To: davis ron
Sent: Tue, December 14, 2010 3:17:59 AM
Subject: Ron Davis,
Ron Davis,
I think you are a really bomb man, because:
1. First blow, hit your head hard. Therefore you use the laughable hat.
2. Second blow, damage your intelligence. Otherwise you have stopped your silly acts for long time ago.
3. Third blow, destroyed your remembering. You are on and on repeating your scrap.
4. Fourth blow, blow your guts out of your body. Therefore you don't come to us and get the truth.
5. Fifth blow, start the rest of your brain spin around in a very small circle. Therefore, keep the hat on.
Ron Davis, a good advice, dont play with dynamite, it hurt you too much.
By the way, you are the conductor, you hold the pin in your hand, you are the only one who can end your tragic paranoia story about a simple copy plastic spoon.
You show everybody where the bottom line is positioned.
Hartvigsen says that he was able to convince Ruyter that I was the fugitive American bomber Leo Burt.
ReplyDeleteThis message is meant to convey that idea, that Ruyter believed I was a fugitive terrorist.
The question neither can answer is:
if Good Citizens Hartvigsen and Ruyter really believed for one minute that I was Leo Burt, why didn't they turn me in for the $150,000 reward and public glory?
I sent Hartvigsen's Leo Burt accusation to the FBI as soon as I received it. Days later Hartvigsen was still pretending to be trying to decide whether he should turn me in.
In reality, for years anyone who dared to ask Hartvigsen for proof that my Watermotors wer "illegal" got an earful of vicious garbage about how I am a dangerous anti-American radical, probably on the run, have no passport, etc, (but, of course, no proof that my Watermotors are "illegal").
In reality the Ruyters were publicly calling me a "terrorist" years ago. Who was I supposed to have been then?(See blog).
When pressed Hartvigsen retreats from the public claim, made repeatedly, to the microhydro group. One is that I owe "royalty" payments to Ruyter,as owner of the turgo design. When questioned on this point saying that he is just using the term "royalty" as a "request for payment"--not a claim of legal design ownership, or the existence of an actual royalty agreement.