After stating that:
"clearly you are not telling the truth"
accusing me of being one or two other people thus:
"it appears that you do not have any information and that your only purpose is to possibly mislead our own investigation in support of Paul Rusling - unless of course you are Paul Rusling under another name." and
"we may be tempted to dismiss your comments as merely the frustrated words of Scottg, since the terminology you use is very, very similar to his"
you accept, admittedly with thanks, that the most basic of information available from public records had not been searched by yourself and your so called documented short biography is incorrect.
Then in today's blog you say this:
"But for the purposes of this investigation her surname was Hubbard at birth."
She is not, and never was Hubbard! How can you not accept the facts when they are staring you in the face? Why are you still today refering to her as such?
The truth is that by feeding you a few actual facts I have exposed you to be a bumbling buffoon who cannot assimilate the simplest of information. This leads me to wonder what other real facts you choose not to accept as you drown in conspiracy theories and paranoia.
Share further information with you? I don't think so, you're on your own.