's motivation for representing his clients (suggesting a financial one) and then criticize the free public service he provides by releasing the nonsense the government provides as it comes his way.

This is the first time I am reading this thread, and even though it has seen no action in one year, I will still post a response.

Those of you, all of whom are conveniently anonymous, who have chosen to disparage my motives and reputation have no clue as to what they are talking about. You are more than willing to come down to my office at anytime and discuss this matter instead of hiding behind the shield of the Internet. And if you are, as some suspect, actually employed by the federal government, particularly as a polygrapher, than your actions are even more disgraceful and cowardly and I challenge you to come forward and idenitfy yourself. 

As far as the document someone referred to, it was provided as part of a legitimate discovery request, which the government never challenged, and is neither classified nor ever was (notwithstanding the fact that, yes, I do hold security clearances with different agencies). It is also not privileged nor subject to a protective order. The only reason why some in the Government did not like the fact that it was provided to this website is that it supports the case of those who were vicitimized by pre-employment polygraphs.

Mark S. Zaid, Esq.