Sunday, June 3, 2007

Cornwell and Wikipedia

Quotes once again taken from Sachs' web-site unless otherwise mentioned. You should know the address by now. If you don't, check out the previous posts.

"Via this one overwhelmingly dominant website, the thousands of nameless agents at CIA and NSA headquarters, can now deceive and defraud millions of US citizens and much of the rest of the world as well. These agents can smear and attack those who challenge the government; they can easily launch lies and propaganda on this powerful web forum that can falsify anything and undermine almost anyone."

I'd imagine that the CIA agents and all the rest have better things to do.

"To give you a quick proof of how fake Wikipedia is, let's consider the case of major Bush donor and weird right-wing celebrity author Patricia Cornwell. Cornwell is an old pal of the Bushes since the early 1980s."

Oh, yes. Let's indeed do that. Would be a shame if Sachs wouldn't be able to drag Cornwell into every post possible.

"Take a look on the web for the well-documented "Patricia Cornwell Biography: Crime, Bribery, Scandal and Mental Illness". Here you find a pretty juicy set of legal cases and scandals collected from court documents and print media like Esquire and Vanity Fair. Then take a look at the totally fake biography of Bush's friend Cornwell on Wikipedia "

Pretty juicy? It's not. It would be juicy if it were true. Here I see just Sachs' word against Cornwell's. He says he has proof and has indeed put some of those court documents online (I'll get back to those later), but I don't see anything in those papers that would prove anything. Even in those papers there's just Sachs' word against Cornwell's.

"Here, most of the facts of Cornwell's fascinating life are not even mentioned, and a good chunk of the Wikipedia entry makes a slanderous attack on the author who wrote Cornwell's real biography above. At the time of this writing, the Wikipedia attack on the biographer uses a fake "internet source" for a phony story about a court case, not telling you that this deceptive Wikipedia "source article" is from Cornwell's own publisher who is a party in the legal case being described."

What's not mentioned? The boob job? The nose job? The FBI-scandals? The car crash? Why would Wikipedia have to put these things online, Sachs is doing it for them. Now, when I last checked the car crash was in Wikipedia and a lot of this "fascinating life" of Cornwell's too. The things about Cornwell's father were on Wikipedia. The fact that Cornwell testified against a security guard as a child was in Wikipedia. How Cornwell's mother suffered from depression and left the children to the Graham family is on the Wikipedia. Cornwell's anorexia, bipolar disorder and her homosexual relationship with another woman is in Wikipedia. I mean, what more do you need to know?

Just in case someone doesn't feel like checking up Wikipedia, here's what it says in Wikipedia about Sachs:

"Leslie Sachs, author of The Virginia Ghost Murders (1998), claimed there were similarities between his novel and Cornwell's The Last Precinct. In 2000, he sent letters to Cornwell's publisher, started a Web page and placed stickers on copies of his novel alleging that Cornwell was committing plagiarism. Cornwell successfully obtained a preliminary injunction against Sachs. The court ruled that his claims were baseless, and he ordered to stop placing the stickers on his book. The court also shut his web site down for false advertising and required booksellers to remove the stickers that were already on copies of The Virginia Ghost Murders.
Sachs left the country so that he could escape the injunction. He continues to charge that Cornwell plagiarized his work and used her influence to subvert justice. Cornwell has recently taken Sachs to court over cyberstalking and libel"

I don't know about you but to me that doesn't seem to be an "attack" against Sachs. That's what happened, is it not?

"Despite all the lies and fraud on Wikipedia, this bogus online "encyclopedia" is today the most dominant reference source in the English speaking world. It is far more influential than many people realize or imagine, thanks to the power of the internet."

Maybe the reason Wikipedia is so popular is the fact that it's free and it's accurate. And easy to use. Thanks to the power ot the Internet, people like Sachs can try to destroy someone's reputation. And that's a damn shame.

"Here's another quick way to give you an idea what is going on. Think of some country you know very little about. Punch up the name on an internet search engine. Two things will tend to pop up quite high on the list: "Wikipedia" and the "CIA Fact Book". Hmm. Are you starting to feel the connections here?"

Well, DUHH. Even the Wikipedia has to get it's answers from somewhere.

"In this particular case, someone who acts like a CIA-backed operative is one "W. Guy Finley", who operates on Wikipedia as one of the central "Wikipedia advocates" - the people who are supposed to help you, when someone else is publishing false things about you. They are the sort of "Wikipedia lawyers" in that strange little world, and they turn out to be as nasty, devious and worthless as lawyers in the US usually are, and just like real lawyers, the "Wikipedia advocates" kiss up to the rich and the powerful."

What did Sachs exactly try to have the Wikipedia guys to change then? See above what Wikipedia says about Sachs and then see what he says about himself and about all this in his web-site. Now, what exactly would Wikipedia have to change? All that's in there is true. Sachs charged Cornwell, Cornwell sued him, he lost and started this Internet-stalking and now Cornwell has sued him again. And all this is in the Wikipedia.

"So the media don't talk about how Cornwell and her lesbian lover Irene Shulgin were frolicking at Kennebunkport with the current President Bush, and how Cornwell gave the Bush family a $1 million gift then, handing the money to the President's mother, Barbara Bush (the wife of the previous President Bush). The media know that story, they have a witness, but they don't tell. That's because the government wants to deceive all those starry-eyed Christian voters, who might not have thought so well of Bush or Cornwell, thinking about that lesbian romping and the money flowing, all on the Bush family estate."

So, who's the witness? Is it you, Dr Sachs? Because you often say that you've got proof and witnesses but we never see any proof or hear any of these witnesses. It's funny how you have so much information and witnesses but no one is willing to talk. Where do you get all your information from? Do you follow Cornwell around? Maybe you're not "just" a cyber-stalker after all...

We have to bear in mind that reporters will do almost anything for a scoop. Especially when it's something as "juicy" as this. If the reporters would have to keep their mouth shut about Bush, why are there so many negative articles about Bush in the newspapers and news? Cornwell can easily give her money to wherever or to whoever she wants to and she can do it as "Anonymous". So why bother deceiving anyone when you can handle the whole thing by not revealing your name? And what does this have to do with Wikipedia? Don't ask me.

"The control is very effective. Most of the stories you would want to hear, do not make it onto CNN. You need to dig, and dig deep, on the internet, to really know what is happening in the world."

And since when has the Internet become a reliable source or information? Didn't Sachs just say something like "thanks to the power of the Internet, everyone can write whatever they want to and thus the internet is not reliable."? Or did I completely missunderstand that?

"The cover-up of America's phony legal system, is one of the most central Big Lies about the US. That cover-up is a priority for US intelligence agencies, hence the CIA interest in covering up for Bush's friend Cornwell."

I still think that the CIA has better things to do than to babysit Cornwell.

"And to cover up for the legal system, they need to cover up for Bush's friend Patricia Cornwell. As part of the 2000 election campaign for Bush, Cornwell bought a fake court proceeding with a US federal judge to ban a writer's freedom of speech. This "show trial" was so fake it is almost hilarious, with the proof of federal crime lying around in broad daylight."

If Cornwell and her friends are such mastermind criminals that they can silence everyone and everything, why would they leave "proof of federal crime lying around in broad daylight"?

"You can change the false material they have written about you, but the Wikipedia goons just change it back, and quickly start charging you with "vandalizing" Wikipedia."

What false have the Wikipedia staff written about Sachs? Nothing. And if he's trying to write his paranoid blah-blah to the Wikipedia on a regular basis he is indeed vandalizing Wikipedia.

"It's very, very hard to contact Wikipedia, or even to figure out who to contact or how to contact them. The CIA likes things that way. Attempts were made to try to talk to Wikipedia for this article, but of course the Wikipedia people didn't really want to chat about these things - that's not how CIA guys like to play it."

It's very hard to contact my mobile phone operator. It's very hard to contact the local pizzeria. It's very hard to contact the taxi service (especially when you're walking in the rain and you're freezing). You know, it's hard to contact a lot of places. But I don't try to blame that on the CIA.

Well, what do you know! Here they are. Fresh from Sachs' own blog. See, it wasn't that hard after all. Even he could do it. You should be able to do it as well.

Wikipedia press phone number, 'Danny', no last name: +1 727 231 0101

Wikipedia press e-mail addresses:,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

Wikipedia founder: "Jimbo Wales":,
Wikipedia advocate: "W. Guy Finley":
Wikipedia libel help desk:
Wikimedia support team:
Wikipedia information team:
Wikipedia 'problem with article' team:
Wikipedia 'foundation':

There you go. Have fun!

"We don't like it when you tap the glass."

No comments: