> "Rocky" <wook...@att.net> wrote in
> news:WbedncJzZer-IQzVnZ2dnUVZ_gidnZ2d@giganews.com:

> > If you really are Judge Brinn then I know you have manipulated two
> > transcripts and not just one.  And all because you didn't want my
> > first appeal overturned for "Statue Held Invalid" since that would
> > have made you look very bad.  FYI the error of "Statue Held Invalid"
> > is not blamed on my failure to provide the correct Jury Instructions
> > but it is blamed on the Judge involved and I bet you knew that!

> > You left a clue as to who manipulated the second transcript by the
> > modifications done to the closing remarks.

> Those are rather serious charges you are attempting to make in a public
> venue. Are you sure that you want to go down that path Mr. Wittekind?

> > First.  Do you really think that anyone would believe there would be a
> > trial for "Telephone Harassment" where the complaining witness does
> > not give a detailed description of the alleged phone call?  Beverly
> > Rusk gave one in real life but it doesn't look like that from the
> > manipulated Transcript.

> As was the case back when all of this took place, you had no concept of
> what the law was in regard to what constitutes "harrassment", much less
> telephone harrassment. No coversation is needed to satisfy the charge.
> People are charged all the time with harrassment for merely placing
> calls to those who do not welcome them, and hanging up the phone when it
> is answered.

> > In real life the biggest lie that Beverly was caught in was based on
> > what she said during her detailed description of the alleged phone
> > call but now that her description of the alleged phone call is missing
> > from the transript her biggest outright lie was also wiped!

> The fact remains to this day, that you indeed placed a phone call in the
> middle of the night to a home where you were previously made well aware
> that you were not welcome, and where police had been called to intervene
> on behalf of the residents of that home against yourself.

> > The other odd thing is.  When I talked to Diane Reason about getting a
> > transcript for that trial right after the trial she was a pain.  It
> > was like someone else had already spoke to her and only you would know
> > that I caught Beverly Rusk lying threw her teeth before and you had a
> > reason to remove her lies a second time too!

> Everyone has always conspired against you. Is that your take on all of
> this Mr. Wittekind?

> > There was a large part of the "Opening Remarks" removed that proved
> > Beverly Rusk was another string of lies just like she was in the first
> > jury trial. My first questions related to the "Opening Remarks" are
> > still in the transcript but now they look like they are inconsistent
> > with the trial and that is hogwash.
> Perhaps that is because you seem to have a real problem in distiguishing
> fact from fiction Mr. Wittekind.

> When you were brought into court, you
> had already spent several years in denial of the fact that you were
> unwelcome to contact anyone in the family. People do have a right to not
> want contact by others for any reason.

> > As for the "Closing Remarks."  I learned from that trial where you
> > were the Judge not to do that again because it left the prosecutor
> > wide open to make even more statements and in that trial I didn't
> > really lose the first jury trial until those second set of statements
> > made by Richard Coppula and I think you know that too.

> I cannot make any sense whatsoever out of what I read above.

> > Notice that Casey Stengel never replied to my closing remarks as shown
> > by the docket still on the Internet and he would have if I had done
> > what the Transcript makes it look like I did.  Only you knew I did
> > that in the first trial since nobody else was there but you and me and
> > I certainly wasn't the one that manipulated the closing remarks in
> > that transcript!

> Mr. Wittekind, when litigators make closing remarks, they are allowed to
> present whatever they feel will make the last, and perhaps the longest
> lasting impression that jurors will hear, based on what has been
> presented during a trial.

> They can also opt to completely disregard anything that the opposing
> side presents, as a means of dismissing it. Addressing what some might
> present is the same as giving the impression that there might be
> something to it. Disregarding it is a long tried tactic to disarm any
> notion that it needs to be addressed.

> > I said a lot more about the "no intent to harass" than the existence
> > of a phone call in the closing remarks but there is next to nothing
> > there about my "no intent to harass" defense!  My only remarks as to
> > the exhistance of the alleged phone call were made when I tried to
> > introduce phone bills as exhibits and not in the "Closing remarks"
> > since I stayed away making that point in the "Closing Remarks."

> Your "intent" was not the issue. Your actions were the issue, and they
> were most unwelcome, despite any personal intentions that you had.

> > The fact is all this dealing with "The Mother" was because of a love
> > triangle eons ago and you showed you didn't care about who else was
> > involved, you just wanted to help your friend "Bev."  You showed the
> > exact same Total Lack of Good Faith that both Frank Fuhr and Richard
> > Coppula showed.

> Mr. Wittekind, you seem to be as confused today as you were so many
> years ago. I am saddened to see that you are still not concerned for
> your own well being and have not moved on from all of this.

> Regardless of what you feel was at the core of any of this, people do
> have a right to be secure and left to a peaceful existence in their
> homes. You violated that peace.

> > Put it this way.  What would have been so terribly bad if I'd been
> > allowed to answer all of Cheryl's questions without her mother getting
> > involved?

> Perhaps you should have put any answers to any lingering questions in
> writing and mailed it to the daughter. It would have then beem a matter
> between you and the daughter.

> Had the mother intervened and disrupted the delivery of that letter to
> the daughter, and the daughter being an adult, had desired to receive,
> open, and read that letter, there would be a legal issue to address for
> tampering with mail by a party to whom it was not addressed.

> If that letter had been returned through the postal system, then that
> would also indicate to you that your overtures were unwelcome.

> You cannot force people to listen to what you want to say, regardless of
> how important you feel it is for them to listen to you, if they are
> unwilling to listen to you. You cannot do it in person, over the phone,
> or through any other means of private communication.

> As to any perceived intervention that you feel was unjust by a mother
> for her child, it makes no difference how old a child is to a parent.
> The natural inclination is to protect and intervene on the behalf of
> one's offspring, if it is warranted.

> I'm quite sure that there have been many opportunities for you to have
> settled this between yourself and the woman involved. It appears that it
> has not nor ever will be settled to your satisfaction.

> How much of your life has been wasted in pursuit of resolving a
> perceived slight that occurred while you were in grade school?

> Do yourself a favor Mr. Wittekind. Please seek some counseling. You are
> only hurting yourself by perpetuating any aspect of what transpired so
> many years ago.