Aaron Greenspan plainsite.org Think Computer FoundationMaking threats and stalking President Trump on his Twitter accounts @AaronGreenspan and @PlainSite

U May 24, 2020 Review updated:

Aaron Greenspan is making threats and stalking President Trump on his Twitter accounts @AaronGreenspan and @PlainSite:

Aaron Greenspan is now known to Secret Service, FBI and other Federal and State Law Enforcement Agencies for making threats against President Trump.

On one occasion using @PlainSite, Aaron Greenspan made a death threat towards President Trump, where Aaron Greenspan stated about President Trump, "He should be taken outside and hanged".
This was just one of the many death threats that Aaron Greenspan made against President Trump.
Aaron Greenspan is also continuously stalking President Trump and his legal affairs and personal information.

What we cannot understand is why the owner of Twitter, Jack Dorsey does not close down these two Twitter accounts @AaronGreenspan and @PlainSite that are being used too stalk and harass the public and to expose private and personal information.

We don't know what is going on, as to why Jack Dorsey does not step up and shut these abusive Twitter accounts that belong to Aaron Greenspan down. Also, Aaron Greenspan owns and uses many fake Twitter accounts to spy on his victims that have already blocked him.

Jack Dorsey should step up and do what's right and permanently shut down @AaronGreenspan and @PlainSite that we know belong to Aaron Greenspan that he uses to stalk, harass and threaten people online. Jack Dorsey shuold also investigate what the other fake Twitter accounts are that Aaron Greenspan has created and permanently shut them all down.

Aaron Greenspan is a danger to society and is wreaking havoc by stalking, harassing, threatening, blackmailing, extorting tactics, maliciously hacking in to everything, social media accounts, GSA, databases and lots of malicious hacking that has not yet been exposed on Aaron Greenspan. FBI has visited Aaron Greenspan on numerous occasions about his malicious hacking.

Aaron Greenspan
"Je pense, donc je suis." —Descartes

Opinions of an independent thinker.
California, USAaarongreenspan.comJoined January 2012

The law in plain sight. Send tips to [protected]@plainsite.org.

PlainSite affiliates may hold long/short investments in companies discussed. Not investment advice.
plainsite.orgJoined October 2011

Making threats and stalking President Trump on his Twitter accounts @AaronGreenspan and @PlainSite


  • Pl
    plainsite.org TAX FRAUD Jun 27, 2020

    Aaron Greenspan, Neil S Greenspan and Judith Keene Greenspan have not been caught yet! But will be soon! The IRS is looking in to many illegal financial schemes of these people that own and run this filthy and fraudulent 501(c)(3) called Think Computer Foundation, under which these criminals have a multitude of monetized websites, including plainsite.org

    Aaron Greenspan does not declare to the IRS any of his illegal income from removing legal documents from plainsite.org. He receives cash payments, by way of third parties and also accepts cryptocurrency, to avoid leaving any trace of financial transactions.

    What needs to be looked in to are the the various financial institutions that Aaron Greenspan is using to hide his ill-gotten gains and not declare all of this income to the IRS. Aaron Greenspan does use an email: finance at thinkcomputer dot org or com and this is linked to a PayPal account, that in turn is linked to a bank account. This is important because Aaron Greenspan is asking the public to send him money via this email account and tells the public that all monetary donations to this email account are tax deductible under a 501(c)(3) that is of course fraudulent.
    plainsite.org is being operated for tax evasion, fraud, money laundering purposes and to publicly harass and shame his victims

    Aaron Greenspan is violating various Federal Laws, such as wire fraud, money laundering and he is working with other people who have similar data mining websites and then together they attack, harass, stalk and shame their victims online. This is also a Federal Crime, as whenever two or more people get together on the Internet to cyber stalk, cyber bully, harass, threaten, doxxing and lots of malicious hacking and shaming.

    One of the ways that Aaron Greenspan sets people up is by the following:
    Aaron Greenspan has created many gripe sites, where he is the author and creator of vile comments and pictures of himself and his family. Yes, all of this was done by one person, Aaron Greenspan who suffers from mental illness.
    Aaron Greenspan then embeds coding in these vile gripe sites that allows him to know your IP Address. After Aaron Greenspan sees who clicked on these vile gripe sites that this nut created, he then uses his advanced malicious hacking and coding skills that are embedded in these gripe sites to attack his victims that he has it out for and states that these vile comments and pictures came from this person or that person and whoever he has it out for. The proof there and coding in these malicious gripe sites online were all created by Aaron Greenspan who is a dangerous stalker and serial harasser.

    It's too bad that so much funding has been taken away from psychiatric hospitals and mental health facilities because Aaron Greenspan needed to be placed in a mental health facility years ago and permanently. Aaron Greenspan is a serious danger to society and needs to be permanently placed in a mental health facility and kept away from the Internet and personal information.


    3 Votes
  • Aaron Greenspan using his data mining website plainsite under fraudulent 501(c)(3) Think Computer Foundation to do doxxing, stalking, harassment, IP Address & personal information Harvesting to blackmail, extort, threaten and try to coerce and force his victims to do illegal things fonr him.

    Aaron Greenspan uses people's personal information to try and submit his victims in to submission by threatening to out their personal information to the public unless this criminal blackmailer and extortionist gets his demands. Otherwise, Aaron Greenspan will stalk, harass, cyberbully, do lots of doxxing and one of his favorite criminal activities is to shame his victims in to submission.

    Aaron Greenspan belong on a locked ward of a psychiatric hospital with absolutely not access to any Internet, smart devices and most definitely no access to any personal information. Aaron Greenspan needs to be fully monitored and kept away from other people and only allowed to read a newspaper to know what's going on on the outside. Aaron Greenspan is psychologically very dangerous towards the public and his victims are many.

    Aaron Greenspan had nothing to do with Facebook! Aaron Greenspan created another data mining website called HouseSystem where he allowed Harvard students and staff to sign up and upload their pictures. Problem was that Aaron Greenspan being a malicious hacker was harvesting everyone's personal information that was signing up for this stupid HouseSystem. Aaron Greenspan would sit back behind the computer and would see everyone's passwords and other highly sensitive information. Aaron Greenspan has had this ocd with the collection and data mining of the public's personal information for a long time.

    As they say, "Information is power" but Aaron Greenspan uses all of this personal information in nefarious ways. Aaron Greenspan hacks in to email accounts, social media accounts, State and Federal databases, cell phones and so much more.

    The good guy is Mark Zuckerberg who has been putting up with this immature jealous Aaron Greenspan for so many years and he does not quit with harassing and stalking Mark Zuckerberg who should get Aaron Greenspan institutionalized for all of his harassment and stalking.

    The evil villain is Aaron Greenspan who tries to control the Google search engine and somehow deletes the truth about him when typing his name Aaron Greenspan but when one types his full name Aaron Jacob Greenspan the full truth arises on this sick sociopath. This is why Aaron Greenspan does not like his full name being used because he does not want the public to see who he really is. Aaron Greenspan makes every attempt to write up narratives that are full of lies and his tall tales that he then somehow gets this to go to the top of the search engines. He must be manipulating the algorithms at Google and they should investigate what Aaron Greenspan is doing with Google's algorithms and programming behind their search engine.


    3 Votes
  • Na
    Nasi Los Angeles Jun 06, 2020

    Very horrible history of Aaron Greenspan. The tweets @plainsite sound very horrible. The Public must read Aaron Greenspan new lawsuit against Musk teaming up with a convicted murder.

    Case Number:

    California Northern

    Nature of Suit:

    Jacqueline Scott Corley

    Tesla Inc.


    0 Votes
  • He
    Heinke Cal May 28, 2020


    Aaron Greenspan will be sued for defamation, slander, libel, extortion, blackmail, threats, exposing false information about a people on plainsite.org, his Twitter accounts @AaronGreenspan, @PlainSite and using this personal information to stalk, harass and do lots of doxxing towards his many victims. Arschloch!

    "Under Title 18 Section 871 of the United States Code it is illegal to knowingly and willfully make "any threat to take the life of, to kidnap, or to inflict bodily harm upon the president of the United States." This also applies to any "President-elect, Vice President or other officer next in the order of succession to the office of President, or Vice President-elect." This law is distinct from other forms of true threats because the threatener does not need to have the actual capability to carry out the threat, meaning prisoners can also be charged."

    Following are some examples of the laws that Aaron Greenspan is violating:

    "Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts, 388 U.S. 130 (1967) News organizations may be liable when printing allegations about public figures if the information they disseminate is recklessly gathered and unchecked."

    "Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942) Fighting words—words that by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace—are not protected by the First Amendment."

    "The California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), adopted on 28 June 2018, establishes one of the most comprehensive data privacy regulations in the US. As such, it could be considered the US counterpart of the GDPR. ... The CCPA, however, only regulates companies “doing business” in the State of California."

    Operationalize CCPA Compliance

    Companies are confronted with a new and urgent challenge: how to comply with California’s brand new privacy regulation and provide greater control and transparency to customers over their personal data. The California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) offers consumers the right to opt out of the sale of their personal information, the right to access their personal information, and the right to delete their personal information.

    It is estimated that more than half a million businesses in the United States will need to provide these rights to California consumers. With the bill now live and enforcement starting in July, the impetus for updating or creating a privacy compliance program should be at the top of major corporate IT initiatives for 2020 and beyond.

    Download our CCPA white paper to learn how you can prepare for, and maintain compliance with CCPA.

    Key takeaways: cppa-thumbnail3.jpg
    Penalties - Proposed fines of the CCPA
    Which organizations must comply with CCPA?
    Where to Start? / Plan of Attack
    Consumer Data Intake, Collecting Consumer Information, & Updating your Privacy Policy
    Communicating with your Customers
    Preparing for CCPA – The 5 W’s and H of Preparation
    Privacy Compliance Project Plan – Suggested Milestones
    CCPA Compliance Solution Checklist

    Executive Order on Preventing Online Censorship
    Issued on: May 28, 2020

    menuALL NEWS
    By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered as follows:

    Section 1. Policy. Free speech is the bedrock of American democracy. Our Founding Fathers protected this sacred right with the First Amendment to the Constitution. The freedom to express and debate ideas is the foundation for all of our rights as a free people.

    In a country that has long cherished the freedom of expression, we cannot allow a limited number of online platforms to hand pick the speech that Americans may access and convey on the internet. This practice is fundamentally un-American and anti-democratic. When large, powerful social media companies censor opinions with which they disagree, they exercise a dangerous power. They cease functioning as passive bulletin boards, and ought to be viewed and treated as content creators.

    The growth of online platforms in recent years raises important questions about applying the ideals of the First Amendment to modern communications technology. Today, many Americans follow the news, stay in touch with friends and family, and share their views on current events through social media and other online platforms. As a result, these platforms function in many ways as a 21st century equivalent of the public square.

    Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, and YouTube wield immense, if not unprecedented, power to shape the interpretation of public events; to censor, delete, or disappear information; and to control what people see or do not see.

    As President, I have made clear my commitment to free and open debate on the internet. Such debate is just as important online as it is in our universities, our town halls, and our homes. It is essential to sustaining our democracy.

    Online platforms are engaging in selective censorship that is harming our national discourse. Tens of thousands of Americans have reported, among other troubling behaviors, online platforms “flagging” content as inappropriate, even though it does not violate any stated terms of service; making unannounced and unexplained changes to company policies that have the effect of disfavoring certain viewpoints; and deleting content and entire accounts with no warning, no rationale, and no recourse.

    Twitter now selectively decides to place a warning label on certain tweets in a manner that clearly reflects political bias. As has been reported, Twitter seems never to have placed such a label on another politician’s tweet. As recently as last week, Representative Adam Schiff was continuing to mislead his followers by peddling the long-disproved Russian Collusion Hoax, and Twitter did not flag those tweets. Unsurprisingly, its officer in charge of so-called ‘Site Integrity’ has flaunted his political bias in his own tweets.

    At the same time online platforms are invoking inconsistent, irrational, and groundless justifications to censor or otherwise restrict Americans’ speech here at home, several online platforms are profiting from and promoting the aggression and disinformation spread by foreign governments like China. One United States company, for example, created a search engine for the Chinese Communist Party that would have blacklisted searches for “human rights, ” hid data unfavorable to the Chinese Communist Party, and tracked users determined appropriate for surveillance. It also established research partnerships in China that provide direct benefits to the Chinese military. Other companies have accepted advertisements paid for by the Chinese government that spread false information about China’s mass imprisonment of religious minorities, thereby enabling these abuses of human rights. They have also amplified China’s propaganda abroad, including by allowing Chinese government officials to use their platforms to spread misinformation regarding the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic, and to undermine pro-democracy protests in Hong Kong.

    As a Nation, we must foster and protect diverse viewpoints in today’s digital communications environment where all Americans can and should have a voice. We must seek transparency and accountability from online platforms, and encourage standards and tools to protect and preserve the integrity and openness of American discourse and freedom of expression.

    Sec. 2. Protections Against Online Censorship. (a) It is the policy of the United States to foster clear ground rules promoting free and open debate on the internet. Prominent among the ground rules governing that debate is the immunity from liability created by section 230(c) of the Communications Decency Act (section 230(c)). 47 U.S.C. 230(c). It is the policy of the United States that the scope of that immunity should be clarified: the immunity should not extend beyond its text and purpose to provide protection for those who purport to provide users a forum for free and open speech, but in reality use their power over a vital means of communication to engage in deceptive or pretextual actions stifling free and open debate by censoring certain viewpoints.

    Section 230(c) was designed to address early court decisions holding that, if an online platform restricted access to some content posted by others, it would thereby become a “publisher” of all the content posted on its site for purposes of torts such as defamation. As the title of section 230(c) makes clear, the provision provides limited liability “protection” to a provider of an interactive computer service (such as an online platform) that engages in “‘Good Samaritan’ blocking” of harmful content. In particular, the Congress sought to provide protections for online platforms that attempted to protect minors from harmful content and intended to ensure that such providers would not be discouraged from taking down harmful material. The provision was also intended to further the express vision of the Congress that the internet is a “forum for a true diversity of political discourse.” 47 U.S.C. 230(a)(3). The limited protections provided by the statute should be construed with these purposes in mind.

    In particular, subparagraph (c)(2) expressly addresses protections from “civil liability” and specifies that an interactive computer service provider may not be made liable “on account of” its decision in “good faith” to restrict access to content that it considers to be “obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing or otherwise objectionable.” It is the policy of the United States to ensure that, to the maximum extent permissible under the law, this provision is not distorted to provide liability protection for online platforms that — far from acting in “good faith” to remove objectionable content — instead engage in deceptive or pretextual actions (often contrary to their stated terms of service) to stifle viewpoints with which they disagree. Section 230 was not intended to allow a handful of companies to grow into titans controlling vital avenues for our national discourse under the guise of promoting open forums for debate, and then to provide those behemoths blanket immunity when they use their power to censor content and silence viewpoints that they dislike. When an interactive computer service provider removes or restricts access to content and its actions do not meet the criteria of subparagraph (c)(2)(A), it is engaged in editorial conduct. It is the policy of the United States that such a provider should properly lose the limited liability shield of subparagraph (c)(2)(A) and be exposed to liability like any traditional editor and publisher that is not an online provider.

    (b) To advance the policy described in subsection (a) of this section, all executive departments and agencies should ensure that their application of section 230(c) properly reflects the narrow purpose of the section and take all appropriate actions in this regard. In addition, within 60 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary), in consultation with the Attorney General, and acting through the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), shall file a petition for rulemaking with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) requesting that the FCC expeditiously propose regulations to clarify:

    (i) the interaction between subparagraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of section 230, in particular to clarify and determine the circumstances under which a provider of an interactive computer service that restricts access to content in a manner not specifically protected by subparagraph (c)(2)(A) may also not be able to claim protection under subparagraph (c)(1), which merely states that a provider shall not be treated as a publisher or speaker for making third-party content available and does not address the provider’s responsibility for its own editorial decisions;

    (ii) the conditions under which an action restricting access to or availability of material is not “taken in good faith” within the meaning of subparagraph (c)(2)(A) of section 230, particularly whether actions can be “taken in good faith” if they are:

    (A) deceptive, pretextual, or inconsistent with a provider’s terms of service; or

    (B) taken after failing to provide adequate notice, reasoned explanation, or a meaningful opportunity to be heard; and

    (iii) any other proposed regulations that the NTIA concludes may be appropriate to advance the policy described in subsection (a) of this section.

    Sec. 3. Protecting Federal Taxpayer Dollars from Financing Online Platforms That Restrict Free Speech. (a) The head of each executive department and agency (agency) shall review its agency’s Federal spending on advertising and marketing paid to online platforms. Such review shall include the amount of money spent, the online platforms that receive Federal dollars, and the statutory authorities available to restrict their receipt of advertising dollars.

    (b) Within 30 days of the date of this order, the head of each agency shall report its findings to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget.

    (c) The Department of Justice shall review the viewpoint-based speech restrictions imposed by each online platform identified in the report described in subsection (b) of this section and assess whether any online platforms are problematic vehicles for government speech due to viewpoint discrimination, deception to consumers, or other bad practices.

    Sec. 4. Federal Review of Unfair or Deceptive Acts or Practices. (a) It is the policy of the United States that large online platforms, such as Twitter and Facebook, as the critical means of promoting the free flow of speech and ideas today, should not restrict protected speech. The Supreme Court has noted that social media sites, as the modern public square, “can provide perhaps the most powerful mechanisms available to a private citizen to make his or her voice heard.” Packingham v. North Carolina, 137 S. Ct. 1730, [protected]). Communication through these channels has become important for meaningful participation in American democracy, including to petition elected leaders. These sites are providing an important forum to the public for others to engage in free expression and debate. Cf. PruneYard Shopping Center v. Robins, 447 U.S. 74, [protected]).

    (b) In May of 2019, the White House launched a Tech Bias Reporting tool to allow Americans to report incidents of online censorship. In just weeks, the White House received over 16, 000 complaints of online platforms censoring or otherwise taking action against users based on their political viewpoints. The White House will submit such complaints received to the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC).

    (c) The FTC shall consider taking action, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law, to prohibit unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce, pursuant to section 45 of title 15, United States Code. Such unfair or deceptive acts or practice may include practices by entities covered by section 230 that restrict speech in ways that do not align with those entities’ public representations about those practices.

    (d) For large online platforms that are vast arenas for public debate, including the social media platform Twitter, the FTC shall also, consistent with its legal authority, consider whether complaints allege violations of law that implicate the policies set forth in section 4(a) of this order. The FTC shall consider developing a report describing such complaints and making the report publicly available, consistent with applicable law.

    Sec. 5. State Review of Unfair or Deceptive Acts or Practices and Anti-Discrimination Laws. (a) The Attorney General shall establish a working group regarding the potential enforcement of State statutes that prohibit online platforms from engaging in unfair or deceptive acts or practices. The working group shall also develop model legislation for consideration by legislatures in States where existing statutes do not protect Americans from such unfair and deceptive acts and practices. The working group shall invite State Attorneys General for discussion and consultation, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law.

    (b) Complaints described in section 4(b) of this order will be shared with the working group, consistent with applicable law. The working group shall also collect publicly available information regarding the following:

    (i) increased scrutiny of users based on the other users they choose to follow, or their interactions with other users;

    (ii) algorithms to suppress content or users based on indications of political alignment or viewpoint;

    (iii) differential policies allowing for otherwise impermissible behavior, when committed by accounts associated with the Chinese Communist Party or other anti-democratic associations or governments;

    (iv) reliance on third-party entities, including contractors, media organizations, and individuals, with indicia of bias to review content; and

    (v) acts that limit the ability of users with particular viewpoints to earn money on the platform compared with other users similarly situated.

    Sec. 6. Legislation. The Attorney General shall develop a proposal for Federal legislation that would be useful to promote the policy objectives of this order.

    Sec. 7. Definition. For purposes of this order, the term “online platform” means any website or application that allows users to create and share content or engage in social networking, or any general search engine.

    Sec. 8. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

    (i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or

    (ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

    (b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

    (c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

    5 Votes
  • Us
    user2145034 May 24, 2020

    Aaron Greenspan and his parents Neil and Judith Greenspan set up Think Computer Corporation/Foundation to con, scam, scheme and steal from Taxpayers with monetized websites such as plainsite.org and many others that they own and run. These criminals try and disguise these websites such as plainsite.org as non-profits but they are all for profits and are not authorized by the IRS to be advertised as 501(c)(3) websites, that these crooks are doing under Think Computer Foundation.

    These thieves use the and abuse the tax system to avoid paying their taxes and use the money to pay for their personal expenses and live a life of leaching of society, while they leach off the good nature of hard working people.

    Aaron Greenspan suffers from Multiple Personality Disorder, Narcissistic Personality Disorder, Schizophrenia, Schizoaffective disorder, Diiogenes Syndrome or better known as Hoarding (personal and legal documents), Obsessive Compulsive Disorder, Chemical Brain Imbalance perhaps from childhood trauma or verbal or physical abuse by the parents,

    In the old days a mentally disturbed individual like Aaron Greenspan would have been locked up in a mental institution and placed in physical restraints and isolation, but today there is not enough money to go around for mental institutions, so many dangerous individuals, such as Aaron Greenspan are unfortunately for society allowed to roam free and cause serious harm to many people.

    The following are the details for the IRS Form 990 that Aaron Greenspan filed. He did not include all the extortion money that he has received for removing URL's from plainsite.org where he charges between

    8 Votes
  • Us
    user2145011 May 23, 2020

    Mentally disturbed Aaron Greenspan suffers from various mental health issues. One is Narcissistic Personality Disorder

    plainsite.org is a fraudulent 501(c)(3) illegally advertised by Aaron Greenspan as if it's legit under Think Computer Foundation, when this is a crime.

    Aaron Greenspan is an online cyber bully sitting comfy before his laptop targeting many victims

    Psychoology Today

    Narcissistic Personality Disorder

    The hallmarks of narcissistic personality disorder (NPD) are grandiosity, a lack of empathy for other people, and a need for admiration. People with this condition are frequently described as arrogant, self-centered, manipulative, and demanding. They may also have grandiose fantasies and may be convinced that they deserve special treatment. These characteristics typically begin in early adulthood and must be consistently evident in multiple contexts, such as at work and in relationships.

    People with NPD often try to associate with other people they believe are unique or gifted in some way, which can enhance their own self-esteem. They tend to seek excessive admiration and attention and have difficulty tolerating criticism or defeat.

    Self-Obsessed and Out-Doing Everyone
    The Epistemology of Narcissistic Personality Disorder


    Individuals with narcissistic personality disorder, according to the DSM-5, exhibit five or more of the following, which are present by early adulthood and across contexts:

    A grandiose sense of self-importance
    Preoccupation with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love
    Belief that one is special and can only be understood by or associate with special people or institutions
    A need for excessive admiration
    A sense of entitlement (to special treatment)
    Exploitation of others
    A lack of empathy
    Envy of others or the belief that one is the object of envy
    Arrogant, haughty behavior or attitudes

    Individuals with NPD can be easily stung by criticism or defeat and may react with disdain or anger—but social withdrawal or the false appearance of humility may also follow according to the DSM-5.

    A sense of entitlement, disregard for other people, and other aspects of NPD can damage relationships. While a person with NPD may be a high-achiever, the personality disorder can also have a negative impact on performance (due to, for instance, one's sensitivity to criticism).

    Researchers have reported associations between NPD and high rates of substance abuse, mood, and anxiety disorders. These may be attributable to characteristics such as impulsivity and the increased experience of shame in people with NPD.

    The presence of narcissistic traits in adolescence does not necessarily imply that a person will have NPD as an adult.

    Causes of narcissistic personality disorder are not yet well-understood. Genetic and biological factors as well as environment and early life experiences are all thought to play a role in the development of this condition.

    Treatment for narcissistic personality disorder can be challenging because people with this condition present with a great deal of grandiosity and defensiveness, which makes it difficult for them to acknowledge problems and vulnerabilities. Psychotherapy may be useful in helping people with narcissistic personality disorder relate to others in a healthier and more compassionate way.

    Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition
    U.S. National Library of Medicine
    Caligor, E., Levy, K. N., & Yeomans, F. E. (2015). Narcissistic personality disorder: diagnostic and clinical challenges. American Journal of Psychiatry, 172(5), 415-422.
    Kacel, E. L., Ennis, N., & Pereira, D. B. (2017). Narcissistic Personality Disorder in Clinical Health Psychology Practice: Case Studies of Comorbid Psychological Distress and Life-Limiting Illness. Behavioral Medicine, 43(3), 156-164

    Last reviewed 02/07/2019
    Narcissistic Personality Disorder Resources
    Get Help

    Find a therapist who can help with narcissistic personality disorder.

    Antisocial Personality Disorder
    Borderline Personality Disorder
    Histrionic Personality Disorder
    Paranoid Personality Disorder

    Personality Disorders

    9 Votes
  • Us
    user2144937 May 23, 2020

    We have to laugh so hard because Aaron Greenspan is a financial fool who doesn't know how to invest in or any financial investments. Aaron Greenspan is the only one who is doing all thee cyber stalking, harassment, threats, posting damaging information repeatedly to try and destroy livelihoods and then he plays the victim quite well.

    Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ah, aaaah! Aaron Greenspan lost tons of money in the Stock market as this fool tried to do put calls on stock. Looks like that didn't work out well for this know it all stalker Aaron Greenspan. This is so funny! This dummy does not know anything about how the financial world works, although in his narcissistic mind of course he thinks he knows it all but knows nothing worthwhile.

    Only think Aaron Greenspan knows what to do is gain access to things that are free like legal documents and then post them on plainsite.org and not allowing people to tell their side of the true story. Aaron Greenspan enjoys controlling the narratives and will make up so many lies as filler in his fantasy stories.

    Aaron Greenspan needs to be locked up in a mental health facility for the rest of his life. There is no cure for Aaron Greenspan he is to mentally deranged to see clearly. It's going too bee so funny when Aaron Greenspan looses all his money with his stupid greedy investments that will go nowhere but in the trash. Aaron Greenspan will go broke from being stupid and greedy and having no idea how to invest.

    8 Votes
  • Us
    user2144932 May 23, 2020

    File a police complaint and go to your local court and file for a harassment order and contact the FBI. File online complaints with the FBI IC3, FCC, FTC, Attorney General, IRS Referral Form 13909.Aaron Jacob Greenspan aka Aaron Greenspan is the founder of Think Computer Foundation, which manages Plain Site (plainsite.org). Aaaron's website states that he has registered Plain Site, a purported public access function to court websites, as a 501(c)(3) charity in line with IRS regulations.The basis for the website came from Aaron's own interest and experience with technology and the law.
    Aaaron claimed that the purpose of Think Computer Foundation was to help children through technology. Yet, later this became a personal piggy bank for him to fund his numerous lawsuits. In the past, he has claimed he was defamed because he was left out of book and movie deals due to defamation by omission. Each of his lawsuits were dismissed and he was hit with a motion for sanctions at each step.The case is:Greenspan v.
    Random House, et al., Case No. 1:11-CV-12000-RBC (District of Massachusetts) (Greenspan's lawsuit is dismissed and appeal is denied and supreme court review was denied)Far from helping children, which is nothing more than a cover, Think Computer Foundation and Plain Site have morphed into a personal piggy bank for Aaron Greenspan to fund his own speech. In sum and substance, Think Computer Foundation, Plain Site, and Aaron Greenspan are alter egos of each other. They do not exist separately.

    The father Neil S Greenspan is the criminal VP and Treasurer thief for Think Computer Foundation and plainsite.org but he likes to act like a goody two shoes, when in fact he is the brains behind this entire scam. The mother Judith Greenspan is completely aware of all the tax crimes being committed by her husband Neil S Greenspan and her severely mentally ill son Aaron Greenspan. As a matter of fact Judith Greenspan being a huge cheapskate receives free tickets to sports games and is supposed to give these tickets away to underprivileged and handicapped children but she literally tries to sell all these free tickets at the sports venues and on eBay. They only care about themselves and their greed and selfishness is beyond belief.
    They do not have an independent board. They do not have separate auditors, attorneys etc. Instead, Aaron uses these companies and foundations to raise fraudulent donations from donors, of which I am one, and to efficiently evade taxes.Aaron has also active sued the US Court System, on behalf of Think Computer Foundation, attempting to act pro se. However, his suit was struck out because under long standing precedent, a corporation cannot be represented by an unlicensed attorney.
    Aaron is not a licensed attorney. He is also a college drop out. In sum and substance, he over promises and under delivers and what you are left with is feeling cheated and feeling like you have funded a conspiracy theorist. It is truly unfortunate because here is a guy with so much promise if he could just be honest.The case is:Aaron Greenspan, Think Computer Foundation v.
    Administrative Office of the US Courts, Case No. 5:2014-CV-2396 JTM(Case Dismissed, Appeal Denied)The Fraud and IRS Problem with Plain Site and Think Computer Foundation:Aaron has collectved donations from his friends and colleagues, myself included in the amount of $100, 000, and to date we have not seen a single dime used in the manner described to us when he requested the donation. When I personally asked for my donation back, he pointed that he controls Think Computer Foundation and can personally use the money as he sees fit. I am in the process of filing suit for fraud and conversion in state court and was wondering if anyone else has had this problem with either Aaaron Greenspan or any of his alter egos.But let me back up a bit.
    What was described to us as a part of Think Computer Foundation and later Plain Site? Think Computer Foundation was purportedly to help needy kids through technology. But needy kids don't really need access to court records do they? No, they dont.
    So Think Computer Foundation later became synonymous with Plain Site, which is an alternative to the publicly funded PACER court system access to documents. So, instead of helping needy children, Aaron now has a personal site masquerading as a court access website and Aaron, and only Aaron, gets to pick what or which documents are uploaded and available on Plainsite.We were under the impression that this was a reputable guy, that he was also independently wealthy and, thus, our donations would go to a good cause: public access to a court system. Unfortunately, it is hard to tell, which one, if any, of Aaron's claims are true. Each time his company has a problem, he attempts to act ike a lawyer or change the rules so that they don't apply to him.

    Aaron Greenspan suffers from severe mental illness and it is genetically passed down from either his father Neil Greenspan or Judith Greenspan. Aaron Greenspan needs to be placed in Psychiatric Asylum for being a severely dangerous nut who just refuses to leave people alone.

    Aaron Greenspan also suffers from Narcissistic Personality Disorder, Schizophrenia (Aaron Greenspan hears voices since junior high), Autism, pathological liar and he is simply belongs locked up in a mental health institution for the safety of everyone.

    Worse, the Plain Site website has become nothing more than a trolling adventure for Aaron. Every time there is a new news story that details someone's misfortune, he uploads their docket on to the website and publicly shames them both online and through his tweets. While public dissemination of information is certainly a goal worthy of support -- and that is why I and others have contributed to his foundation in the past. However, using the foundation, plain site and related twitter accounts as a trolling feature to publicly shame and defame individuals is not what his donors signed up for.
    It is also completely against the rules of a purported IRS 501(c)(3) foundation. Tax free entities are not meant to be used as personal media outlets for trolling purposes.Aaron has committed a fraud by taking money, services and equipment from his donors to perpetuate a continuing personal website masquerading as a charity.The Fraud Problem with Aaron Greenspan and Coinbase, Inc.Now, what comes next? Aaron applies for a license to issue digital currency in Florida. Website is here:archive.org/details/coinbasefloridamtlIt gets even more interesting:Aaron was charged in connection with a criminal complaint for False Claims Violations and Fraud in United States v.
    Yurygrenadyor, Case No. 09-CV-7891, although the charges were dismissed.None of this information has ever been disclosed to his donors and perhaps his investors. He is a conman with a slick sales pitch. He wants to help people help others, especially the needy, through technology.
    But its all lies. He is an abrasive, ill-tempered man with poor business judgment and completely lacking in ethics.

    Aaron Greenspan does not live at the addresses that he gives people because he has victimized thousands people.


    8 Votes

Post your comment

    By clicking Submit you are agreeing to the Complaints Board’s Terms and Conditions


    Unhappy consumers gather online at Complaintsboard.com and have already logged thousands of complaints.
    If you see dozens of complaints about a certain company on ComplaintsBoard, walk away.
    One of the largest consumer sites online. Posting here your concerns means good exposure for your issues.
    A consumer site aimed at exposing unethical companies and business practices.
    ComplaintsBoard is a good source for product and company gripes from especially dissatisfied people.
    You'll definitely get some directions on how customer service can best solve your problem.
    Do a little research on the seller. Visit consumer complaint websites like ComplaintsBoard.