The 2008 Truckers Jamboree
The Honorable Dr. Rocky Roads Presiding Judge
of the "Free Spirit" again.
http://mtt.justicegonewild.com/darlene/
This time I even had time to grab a video from a website I have and
show it to her.
http://wookiee.home.att.net
Zeke
"The Honorable Dr. Rocky Roads Presiding Judge" <woo...@att.net> wrote in
message
news:abab4c92-434f-4702...@y38g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...
Oh boy, oh boy..... a woman talked to me, she must love me and now I must
stalk her for at least 20 years.
Roger... fuck off and die.
The Honorable Dr. Rocky Roads Presiding Judge
"Zeke" <ph...@off.die> wrote in message
news:orGdnUN0EMdmjOXV...@giganews.com...
>
> Oh boy, oh boy
FYI She's married now and her husband's truck was parked about 20 feet from
her truck during the show.
Now you can STFU
~Tony~
O...M...G...
Does anyone realize what Roger just revealed?
Her husband is a trucker.
She is a trucker.
And we now know that he's still stalking her, and why he hangs around
the Iowa 80 so much.
Now we know why Roger is so fascinated with truckers, and why he wants
to be one, and is now claiming to be one.
He wants to become a trucker and to drive up next to her someday in a
truck of his own, and he dreams of her jumping into his truck and then
falling into his arms. <smooch>
I wonder what he would have done to be near her if she had chosen a
career as a lot lizard?
Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com
The Honorable Dr. Rocky Roads Presiding Judge
Trolled.
You are a waste of a good newsgroup just like the Trolls that have
gone before you.
But you don't care because your actions show you have no life of your
own so you try to use fraud to steal someone else's life.
If someone were sincere about the Sixth Amendment I would post PDFs of
the transcripts. But the fact remains, I won that Jury Trial with all
the Exhibits and not just my exhibits since they all showed a mother
sticking her head into her grown daughter's life and caused her more
harm than good.
Rocky - I fought the law and I won with a unanimous decision without
an attorney.
The Honorable Dr. Rocky Roads Presiding Judge
"~Tony~" <alpr...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Xns9AD99586A00Aal...@130.117.32.101...
>
> Does anyone realize what Roger just revealed?
>
> Her husband is a trucker.
>
> She is a trucker.
>
> And we now know that he's still stalking her, and why he hangs around
> the Iowa 80 so much.
>
> Now we know why Roger is so fascinated with truckers, and why he wants
> to be one, and is now claiming to be one.
>
> He wants to become a trucker and to drive up next to her someday in a
> truck of his own, and he dreams of her jumping into his truck and then
> falling into his arms. <smooch>
>
> I wonder what he would have done to be near her if she had chosen a
> career as a lot lizard?
Poor poor Tony. When he tried to repeat the above lie in another thread he
was shot down. If he had looked at the very first post on this thread he
could have known it was talking about Darlene Swith when it stated:
--------------------------------------
"Day one of the 2008 Truckers Jamboree started with seeing the driver of the
"Free Spirit" again.
http://mtt.justicegonewild.com/darlene/
This time I even had time to grab a video from a website I have and show it
to her.
http://wookiee.home.att.net
--------------------------------------
As before Tony just tried to go too far with his fraud and now he has
finally seen the light.
Now Tony is a changed person, or in his words an "outta here" person. His
quote: "I'm outta here for good."
Rocky
realitytrucker
<wook...@att.net> wrote:
> "~Tony~" <alprov...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>
> news:Xns9AD99586A00Aal...@130.117.32.101...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Does anyone realize what Roger just revealed?
>
> > Her husband is a trucker.
>
> > She is a trucker.
>
> > And we now know that he's still stalking her, and why he hangs around
> > the Iowa 80 so much.
>
> > Now we know why Roger is so fascinated with truckers, and why he wants
> > to be one, and is now claiming to be one.
>
> > He wants to become a trucker and to drive up next to her someday in a
> > truck of his own, and he dreams of her jumping into his truck and then
> > falling into his arms. <smooch>
>
> > I wonder what he would have done to be near her if she had chosen a
> > career as a lot lizard?
>
> Poor poor Tony. When he tried to repeat the above lie in another thread he
> was shot down. If he had looked at the very first post on this thread he
> could have known it was talking about Darlene Swith when it stated:
> --------------------------------------
> "Day one of the 2008 Truckers Jamboree started with seeing the driver of the
> "Free Spirit" again.
>
> http://mtt.justicegonewild.com/darlene/
>
> This time I even had time to grab a video from a website I have and show it
> --------------------------------------
>
> As before Tony just tried to go too far with his fraud and now he has
> finally seen the light.
>
> Now Tony is a changed person, or in his words an "outta here" person. His
> quote: "I'm outta here for good."
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
You act so much like a spoiled 4 year old.
The Honorable Dr. Rocky Roads Presiding Judge
>
> You act so much like a spoiled 4 year old.
Then what are you doing when all you ever do is post fraud about me?
It is so fucking Stupid. You bullshit about why all twelve members of
a jury voted for me so you can cover for other bullshit you use.
The fact is none bullshit of that belongs on this newsgroup you Idiot
and you are just posting that shit looking for other Suckers like
yourself.
Rocky - Knows Tim is seeking Suckers like him.
realitytrucker
<wook...@att.net> wrote:
> realitytrucker wrote:
>
> > You act so much like a spoiled 4 year old.
>
> Then what are you doing when all you ever do is post fraud about me?
>
> It is so fucking Stupid. You bullshit about why all twelve members of
> a jury voted for me so you can cover for other bullshit you use.
They wanted it over. They were sick and tired of your bullshit
crybaby antics just as we here at MTT are. They wanted to go home...as
far away from you as possible. YOU didn't do it. Nothing you did, no
exhibit you presented, no Matlock imitation you tried to pull off,
nothing influenced that jury. It was a bullshit lawsuit brought by a
bullshit artist and they were sick of you.
>
Rocky
"realitytrucker" <timp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:6bda383a-640a-4414...@56g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
> They wanted it over. They were sick and tired of your bullshit
> crybaby antics just as we here at MTT are. They wanted to go home...as
> far away from you as possible. YOU didn't do it. Nothing you did, no
> exhibit you presented, no Matlock imitation you tried to pull off,
> nothing influenced that jury. It was a bullshit lawsuit brought by a
> bullshit artist and they were sick of you.
Tim, how do you know anything at all about Jury Trials when you have never
won one?
All you have just proven you are a Wannabe Jury Specialist now.
Rocky - Has won one.
NightRogue
"The DisHonorable Dr. Dogwasher Wannabe Presiding Judge" <dum...@att.net>
wrote in message news:Pd-dnbHBSrkuTBbV...@giganews.com...
Whinning Snipped
Rocky
misc.legal.moderated in the hopes I can get some input from someone that
knows jury trials.
Below we have someone who is trying to act like a Jury Specialist explain
why all twelve members of a jury voted for me when I didn't even have an
attorney to represent me in court.
"realitytrucker" <timp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:6bda383a-640a-4414...@56g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
> They wanted it over. They were sick and tired of your bullshit
> crybaby antics just as we here at MTT are. They wanted to go home...as
> far away from you as possible. YOU didn't do it. Nothing you did, no
> exhibit you presented, no Matlock imitation you tried to pull off,
> nothing influenced that jury. It was a bullshit lawsuit brought by a
> bullshit artist and they were sick of you.
I figured, if the jury saw a mother used fraud to prevent me from answering
her daughter's questions and got away with her fraud simply because she
worked at the courthouse then there was no way the second jury would ever
convict me especially after they saw she was using fraud again. FYI all
twelve members of the jury voted for me.
The exhibits used to win a jury trial 12 to 0 can be found at:
http://SlimeFest.com/Exhibits
There was more to it than just the exhibits I used but they were the main
part of my defense..
So looking at realitytrucker says above about why all twelve members of a
jury would vote for me is realitytrucker a Jury Specialist or what?
TIA
The Honorable Dr. Rocky Roads Presiding Judge
You did not mention my expertise at selecting a Jury above so that has
to mean we both agree that my Jury slection process had something to
do with my big WIN.
So are you a Jury Specialist too or do you just play one on newgroups?
Rocky - 12 2 0
realitytrucker
Nothing you did, or said. It was simply a gimmie.
Rocky
>
> Nothing you did, or said. It was simply a gimmie.
Incase you haven't noticed a branch of this thread was crossposted to MLM.
It will be interesting to see if anybody there wants to admit that you are a
"Wannabe Jury Specialist."
Even an Attorney can lose a Jury Trial if they are unprepared for the Tricks
the State uses so that proves your "Matlock imitation" remark was more
fraud.
Rocky Matlock - After all this time Tim is the real Wannabe.
realitytrucker
> "realitytrucker" <timp1...@gmail.com> wrote in message
The Honorable Dr. Rocky Roads Presiding Judge
Yeah right, like the State tries "gimmies" all the time you imbecile.
That cost the State a lot of money to just hand out Jury Trials like
you said they did and I know the State thought they would win to the
moment the verdict was read.
It will be interesting to see if anyone from MLM will offer any input
be we might not know until tomorrow morning.
Rocky - Has Tim ever been right?
D.F. Manno
"Rocky" <woo...@att.net> wrote:
> This post has been crossposted from misc.transport.trucking to
> misc.legal.moderated in the hopes I can get some input from someone that
> knows jury trials.
>
> Below we have someone who is trying to act like a Jury Specialist explain
> why all twelve members of a jury voted for me when I didn't even have an
> attorney to represent me in court.
>
> "realitytrucker" <timp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > They wanted it over. They were sick and tired of your bullshit
> > crybaby antics just as we here at MTT are. They wanted to go home...as
> > far away from you as possible. YOU didn't do it. Nothing you did, no
> > exhibit you presented, no Matlock imitation you tried to pull off,
> > nothing influenced that jury. It was a bullshit lawsuit brought by a
> > bullshit artist and they were sick of you.
<snip>
> So looking at realitytrucker says above about why all twelve members of a
> jury would vote for me is realitytrucker a Jury Specialist or what?
1) Why do you care what some anonymous Usenet poster has to say?
2) Why do you care about why you won the case? A win is a win is a win.
--
D.F. Manno | dfm...@mail.com
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in
moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification
for selfishness. (John Kenneth Galbraith)
grendal
> There was more to it than just the exhibits I used but they were the main
> part of my defense..
>
> So looking at realitytrucker says above about why all twelve members of a
> jury would vote for me is realitytrucker a Jury Specialist or what?
>
> TIA
I think the "Or What" should be "What was the moderator thinking?"
There isn't a legal question here.
Rocky, apparently lacks both a sense of humor and sarcasm.
Rocky, let me translate this to you... the anonymous poster is merely
saying that you've gone on too long with your "crowing" about your
"victory" in court.
As to his being a "jury specialist", I think he's pointing out the
fact that most people will say "uh-huh, thats nice. buh bye". Now lets
move on to something interesting and new.
K?
mm
>This post has been crossposted from misc.transport.trucking to
>misc.legal.moderated in the hopes I can get some input from someone that
>knows jury trials.
Did the other side have a lawyer?
While of course it would be relevant to hear the "jury specialist's"
side of the story, that's not to say I want to hear it. But since the
"JS" hasn't seen any of the jurors in your case, I don't see how
anything he says can be related to special understanding of jurors,
etc.
I am not a lawyer, but if the judge admitted your exhibits, they must
have been relevant.
In the best of possible worlds, you won because you were entitled to
win, and the other side would have won had they been entitled. So of
course one can say the other side had a bad case. You know better
than the readers here if it was a close case or the other side had any
merit.
But regardless, decisions don't always go as they should, and I don't
see how one, especially one who wasn't there, can distinguish some
part of the case and say it didn't matter in the jury's verdict. The
evidence you presented, unless the judge made a mistake and it really
wasn't relevant, had to have played a part.
I'll admit, I didn't read your evidence, partly because with the
resolution my computer is set at, it was wider than the screen and
would have required scrolling left and right, and because there was a
lot of it, and because I thought there would be pictures of failed
brakes or a big broken fence with the trucks carcass at the bottom of
a steep cliff, and because I didn't want to read anything in the first
place, but if you think it tended to support you, and since you won,
it probably does, like I say, I don't see how to separate it from
everything else the jurors considered.
And finally, I agree with DF Manno in his post above.
>Below we have someone who is trying to act like a Jury Specialist explain
>why all twelve members of a jury voted for me when I didn't even have an
>attorney to represent me in court.
>
>"realitytrucker" <timp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:6bda383a-640a-4414...@56g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
>> They wanted it over. They were sick and tired of your bullshit
>> crybaby antics just as we here at MTT are. They wanted to go home...as
>> far away from you as possible. YOU didn't do it. Nothing you did, no
>> exhibit you presented, no Matlock imitation you tried to pull off,
>> nothing influenced that jury. It was a bullshit lawsuit brought by a
>> bullshit artist and they were sick of you.
>
>I figured, if the jury saw a mother used fraud to prevent me from answering
>her daughter's questions and got away with her fraud simply because she
>worked at the courthouse then there was no way the second jury would ever
>convict me especially after they saw she was using fraud again. FYI all
>twelve members of the jury voted for me.
>
>The exhibits used to win a jury trial 12 to 0 can be found at:
>http://SlimeFest.com/Exhibits
>
>There was more to it than just the exhibits I used but they were the main
>part of my defense..
>
>So looking at realitytrucker says above about why all twelve members of a
>jury would vote for me is realitytrucker a Jury Specialist or what?
>
>TIA
>
>
If you are inclined to email me
for some reason, remove NOPSAM :-)
The Honorable Judge Brinn
news:akrt845hrkb97e52c...@4ax.com:
I was notified of this recent posting in misc.legal.moderated, and upon
viewing the references he supplied, and after I took the time to review
the referenced cases, it seems to me that the gentleman in question has
some deep seated and unresolved issues.
As soon as I saw the name, it instantly hit me who this man was, and I
had to shake my head and laugh.
It would be highly unethical for me to divulge anything specific in
regard to this person, however I will offer that I would strongly
recommend to anyone seeking to keep hair on their head, and to keep it
of a natural color other than white, it would be best to treat him like
a weak battery.
Allow it to die a natural death, discard it immediately, and don't try
to recharge it. It might explode in your face if you attempt to give it
anymore life.
Rocky
"The Honorable Judge Brinn" <jbr...@ill.gov> wrote in message
news:Xns9AEC27F61A...@216.196.97.136...
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.
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.
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 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!
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.
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.
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!
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."
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.
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?
The Honorable Judge Brinn
news:WbedncJzZer-IQzV...@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.
The Honorable Dr. Rocky Roads Presiding Judge
1983.
The fact remains I never had a problem with Cheryl before 1983 it was
always with her crazy mother.
Don't forget how Cheryl testified about that letter from Frank Fuhr at
the end of that "Report of Proceedings".
Cheryl had questions I had answers and her breakdown was months maybe
even a year after she was informed I no longer wanted to answer her
questions.
Also harassment means something done that would upset a reasonable
person and Beverly Rusk had never been a reasonable person. Duh.
Once more the transcript prepared by Diane Reason was manipulated just
like the "Report of Proceedings" signed by you and you had motive to
trash both of them.
Once again, if you are Michael Brinn you had to be surprised when you
found out I won the second jury trial! Shame on you for gambling on
so much of Beverly's fraud because I'm sure it cost the State a bundle.
The Honorable Judge Brinn
in news:151ffb42-50d4-4bc3-ab4f-01613a0da45b@
27g2000hsf.googlegroups.com:
> Hmmm, you sound like Judge Brinn and you are as messed up as he was in
> 1983.
And what is it that you do for a living these days? I didn't get to
where I am in life by conspiring against people.
> The fact remains I never had a problem with Cheryl before 1983 it was
> always with her crazy mother.
Well it certainly appears that she had a problem with you, and that all
she wanted was for you to leave here alone.
> Don't forget how Cheryl testified about that letter from Frank Fuhr at
> the end of that "Report of Proceedings".
The case was ended long ago Mr. Wittekind.
> Cheryl had questions I had answers and her breakdown was months maybe
> even a year after she was informed I no longer wanted to answer her
> questions.
The young lady had no questions for you to answer in court.
> Also harassment means something done that would upset a reasonable
> person and Beverly Rusk had never been a reasonable person. Duh.
I don't think you'll find that definition stated as you have offered it
anywhere.
> Once more the transcript prepared by Diane Reason was manipulated just
> like the "Report of Proceedings" signed by you and you had motive to
> trash both of them.
Not that it would matter after all this time has passed, if you have any
issue with the transcript, you need to take it up with the service
provider. It's a serious legal issue to willfully make any changes to a
transcript, and I have no reservation in stating that what you are
charging is as meritless as the small claims complaint you filed
following your acquittal of the harrassment charges.
> Once again, if you are Michael Brinn you had to be surprised when you
> found out I won the second jury trial!
Mr. Wittekind, as I understand it, sanctions were placed against you
after you pursued three appeals of a denial of sanctions from the other
party. And never in the history of the State of Illinois has anyone so
defiantly pursued a small claims ruling.
Because of your persistence, the courts in Illinois are now allowed to
reject frivolous cases earlier on in their progression by Judges who
deem them without merit.
If you consider that a win, I applaud you. You are therefore capable of
making the most delicious lemonade from most rotten lemons imaginable.
> Shame on you for gambling on so much of Beverly's fraud because I'm
> sure it cost the State a bundle.
A Judge didn't bring charges against you. A Judge merely heard the case,
mediated legal points, and instructed the Jury. You had your day in
court and you retained your freedom. Congratulations.
You are correct Mr. Wittekind. It did cost the state a bundle, but
similar cases to yours will never again bog down the court system in
Illinois, and you can take great pleasure in knowing that you are one of
the most eggregious examples of a person who has abused our legal
system, created and intended to settle legitimate disputes and
grievances, and that you're name will for a time be cited in cases
across the land, until a more outrageous example comes along.
It's not a glorious cite either. It's a shameful cite. Whenever
Attornies desire to lay ground for motions to dismiss a case for being
frivolous, the case of Wittekind v. Rusk will likely be cited.
I'm not sure that one should be proud of such a thing.
The Honorable Dr. Rocky Roads Presiding Judge
> "The Honorable Dr. Rocky Roads Presiding Judge" <woo...@att.net> wrote
> in news:151ffb42-50d4-4bc3-ab4f-01613a0da45b@
> 27g2000hsf.googlegroups.com:
>
> > Hmmm, you sound like Judge Brinn and you are as messed up as he was in
> > 1983.
>
> And what is it that you do for a living these days? I didn't get to
> where I am in life by conspiring against people.
Who said anything about a conspiracy? Richard Coppula told me it was
all amoung friends meaning you believed whatever Beverly wanted you to
believe.
> > The fact remains I never had a problem with Cheryl before 1983 it was
> > always with her crazy mother.
>
> Well it certainly appears that she had a problem with you, and that all
> she wanted was for you to leave here alone.
Don't forget Cheryl's testimony when you were the judge. I asked her
on the phone if it would be OK if I called her back a few times and
she never answered.
Since Richard Coppula and you decided to leave that out of "Report of
Proceedings" I placed it in one of my exhibits.
If Cheryl really wanted what her mother wanted she could have told me
then but she didn't.
There is a lot more to that than you realize since what happened on
that phone call led to another batch of lies from Beverely.
> > Don't forget how Cheryl testified about that letter from Frank Fuhr at
> > the end of that "Report of Proceedings".
>
> The case was ended long ago Mr. Wittekind.
That doesn't change the fact that it was always her mother that kept
us apart.
And FYI you know what Cheryl said to me the last time we talked? She
said "I could have had her." But her without honesty means nothing to
me.
Now that Cheryl has proven she turned into her mother there is nothing
left of the person she was in mid 11th grade.
> > Cheryl had questions I had answers and her breakdown was months maybe
> > even a year after she was informed I no longer wanted to answer her
> > questions.
>
> The young lady had no questions for you to answer in court.
WRONG. She tried to ask a question and the Judge informed her that I
was supposed to be the one aking questions. That was pretty funny and
I still remember her question.
I'll have to get back this reply when I have more time.
Rocky - Wait for it.
The Honorable Judge Brinn
> Who said anything about a conspiracy? Richard Coppula told me it was
> all amoung friends meaning you believed whatever Beverly wanted you to
> believe.
I'm sure you would like to believe that, but it's simply untrue.
> That doesn't change the fact that it was always her mother that kept
> us apart.
Then if this is true, who on earth can do anything about it? If the
woman had wanted to pursue a relationship with you, she would have found
a way to see you, in spite of her mother. She was an adult after all.
> And FYI you know what Cheryl said to me the last time we talked? She
> said "I could have had her." But her without honesty means nothing to
> me.
I'm not going to comment on that Mr. Wittekind. It makes me rather
uncomfortable to even read it.
> Now that Cheryl has proven she turned into her mother there is nothing
> left of the person she was in mid 11th grade.
Then if you realize this, why are you so obsessed with keeping any part
of what happened alive? I took a gander at your websites, and they also
make me extremely uncomfortable.
I really think that I should stop discussing this, and I urge you to do
some thinking on all of this. You need to let the past slip into
obscurity, and to truly move on with your life.
Whether or not you are capable of doing that is really the question that
must be answered, by yourself of course.
Good luck Mr. Wittekind, and I hope you see that it is not healthy in
the slightest for you to keep things alive, that should have passed on
many years ago.
I offer my apologies after-the-fact for distrupting this group with off-
topic discussion that should have taken place elsewhere.
JB
realitytrucker
>
> I offer my apologies after-the-fact for distrupting this group with off-
> topic discussion that should have taken place elsewhere.
>
> JB
No apologies needed, Your Honor. It was MOST enlightening. You
simply said what those of us in misc.transport.trucking have been
saying for years..i.e. this person needs help.
I certainly hope that he does not, as he claims, drive a gasoline
tanker for a living. He's a disaster waiting to happen.
The Honorable Dr. Rocky Roads Presiding Judge
Oh Tim you are still a suckup and we can't even say for sure if that
was the Misguided Judge Brinn.
With as many different names as Jeff/Zeke has used I remain doubtful.
Rocky
The Honorable Dr. Rocky Roads Presiding Judge
> news:akrt845hrkb97e52c...@4ax.com:
>
> > On Jul 27, 6:35 am, "Rocky" <wook...@att.net> wrote:
> >
> >> There was more to it than just the exhibits I used but they were the
> >> main part of my defense..
> >>
> >> So looking at realitytrucker says above about why all twelve members
> >> of a jury would vote for me is realitytrucker a Jury Specialist or
> >> what?
> >>
> >> TIA
> >
> > I think the "Or What" should be "What was the moderator thinking?"
> >
> > There isn't a legal question here.
> >
> > Rocky, apparently lacks both a sense of humor and sarcasm.
> >
> > Rocky, let me translate this to you... the anonymous poster is merely
> > saying that you've gone on too long with your "crowing" about your
> > "victory" in court.
>
> > As to his being a "jury specialist", I think he's pointing out the
> > fact that most people will say "uh-huh, thats nice. buh bye". Now lets
> > move on to something interesting and new.
>
> I was notified of this recent posting in misc.legal.moderated, and upon
> viewing the references he supplied, and after I took the time to review
> the referenced cases, it seems to me that the gentleman in question has
> some deep seated and unresolved issues.
Duh. Like Duane Thompson recreated the exact same "Errors of Law"
that ?Reversed and Remanded" the "Mack" case and then was rewarded for
his Fraudulent Deception."
> As soon as I saw the name, it instantly hit me who this man was, and I
> had to shake my head and laugh.
But did you learn anything? From what I've seen of your post so far
you are still misguided.
> It would be highly unethical for me to divulge anything specific in
> regard to this person, however I will offer that I would strongly
> recommend to anyone seeking to keep hair on their head, and to keep it
> of a natural color other than white, it would be best to treat him like
> a weak battery.
See. What was I saying about did you learn anything from my websites?
> Allow it to die a natural death, discard it immediately, and don't try
> to recharge it. It might explode in your face if you attempt to give it
> anymore life.
It might not too.
Now that I have a little more time to reply to your post I'll have
some fun showing how misguided you still are.
The Honorable Dr. Rocky Roads Presiding Judge
> news:WbedncJzZer-IQzV...@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?
I know from talking to Diane Reason that somebody looked her
transcript over. I know from what I wrote down about the trial while
waiting for the Transcript that it was altered to favor Beverly Rusk.
You can see what I wrote about the trial at:
http://overprotectivemother.com/coppula.htm
> > 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.
And you have no concept of how I won that trial. You might want to
check out the Exhibits I used in court at:
http://SlimeFest.com/Exhibits
They show a prejudiced woman that told lies to neighbors and Police
Officers to bring charges against me before and with the help of
Richard Coppula got away with Perjury and "Obstruction of Justice."
> > 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.
First the police were called by the neighbors because of fighting in
their yard. It even says that on the Police Report. Then Beverly
tried to tell the cops the fight was in her yard. The way my
motorcycle was parked Ed Rusk ended up between me and my motorcycle in
the neighbors yard.
And don't forget the only reason I was over there in the first place
was to accept Beverly's invitation to Dinner.
Now why would I place a phone call? You are forgetting that Cheryl
was not living with her mom and I had no reason to bother with her
mother.
What her mother said about the alleged phone call was so far from the
truth she cut her own throat.
I didn't find out until later that Beverly used a Sheriff's Deputy to
steal Shawna away from Cheryl with the hopes that Cheryl would go back
to living with her mom.
What Beverly herself has done to her own daughter is far worse than
what she accuses me of doing. If Cheryl wanted to she herself could
bring charges against her own mother.
> > 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?
No. All that manipulated Transcript says is that Beverly had friends
at the courthouse. No "Conspiracy" just one friend doing this for her
and another friend doing that. Case in point is why wasn't Beverly or
Ed charged for all the lies they told to the Police Officers?
> > 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.
Gee I could say the same thing about you. If you had bothered to look
at that Police Report I had you would have seen how much "Fiction"
Beverly was filled with. Then after seeing those lies you would have
also figured out that she fed Frank Fuhr fiction also.
> 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.
ROTFLMAO Too funny. Cheryl did a 360. We started out on talking
terms when she first talked to me at our lockers. Then after her
breakdown she was more than willing to talk again. I would have never
even tried to talk to her after she moved back home if it wasn't for a
chance meeting with a friend of her's from high school.
> > 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.
Basically the "Closing Remarks" were so far from what I remembered
about them and that they were more like my first jury trial that I
suspect you were the person that Diane Reason let edit the Transcript.
Don't forget that when you let Richard Coppula use the word
"Reasonable" in his "Closing Remarks" that was a "Reversable" Error.
Why didn't you add that to the "Report of Proceedings?"
Casey tried to use the word "good" in his "Closing Remarks" but I
stopped him cold and the Judge explained to the jury why he allowed
that objection.
Funny how both those items have shown up missing.
> > 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.
The fact remains I didn't say anything that gave Casey a chance to
make a final Statement. But the manipulated transcript make it look
that way.
> 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.
The above is Much ado about nothing.
> > 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.
"unwelcome?" All they knew about me is what Donny Geiger told
Cheryl. Even Cheryl proved she didn't fully believe him. In other
words they created a ghost from his fraud.
Do you need to know what a "love triangle" is?
The funniest thing was it Casey himself that entered the evidence that
proved I was always aware of Cheryl's insecurities.
> > 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.
What do you think I want? You are making assumptions again just like
you have since 1983.
> 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.
Me? You really should take a closer look at the things Beverly has
done to her own daughter and you can start with looking at the Police
Report to see just how many lies Beverly uses.
I could have very well been everything Cheryl ever wanted but after
seeing Beverly tell her daughter an outright lie I decided to try and
keep my distance.
> > 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.
Why? You are under the wrong assumption.
If I had done that there was no guarantee I would't have to do that
over and over and over. Nope. My plan was to basically let Cheryl
figure things out on her own.
I'm sure you heard the expression: "She who is convinced against her
will is of the same opinion still."
> 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.
What Beverly did was poke fun at things I wrote to Cheryl and do you
think she should have done that?
> If that letter had been returned through the postal system, then that
> would also indicate to you that your overtures were unwelcome.
Dude. You really should go back and look at what was in the "Report
of Proceedings." I wanted to send something to Cheryl concerning a
question she asked me. I got her permission to send it beforehand.
As for other letters I wrote to her before most of those were also
answering questions she had asked me and I was just avoiding the
verbal abuse from her misguided mother and misguided stepdad.
> 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.
But you can certainly say it in Court and I proved that didn't I? I
did that to show how prejudiced Beverly really was and that all her
lies were for nothing.
> 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.
"if it is" It never was and that is what the Jury saw.
> 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.
Calls for Speculation. All that matters to me is I tried to clear up
the lies from Donny Geiger. I feel responsible for those since I got
him involved in the first place.
> How much of your life has been wasted in pursuit of resolving a
> perceived slight that occurred while you were in grade school?
Wow. You made a wrong turn two paragraphs ago and you are just
getting further from the facts.
> 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.
How can you say that when all you proved was you have been influenced
by Beverly's fraud after she was influenced by Donny Geiger's fraud.
realitytrucker
<wook...@att.net> wrote:
> realitytrucker wrote:
> > On Jul 31, 6:05 pm, The Honorable Judge Brinn <jbr...@ill.gov> wrote:
>
> > > I offer my apologies after-the-fact for distrupting this group with off-
> > > topic discussion that should have taken place elsewhere.
>
> > > JB
>
> > No apologies needed, Your Honor. It was MOST enlightening. You
> > simply said what those of us in misc.transport.trucking have been
> > saying for years..i.e. this person needs help.
>
> > I certainly hope that he does not, as he claims, drive a gasoline
> > tanker for a living. He's a disaster waiting to happen.
>
> Oh Tim you are still a suckup and we can't even say for sure if that
> was the Misguided Judge Brinn.
So tell me, oh wise one, why would I be "sucking up" to him? And I'd
venture a guess that he IS Judge Brinn. He seems to know quite a bit
about your "case" and the IL court system.
realitytrucker
You really should heed the Judge's advice. Get counseling.
After reading the exchanges between you and the Judge I am more
convinced than ever that the jury just gave you the verdict to shut
you up. Now here you are arguing the case again on usenet.
You never learn, do you?
The Artist Formerly Known As Zeke
"The Honorable Judge Brinn" <jbr...@ill.gov> wrote in message
news:Xns9AEC27F61A...@216.196.97.136...
>
> I was notified of this recent posting in misc.legal.moderated, and upon
> viewing the references he supplied, and after I took the time to review
> the referenced cases, it seems to me that the gentleman in question has
> some deep seated and unresolved issues.
>
> As soon as I saw the name, it instantly hit me who this man was, and I
> had to shake my head and laugh.
>
> It would be highly unethical for me to divulge anything specific in
> regard to this person, however I will offer that I would strongly
> recommend to anyone seeking to keep hair on their head, and to keep it
> of a natural color other than white, it would be best to treat him like
> a weak battery.
>
> Allow it to die a natural death, discard it immediately, and don't try
> to recharge it. It might explode in your face if you attempt to give it
> anymore life.
>
>
.... oh this is too cool.
The Artist Formerly Known As Zeke
>
>> 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.
>
>>snicker<<
>
> 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.
>
LMAO.... come on Roger, we've been right all along!
>
> 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.
>
Yeah, what he said....
Rocky
"The Artist Formerly Known As Zeke" <Je...@is.gay> wrote in message
news:FtGdnThiv72IVg7V...@giganews.com...
Cool to come face to face with the Judge that bet on Beverly Rusk fraud and
lost? Ok, I'll agree with that. BTW what the hell are you doing posting
with giganews?
1. Too bad he couldn't take his own advice above. Now I have even more
proof that MB demonstrated a "Total Lack of Good Faith" when he failed to
see how big a liar Beverly really is.
2. Too bad JMB couldn't post to mlm. He must have been spotted as a Troll
and the moderator said no dice. <grin>
Rocky - Zeke and SurfingTrasher both on Giganews now
realitytrucker
wrote:
> "The Honorable Judge Brinn" <jbr...@ill.gov> wrote in messagenews:Xns9AEC27F61A...@216.196.97.136...
>
> - Show quoted text -
Isn't it? Shot down in flames yet AGAIN!
But the wannabe is so stupid he sees it as some kind of "victory" for
himself.
He's been posting "Brinn couldn't post in MLM" or some crap like
that. But Brinn could and did and tore the loser a new one.
realitytrucker
> "The Artist Formerly Known As Zeke" <J...@is.gay> wrote in messagenews:FtGdnThiv72IVg7V...@giganews.com...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "The Honorable Judge Brinn" <jbr...@ill.gov> wrote in message
> >news:Xns9AEC27F61A...@216.196.97.136...
>
> > > I was notified of this recent posting in misc.legal.moderated, and upon
> > > viewing the references he supplied, and after I took the time to review
> > > the referenced cases, it seems to me that the gentleman in question has
> > > some deep seated and unresolved issues.
>
> > > As soon as I saw the name, it instantly hit me who this man was, and I
> > > had to shake my head and laugh.
>
> > > It would be highly unethical for me to divulge anything specific in
> > > regard to this person, however I will offer that I would strongly
> > > recommend to anyone seeking to keep hair on their head, and to keep it
> > > of a natural color other than white, it would be best to treat him like
> > > a weak battery.
>
> > > Allow it to die a natural death, discard it immediately, and don't try
> > > to recharge it. It might explode in your face if you attempt to give it
> > > anymore life.
>
> > .... oh this is too cool.
>
> Cool to come face to face with the Judge that bet on Beverly Rusk fraud and
> lost? Ok, I'll agree with that. BTW what the hell are you doing posting
> with giganews?
>
> 1. Too bad he couldn't take his own advice above. Now I have even more
> proof that MB demonstrated a "Total Lack of Good Faith" when he failed to
> see how big a liar Beverly really is.
No, loser. YOU demonstrated a complete lack of litigation skills when
you couldn't force everyone to see things your twisted way.
>
> 2. Too bad JMB couldn't post to mlm. He must have been spotted as a Troll
> and the moderator said no dice. <grin>
Funny. I read his posts and your rambling disjointed responses to
them.He tore you a new one, loser boi.
>
> Rocky - Zeke and SurfingTrasher both on Giganews now-
.
Wow, the wannabe can actually read headers now. I am sooo impressed.
Probably can't comprehend them anymore than we can his posts.
The Honorable Dr. Rocky Roads Presiding Judge
>
> He's been posting "Brinn couldn't post in MLM" or some crap like
> that. But Brinn could and did
You had better look again you big Idiot.
None of Misguided Michael P. Brinn's post made it to mlm they only
made it to mtt.
Rocky - Shots and scores again. Dang he's good.
realitytrucker
Misguided? Seems as tho YOU are the "big idiot" here. He's a law
school graduate, has many years experience, and is a state judge. And
most importantly he reamed you a new one.
You, OTOH, MIGHT have finished high school. I'd gamble to say you
have little, if any, college, and you live in another world from the
rest of humanity. You pretend to be a truck driver and a lawyer.
The only thing you have proven about yourself beyond a doubt is that
you are an obsessive/compulsive in need of mental counseling.What a
loser you are
realitytrucker
<wook...@att.net> wrote:
>
> I could have very well been everything Cheryl ever wanted
I doubt it. I find it hard to believe any young woman would want an
compulsive liar and fraud.
The Honorable Dr. Rocky Roads Presiding Judge
> On Aug 1, 3:58�am, "The Honorable Dr. Rocky Roads Presiding Judge"
> <wook...@att.net> wrote:
>
> >
> > I could have very well been everything Cheryl ever wanted
>
> I doubt it.
You doubt everything you big Idiot.
Plus I proved that in court to help me win TWELVE to ZERO you big
Idiot.
Don't forget 12 to 0 and now thanks to you I have even more evidence
that shows a "Total Lack of Good Faith" by MPB.
Rocky - Really thanked a big Idiot?
realitytrucker
<wook...@att.net> wrote:
> realitytrucker wrote:
> > On Aug 1, 3:58 am, "The Honorable Dr. Rocky Roads Presiding Judge"
> > <wook...@att.net> wrote:
>
> > > I could have very well been everything Cheryl ever wanted
>
> > I doubt it.
>
> You doubt everything you big Idiot.
Yep, I doubt pretty much everything you claim.
>
> Plus I proved that in court to help me win TWELVE to ZERO you big
> Idiot.
You proved nothing in court except that you could drag a frivolous
lawsuit out to such an extent that the jusy gave you the verdict so
they could get as far away from you as possible.
>
> Don't forget 12 to 0 and now thanks to you I have even more evidence
> that shows a "Total Lack of Good Faith" by MPB.
Yeah, sure, wannabe. The Judge doesn't seem worried by your threats.
I hope he sues your ass off.
>
> Rocky - Really is a big Idiot
Rocky
> The Judge doesn't seem worried by your threats.
> I hope he sues your ass off.
For what posting an opinion? You know how stupid that is but I'll say it
again if he wants me to.
Because of
1. Things altered and missing in a "Report of Proceedings" prepared by
Richard Coppula and signed by Judge Brinn.
a. The items that proved a total lack of good faith with Beverly or Ed were
altered.
b. The part of the "Closing Remarks" that contained a "Reversible Error"
was missing.
c. Coppula and Brinn even added a part to the "Report of Proceedings" that
was never testified to in court.
I didn't sign that "Report of Proceedings" because I agreed with it I only
signed it to prevent Richard Coppula and Judge Brinn from making further
unfair changes to it. I didn't want Beverly "Invitaton to Dinner" removed
and I didn't want the part about the "Police Report" removed either.
2. Things altered and missing in a Transcript Judge Brinn knew I was having
prepared by a woman that worked with both Beverly and Michael.
a. Could be 18 1/2 minutes missing of "Opening Remarks" and Beverly's
hogwash about an alleged phone call.
b. The part of the "Closing Remarks" that showed where Casey tried a
"Reversible Error" himself was missing.
c. The "Closing Remarks" were nothing like the transcript shows them.
1. Since I knew I was going to avoid talking about the alleged phone call
in the "Closing Remarks" the only place I said what they claim I said was
when I tried to introduce phone bills as evidence and not in the "Closing
Remarks." And oddly enough that testimony is missing from where it should
have been so it was like there was a transplant of testimony in the
transcript.
2. I still remember my only words about the phone call in the Closing
Remarks and they were "What they say happened did not happen" then I moved
onto the intent to answer Cheryl's questions defense.
Note: Where I lived at the time and where I worked at the time it would
have been a long distance call to Beverly's house and there were no calls
listed to her house on either phone bill.
3. Who would have known before hand how many lies Beverly tells in court
and contacted Diane Reason before the trial was over. Maybe even before it
was started.
4. Who had the most to lose if the Transcript represented what the jury
saw? The inconsistancies between the real transcript and the "Report of
Proceedings" would have made JB look very bad.
I fully suspect Michael P. Brinn of either making changes to both of them or
playing a part in the changes to both of them or knowing who could have done
the dirty work.
One thing is for damn sure and that is after my Sixth Amendment Rights were
violated Michael P. Brinn has done nothing at all but try to kick more sand
in my face as he has done on this newsgroup.
Tim, I'll say this again. I thank you for helping lure JB into this
newsgroup and now I have some more work to do on my websites.
BTW. I have already provided a link to information JB provided at the
bottom of:
http://BrokenSixthAmendment.com
Rocky - Went head to head with a Judge and still waiting for the verdict.
realitytrucker
> "realitytrucker" <timp1...@gmail.com> wrote in message
In addition to being obsessive/compulsive you are evidently paranoid/
delusional as well. You think everyone is conspiring against you.
Beverly and all her "friends" at the courthouse..me, Dave Ruff and
everyone else on this group whom you refer to as "trolls"..we're all
out to get you, aren't we? Take the judge's advice, wannabe, get some
counseling.
>
> Tim, I'll say this again. I thank you for helping lure JB into this
> newsgroup and now I have some more work to do on my websites.
I had nothing to do with "luring" anyone anywhere. I doubt the Judge
is a truck driver wannabe like you are so I doubt seriously he reads
MTT on a regular basis. I'd say eiher he read some of your delusional
rantings on MLM or one of his associates did and suggested he take a
look at the group for future reference in a possible libel suit
against you. BTW, wannabe. I expressed my opinions about you on
usenet. What you did was make outright accusations against a sitting
state judge. BIG difference there. You are setting yourself up for a
BIG fall. And I am gonna laugh at you as you go down.
>
> BTW. I have already provided a link to information JB provided at the
> bottom of:http://BrokenSixthAmendment.com
Attaboy, wannabe. Document it. It'll come in handy in court.
>
> Rocky - Went head to head with a Judge and still lost
The Honorable Dr. Rocky Roads Presiding Judge
> What you did was make outright accusations against a sitting
state judge.
I have called you a "big Idiot" a few times now and then you proved you are
a "big Idiot" above when you spelled the word "retired" incorrectly!
Once again. The "retired" MPB has done nothing about the fraudulent
deception of Duane Thompson when Duane convinced judges at the Third
District Appellate Court to violate the Sixth Amendment.
As stated on http://DesecratedSixthAmendment.com when the judges violated
the Sixth Amendment they also manipulated the "Report of Proceedings" that
was signed by Judge Brinn and used as "Defense Exhibit #1" since it too
classifies as the "State of facts on the mind of the prosecutor."
There you have it. Not only has Judge Brinn shown a "Total Lack of Good
Faith" but the Judges at the Appellate Court that tried to assume Judge
Brinn showed "Good Faith" have now shown a "Total Lack of Good Faith"
themselves!
Isn't it funny. One of the reasons for the Sixth Amendment is to prevent
Judges from covering for an unethical Judge and now there is a textbook
example of what sort of evidence is destroyed by assumptions when the Sixth
Amendment is violated.
The evidence destroyed by assumptions when my Sixth Amendment rights were
violated.
1. From the "Malicious Prosecution" lawsuit we have Judge John Telleen
admit he would have used the word "faggot" as "Evidence of Malice." The
transcript had Beverly Rusk admit to using the word "faggot" a few times
between pages 25 and 30 but that testimony was overlooked to favor Judge
Telleen and Duane Thompson's Fraudulent Deception.
http://brokensixthamendment.com/Mack/MackErrorsRecreated.htm#malice
2. From the "Report of Proceedings" signed by Judge Brinn where Cheryl's
testimony is concerned, we have the fact that Beverly Rusk was acting on her
own to prevent her daughter from getting her questions answered.
3. As for the "Total Lack of Good Faith." The "Police Report" proves that
Beverly Rusk can lie through her teeth and since she could lie through her
teeth in that instance what she said to Frank Fuhr to have him publish a
letter for her should have also been suspect. I can quote MPB's words as to
why he didn't even want to consider the fact that Beverly Rusk was lying but
what is even more important is he has helped Beverly Rusk needlessly
manipulate her own daughter's life to the point she had a breakdown.
Other evidence proves there have never been any good faith with Beverly Rusk
since 1974 and all Judge Brinn did was maintain the "Total Lack of Good
Faith" from Beverly Rusk. Duh.
Rocky - We will see what happens next.
realitytrucker
<wook...@att.net> wrote:
> "realitytrucker" <timp1...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:9b15e07e-4c81-4ee4...@34g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...> What you did was make outright accusations against a sitting
>
> state judge.
>
> I have called you a "big Idiot" a few times now and then you proved you are
> a "big Idiot" above when you spelled the word "retired" incorrectly!
>
> Once again. The "retired" MPB has done nothing about the fraudulent
> deception of Duane Thompson when Duane convinced judges at the Third
> District Appellate Court to violate the Sixth Amendment.
>
> the Sixth Amendment they also manipulated the "Report of Proceedings" that
> was signed by Judge Brinn and used as "Defense Exhibit #1" since it too
> classifies as the "State of facts on the mind of the prosecutor."
>
> There you have it. Not only has Judge Brinn shown a "Total Lack of Good
> Faith" but the Judges at the Appellate Court that tried to assume Judge
> Brinn showed "Good Faith" have now shown a "Total Lack of Good Faith"
> themselves!
>
> Isn't it funny. One of the reasons for the Sixth Amendment is to prevent
> Judges from covering for an unethical Judge and now there is a textbook
> example of what sort of evidence is destroyed by assumptions when the Sixth
> Amendment is violated.
>
> The evidence destroyed by assumptions when my Sixth Amendment rights were
> violated.
> 1. From the "Malicious Prosecution" lawsuit we have Judge John Telleen
> admit he would have used the word "faggot" as "Evidence of Malice." The
> transcript had Beverly Rusk admit to using the word "faggot" a few times
> between pages 25 and 30 but that testimony was overlooked to favor Judge
>
> 2. From the "Report of Proceedings" signed by Judge Brinn where Cheryl's
> testimony is concerned, we have the fact that Beverly Rusk was acting on her
> own to prevent her daughter from getting her questions answered.
>
> 3. As for the "Total Lack of Good Faith." The "Police Report" proves that
> Beverly Rusk can lie through her teeth and since she could lie through her
> teeth in that instance what she said to Frank Fuhr to have him publish a
> letter for her should have also been suspect. I can quote MPB's words as to
> why he didn't even want to consider the fact that Beverly Rusk was lying but
> what is even more important is he has helped Beverly Rusk needlessly
> manipulate her own daughter's life to the point she had a breakdown.
>
> Other evidence proves there have never been any good faith with Beverly Rusk
> since 1974 and all Judge Brinn did was maintain the "Total Lack of Good
> Faith" from Beverly Rusk. Duh.
>
> Rocky - We will see what happens next.
Then prove it, Mr Matlock. Take it to court. Make a fool out of
yourself again. It's been at least 15 years. If you are so sure of
yourself why haven't you done something about it by now instead of
whining about it all over usenet. Sue the Judge. Sue the state .
Come on, Mr "12-0". You talk a lot of shit why haven't you acted?
Oh, I remember now, because you are full of shit. All you can do is
talk. Just like your truck driving "career".
The Honorable Judge Brinn
news:Ro6dnRO2qIKyegjV...@giganews.com:
>
> "realitytrucker" <timp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:9317d6d3-31f1-4821...@c65g2000hsa.googlegroups.com.
> ..
>> The Judge doesn't seem worried by your threats.
>> I hope he sues your ass off.
Forgive my intrusion for one last time. I see that Mr. Wittekind has
decided to take it upon himself to post publicly some direct and rather
serious allegations.
> For what posting an opinion? You know how stupid that is but I'll say
> it again if he wants me to.
Mr. Wittekind, you are crossing a line that you absolutely might want to
consider very carefully before you proceed any farther. Your websites are
one thing and they are easily overlooked, because your own words written on
those sites contradict certain allegations quite effectively.
I fail to understand why you have chosen to take it upon yourself to invade
a usenet group with no subjective or expressed interest in the dealings you
have had with others revolving around decade old legal matters, and why you
have now chosen to use this same group to launch a smear campaign against
those whom you feel have denied you some perceived and unfulfilled justice.
Your "opinions, all of which I intend to address in this post, may very
well cause you more grief than you dare wish to endure, especially if you
choose to ignore what will be my one and only warning to you, to cease and
desist immediately. You skated free two and a half decades ago, and how you
view your acquittal is up to you, but don't think that you hold a gold key
to the courthouse crapper and that you are immune from being charged with
wrongdoing because you managed to appear in front of a Judge and managed to
effect a win in court.
To put it mildly, you were handed a win due to an error committed before
you were charged, and an error that is well documented on your own site,
and nothing more. The error was unknown prior to you being charged, and
that's all I intend to offer in a public forum about the events of that
day.
> Because of
> 1. Things altered and missing in a "Report of Proceedings" prepared
> by Richard Coppula and signed by Judge Brinn.
If it was signed, any "alteration or missing things" are not the
responsibility of anyone but the party/parties that prepared the report.
Your issue is with them, and not the Judge.
> a. The items that proved a total lack of good faith with Beverly or
> Ed were altered.
Could you be any less vague? What "items"? What are you referring to as
"good faith"? Are you under some impression that a court of law is like an
insurance policy, where "good faith" claims are defined and outlined? This
is terminology that has nothing at all to do with any point of law as it
pertains to you being charged with a crime. The accusation by the plaintiff
is all that is needed, and that is why you were made to answer in court to
a charge.
It is not up to any Judge to determine the truth to any claim of wrongdoing
prior to the date that it is heard in court. Blame the Judge if you must,
if the outcome is not what you hoped for or expected, but don't think for
one second that he or she can make any decisions prior to the moment and
time that the charges are read in court.
Charges are brought when a credible accusation is made, or in your case,
based upon a violation of the right that another has to be secure in their
home. You were charged with a form of trespass, and the fact is that there
was an error in the preparation of those charges, more likely overlooked by
all up to the point and time they were discussed in detail on the day of
your trial, rather than any act of intentional attempt to falsely accuse.
I have no idea under the heavens what "good faith" has to do with anything
here. You effectively illustrated the mistake in the preparation of the
charges, the jury understood this and the charges were dismissed, and that
Sir, was supposed to be the end of it. People are accused in error all the
time, and the courts are where the accusations are sorted out and
corrected.
Your mistake in life, was to take it upon yourself to view it in reverse
terms, as if the Judge is to make decisions as to the validity of charges
before a word is uttered, and that is ludicrous.
> b. The part of the "Closing Remarks" that contained a "Reversible
> Error" was missing.
> c. Coppula and Brinn even added a part to the "Report of Proceedings"
> that was never testified to in court.
How is this the fault of anyone but who recorded the events of that day?
Your complaint is very misguided, and for you to suggest in any manner,
that one or more people purposely altered a transcript is without merit,
and a very serious accusation to make.
YOU hired the service who took notes of the trial. They were not there at
anyone's behest but your own. Why on earth would anyone have any reason to
change something that would not have normally been recorded to begin with?
You have no basis for offering such a baseless charge, and to do so
publicly in this forum is libelous. If you do not understand that word, I
suggest you look up it's meaning Mr. Wittekind. You need not be under oath
in here to be guilty of a crime, or to be held accountable for it.
> I didn't sign that "Report of Proceedings" because I agreed with it I
> only signed it to prevent Richard Coppula and Judge Brinn from making
> further unfair changes to it. I didn't want Beverly "Invitaton to
> Dinner" removed and I didn't want the part about the "Police Report"
> removed either.
You weren't required to sign it.
> 2. Things altered and missing in a Transcript Judge Brinn knew I was
> having prepared by a woman that worked with both Beverly and Michael.
> a. Could be 18 1/2 minutes missing of "Opening Remarks" and Beverly's
> hogwash about an alleged phone call.
> b. The part of the "Closing Remarks" that showed where Casey tried a
> "Reversible Error" himself was missing.
> c. The "Closing Remarks" were nothing like the transcript shows them.
Again, you requested a record be kept of the trial and you were granted it.
If you had any dispute with the transcript, the time to have raised it
would have been immediately upon viewing it when you received it.
How is this any current issue some two and a half decades later? If you
want to make it an issue, I will be more than happy to accomodate you by
answering to your charges from the position as a plaintiff, and with you as
a defendant once again, for make no mistake Mr. Wittekind, I will not sit
her and allow you to impugn my my untarnished reputation as a fair and
impartial man, who served the State of Illinois for many years on the
bench.
And make no mistake either, it will not be performed in a small claims
court, and it will not be inexpensive for you to answer to your claims.
In short, if you want to continue to pursue your campaign in this forum,
you're going to pay far more in sanctions for years to come, than the State
caused you to pay in 1991.
> I fully suspect Michael P. Brinn of either making changes to both of
> them or playing a part in the changes to both of them or knowing who
> could have done the dirty work.
And that Sir is an unfounded, unsubstantiated, and publicly expressed
libelous statement.
> One thing is for damn sure and that is after my Sixth Amendment Rights
> were violated Michael P. Brinn has done nothing at all but try to kick
> more sand in my face as he has done on this newsgroup.
How in the world could an aquittal of all charges in my court be a denial
of your 6th Amendment rights?
As I understand it, Judge John Telleen sat on the bench in your small
claims hearing. You attempted to introduce evidence from your criminal
trial into that hearing, which for brevity's sake, may or may not be
allowed as the Judge is allowed to determine. If the Judge considers it
irrelevant, you will be denied certain evidence.
You sought sanctions for being brought up on charges, and the long and
short of it, was that you were denied sanctions because the charges were
valid, based on a history of well documented exchanges between the family
in question and yourself. You had violated their right to privacy more than
a few times. You appealed a small claims ruling, not once, not twice, but
three times.
You were told in no uncertain terms that you have no concept of the law,
and why you were denied sanctions, and the defendant was awarded sanctions
for the time and trouble to appear and answer several times to your pursuit
in further harassing the family.
Now this is how it is recorded, and how it shall remain on the books for
the rest of your life. Accept it or do not accept it. That's your right.
But you do NOT have the right to make unfounded accusations in a public
forum about events which you cannot prove, in some attempt to revive this
for whatever reason, and I am here to tell you today that I will not sit
still for one more word of this.
You stop or I promise you, I will make accusations of my own, and with more
than enough proof to cause you financial discomfort for years to come.
Are we clear on this? Not one more word. One more accusation, and you and I
will meet again, and it will not be over coffee, or to discuss legal
theories. It will be in my own quest to see just how much I can ammass from
you in the form of sanctions for making accusations for which you have no
evidence whatsoever to base them upon, and for attempting to debase my
character.
> Rocky - Went head to head with a Judge and still waiting for the
> verdict.
If you want to play like an Attorney, I'll be happy to give you the
opportunity to know what it feels like to receive a good butt whipping in
court.
Trust me fella', they sting more than you know.
JMB
Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com
realitytrucker
> "Rocky" <wook...@att.net> wrote innews:Ro6dnRO2qIKyegjV...@giganews.com:
>
>
>
> > "realitytrucker" <timp1...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:9317d6d3-31f1-4821...@c65g2000hsa.googlegroups.com.
> > ..
> >> The Judge doesn't seem worried by your threats.
> >> I hope he sues your ass off.
>
> Forgive my intrusion for one last time. I see that Mr. Wittekind has
> decided to take it upon himself to post publicly some direct and rather
> serious allegations.
Once again, no apology is needed. Wittekind has been a cancer on this
newsgroup for many years and any assistance you give us, intended or
not, in his removal from the group (or society, for that matter) is
most welcomed.
The Honorable Dr. Rocky Roads Presiding Judge
Huh? You who made a BFD when I posted a correct answer on June 17,
2004 call me a cancer? You will always be a big Idiot for that
blunder.
More about you at: http://mtt.JusticeGoneWild.com
As for MPB. I had one reply ready for him but it took so long to type
it up that my session in Google had expired when I tried to post it.
I'll post it later from a computer and not a PPC. Then I'll post it
to both mlm and mtt and see what the moderator on mlm wants to do with
it.
As for you. I don't care too much what you want to do or say anymore
since you nothing at all compared to MPB.
Besides, I always wanted the chance to face my accusor and I finally
got it on the internet! I would have never thought that would happen.
Rocky - The best is yet to come.
realitytrucker
<wook...@att.net> wrote:
> On Aug 3, 6:16 pm, realitytrucker <timp1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 3, 5:28 pm, The Honorable Judge Brinn <jbr...@ill.gov> wrote:
>
> > > "Rocky" <wook...@att.net> wrote innews:Ro6dnRO2qIKyegjV...@giganews.com:
>
> > > > "realitytrucker" <timp1...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > > >news:9317d6d3-31f1-4821...@c65g2000hsa.googlegroups.com.
> > > > ..
> > > >> The Judge doesn't seem worried by your threats.
> > > >> I hope he sues your ass off.
>
> > > Forgive my intrusion for one last time. I see that Mr. Wittekind has
> > > decided to take it upon himself to post publicly some direct and rather
> > > serious allegations.
>
> > Once again, no apology is needed. Wittekind has been a cancer on this
> > newsgroup for many years and any assistance you give us, intended or
> > not, in his removal from the group (or society, for that matter) is
> > most welcomed.
>
> Huh? You who made a BFD when I posted a correct answer on June 17,
> 2004 call me a cancer? You will always be a big Idiot for that
> blunder.
You are a cancer and have been since you first came on this group.
You think it was a correct answer on such and such date. Before that
you claimed it was a "one letter typo" that started it. Before that
you had another excuse. You are full of excuses for everything that
has ever happened to you. Whether it was i n the court system or
right here on a newsgroup. It was always someone else's fault, wasn't
it? Roger Wittekind can do no wrong. It was always someone else.
You remind me of hat cartoon "Family Circus". You know, the little
"It wasn't me" character. It's always someone else's fault in your
eyes.
The truth of the matter is it was YOU who started this whole ball
rolling/ You have no credibility in MTT. No one believes you drive a
truck. No one believes you have a CDL. No one believes one word you
post because you lied from Day 1.
> More about you at:http://mtt.JusticeGoneWild.com
Yeah, written by you on your own webpage. I got news for you,
wannabe. No one believes a word of THAT crap either. Hell, no one
can even understand it
>
> As for MPB. I had one reply ready for him but it took so long to type
> it up that my session in Google had expired when I tried to post it.
> I'll post it later from a computer and not a PPC. Then I'll post it
> to both mlm and mtt and see what the moderator on mlm wants to do with
> it.
You are a LIAR wittekind. Your "session expired"?? Yet you managed
to reply to me and Tony? You lie. You are a coward as well.
>
> As for you. I don't care too much what you want to do or say anymore
> since you nothing at all compared to MPB.
>
> Besides, I always wanted the chance to face my accusor and I finally
> got it on the internet! I would have never thought that would happen.
Uh, excuse me, Mr Matlock, but the Judge was NOT your "accusor". He
presided over the trial but did not accuse you of anything.
>
> Rocky - The best is yet to come.- Hide quoted text -
>
I can't wait . I can't wait until you have to sell everything you own
to pay the Judge after he kicks your ass in a lawsuit. Maybe once
you're forced to sell your computers and your precious little "PPC"
you brag about constantly we'll finally be rid of you.
The Honorable Dr. Rocky Roads Presiding Judge
>
> You are a cancer and have been since you first came on this group.
We have been through this before and you normally call it your"Opinion."
> You think it was a correct answer on such and such date. Before that
> you claimed it was a "one letter typo" that started it. Before that
> you had another excuse.
All 10 of the main turning points that this NG has used against me are
listed at http://mtt.JusticeGoneWild.com
The fact is, after each turning point your bullshit just got thicker and
thicker until it turned into outright lies on June 18, 2004 right after I
posted a correct answer.
< FRAUD FROM FIM FLUSHED >
> More about you at: http://mtt.JusticeGoneWild.com
> No one believes a word of THAT crap either.
hmmm. How could that be when it is based entirely on the archives?
> Hell, no one can even understand it
I'm sure none of the Trolls like you understand it and maybe I should do a
little better job at taking fragments from the post but it is good enough
for now.
> Your "session expired"?? Yet you managed
> to reply to me and Tony?
All I had to do was relog on that didn't take long but it also meant I had
to lose the message I typed in unless I saved it as a text file so I saved
it as a text file. I'll move the text file over to a computer and then post
it from there but I'm in no hurry to do that since I've already waited 18
years for a chance to face my accuser.
> Uh, excuse me, Mr Matlock, but the Judge was NOT your "accusor". He
> presided over the trial but did not accuse you of anything.
WRONG. Since he was the one of the two people that signed the "WARRENT
INFORMATION" he is one of my accusors.
But first, the rest of the trash your post was flushed. Now for what I
currently have on:
http://BrokenSixthAmendment.com
============================================
The Sixth Amendment and definition of "Probable Cause" both give you the
right to face your accusers in a "Malicious Prosecution" lawsuit.
The Mack vs First Security Bank of Chicago also points out you should face
your accusers despite the Fraudulent Deception of Duane Thompson.
My "accusers" were Judge Brinn and John Kinser and both of them knew Beverly
Rusk was a malicious pathological liar and that I had evidence to prove
that.
How did they know she was "malicious?" Because of a malicious word they
quoted of her's on the "WARRANT INFORMATION."
How did they know she was a "pathological liar?" Because of a "Police
Report" that proved she had furnished police officers false information.
The "pathological liar" was completely impeached with "Prior Inconsistent
Statements" just like her daughter was when I won a Jury trial 12 to 0 as a
pro-se litigant.
Why didn't Judge Brinn throw out an earlier trial when he found out I was
invited over to her house for dinner?
Why didn't Judge Brinn throw out an earlier trial when he found out I had
evidence of impeachment?
Since Beverly Rusk could tell outright lies to police officers it is safe to
assume that Beverly Rusk told outright lies to her friends at the courthouse
too.
Why didn't Judge Brinn say something about the exhibit used by the State
that was written by Frank Fuhr with no facts and no legal authority?
Why did Judge Brinn let Richard Coppula prejudice the jury in the closing
remarks when that is a "Reversible Error?"
Why did Judge Brinn sign his name to a "Report of Proceedings" that is
inconsistent with fact that there has never been a slit second of reason
with the Rusks?
Why did Judge Brinn help Richard Coppula alter items in the "Report of
Proceedings" to conceal the fact that the "Statue was held invalid?"
If there had been any "Good Faith" with anybody at the courthouse they could
have found out exactly where Beverly Rusk's fraudulent statements were
started.
Facts show a manipulating mother was responsible for her daughter's
breakdown.
In a strange twist of fate I'd end up facing Judge Brinn on the Internet and
he proved a "Total Lack of Good Faith" there too as you can see for yourself
at:
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.transport.trucking/msg/8308c260bea4b191
More at: http://TrashedSixthAmendment.com and
http://DesecratedSixthAmendment.com.
============================================
Rocky - Now be gone Tim and leave this thread to the big boys.
~Tony~
in news:JNGdnd_jqpjbGgvV...@giganews.com:
Fuck it. I can't stand this shit no more.
Roger, this subject does not belong in this group.
Your long dead legal crap is not a topic related to trucking. For
someone who wants to harp on others to stay on topic, you seem to want
to lead the direction of this group to one single subject, and it's not
trucking.
So why are you trying to claim to be a trucker, when the fact is that
you'll discuss only one issue in this trucking group? Your legal
blunders are not our business, our concern, nor anything else to those
of us that have had it up to our eyebrows with you and this shit.
> I've already waited 18 years for a chance to face my accuser.
>
>> Uh, excuse me, Mr Matlock, but the Judge was NOT your "accusor". He
>> presided over the trial but did not accuse you of anything.
>
> WRONG. Since he was the one of the two people that signed the
> "WARRENT INFORMATION" he is one of my accusors.
No dickhead, that's where your brain always takes a left turn in front
of an army tank coming at you at 90 mph.
You were brought up on charges based upon a police report written after
a complaint was offered that you had called the home of that family in
the middle of the night seeking to speak with the daughter, after
several instances of you having harrassed the family. Your case was
brought by a person with the DA's office. It was ASSIGNED to a court for
a hearing.
If indeed Judge Brinn (I think this is correct spelling) signed
anything, it was totally in response to an attestment by OTHERS that you
had violated warnings to leave the family alone. Who those people are
could be practically anyone. It could have been due to a police report,
a call from the family themselves, or the DA.
The Judge is NOT your accuser. He is the person who hears the
accusations and rules on them according to the laws on the books that
determine if there has indeed been a violation of the law, or not.
Now the man clearly stated that enough evidence suggested that a
violation of the warnings you had been given occurred. The mistake was
that the police report had an error in it, and that's all there is to
it.
It's why you walked out of court that day a free man.
And what possible conflict could you have with the Jusge over your
criminal trial? You went free.
Your stupid rant all these years has been over the fact that another
Judge, whom you NEVER mention by name, was the one who would not allow
you to offer evidence from the criminal trial in your small claims case.
Yet you want to go back to the criminal trial, which you won by
contesting the error, a simple feat that a kid could do, and you have
turned that through the learning of legal terms over the years, into
some sort of legal triumph and owrked it up in your mind, as if you are
the most legal scholar to have ever graced a courtroom.
It's silly. It's as childish as anything I have ever read, and you're
not fooling anyone but yourself as to the facts surrounding all of this.
> The Sixth Amendment and definition of "Probable Cause" both give you
> the right to face your accusers in a "Malicious Prosecution" lawsuit.
And for the umpteenth time, you idiot, you filed a small claims case
under the guise of recovering costs associated with defending yourself,
and TRIED to turn it into a trial.
THAT JUDGE prevented you from doing so, and justifiably so. You
attempted to take what was meant to be a simple hearing of facts, and
priced accordingly so for the benefit of people that have small gripes
and complaints, and you wanted to retry the criminal trial all over
again, because in that trial, you weren't allowed to offer information
in it to Cheryl, that was not related to that issue either.
It's what your pathetic life is all about. You have spent it in pursuit
of some fantasy that if a fourteen year old girl will sit still for five
minutes and allow you to speak, that she will fall magically into your
arms, and you will be vindicated, loved, and understood.
You just will never accept the fact that you are not loved, will never
receive the vindication you seek, and will never be understood, by
anyone.
> My "accusers" were Judge Brinn and John Kinser and both of them knew
> Beverly Rusk was a malicious pathological liar and that I had evidence
> to prove that.
Actually, the fact is that the evidence supplied that the charges were
based on, was supplied by the legal system itself. You merely pointed
out the mistake written by a policeman, but who cares?
YOU WON!!! You walked out a free man. You were not convicted. Justice,
as obscured and masked as it was that day, was yours to savor.
You should have been locked up for five years. You had been stalking a
woman since childhood, and you continue to do so.
> How did they know she was "malicious?" Because of a malicious word
> they quoted of her's on the "WARRANT INFORMATION."
Oh woe is Roger. He was called a "faggot" by a frustrated woman, tired
of dealing with an idiot who just doesn't understand that he is simply
not liked by her daughter.
> How did they know she was a "pathological liar?" Because of a
> "Police Report" that proved she had furnished police officers false
> information.
Actually, it was a simple mistake. The officer wrote on the report that
you had physically violated the trespassing law, when the fact was that
you called them constantly.
> Why didn't Judge Brinn throw out an earlier trial when he found out I
> was invited over to her house for dinner?
Because your timeline is completely skewed. You were invited for dinner,
along with your mother, years beforehand, in utter frustration at the
time, to hopefully get your mother to put a leash on you and to get you
to leave her daughter alone.
Little was anyone to know that you would turn that into a perceived
lifetime invitation, where you would think you had the right to walk up
to the door at any point and time and knock on the door.
Why didn't your mother accept that invitation Roger?
> Why didn't Judge Brinn throw out an earlier trial when he found out I
> had evidence of impeachment?
Because that was not within the scope of his authority to do so. You
attempted to link a criminal case to that of a small claims case,
unrelated completely with one another, except in your mind of course.
> Since Beverly Rusk could tell outright lies to police officers it is
> safe to assume that Beverly Rusk told outright lies to her friends at
> the courthouse too.
Poor little picked on Roger. Everyone is always picking on you, and
talking about you behind your back. WAAAAAHHH!!!
> Why didn't Judge Brinn say something about the exhibit used by the
> State that was written by Frank Fuhr with no facts and no legal
> authority?
> Why did Judge Brinn let Richard Coppula prejudice the jury in the
> closing remarks when that is a "Reversible Error?"
> Why did Judge Brinn sign his name to a "Report of Proceedings" that is
> inconsistent with fact that there has never been a slit second of
> reason with the Rusks?
>
> Why did Judge Brinn help Richard Coppula alter items in the "Report of
> Proceedings" to conceal the fact that the "Statue was held invalid?"
Why did Ed Rusk break your nose in a fit of rage and frustration when
you refused to leave when demanded to do so?
Because you are a stalker, and you had stalked that family for nine
years up to the point and time that they took this case to it's legal
conclusion, which unfortunately backfired due to a misunderstanding and
an entry in a police report.
> In a strange twist of fate I'd end up facing Judge Brinn on the
> Internet and he proved a "Total Lack of Good Faith" there too as you
> can see for yourself at:
Not that I care one whit what happens to you, but you're walking on fire
Roger, and if it were me, I'd back off right now before you get burned
bad.
I wouldn't even be typing his name in here at the moment.
This world is a funny place, and while you are a joke of the day at the
moment, sooner or later people are going to quit laughing, and it's
gonna get serious.
You never know who might decide to set you up for the big fall.
Hell...it might even be me...
~Tony~
--
Visit My Blog Page
http://turbotrucker.blogspot.com/
The Honorable Dr. Rocky Roads Presiding Judge
"~Tony~" <alpr...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Xns9AF013BC85635a...@38.119.97.5...
> "The Honorable Dr. Rocky Roads Presiding Judge" <woo...@att.net> wrote
> in news:JNGdnd_jqpjbGgvV...@giganews.com:
>
> Fuck it. I can't stand this shit no more.
>
> Roger, this subject does not belong in this group.
It was moved over to misc.legal.moderated and don't ask me why Judge Brinn
decided to move it back here but I plan to move it back to
misc.legal.moderated when I reply to MPB.
> Your long dead legal crap is not a topic related to trucking. For
> someone who wants to harp on others to stay on topic, you seem to want
> to lead the direction of this group to one single subject, and it's not
> trucking.
For starters it isn't "long deal" since Duane Thompson used fraudulent
deception to convince Appellate Court Judges to violate the Fifth
Amendment (Double Jepordy) and the Sixth Amendment (Confrontation Clause)
the time limit is "tolled" meaning there is no time limit.
Also it was the only thing I could post about that I could prove. Man, you
are starting to be as big an Idiot as Tim is. Talking about Tim, you should
be shitting on him and not me. He is the one that keeps this shit going and
going and going or are you too stupid to see that?
> So why are you trying to claim to be a trucker, when the fact is that
> you'll discuss only one issue in this trucking group? Your legal
> blunders are not our business, our concern, nor anything else to those
> of us that have had it up to our eyebrows with you and this shit.
WRONG WRONG WRONG. Tim was trying to bullshit about everything in my life
and winning the Jury trial was the only I could prove where he couldn't
claim it was faked. DUH. But he tried to claim that anyway.
If you look back at things you will see the progression of Tim's bullshit
started with him bullshitting about my CDL on June 18, 2004. And that was
because I answered a question with the term "Belly Strap" that you, bbelly
and skatboard'n have all answered the same way since then! More at:
http://MTT.JusticeGoneWild.com
> > I've already waited 18 years for a chance to face my accuser.
> >
> >> Uh, excuse me, Mr Matlock, but the Judge was NOT your "accusor". He
> >> presided over the trial but did not accuse you of anything.
> >
> > WRONG. Since he was the one of the two people that signed the
> > "WARRENT INFORMATION" he is one of my accusors.
>
> No dickhead, that's where your brain always takes a left turn in front
> of an army tank coming at you at 90 mph.
>
> You were brought up on charges based upon a police report written after
> a complaint was offered that you had called the home of that family in
> the middle of the night seeking to speak with the daughter, after
> several instances of you having harrassed the family. Your case was
> brought by a person with the DA's office. It was ASSIGNED to a court for
> a hearing.
First, "the daughter" did not live with her mother but Beverly Rusk was
using lies to make it look like she did. That was another lie Beverly used
and since it went unnoticed it helps prove a "Total Lack of Good Faith."
The reality is that Beverly Rusk used a Sheriff's Deputy to take Cheryl's
daughter away from her and hoped that Cheryl would follow her daughter into
Beverly's trailer but that did not happen. Cheryl ended up running away
from her mother instead! The subpoena for Cheryl was not sent to the
mothers trailer but some place in Downtown East Moline instead.
More about how Cheryl's daughter was taken from her and moved to Beverly's
Trailer can be found at:
http://slimefest.com/Shanna
Hmmm, I don't have a copy of the complaint right now and I know that was
signed by Judge Brinn but I have a copy of the "Warrant Information" and it
was signed by John Kinser.
The "Warrant Information" mentioned above is at the bottom of this page:
http://brokensixthamendment.com/evidenceofmalice/
John Kinser needed MPB to sign the complaint. Either way, the "State of
facts on the mind of the prosecutor" still involved the "Report of
Proceedings" that was signed by MPB and used as "Defense Exhibit #1."
> If indeed Judge Brinn (I think this is correct spelling) signed
> anything, it was totally in response to an attestment by OTHERS that you
> had violated warnings to leave the family alone. Who those people are
> could be practically anyone. It could have been due to a police report,
> a call from the family themselves, or the DA.
But the issue really was Beverly Rusk never had the authority or a valid
reason to get Frank Fuhr involved in the first place. That unwarranted
letter from Frank Fuhr was when the shit really hit the fan. And don't
worry, I plan to write up a formal complaint about Frank Fuhr's involvement
in all of Beverly Rusk fraud.
It is a lot like this newsgroup where the shit really hit the fan when
realitytrasher made a BFD about me posting the term "Belly Strap" on June
17, 2004.
Back to the lies on the "Police Report." If Judge Brinn had looked at the
Police Report way back in 1983 he could have figured out that Beverly Rusk
was a pack of lies about everything. Just like with realitytrasher. If
someone takes a close look at why he started calling me a "liar" you could
see that he has been a pack of lies about everything. And I can easily
prove Tim has lied about other things too and you know that.
> The Judge is NOT your accuser. He is the person who hears the
> accusations and rules on them according to the laws on the books that
> determine if there has indeed been a violation of the law, or not.
He signed the complaint against me and so did Beverly Rusk. Since he was
the judge in the "Criminal Tresspassing" case it remained with him.
What do you know about the law? You seem to be as big an idiot as Tim and
you are right that Legal matters have no business in a trucking newsgroup
because there are too many Idiots in here. DUH.
> Now the man clearly stated that enough evidence suggested that a
> violation of the warnings you had been given occurred. The mistake was
> that the police report had an error in it, and that's all there is to
> it.
"an error?" There was more than just "an error" and I have a page setup
just to prove that: The following page shows the "Report of Proceedings" in
direct comparison to the "Police Report" and don't forget both those
exhibits were allowed in the Jury Trial that I won.
http://slimefest.com/Exhibits/ProofOfPerjury
So that means there were two errors. One that they didn't know about the
errors on the Police Report and two that they didn't know that those errors
really stuck out when used with the "Report of Proceedings!
HA! One exhibit did this another exhibit did that but when you looked at
both exhibits together they spelled Dynamite! There is no way the jury
would side with Beverly Rusk after seeing just how many lies she got away
with in the first jury trial. Cool huh? It was a no brainier and the State
was simply gambling I wouldn't be able to introduce either one of those
exhibits and that also shows a "Total Lack of Good Faith." Duh!
> It's why you walked out of court that day a free man.
Once again, it was more than just "an error" and the fact that she could
tell so many lies to Police Officers and the neighbors also helped to prove
she lied to Frank Fuhr to have him write an unjustified letter.
http://slimefest.com/Exhibits/ProofOfPerjury
> And what possible conflict could you have with the Jusge over your
> criminal trial? You went free.
Judge Brinn signed the complaint against me. Judge Brinn also signed the
"Report of Proceedings" used as "Defense Exhibit #1."
Judge Telleen would only let me reuse exhibits from the Jury Trial I won if
the person that signed them was on the witness stand. That is why only one
of my exhibits was seen by the Appellate Court.
Thanks to Judge Telleen's rules I needed Judge Brinn on the witness stand so
I could use the "Report of Proceedings" from the Jury Trial in the
"Malicious Prosecution" lawsuit. It was critical to show a "Total Lack of
Good Faith" and it was a stupid rule because I didn't need Judge Brinn on
the witness stand when I used the "Report of Proceedings" in the Jury trial
I won.
You yourself just pointed out I won the second jury trial because of "an
error" on the Police Report. Judge Brinn could have known about that error
way back in 1983 instead of waiting until 1990. DUH.
Brinn was the Judge in the first jury trial he could have done anything he
wanted to including look at that Police Report but he didn't and that was a
mistake that cost the State the Second Jury trial. Plus John Kinser knew
about that Police Report too and he gambled I wouldn't be able to introduce
it in court.
You can see for yourself that Casey Stengel tried to keep the Police Report
out of court but he failed. More at:
http://slimefest.com/Exhibits/#Exhibit5intro
You can see for yourself from the "Report of Proceedings" that I tried to
introduce that exact same police report in front of Judge Brinn. And don't
forget, I was still over there when Beverly Rusk started yelling all those
lies to the neighbors so they could all testify that there was no "mistake"
in what the Police wrote down because that is what Beverly Rusk yelled to
the neighbors! Duh.
Then to have Richard Coppula screw up a follow-up investigation where they
didn't catch that error is really pathetic! Here, you can see for yourself
that Richard Coppula was assigned to the "Follow-up Investigation" where he
helped Richard Clapp overlook what you call "an error." More at:
http://brokensixthamendment.com/badattorneys/RichardCoppulaWasABadAttorney.htm
> Your stupid rant all these years has been over the fact that another
> Judge, whom you NEVER mention by name, was the one who would not allow
> you to offer evidence from the criminal trial in your small claims case.
> Yet you want to go back to the criminal trial, which you won by
> contesting the error, a simple feat that a kid could do,
< extra shit snipped >
Tony, the error you are talking about could have also been used for a 12 to
0 verdict of "Not Guilty" in my first Jury Trial.
I tried and tried to get that "Police Report" introduced back then to but I
couldn't get a word in edgewise with my Attorney. It turned out later he
knew Beverly Rusk and didn't even care to hear my side of the Story. More
about Joe Trujillo at:
http://brokensixthamendment.com/badattorneys/GetRidOfJoe.htm
> It's silly. It's as childish as anything I have ever read, and you're
> not fooling anyone but yourself as to the facts surrounding all of this.
You aren't looking deep enough. The "error" you claim that was behind the
12 to 0 verdict in my second jury trial could have also been used to win my
first jury trial but the cards were stacked against me on that jury trial.
> > The Sixth Amendment and definition of "Probable Cause" both give you
> > the right to face your accusers in a "Malicious Prosecution" lawsuit.
>
> And for the umpteenth time, you idiot, you filed a small claims case
> under the guise of recovering costs associated with defending yourself,
> and TRIED to turn it into a trial.
The Sixth Amendment does not change in Small Claims you Idiot. When I told
Judge Telleen that I wanted to face my accusors John Telleen stated: And
the Appellate Court knew that Mr. Thompson did not sneak anything in on the
Appellate Court, no hide anything about that case."
The reality of that was that both Mr. Thompson and Judge Telleen recreated
the "Errors of Law" that "Reversed and Remanded" the "Mack" case. Then with
Duane Thompson's Fraudulent Deception at the Appellate court those judges
didn't care about justice!
BTW a long time ago the quote from Judge Telleen that was used above was
placed on:
http://SlimeFest.com
so you can see it there too.
> THAT JUDGE prevented you from doing so, and justifiably so. You
> attempted to take what was meant to be a simple hearing of facts, and
> priced accordingly so for the benefit of people that have small gripes
> and complaints, and you wanted to retry the criminal trial all over
> again, because in that trial, you weren't allowed to offer information
> in it to Cheryl, that was not related to that issue either.
Dude, I've told you once and I'll say it over and over and over. You really
should look at what "Reversed and Remanded" the "Mack" case and don't try to
make it look like those rules are any different "Small Claims" because they
aren't.
> It's what your pathetic life is all about. You have spent it in pursuit
> of some fantasy that if a fourteen year old girl will sit still for five
> minutes and allow you to speak, that she will fall magically into your
> arms, and you will be vindicated, loved, and understood.
Boy, you made a wrong turn a few paragraphs ago and without a map you will
be 1100 miles away from home before the end of the day and what really makes
this weird is you are only driving 60 mph!
> You just will never accept the fact that you are not loved, will never
> receive the vindication you seek, and will never be understood, by
> anyone.
irrelevant. The fact is I didn't want Cheryl to feel like nobody cared
about her when I knew about her insecurities better than anybody in high
school. And the State proved the for me with an exhibit they introduced!
Pretty funny huh? I tell you, the State made more than one mistake but they
will only admit to one mistake!
> > My "accusers" were Judge Brinn and John Kinser and both of them knew
> > Beverly Rusk was a malicious pathological liar and that I had evidence
> > to prove that.
>
> Actually, the fact is that the evidence supplied that the charges were
> based on, was supplied by the legal system itself. You merely pointed
> out the mistake written by a policeman, but who cares?
Dude, you know nothing and you contiue to prove it. The "State of Facts on
the mind of the prosecutor" was the "Report of Proceedings" signed by Judge
Brinn. I needed him on the witness stand to reuse "Defense Exhibit #1."
When the Appellate Court made assumptions about the "State of facts on the
mind of the prosecutor" they ended up multilating "Defense Exhibit #1" with
their unjust assumptions.
> YOU WON!!! You walked out a free man. You were not convicted. Justice,
> as obscured and masked as it was that day, was yours to savor.
But, there was more than just "an error" on the Police Report and the fact
that Judge Brinn had the ability to catch those errors in the first jury
trial and didn't helps show a "Total Lack of Good Faith."
> You should have been locked up for five years. You had been stalking a
> woman since childhood, and you continue to do so.
You fail to realize there was more than one error involved in court. Just
like you fail to realize there was more than one error behind all the
bullshit about my CDL.
> > How did they know she was "malicious?" Because of a malicious word
> > they quoted of her's on the "WARRANT INFORMATION."
>
> Oh woe is Roger. He was called a "faggot" by a frustrated woman, tired
> of dealing with an idiot who just doesn't understand that he is simply
> not liked by her daughter.
"not liked" but blamed for her breakdown when I left her completely alone?
Now you don't make any sense.
> > How did they know she was a "pathological liar?" Because of a
> > "Police Report" that proved she had furnished police officers false
> > information.
>
> Actually, it was a simple mistake. The officer wrote on the report that
> you had physically violated the trespassing law, when the fact was that
> you called them constantly.
Not constantly and besides, if Beverly had just let me answer Cheryl's
questions to start with the lies would have never got as big as they did you
big Idiot.
> > Why didn't Judge Brinn throw out an earlier trial when he found out I
> > was invited over to her house for dinner?
>
> Because your timeline is completely skewed. You were invited for dinner,
> along with your mother, years beforehand, in utter frustration at the
> time, to hopefully get your mother to put a leash on you and to get you
> to leave her daughter alone.
No not "years beforehand" It was more like weeks and besides what's wrong
with answering the daughters questions you big Idiot?
> Little was anyone to know that you would turn that into a perceived
> lifetime invitation, where you would think you had the right to walk up
> to the door at any point and time and knock on the door.
>
> Why didn't your mother accept that invitation Roger?
I forget all the circumstances now but that invitation was my last resort
for putting an end to the lies that Donny Geiger told her daughter. Beverly
didn't really want to hear my side of the Story all she wanted to do was try
and make me look as bad as possible in front of my mother.
My mother spotted something was wrong when Beverly was complaining about me
and the facts were Cheryl had lived with a guy almost twice her age for 7
years and then had a baby when the guy she was living with couldn't have
children. That is why he kicked her out of his house. I don't know if the
rest of that story is on Overprotectivemother.com but part of it might be.
> > Why didn't Judge Brinn throw out an earlier trial when he found out I
> > had evidence of impeachment?
>
> Because that was not within the scope of his authority to do so.
If you are talking about Illinois that is total bullshit. Judge Brinn had
the right to do almost anything he wanted to in court and that was something
he could have done.
> > Since Beverly Rusk could tell outright lies to police officers it is
> > safe to assume that Beverly Rusk told outright lies to her friends at
> > the courthouse too.
>
< Sidetracking removed >
>
> > Why didn't Judge Brinn say something about the exhibit used by the
> > State that was written by Frank Fuhr with no facts and no legal
> > authority?
>
> > Why did Judge Brinn let Richard Coppula prejudice the jury in the
> > closing remarks when that is a "Reversible Error?"
>
> > Why did Judge Brinn sign his name to a "Report of Proceedings" that is
> > inconsistent with fact that there has never been a slit second of
> > reason with the Rusks?
> >
> > Why did Judge Brinn help Richard Coppula alter items in the "Report of
> > Proceedings" to conceal the fact that the "Statue was held invalid?"
< more sidetracking removed >
< more fraud removed >
> Because you are a stalker
Tony if I had been a "stalker" the jury would have found me guilty
regardless of the lies on the Police Report. Juries don't always care about
right or wrong and Tim is a perfect example of someone like that.
< Tony's bullshit removed >.
< Trash trashed >
> Hell...it might even be me...
Tony you let something that started out as a little bullshit from Donny
Geiger in 1973 turn into a humongus pile of rubbish because Idiots like you,
Tim and Judge Brinn want to add to it!
God, you all need help.
Rocky - Interesting how people love to pile up bullshit
realitytrucker
<wook...@att.net> wrote:
> God, you all need help.
>
And THAT, wannabe, is your problem "you all need help". Why?
Because, in your eyes we are all wrong? Tony is wrong. I am wrong.
Everyone in the group who doubt the outrageous claims is wrong. Judge
Brinn is wrong. Cheryl was wrong. Beverly was wrong. Duane Thompson
was wrong. This Gieger guy was wrong. EVERYONE is wrong. Only
Roger Wittekind is right.
All of these court people...the judges..prosecutors...defense
lawyers..clerks of court...all of these educated people who have spent
their lifetimes working within the court system...folks who live and
breath the law every day...they are all wrong.. Only Roger Wittekind,
who has, at best, a high school education, is correct.
Here in MTT I am a troll, Tony is a troll, Dave Ruff is a troll,
tscott is a troll...the list goes on and on but essentially you think
anyone here who doesn't agree with your deluisional rants is a troll.
Only Roger Wittekind is not a troll.
Can't you see what is wrong with this picture?
realitytrucker
>
> This world is a funny place, and while you are a joke of the day at the
> moment, sooner or later people are going to quit laughing, and it's
> gonna get serious.
>
> You never know who might decide to set you up for the big fall.
>
> Hell...it might even be me...
>
> ~Tony~
Tony, I say let him go. So many people have tried to reason with him
but he refuses to listen. He is right and everyone else in the world
is wrong.
Let him go and dig his own grave. Judge Brinn will be most happy to
fill it in after Woger lies down and makes himself comfortable in it.
If he continues and this plays out to its logical conclusion it may be
the only way to get rid of him forever. Kinda hard to post and troll
if he has had to sell his computers and precious little PPC to pay the
sanctions that have been levied against him, wouldn't you say?
I wasn't aware of his mother's participaton in this fiasco. I wonder
what she said to him about it? And when you think about it this is
really all her fault anyway for not getting an abortion back in the
1950's.
Court Tee-Vee
What? and deny the world one of the greatest legal minds of all time?
I hear John Grisham is considering doing a book about him - fiction of
course.
~Tony~
>
> "~Tony~" <alpr...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:Xns9AF013BC85635a...@38.119.97.5...
>> "The Honorable Dr. Rocky Roads Presiding Judge" <woo...@att.net>
>> wrote in news:JNGdnd_jqpjbGgvV...@giganews.com:
>>
>> Fuck it. I can't stand this shit no more.
>>
>> Roger, this subject does not belong in this group.
>
> It was moved over to misc.legal.moderated and don't ask me why Judge
> Brinn decided to move it back here but I plan to move it back to
> misc.legal.moderated when I reply to MPB.
Let's see if I understand this. You cross posted crap from here into a
moderated group where it was basically ignored and dumped on, and now
you're gonna cross post a reply that was solely posted into this group into
a moderated group where it was not posted?
Good luck with that.
>> Your long dead legal crap is not a topic related to trucking. For
>> someone who wants to harp on others to stay on topic, you seem to
>> want to lead the direction of this group to one single subject, and
>> it's not trucking.
> For starters it isn't "long deal" since Duane Thompson used fraudulent
> deception to convince Appellate Court Judges to violate the Fifth
> Amendment (Double Jepordy) and the Sixth Amendment (Confrontation
> Clause) the time limit is "tolled" meaning there is no time limit.
I'm not about to debate that with you. because it's never done any good at
all to point out the fact that no one violated any of your, so called
rights. If they had, you'd have pursued it long ago, and that's all there
is to it. You'd rather sit around and write about it, whine about it, and
do everything under the sun but settle it or forget it.
You're totally and utterly pathetic. You're stuck in a time warp. Your
brain runs more miles in a week than a NASCAR driver drives in a year.
> Also it was the only thing I could post about that I could prove.
Prove to who? You've done nothing but sit on your ass for nineteen years
and whine about it. The only thing that "proves" is that you are unable to
prove anything, because those whom you despise are still in power, and you
are where you are, which is constantly in question in and of itself,
because you refuse to "prove" anything surrounding that issue as well.
So what exactly are you capable of "proving"? Not much, I assure you.
> Man, you are starting to be as big an Idiot as Tim is. Talking about
> Tim, you should be shitting on him and not me. He is the one that
> keeps this shit going and going and going or are you too stupid to see
> that?
Can you "prove" that one too? Quit posting one word about off-topic issues,
such as your long dead, legal blunder, and we'll see who revives it.
You can't STAND for it to die. Every fucking time that it dies for 24
hours, you go and dig up some obscure post from weeks, months, or even
years ago, and you respond to it, as if it were being read for the first
time, and I assure you that I can PROVE that too.
>> So why are you trying to claim to be a trucker, when the fact is that
>> you'll discuss only one issue in this trucking group? Your legal
>> blunders are not our business, our concern, nor anything else to
>> those of us that have had it up to our eyebrows with you and this
>> shit.
>
> WRONG WRONG WRONG. Tim was trying to bullshit about everything in my
> life and winning the Jury trial was the only I could prove where he
> couldn't claim it was faked. DUH. But he tried to claim that anyway.
Like it or not, that's basically the truth. The only record of your
existence is related to anytime you have been in dutch with the law.
Your other claims are unsubstantiated rumors, all claimed by yourself and
never backed up.
> If you look back at things you will see the progression of Tim's
> bullshit started with him bullshitting about my CDL on June 18, 2004.
> And that was because I answered a question with the term "Belly Strap"
> that you, bbelly and skatboard'n have all answered the same way since
> then!
You've never conclusively proven that you have a CDL, but no one gives a
crap whether you have one or not. No one gives a crap about your stupid
legal blunder that you so lovingly gloat about, yet you post on a daily
basis about it, as if it were the most fascinating subject on earth.
It isn't Roger, and it never will be. And the only thing it has
accomplished is to cause some very fine people to move on and refrain from
posting in here, because you have nothing better to do than to disrupt any
serious thread with attacks on people, and to take it over with more of the
crap that you have spewed in here for four plus years.
>> > I've already waited 18 years for a chance to face my accuser.
>> >
>> >> Uh, excuse me, Mr Matlock, but the Judge was NOT your "accusor".
>> >> He presided over the trial but did not accuse you of anything.
>> >
>> > WRONG. Since he was the one of the two people that signed the
>> > "WARRENT INFORMATION" he is one of my accusors.
>>
>> No dickhead, that's where your brain always takes a left turn in
>> front of an army tank coming at you at 90 mph.
>>
>> You were brought up on charges based upon a police report written
>> after a complaint was offered that you had called the home of that
>> family in the middle of the night seeking to speak with the daughter,
>> after several instances of you having harrassed the family. Your case
>> was brought by a person with the DA's office. It was ASSIGNED to a
>> court for a hearing.
> First, "the daughter" did not live with her mother but Beverly Rusk
> was using lies to make it look like she did. That was another lie
> Beverly used and since it went unnoticed it helps prove a "Total Lack
> of Good Faith."
It doesn't matter. You were asked to leave them alone. That's the core
issue and it always was. You have always thought that the girl wanted you,
and you still do. Your goal was to make ocntact with her, despite all. You
still think that the mother prevented that, and even is it were remotely
true, so what? Life goes on. There are other girls. Who needs that kind of
trouble?
But you? You're like a battery operated robot. You hit a wall, and instead
of turning and going the other way, you keep hitting the wall, over and
over and over, as if you think that the next time you will hit it, that it
will not be there.
You're still hitting that wall, and it still is not moving.
> The reality is that Beverly Rusk used a Sheriff's Deputy to take
> Cheryl's daughter away from her and hoped that Cheryl would follow her
> daughter into Beverly's trailer but that did not happen. Cheryl ended
> up running away from her mother instead! The subpoena for Cheryl was
> not sent to the mothers trailer but some place in Downtown East Moline
> instead.
You know what? That's information that no one need read. It's none of my
business, and it's none of your business either. It has no place being
posted in here, and it's nothing at all to do with what is going on in that
little brain of yours, and as it pertains to the real problem.
It wasn't even any part of the issues you were being charged with way back
then. That was a family matter of theirs to deal with, and it had nothing
at all to do with you.
>> If indeed Judge Brinn (I think this is correct spelling) signed
>> anything, it was totally in response to an attestment by OTHERS that
>> you had violated warnings to leave the family alone. Who those people
>> are could be practically anyone. It could have been due to a police
>> report, a call from the family themselves, or the DA.
> But the issue really was Beverly Rusk never had the authority or a
> valid reason to get Frank Fuhr involved in the first place. That
> unwarranted letter from Frank Fuhr was when the shit really hit the
> fan. And don't worry, I plan to write up a formal complaint about
> Frank Fuhr's involvement in all of Beverly Rusk fraud.
Good luck. When someone reads the dates, it will be tossed.
> It is a lot like this newsgroup where the shit really hit the fan when
> realitytrasher made a BFD about me posting the term "Belly Strap" on
> June 17, 2004.
Are you ever going to quit whining about that? You're disliked for all
kinds of reasons, none of which is because there was some confusion as to
who answered a question on belly straps first or more thoroughly.
You're disliked because you are an idiot with no concept of how to
socialize with others.
> Back to the lies on the "Police Report." If Judge Brinn had looked at
> the Police Report way back in 1983 he could have figured out that
> Beverly Rusk was a pack of lies about everything. Just like with
> realitytrasher. If someone takes a close look at why he started
> calling me a "liar" you could see that he has been a pack of lies
> about everything. And I can easily prove Tim has lied about other
> things too and you know that.
Like anyone cares who you think lies about anything. I don't see anyone
rushing to tell him to leave this group, to shut the fuck up all the time,
or that he should be ignored, etc.
No...that person everyone speaks of in those manners...is you.
>> The Judge is NOT your accuser. He is the person who hears the
>> accusations and rules on them according to the laws on the books that
>> determine if there has indeed been a violation of the law, or not.
> He signed the complaint against me and so did Beverly Rusk. Since he
> was the judge in the "Criminal Tresspassing" case it remained with
> him.
You know...I'll bet my left arm that the man had no clue who you were when
that complaint was signed. He was required to look over the evidence, and
to determine if it deserved a hearing, and it did. He signed off on it.
Now you can sit there and debate it all day long, but the fact will remain
forever that no less than three sitting Judges have stated on record that
it deserved a hearing, numerous panels of Appellate Judges agreed that the
charges were warranted, and you were made to write two checks in
recognition of the same.
Your sole accomplishment since that final day has been to whine about,
write about it, and to invade this group and attempt to engage others over
it.
You have successfully and single handedly ruin what was a pretty decent
place to discuss trucking issues and other interesting topics that many
people WANTED to fucking discuss, and have replaced it with a more
immediate means of furthering your agenda in life to exact revenge upon
people whom will never be bothered by a word of what you write.
And you sure will not see a minutes worth of satisfaction from having
ruined this group, because those same people are going on with their lives,
while you are still stuck in yours, still deprived of spending time with a
girl that you are still infatuated with, still deprived of $1,900 that you
had to pay, and still as fucked up in the head as you were in 1983.
> What do you know about the law? You seem to be as big an idiot as Tim
> and you are right that Legal matters have no business in a trucking
> newsgroup because there are too many Idiots in here. DUH.
No..what is in here, are people who will never see things your way, just as
no one who can do a damn thing about the claims you have, will ever see
things your way.
No one is going to make the girl listen to those answers you have been
holding on to for 40 years. No one is going to remove anyone from the
bench, or fired anyone over your stupid and baseless complaints.
How many people does it take Roger, for you to understand that you are not
ever going to see what you seek? How many people does it take, who tell you
that you are idiotic, before it sinks in that you are? And how many people
does it take, who detest your presence, before you begin to amend your
demeanor to make yourself more likeable?
> > And what possible conflict could you have with the Jusge over your
>> criminal trial? You went free.
>
> Judge Brinn signed the complaint against me. Judge Brinn also signed
> the "Report of Proceedings" used as "Defense Exhibit #1."
Well lah dee dah. What do you think anyone on earth will do about any
charge or complaint you have, considering that you won the case and are
free to go on about your life? No one will entertain so much as a word of
it.
There are people in prison for life, or who are on death row that have just
a little more of a complaint to make than you ever will, and you are way
down the list of people who will be given any consideration whatsoever to
any conspiratorial nonsense complaints.
You're an ant in a field of elephants.
> Judge Telleen would only let me reuse exhibits from the Jury Trial I
> won if the person that signed them was on the witness stand. That is
> why only one of my exhibits was seen by the Appellate Court.
We've been over and over that a dozen times Roger. It's completely within
the discretion of the Judge in a small claims case to include or exclude
any evidence they see fit.
Every appeal confirmed exactly that point, and it can be read on your
shrine sites as well.
Had you any desire to escalate anything into a full-blown trial, you should
have filed it in the proper court venue, and paid the fees conducive to
such a trial accordingly.
No small claims court is going to entertain a ten day trial over a $630
sanction seeking venture, nor allow someone to retry an already settled
trial that was found in favor of a plaintiff seeking such sanctions.
> You yourself just pointed out I won the second jury trial because of
> "an error" on the Police Report. Judge Brinn could have known about
> that error way back in 1983 instead of waiting until 1990. DUH.
What second Jury trial? You only had one jury trial, and that was for your
criminal charges for telephone harrassment.
>> Your stupid rant all these years has been over the fact that another
>> Judge, whom you NEVER mention by name, was the one who would not
>> allow you to offer evidence from the criminal trial in your small
>> claims case. Yet you want to go back to the criminal trial, which you
>> won by contesting the error, a simple feat that a kid could do,
> < extra shit snipped >
> Tony, the error you are talking about could have also been used for a
> 12 to 0 verdict of "Not Guilty" in my first Jury Trial.
What "first jury trial"? You're really losing it now.
>> > The Sixth Amendment and definition of "Probable Cause" both give
>> > you the right to face your accusers in a "Malicious Prosecution"
>> > lawsuit.
>>
>> And for the umpteenth time, you idiot, you filed a small claims case
>> under the guise of recovering costs associated with defending
>> yourself, and TRIED to turn it into a trial.
> The Sixth Amendment does not change in Small Claims you Idiot. When I
> told Judge Telleen that I wanted to face my accusors John Telleen
> stated: And the Appellate Court knew that Mr. Thompson did not sneak
> anything in on the Appellate Court, no hide anything about that case."
>
> The reality of that was that both Mr. Thompson and Judge Telleen
> recreated the "Errors of Law" that "Reversed and Remanded" the "Mack"
> case. Then with Duane Thompson's Fraudulent Deception at the
> Appellate court those judges didn't care about justice!
I don't believe this. You are quoting words spoken in reference to
Appellate rulings, before they were to occur.
It's useless to even try to make any sense out of what you offer, because
you are so screwed up, you can't remember when anything happened any
longer.
Now you're referring to more than one criminal trial, Appellate rulings
before they were considered, and who knows what else...
You're not going to infect me with your insanity Roger.
> Dude, I've told you once and I'll say it over and over and over. You
> really should look at what "Reversed and Remanded" the "Mack" case and
> don't try to make it look like those rules are any different "Small
> Claims" because they aren't.
Dude, you really need to look at your own sites to see just how screwed up
you really are. I see you have totally changed events again, over the past
few days, probably in response to things offered by the Judge in here.
You're recreating evidence and quotes all over the place. I don't know why
I am surprised. It's what you do best.
> Boy, you made a wrong turn a few paragraphs ago and without a map you
> will be 1100 miles away from home before the end of the day and what
> really makes this weird is you are only driving 60 mph!
Boy, you made a wrong turn in your junior year of high school, and all the
proof of that can be found on your shrine sites.
>> You just will never accept the fact that you are not loved, will
>> never receive the vindication you seek, and will never be understood,
>> by anyone.
>
> irrelevant.
Nope...I think that it is completely and utterly relevant, and I think
anyone who has had a passing interest in any of this would agree with me as
well.
> The fact is I didn't want Cheryl to feel like nobody cared about her when
> I knew about her insecurities better than anybody in high school.
That is really fucked up Roger. It seems to me that you were the one who
had to have an adult go around and encourage other students to approach
you, due to your insecurities, and not the other way around.
Unfortunately for her, she took the bait, and look what it cost her. I have
little doubt that this woman has issues now, and you are at the core of
every one of them, given that for almost 40 years, you have stalked her.
> And the State proved the for me with an exhibit they introduced! Pretty
> funny huh? I tell you, the State made more than one mistake but they
> will only admit to one mistake!
Nope. What's funny is that anyone can confirm what I wrote above by
spending two minutes on your shrine site to read it themself.
>> > My "accusers" were Judge Brinn and John Kinser and both of them
>> > knew Beverly Rusk was a malicious pathological liar and that I had
>> > evidence to prove that.
>>
>> Actually, the fact is that the evidence supplied that the charges
>> were based on, was supplied by the legal system itself. You merely
>> pointed out the mistake written by a policeman, but who cares?
>
> Dude, you know nothing and you contiue to prove it. The "State of
> Facts on the mind of the prosecutor" was the "Report of Proceedings"
> signed by Judge Brinn. I needed him on the witness stand to reuse
> "Defense Exhibit #1." When the Appellate Court made assumptions about
> the "State of facts on the mind of the prosecutor" they ended up
> multilating "Defense Exhibit #1" with their unjust assumptions.
Sorry Roger. I'm not going to banter back and forth over your self-derived
perception of events. You contested the police report in court, and that
was what was stipulated by the prosecution before you were set free. It's
all there on your site.
Your inner Perry Mason tactics have been dreamed up over nineteen years,
through reading and learning legal mumbo jumbo, just as anyone who has been
around in here witness time after time, when you run across a new phrase.
You quote it, adopt it, and then it's incorporated into your shrine sites,
and then Presto!!!...you've furthered your legal scholarly knowledge.
>> YOU WON!!! You walked out a free man. You were not convicted.
>> Justice, as obscured and masked as it was that day, was yours to
>> savor.
> But, there was more than just "an error" on the Police Report and the
> fact that Judge Brinn had the ability to catch those errors in the
> first jury trial and didn't helps show a "Total Lack of Good Faith."
But nothing. What else matters, even if there was this faction of people
just trying to put Roger away, and it failed to bring about the desired
effect? Nothing. You walked. You won. You're a free man, still stalking the
same girl you have been for nearly 40 years.
>> You should have been locked up for five years. You had been stalking
>> a woman since childhood, and you continue to do so.
> You fail to realize there was more than one error involved in court.
> Just like you fail to realize there was more than one error behind all
> the bullshit about my CDL.
Face it Roger. No one cares what you are and what you claim to be and have.
>> > How did they know she was "malicious?" Because of a malicious word
>> > they quoted of her's on the "WARRANT INFORMATION."
>>
>> Oh woe is Roger. He was called a "faggot" by a frustrated woman,
>> tired of dealing with an idiot who just doesn't understand that he is
>> simply not liked by her daughter.
> "not liked" but blamed for her breakdown when I left her completely
> alone? Now you don't make any sense.
You've never left that woman alone, anymore than a fly does a plate of
brownies if he is near them.
You posted a month ago, all the proof that you are keeping tabs on her, and
the only reason you are not actively pestering her, is because her husband
would probably wipe up the Iowa 80 parking lot with your dead carcass.
>> > How did they know she was a "pathological liar?" Because of a
>> > "Police Report" that proved she had furnished police officers false
>> > information.
>>
>> Actually, it was a simple mistake. The officer wrote on the report
>> that you had physically violated the trespassing law, when the fact
>> was that you called them constantly.
>
> Not constantly and besides, if Beverly had just let me answer Cheryl's
> questions to start with the lies would have never got as big as they
> did you big Idiot.
See? It's always about those questions and answers. You've spent 40 years
trying to get the answers right, and you never will. You'd uncontrollably
pee in your diaper (as if that wasn't the problem as to why you wear a
Depends already) if the woman would contact you and say, "Okay Roger...I'm
ready to listen to you now."
>> > Why didn't Judge Brinn throw out an earlier trial when he found out
>> > I was invited over to her house for dinner?
>>
>> Because your timeline is completely skewed. You were invited for
>> dinner, along with your mother, years beforehand, in utter
>> frustration at the time, to hopefully get your mother to put a leash
>> on you and to get you to leave her daughter alone.
>
> No not "years beforehand" It was more like weeks and besides what's
> wrong with answering the daughters questions you big Idiot?
Because like the dinner invitation, those questions were asked by a girl
years beforehand as well. She had long forgotten asking them. You never
have. I'll bet you know each and every word of those questions. I'll bet
you repeat them in your dreams each and every night.
You're totally screwed up, and those shrine sites you keep, that you think
support your claims, only contradict them completely.
>> Little was anyone to know that you would turn that into a perceived
>> lifetime invitation, where you would think you had the right to walk
>> up to the door at any point and time and knock on the door.
>>
>> Why didn't your mother accept that invitation Roger?
>
> I forget all the circumstances now but that invitation was my last
> resort for putting an end to the lies that Donny Geiger told her
> daughter. Beverly didn't really want to hear my side of the Story all
> she wanted to do was try and make me look as bad as possible in front
> of my mother.
You "forget". That's the Clinton defense strategy, isn't it?
> My mother spotted something was wrong when Beverly was complaining
> about me and the facts were Cheryl had lived with a guy almost twice
> her age for 7 years and then had a baby when the guy she was living
> with couldn't have children. That is why he kicked her out of his
> house. I don't know if the rest of that story is on
> <snipped> but part of it might be.
Uh huh. I'm sure that i am not alone when I read the above, and find a big
problem with it's relevance to the question asked. But I'm not entertaining
it with any response.
>> > Why didn't Judge Brinn throw out an earlier trial when he found out
>> > I had evidence of impeachment?
>>
>> Because that was not within the scope of his authority to do so.
>
> If you are talking about Illinois that is total bullshit. Judge Brinn
> had the right to do almost anything he wanted to in court and that was
> something he could have done.
Well there would have had to have been another trial to begin with, but
that's up in the air as well. Last year, the story was that it was
interrupted for the purposes of recording it on a transcript. I seem to
recall reading something the Judge wrote in that regard as well.
>> Because you are a stalker
>
> Tony if I had been a "stalker" the jury would have found me guilty
> regardless of the lies on the Police Report. Juries don't always care
> about right or wrong and Tim is a perfect example of someone like
> that.
You're a stalker alright, and not one person who has ever commented on any
of this, has expressed otherwise.
You are the only person in denial of that simple fact.
> Tony you let something that started out as a little bullshit from
> Donny Geiger in 1973 turn into a humongus pile of rubbish because
> Idiots like you, Tim and Judge Brinn want to add to it!
And let me remind you that had you not first introduced this "pile of
rubbish" into this group, your secrets would have been safe.
But you did, and we're beyond that now.
> God, you all need help.
Yep...everyone but you is in need of help.
> Rocky - Interesting how people love to pile up bullshit
Shut the fuck up about it for once, and see how long it takes for it to
become a non-issue.
~Tony~
a76c-5af...@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com:
> Tony, I say let him go. So many people have tried to reason with him
> but he refuses to listen. He is right and everyone else in the world
> is wrong.
I know. I could kick myself in the ass for responding this time. He's
right...I do need help. I'm drawn into that crap every time, and it's
maddening to me.
I've got to completely ignore him, because at times I try to reason with
a completely irrational man, who cannot understand reality.
> Let him go and dig his own grave. Judge Brinn will be most happy to
> fill it in after Woger lies down and makes himself comfortable in it.
That's a fact. He's absolutely messing with fire if he even so much as
attempts to respond publicly again, and I damn sure wouldn't want to be
in his shoes if he tries it.
But you know what? Given the track record he has, he'll do it. Anyone
want to lay down a bet on how many days before he does it?
> If he continues and this plays out to its logical conclusion it may be
> the only way to get rid of him forever. Kinda hard to post and troll
> if he has had to sell his computers and precious little PPC to pay the
> sanctions that have been levied against him, wouldn't you say?
It'd be hard to guess what kind of coin he'd have to depart with. I know
one thing. Roger goofed, and he got just a little too cocky this time.
> I wasn't aware of his mother's participaton in this fiasco. I wonder
> what she said to him about it? And when you think about it this is
> really all her fault anyway for not getting an abortion back in the
> 1950's.
Not that I like to bring mothers into this stuff, but I read that little
blurb a couple of years ago, and apparently Roger's mommy didn't want to
get involved with a parent on parent conference about Roger's issues and
harrassment of the daughter.
I gotta hand it to the Rusks. I'd have found a way to put Roger to sleep
forever, because I don't have what it takes to put up with what Roger
has put them through, and still continues to put them through.
Anyway you slice it or dice it, Roger's on borrowed time. He just may
see the inside of a prison before this all plays out in MTT.
If that's his goal, all he's gotta do is to keep on typing, and the rest
will fall in place by itself.
The Honorable Dr. Rocky Roads Presiding Judge
Grin then a bigger grin.
Wait for it Tim. Since my last Reply to MPB was put on hold by a
quirk of fate I decided I'd completely redo the format on my Reply to
him.
I'll State the Facts and Issues just as if this were going to be seen
by someone at the Appellate Court.
And I'll do my best to address him as an Honorable person that simply
drew the wrong conclusions too.
BTW Post that go to mlm go up about the same time everyday so don't
bother waiting all day to see my Reply to MPB.
Rocky - Wait for it
The Honorable Dr. Rocky Roads Presiding Judge
> "The Honorable Dr. Rocky Roads Presiding Judge" <wook...@att.net> wrote
> innews:g-adnYI2TrctdAvV...@giganews.com:
>
>
>
> > "~Tony~" <alprov...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> >news:Xns9AF013BC85635a...@38.119.97.5...
> >> "The Honorable Dr. Rocky Roads Presiding Judge" <wook...@att.net>
> >> wrote innews:JNGdnd_jqpjbGgvV...@giganews.com:
>
> >> Fuck it. I can't stand this shit no more.
>
> >> Roger, this subject does not belong in this group.
>
> > It was moved over to misc.legal.moderated and don't ask me why Judge
> > Brinn decided to move it back here but I plan to move it back to
> > misc.legal.moderated when I reply to MPB.
>
> Let's see if I understand this. You cross posted crap from here into a
> moderated group where it was basically ignored and dumped on, and now
> you're gonna cross post a reply that was solely posted into this group into
> a moderated group where it was not posted?
>
> Good luck with that.
Better check on mlm because you will see I've taken this thread back
there once already you big Idiot. I expect, since I still have front
row parking in the "Winner's Circle" for life that I'll be able to
post there whenever I want to. <G>
> >> Your long dead legal crap is not a topic related to trucking. For
> >> someone who wants to harp on others to stay on topic, you seem to
> >> want to lead the direction of this group to one single subject, and
> >> it's not trucking.
> > For starters it isn't "long deal" since Duane Thompson used fraudulent
> > deception to convince Appellate Court Judges to violate the Fifth
> > Amendment (Double Jepordy) and the Sixth Amendment (Confrontation
> > Clause) the time limit is "tolled" meaning there is no time limit.
>
> I'm not about to debate that with you. because it's never done any good at
> all to point out the fact that no one violated any of your, so called
> rights. If they had, you'd have pursued it long ago, and that's all there
> is to it. You'd rather sit around and write about it, whine about it, and
> do everything under the sun but settle it or forget it.
whatever
> You're totally and utterly pathetic. You're stuck in a time warp. Your
> brain runs more miles in a week than a NASCAR driver drives in a year.
You would never be able to use that crap in court you big Idiot.
> > Also it was the only thing I could post about that I could prove.
>
> Prove to who? You've done nothing but sit on your ass for nineteen years
> and whine about it. The only thing that "proves" is that you are unable to
> prove anything, because those whom you despise are still in power, and you
> are where you are, which is constantly in question in and of itself,
> because you refuse to "prove" anything surrounding that issue as well.
Get a life Tony. I'm sure you have better things to do than stick
your foot in your mouth again.
> So what exactly are you capable of "proving"? Not much, I assure you.
I'll say this slowly so maybe you will understand. W A I T F O R
I T.
> > Man, you are starting to be as big an Idiot as Tim is. Talking about
> > Tim, you should be shitting on him and not me. He is the one that
> > keeps this shit going and going and going or are you too stupid to see
> > that?
>
> Can you "prove" that one too? Quit posting one word about off-topic issues,
> such as your long dead, legal blunder, and we'll see who revives it.
Well, we already know I have a scheduled Reply to MPB so there will be
that one. Other than that, I just have to keep screwing with the
Trolls like you on this NG.
> You can't STAND for it to die. Every fucking time that it dies for 24
> hours, you go and dig up some obscure post from weeks, months, or even
> years ago, and you respond to it, as if it were being read for the first
> time, and I assure you that I can PROVE that too.
Don't forget how all this crap was started. It was a hijacked thread
by tscottme then a recanted opinion by Dave Ruff and a nymshift by
Zeke.
Put those all three together and we have Tim's first outbreak on
December 30, 2003. It is all documented at:
http://MTT.JusticeGoneWild.com
> >> So why are you trying to claim to be a trucker, when the fact is that
> >> you'll discuss only one issue in this trucking group? Your legal
> >> blunders are not our business, our concern, nor anything else to
> >> those of us that have had it up to our eyebrows with you and this
> >> shit.
>
> > WRONG WRONG WRONG. Tim was trying to bullshit about everything in my
> > life and winning the Jury trial was the only I could prove where he
> > couldn't claim it was faked. DUH. But he tried to claim that anyway.
>
> Like it or not, that's basically the truth. The only record of your
> existence is related to anytime you have been in dutch with the law.
And I know I've posted something like this before. I wanted to learn
from the prejudical people on this newsgroup because they would help
me deal with the biased people in the legal system. Now it is my turn
to show how much I've learned.
> Your other claims are unsubstantiated rumors, all claimed by yourself and
> never backed up.
What other claims??? You are being too obsure for me and it looks
like you are posting more Troll food. Hmmm. Maybe you are posting
more Troll food!
> > If you look back at things you will see the progression of Tim's
> > bullshit started with him bullshitting about my CDL on June 18, 2004.
> > And that was because I answered a question with the term "Belly Strap"
> > that you, bbelly and skatboard'n have all answered the same way since
> > then!
>
> You've never conclusively proven that you have a CDL, but no one gives a
> crap whether you have one or not. No one gives a crap about your stupid
> legal blunder that you so lovingly gloat about, yet you post on a daily
> basis about it, as if it were the most fascinating subject on earth.
My "legal blunder" was not really a "legal blunder" at all and if you
had any brains you would see that. I look forward to replying to
MPB's post but I'm going to get some legal advice first. Do you blame
me?
> It isn't Roger, and it never will be. And the only thing it has
> accomplished is to cause some very fine people to move on and refrain from
> posting in here, because you have nothing better to do than to disrupt any
> serious thread with attacks on people, and to take it over with more of the
> crap that you have spewed in here for four plus years.
Oh yeah, and don't forget that the "liar" chant was started the day
after I posted the term "Belly Strap." Who would have thought that
you, bbelly and skatboard'n would all post "Belly Strap" the the same
question I answered. That shows how stupid realitytrasher has been
for the last 4+ years!
> >> > I've already waited 18 years for a chance to face my accuser.
>
> >> >> Uh, excuse me, Mr Matlock, but the Judge was NOT your "accusor".
> >> >> He presided over the trial but did not accuse you of anything.
>
> >> > WRONG. Since he was the one of the two people that signed the
> >> > "WARRENT INFORMATION" he is one of my accusors.
>
> >> No dickhead, that's where your brain always takes a left turn in
> >> front of an army tank coming at you at 90 mph.
>
> >> You were brought up on charges based upon a police report written
> >> after a complaint was offered that you had called the home of that
> >> family in the middle of the night seeking to speak with the daughter,
> >> after several instances of you having harrassed the family. Your case
> >> was brought by a person with the DA's office. It was ASSIGNED to a
> >> court for a hearing.
> > First, "the daughter" did not live with her mother but Beverly Rusk
> > was using lies to make it look like she did. That was another lie
> > Beverly used and since it went unnoticed it helps prove a "Total Lack
> > of Good Faith."
>
> It doesn't matter. You were asked to leave them alone. That's the core
> issue and it always was. You have always thought that the girl wanted you,
> and you still do. Your goal was to make ocntact with her, despite all. You
> still think that the mother prevented that, and even is it were remotely
> true, so what? Life goes on. There are other girls. Who needs that kind of
> trouble?
Dude, you had better take a veryclose look at that letter by Frank
Fuhr. It only addressed leaving Cheryl alone and not the rest of her
family so I waited for her to move out before I tried to accept the
"Invitation to Dinner."
> But you? You're like a battery operated robot. You hit a wall, and instead
> of turning and going the other way, you keep hitting the wall, over and
> over and over, as if you think that the next time you will hit it, that it
> will not be there.
The fact is, Beverly had no legal authority to have the letter written
by Frank Fuhr in the first place and that is where Judge Brinn and the
Appellate Court have made their biggest mistakes.
The lies that she used with the Police Officers indicate what type of
lies she told to Frank Fuhr. Don't forget, Cheryl did a 360, so even
if she had been upset at one time that means she spun completely
around.
> You're still hitting that wall, and it still is not moving.
Your mistake is you can't assume that the letter from Frank Fuhr was
legitamate especially after seeing the lies Beverly told to Police
Officers.
> > The reality is that Beverly Rusk used a Sheriff's Deputy to take
> > Cheryl's daughter away from her and hoped that Cheryl would follow her
> > daughter into Beverly's trailer but that did not happen. Cheryl ended
> > up running away from her mother instead! The subpoena for Cheryl was
> > not sent to the mothers trailer but some place in Downtown East Moline
> > instead.
>
> You know what? That's information that no one need read. It's none of my
> business, and it's none of your business either. It has no place being
> posted in here, and it's nothing at all to do with what is going on in that
> little brain of yours, and as it pertains to the real problem.
Cheryl's biggest problem has been her own mother and not me. The more
people try to deny that fact the further from the truth they will
get. Case in point is Judge Brinn.
> It wasn't even any part of the issues you were being charged with way back
> then. That was a family matter of theirs to deal with, and it had nothing
> at all to do with you.
Don't forget how Perry Mason won a lot of his cases. He would find
the real culprit and that is how I won my last Jury Trial also you big
Idiot.
> >> If indeed Judge Brinn (I think this is correct spelling) signed
> >> anything, it was totally in response to an attestment by OTHERS that
> >> you had violated warnings to leave the family alone. Who those people
> >> are could be practically anyone. It could have been due to a police
> >> report, a call from the family themselves, or the DA.
> > But the issue really was Beverly Rusk never had the authority or a
> > valid reason to get Frank Fuhr involved in the first place. That
> > unwarranted letter from Frank Fuhr was when the shit really hit the
> > fan. And don't worry, I plan to write up a formal complaint about
> > Frank Fuhr's involvement in all of Beverly Rusk fraud.
>
> Good luck. When someone reads the dates, it will be tossed.
Oh, but that doesn't change the fact it is a perfect textbook example
of why the Sixth Amendment rights of the falsely accused should not be
violated.
> > It is a lot like this newsgroup where the shit really hit the fan when
> > realitytrasher made a BFD about me posting the term "Belly Strap" on
> > June 17, 2004.
>
> Are you ever going to quit whining about that? You're disliked for all
> kinds of reasons, none of which is because there was some confusion as to
> who answered a question on belly straps first or more thoroughly.
Dude, this newsgroup is a perfect example of how fraud works. Once
Dave Ruff started that shit about "Defending Richard" that he later
recanted there was nothing at all I could do to stop it from going
through this newsgroup like wildfire. It is all in the archives. You
can see for yourself that realitytrasher chanted the word "Richard"
hundreds of times after that.
> You're disliked because you are an idiot with no concept of how to
> socialize with others.
Oh, you mean kiss butt to other Trolls. You have a point there but
you could also be putting your foot in your mouth again too you know.
> > Back to the lies on the "Police Report." If Judge Brinn had looked at
> > the Police Report way back in 1983 he could have figured out that
> > Beverly Rusk was a pack of lies about everything. Just like with
> > realitytrasher. If someone takes a close look at why he started
> > calling me a "liar" you could see that he has been a pack of lies
> > about everything. And I can easily prove Tim has lied about other
> > things too and you know that.
>
> Like anyone cares who you think lies about anything. I don't see anyone
> rushing to tell him to leave this group, to shut the fuck up all the time,
> or that he should be ignored, etc.
It doesn't really matter now. If it wasn't for dealing with the
Trolls here the only post I look forward to is where I reply to
Michael P. Brinn.
> No...that person everyone speaks of in those manners...is you.
???
> >> The Judge is NOT your accuser. He is the person who hears the
> >> accusations and rules on them according to the laws on the books that
> >> determine if there has indeed been a violation of the law, or not.
> > He signed the complaint against me and so did Beverly Rusk. Since he
> > was the judge in the "Criminal Tresspassing" case it remained with
> > him.
>
> You know...I'll bet my left arm that the man had no clue who you were when
> that complaint was signed. He was required to look over the evidence, and
> to determine if it deserved a hearing, and it did. He signed off on it.
Boy are you a big Idiot. You can easily find out who that Judge Brinn
is if you go to:
http://SlimeFest.com/Exhibits
Once there then look at the "Report of Proceedings" and there will be
a link to the three signatures on the "Report of Proceedings." If you
click on that link you will see "Michael P. Brinn" is one of the three
people that signed it. That means, for the big Idiots like you, that
Judge Brinn was the Judge during my first jury trial. Can you get
that through your head or are you going to continue to act stupid?
> Now you can sit there and debate it all day long, but the fact will remain
> forever that no less than three sitting Judges ...
You just proved you are a big Idiot once again and if Lucy were here
she could tell you to get your foot out of your mouth.
Rocky - Tony get your foot out of your mouth.
~Tony~
in
news:b0db810b-6235-4227...@i76g2000hsf.googlegroups.com:
> Better check on mlm because you will see I've taken this thread back
> there once already you big Idiot. I expect, since I still have front
> row parking in the "Winner's Circle" for life that I'll be able to
> post there whenever I want to. <G>
Trust me, I keep up with things. You totally misread the reception, and
if you post what I think you intend to post, your welcome will wear out
very fast.
Mark my word.
>> You're totally and utterly pathetic. You're stuck in a time warp.
>> Your brain runs more miles in a week than a NASCAR driver drives in a
>> year.
>
> You would never be able to use that crap in court you big Idiot.
Well guess what...this isn't a courtroom.
>
>> > Also it was the only thing I could post about that I could prove.
>>
>> Prove to who? You've done nothing but sit on your ass for nineteen
>> years and whine about it. The only thing that "proves" is that you
>> are unable to prove anything, because those whom you despise are
>> still in power, and you are where you are, which is constantly in
>> question in and of itself, because you refuse to "prove" anything
>> surrounding that issue as well.
>
> Get a life Tony. I'm sure you have better things to do than stick
> your foot in your mouth again.
Let me worry about where my foot is, and you tend to where yours are.
At least mine are on the ground. Yours are up in the clouds somewhere.
>> So what exactly are you capable of "proving"? Not much, I assure you.
>
> I'll say this slowly so maybe you will understand. W A I T F O R
> I T.
You're gonna get your ass sued but big, and when they finish this time,
you'll have plenty enough to whine about from your grave.
>> > Man, you are starting to be as big an Idiot as Tim is. Talking
>> > about Tim, you should be shitting on him and not me. He is the one
>> > that keeps this shit going and going and going or are you too
>> > stupid to see that?
>>
>> Can you "prove" that one too? Quit posting one word about off-topic
>> issues, such as your long dead, legal blunder, and we'll see who
>> revives it.
>
> Well, we already know I have a scheduled Reply to MPB so there will be
> that one. Other than that, I just have to keep screwing with the
> Trolls like you on this NG.
Nope. I'm just about finished with you for good. I just want to see if
you're brave enough to stick your toe into water so hot that it will
leave you with little nubbins to walk on.
>> You can't STAND for it to die. Every fucking time that it dies for 24
>> hours, you go and dig up some obscure post from weeks, months, or
>> even years ago, and you respond to it, as if it were being read for
>> the first time, and I assure you that I can PROVE that too.
> Don't forget how all this crap was started. It was a hijacked thread
> by tscottme then a recanted opinion by Dave Ruff and a nymshift by
> Zeke.
Nope. You brought links to your shrine sites in here. No one gives a
crap about anything but the fact that you have ruined this group. And
the payback is getting to watch you hang yourself with your own noose.
>> >> So why are you trying to claim to be a trucker, when the fact is
>> >> that you'll discuss only one issue in this trucking group? Your
>> >> legal blunders are not our business, our concern, nor anything
>> >> else to those of us that have had it up to our eyebrows with you
>> >> and this shit.
>>
>> > WRONG WRONG WRONG. Tim was trying to bullshit about everything in
>> > my life and winning the Jury trial was the only I could prove where
>> > he couldn't claim it was faked. DUH. But he tried to claim that
>> > anyway.
>>
>> Like it or not, that's basically the truth. The only record of your
>> existence is related to anytime you have been in dutch with the law.
>
> And I know I've posted something like this before. I wanted to learn
> from the prejudical people on this newsgroup because they would help
> me deal with the biased people in the legal system. Now it is my turn
> to show how much I've learned.
Yep, and it's gonna be fun, I assure you. You go ahead and post that
reply in MLM and see what happens to you. I'm gonna laugh my ass off
when they drag you in for a round of ass whoopin' that you ain't never
gonna wiggle out of.
>> Your other claims are unsubstantiated rumors, all claimed by yourself
>> and never backed up.
>
> What other claims??? You are being too obsure for me and it looks
> like you are posting more Troll food. Hmmm. Maybe you are posting
> more Troll food!
Your claim to have a CDL and to be a trucker. But no one cares anymore
what you are.
>> > If you look back at things you will see the progression of Tim's
>> > bullshit started with him bullshitting about my CDL on June 18,
>> > 2004. And that was because I answered a question with the term
>> > "Belly Strap" that you, bbelly and skatboard'n have all answered
>> > the same way since then!
>>
>> You've never conclusively proven that you have a CDL, but no one
>> gives a crap whether you have one or not. No one gives a crap about
>> your stupid legal blunder that you so lovingly gloat about, yet you
>> post on a daily basis about it, as if it were the most fascinating
>> subject on earth.
>
> My "legal blunder" was not really a "legal blunder" at all and if you
> had any brains you would see that. I look forward to replying to
> MPB's post but I'm going to get some legal advice first. Do you blame
> me?
Nope. That might be the smartest thing you will have ever done in your
life. But I'm betting you're gonna find it too hard to resist, even if
you get advice to shut up for once in your life, and you trust it.
You're too stupid to let it go.
> Oh yeah, and don't forget that the "liar" chant was started the day
> after I posted the term "Belly Strap." Who would have thought that
> you, bbelly and skatboard'n would all post "Belly Strap" the the same
> question I answered. That shows how stupid realitytrasher has been
> for the last 4+ years!
No one cares about that issue any longer.
> Dude, you had better take a veryclose look at that letter by Frank
> Fuhr. It only addressed leaving Cheryl alone and not the rest of her
> family so I waited for her to move out before I tried to accept the
> "Invitation to Dinner."
Dude...I don't care.
> The fact is, Beverly had no legal authority to have the letter written
> by Frank Fuhr in the first place and that is where Judge Brinn and the
> Appellate Court have made their biggest mistakes.
The fact is, that I or anyone else can hire an Attorney to write a
letter threatening legal action to anyone at anytime. There's no law
against that.
I can have one write you and say that if you don't start hiding the
diaper lines that I can see when you walk down the street, that I am
going to sue you to make you do it.
> Don't forget how Perry Mason won a lot of his cases. He would find
> the real culprit and that is how I won my last Jury Trial also you big
> Idiot.
Yep, you sure showed her alright, and exposed her as the "culprit".
How much was it you had to pay her again?
> Dude, this newsgroup is a perfect example of how fraud works. Once
> Dave Ruff started that shit about "Defending Richard" that he later
> recanted there was nothing at all I could do to stop it from going
> through this newsgroup like wildfire. It is all in the archives. You
> can see for yourself that realitytrasher chanted the word "Richard"
> hundreds of times after that.
Dude, you could take a lesson from Richard. The man has all but quit
what used to turn us against him. He's at least trying to fit in, and
has worked on some of the things that used to drive us bonkers.
>> You're disliked because you are an idiot with no concept of how to
>> socialize with others.
>
> Oh, you mean kiss butt to other Trolls. You have a point there but
> you could also be putting your foot in your mouth again too you know.
Coin it as you see fit. It's a fact that you cannot get along with
people, and I see nothing that will change that outlook any time soon.
>> Like anyone cares who you think lies about anything. I don't see
>> anyone rushing to tell him to leave this group, to shut the fuck up
>> all the time, or that he should be ignored, etc.
>
> It doesn't really matter now. If it wasn't for dealing with the
> Trolls here the only post I look forward to is where I reply to
> Michael P. Brinn.
I'm looking forward to it too. It's your funeral. I guess your planning
it.
> You just proved you are a big Idiot once again and if Lucy were here
> she could tell you to get your foot out of your mouth.
Lucy is a GUY, you waste of space, and your continued referring to it as
a "her" or a "she" really leaves me wondering if you have homosexual
leanings. But then, nothing would surprise me at this point.
You've GOT to be a complete virgin, because you haven't had time in your
life to set aside a moment or two to get laid. You've been too busy
chasing a woman who lost interest in you when she was still a child.
So don those chaps, hop on the Harley and ride to the biker bar, and
step up to the bar wand wink at the first guy you see. Who knows? You
and Lucy might actually hit it off.
realitytrucker
>
> Lucy is a GUY, you waste of space, and your continued referring to it as
> a "her" or a "she" really leaves me wondering if you have homosexual
> leanings. But then, nothing would surprise me
I think he's fully aware about Lucy. I think the only sexual
gratification he gets is from those guys that hang around the pickle
parks at night.
The Honorable Dr. Rocky Roads Presiding Judge
> "The Honorable Dr. Rocky Roads Presiding Judge" <woo...@att.net> wrote
> in
> news:b0db810b-6235-4227...@i76g2000hsf.googlegroups.com:
>
Moot point now. I wanted to learn from the extremly biased people on this
newsgroup and I have.
I've told Tim/realitytrasher that he can't hold a candle to MPB and you
can't either because you are both big Idiots.
I'm ready to take my test with MPB and see what happens but before I reply
to him I will contact a few attorneys and get their input. There are just a
few descriptions I want help on.
< gibberish garaged >
> Let me worry about where my foot is, and you tend to where yours are.
>
> At least mine are on the ground. Yours are up in the clouds somewhere.
No, your feet are not on the ground they are in your mouth along with the
dirt you try to spew out.
> > I'll say this slowly so maybe you will understand. W A I T F O R
> > I T.
>
> You're gonna get your ass sued but big, and when they finish this time,
> you'll have plenty enough to whine about from your grave.
W A I T F O R I T again you big Idiot. You have been W R O N G before
and so has realitytrasher.
> Nope. I'm just about finished with you for good. I just want to see if
> you're brave enough to stick your toe into water so hot that it will
> leave you with little nubbins to walk on.
How many times are you going to say that?
I will say one thing. I want dead silence for a day or two before I reply
to MPB so the more you Trolls keep the flames going the longer it will take
for what might be my Grand Finale.
> Nope. You brought links to your shrine sites in here. No one gives a
> crap about anything but the fact that you have ruined this group. And
> the payback is getting to watch you hang yourself with your own noose.
Look again dude. I can find post after post where I was accused of
"Defending Richard" and prove that fraud was started by Dave Ruff on
December 16, 2003 and he recanted it years later.
This whole newsgroup had been making "Much adu about nothing" for years and
years just like Beverly Rusk made "much adu about nothing" when she refused
to let me answer her daughter's questions.
> Yep, and it's gonna be fun, I assure you. You go ahead and post that
> reply in MLM and see what happens to you. I'm gonna laugh my ass off
> when they drag you in for a round of ass whoopin' that you ain't never
> gonna wiggle out of.
Just "Wait For It" dude and don't forget I want at least a day of silence
before I reply to MPB. Fair enough?
> Your claim to have a CDL and to be a trucker. But no one cares anymore
> what you are.
Yeah, I don't even care anymore. I got what I wanted after all this time.
I got the chance to face my accusor and I'm going to savor this moment
before I Reply to him.
> Nope. That might be the smartest thing you will have ever done in your
> life. But I'm betting you're gonna find it too hard to resist, even if
> you get advice to shut up for once in your life, and you trust it.
Don't forget who you are talking to. You are talking to a person that went
into a Jury Trial without an Attorney and ended up surprising everybody!!!
Once more don't forget that you big Idiot.
> You're too stupid to let it go.
Read the above remark and then just W A I T F O R I T.
> > Oh yeah, and don't forget that the "liar" chant was started the day
> > after I posted the term "Belly Strap." Who would have thought that
> > you, bbelly and skatboard'n would all post "Belly Strap" the the same
> > question I answered. That shows how stupid realitytrasher has been
> > for the last 4+ years!
>
> No one cares about that issue any longer.
Probably but it still goes to show how the "Web of Deception" between the
Trolls here has worked on this newsgroup. More at:
http://MTT.JusticeGoneWild.com
> > Dude, you had better take a veryclose look at that letter by Frank
> > Fuhr. It only addressed leaving Cheryl alone and not the rest of her
> > family so I waited for her to move out before I tried to accept the
> > "Invitation to Dinner."
>
> Dude...I don't care.
whatever.
> > The fact is, Beverly had no legal authority to have the letter written
> > by Frank Fuhr in the first place and that is where Judge Brinn and the
> > Appellate Court have made their biggest mistakes.
>
> The fact is, that I or anyone else can hire an Attorney to write a
> letter threatening legal action to anyone at anytime. There's no law
> against that.
True, but this was different. It was a Prejudiced Mother using fraud to
have a letter written that interfered with the rights of her very own
daughter who was 27 years old at the time
Bevelry would have had to have "Protective Custody" to do what she did and
need I remind you that the reason I was allowed to force the State to issue
a subpoena for Cheryl was because Beverly did not have "Protective Custody."
What makes it even funnier is look what happened when Beverly got her way.
When I informed Cheryl she was history her mother got what she wanted but
then what happened to Cheryl?
Her mother wasn't expecting that at all! And Beverly didn't figure out she
was harming her daughter until late December 1989 when she tried to screw
with her daughter's life again!
< shit and lies flushed >
> > Don't forget how Perry Mason won a lot of his cases. He would find
> > the real culprit and that is how I won my last Jury Trial also you big
> > Idiot.
>
> Yep, you sure showed her alright, and exposed her as the "culprit".
>
> How much was it you had to pay her again?
Doesn't matter because the fact remains there is a textbook example of why
the Sixth Amendment rights of the falsly accused should not be violated.
When judges violated my rights they made unfair assumptions about "Defense
Exibht #1" that was signed by Judge Brinn and basically trashed the most
important piece of Evidence against the State!
> Dude, you could take a lesson from Richard. The man has all but quit
> what used to turn us against him. He's at least trying to fit in, and
> has worked on some of the things that used to drive us bonkers.
You mean he is kissing butt. BFD you big Idiot
> Coin it as you see fit. It's a fact that you cannot get along with
> people, and I see nothing that will change that outlook any time soon.
Moot point.
< Trashed taken out >
>
> Lucy is a GUY, you waste of space, and your continued referring to it as
> a "her" or a "she" really leaves me wondering if you have homosexual
> leanings. But then, nothing would surprise me at this point.
It doesn't matter at all. As far as I'm concerned Lucy is a "Watcher" and
never gets involved with anybody. How I refer to Lucy is only something a
Troll like you would make a BFD about.
< Off - topic bullshit flushed >
< incessant rambling from the Troll Tony removed >
Rocky - BTW Tony my Straight Flush beat your aces and eights. <G>
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.transport.trucking/msg/1795818394b96a24
~Tony~
> Moot point now. I wanted to learn from the extremly biased people on
> this newsgroup and I have.
More proof that you're no trucker.
> I've told Tim/realitytrasher that he can't hold a candle to MPB and
> you can't either because you are both big Idiots.
Then you're likely to discover at some point that the world is filled
with your version of "idiots".
> I'm ready to take my test with MPB and see what happens but before I
> reply to him I will contact a few attorneys and get their input.
> There are just a few descriptions I want help on.
Let me know how many hang up the phone on you.
> W A I T F O R I T again you big Idiot. You have been W R O N G
> before and so has realitytrasher.
I don't CARE. It's your issue to deal with. And for the record, I
haven't been proven WRONG on a damn thing. What I did was to give up the
ghost.
You can STILL prove me to be a liar anytime you desire.
> I will say one thing. I want dead silence for a day or two before I
> reply to MPB so the more you Trolls keep the flames going the longer
> it will take for what might be my Grand Finale.
Oh brother...I could only hope that it would be true.
>> Nope. You brought links to your shrine sites in here. No one gives a
>> crap about anything but the fact that you have ruined this group. And
>> the payback is getting to watch you hang yourself with your own
>> noose.
> Look again dude. I can find post after post where I was accused of
> "Defending Richard" and prove that fraud was started by Dave Ruff on
> December 16, 2003 and he recanted it years later.
> This whole newsgroup had been making "Much adu about nothing" for
> years and years just like Beverly Rusk made "much adu about nothing"
> when she refused to let me answer her daughter's questions.
Look again yourself...DUDE. The only person who opened the door to
linking to your shirine sites, was you.
Everything else is of no concern to a soul in here. No one cares if you
live or die.
>> Your claim to have a CDL and to be a trucker. But no one cares
>> anymore what you are.
>
> Yeah, I don't even care anymore. I got what I wanted after all this
> time. I got the chance to face my accusor and I'm going to savor this
> moment before I Reply to him.
Gee...who'da thunk that you'd get to do that in a trucking newsgroup?
It makes as much sense as anything else that has been going on in here
over the past four years.
> Don't forget who you are talking to. You are talking to a person that
> went into a Jury Trial without an Attorney and ended up surprising
> everybody!!! Once more don't forget that you big Idiot.
Don't forget who you are talking to. I'm the one that completely knows
the truth as to how you pulled it off, and it was no great feat.
>> You're too stupid to let it go.
>
> Read the above remark and then just W A I T F O R I T.
Get busy and post it. I want to see you hang yourself in public.
>> > The fact is, Beverly had no legal authority to have the letter
>> > written by Frank Fuhr in the first place and that is where Judge
>> > Brinn and the Appellate Court have made their biggest mistakes.
>>
>> The fact is, that I or anyone else can hire an Attorney to write a
>> letter threatening legal action to anyone at anytime. There's no law
>> against that.
>
> True, but this was different. It was a Prejudiced Mother using fraud
> to have a letter written that interfered with the rights of her very
> own daughter who was 27 years old at the time
That's not, nor never has it been your issue to deal with. That was her
issue to deal with. It's that kind of argument that sinks you every time
you try to offer similar points to it.
> Bevelry would have had to have "Protective Custody" to do what she did
> and need I remind you that the reason I was allowed to force the State
> to issue a subpoena for Cheryl was because Beverly did not have
> "Protective Custody."
But Cheryl didn't testify.
> What makes it even funnier is look what happened when Beverly got her
> way. When I informed Cheryl she was history her mother got what she
> wanted but then what happened to Cheryl?
Cheryl found a loving truck driver that would mop the parking lot with
you, if you so much as attempt to speak to her again...that's what.
> Her mother wasn't expecting that at all! And Beverly didn't figure
> out she was harming her daughter until late December 1989 when she
> tried to screw with her daughter's life again!
Again, not your burden or business.
>> > Don't forget how Perry Mason won a lot of his cases. He would find
>> > the real culprit and that is how I won my last Jury Trial also you
>> > big Idiot.
>>
>> Yep, you sure showed her alright, and exposed her as the "culprit".
>>
>> How much was it you had to pay her again?
>
> Doesn't matter because the fact remains there is a textbook example of
> why the Sixth Amendment rights of the falsly accused should not be
> violated.
Yep...it's cited all the time for sixth amendment issues...right?
Nope. It's cited for a basis to deny frivolous litigation to continue.
> When judges violated my rights they made unfair assumptions about
> "Defense Exibht #1" that was signed by Judge Brinn and basically
> trashed the most important piece of Evidence against the State!
Wah!!!
>> Dude, you could take a lesson from Richard. The man has all but quit
>> what used to turn us against him. He's at least trying to fit in, and
>> has worked on some of the things that used to drive us bonkers.
>
> You mean he is kissing butt. BFD you big Idiot
Nope. He's amended his attitude and is offering respect and is now
receiving a little respect, and that's more than you will ever do or
achieve.
>> Coin it as you see fit. It's a fact that you cannot get along with
>> people, and I see nothing that will change that outlook any time
>> soon.
>
> Moot point.
I guess so, if you want to be a wallflower all your life.
>> Lucy is a GUY, you waste of space, and your continued referring to it
>> as a "her" or a "she" really leaves me wondering if you have
>> homosexual leanings. But then, nothing would surprise me at this
>> point.
>
> It doesn't matter at all. As far as I'm concerned Lucy is a "Watcher"
> and never gets involved with anybody. How I refer to Lucy is only
> something a Troll like you would make a BFD about.
Faggot.
> Rocky - BTW Tony my Straight Flush beat your aces and eights.
You haven't even got a pair of two's in your hand.
realitytrucker
<wook...@att.net> wrote:
>
> I've told Tim/realitytrasher that he can't hold a candle to MPB and you
> can't either because you are both big Idiots.
I agree. He's a retired state judge. I am just a humble truck
driver. Which is much more than anyone can TRUTHFULLY say about you.
> Look again dude. I can find post after post where I was accused of
> "Defending Richard" and prove that fraud was started by Dave Ruff on
> December 16, 2003 and he recanted it years later.
You WERE defending him, wannabe. You seemed to think that pedophilia
was no big thing. What a lying ass you are.
>
> > > Oh yeah, and don't forget that the "liar" chant was started the day
> > > after I posted the term "Belly Strap." Who would have thought that
> > > you, bbelly and skatboard'n would all post "Belly Strap" the the same
> > > question I answered. That shows how stupid realitytrasher has been
> > > for the last 4+ years!
Can you not read or is comprehension your problem. I considered you a
liar long before this "belly strap" issue came up. Besides, I thought
you said it was a "one letter typo" that started it?
>
> whatever.
TRANSLATION:
"I don't have an answer for that"
> < shit and lies flushed >
TRANSLATION:
I don't agree with your views so I call it names and refuse to address
it.
>
> > > Don't forget how Perry Mason won a lot of his cases. He would find
> > > the real culprit and that is how I won my last Jury Trial also you big
> > > Idiot.
Uh, Perry Mason was a FICTIONAL character. The "cases" were written
by Hollywood writers. It was fantasy. I guess thats why you think
its real because you live in fantasyland.
> > Dude, you could take a lesson from Richard. The man has all but quit
> > what used to turn us against him. He's at least trying to fit in, and
> > has worked on some of the things that used to drive us bonkers.
>
> You mean he is kissing butt. BFD you big Idiot
>
ROTFLMAO!! He's seen that there is a much bigger asshole on the group
(you) and he has stepped aside to let you bask in your "glory!
The Honorable Dr. Rocky Roads Presiding Judge
> "The Honorable Dr. Rocky Roads Presiding Judge" <woo...@att.net> wrote
> in news:d8Gdnd7RRfWW9ArV...@giganews.com:
>
> > Moot point now. I wanted to learn from the extremly biased people on
> > this newsgroup and I have.
>
> More proof that you're no trucker.
Your remark above is certainly proof that you are a Troll since you
are making a BFD over nothing again.
> > I've told Tim/realitytrasher that he can't hold a candle to MPB and
> > you can't either because you are both big Idiots.
>
> Then you're likely to discover at some point that the world is filled
> with your version of "idiots".
No, not filled because Lucy sees you as an Idiot too. Remember Lucy's
post where I had the Straight Flush in Spades King High? Lucy liked
that post.
> > I'm ready to take my test with MPB and see what happens but before I
> > reply to him I will contact a few attorneys and get their input.
> > There are just a few descriptions I want help on.
> Let me know how many hang up the phone on you.
whatever
> > W A I T F O R I T again you big Idiot. You have been W R O N G
> > before and so has realitytrasher.
>
> I don't CARE. It's your issue to deal with. And for the record, I
> haven't been proven WRONG on a damn thing. What I did was to give up the
> ghost.
>
> You can STILL prove me to be a liar anytime you desire.
I'm getting tired of that too.
> > I will say one thing. I want dead silence for a day or two before I
> > reply to MPB so the more you Trolls keep the flames going the longer
> > it will take for what might be my Grand Finale.
>
> Oh brother...I could only hope that it would be true.
Huh? Did you say something?
> >> Nope. You brought links to your shrine sites in here. No one gives a
> >> crap about anything but the fact that you have ruined this group. And
> >> the payback is getting to watch you hang yourself with your own
> >> noose.
>
> > Look again dude. I can find post after post where I was accused of
> > "Defending Richard" and prove that fraud was started by Dave Ruff on
> > December 16, 2003 and he recanted it years later.
>
> > This whole newsgroup had been making "Much adu about nothing" for
> > years and years just like Beverly Rusk made "much adu about nothing"
> > when she refused to let me answer her daughter's questions.
>
> Look again yourself...DUDE. The only person who opened the door to
> linking to your shirine sites, was you.
That was well after tscottme, Dave Ruff, Zeke and realitytrasher had
trashed this NG with their Trollbait so why cry about that now you big
Idiot?
> Everything else is of no concern to a soul in here. No one cares if you
> live or die.
I bet you say that too all the people that you consistantly post shit
about? Am I right again?
> >> Your claim to have a CDL and to be a trucker. But no one cares
> >> anymore what you are.
> >
> > Yeah, I don't even care anymore. I got what I wanted after all this
> > time. I got the chance to face my accusor and I'm going to savor this
> > moment before I Reply to him.
>
> Gee...who'da thunk that you'd get to do that in a trucking newsgroup?
Who says it's going to be in a trucking newsgroup? Or did you forget
how to spell mlm again?
> It makes as much sense as anything else that has been going on in here
> over the past four years.
Yeah, like being call a "liar" right after posting a correct answer.
I have to agree this place is full of fruits.
> > Don't forget who you are talking to. You are talking to a person that
> > went into a Jury Trial without an Attorney and ended up surprising
> > everybody!!! Once more don't forget that you big Idiot.
>
> Don't forget who you are talking to. I'm the one that completely knows
> the truth as to how you pulled it off, and it was no great feat.
But, to this date you have not stated the two operations it took so I
think you are BSing again.
Plus if you really knew it is too bad you couldn't have told the State
that they were making a big mistake before the Trial. It would have
kept the egg off their faces. <G>
> Get busy and post it. I want to see you hang yourself in public.
W A I T F O R I T and don't forget I want to see a cease fire
for a few days first.
> >> > The fact is, Beverly had no legal authority to have the letter
> >> > written by Frank Fuhr in the first place and that is where Judge
> >> > Brinn and the Appellate Court have made their biggest mistakes.
> >>
> >> The fact is, that I or anyone else can hire an Attorney to write a
> >> letter threatening legal action to anyone at anytime. There's no law
> >> against that.
> >
> > True, but this was different. It was a Prejudiced Mother using fraud
> > to have a letter written that interfered with the rights of her very
> > own daughter who was 27 years old at the time
>
> That's not, nor never has it been your issue to deal with. That was her
> issue to deal with. It's that kind of argument that sinks you every time
> you try to offer similar points to it.
Your hopeless and the fact still stands Cheryl stated she had "Nothing
to do with that."
> > Bevelry would have had to have "Protective Custody" to do what she did
> > and need I remind you that the reason I was allowed to force the State
> > to issue a subpoena for Cheryl was because Beverly did not have
> > "Protective Custody."
>
> But Cheryl didn't testify.
She did when she was subpoenaed to testify in the Jury Trial I won won
won won won won won won won won won won you big Idiot.
> > What makes it even funnier is look what happened when Beverly got her
> > way. When I informed Cheryl she was history her mother got what she
> > wanted but then what happened to Cheryl?
>
< Tony's shit flushed >
>
> > Her mother wasn't expecting that at all! And Beverly didn't figure
> > out she was harming her daughter until late December 1989 when she
> > tried to screw with her daughter's life again!
>
> Again, not your burden or business.
Being a Good Samaritan is obviously not in your resume.
> >> > Don't forget how Perry Mason won a lot of his cases. He would find
> >> > the real culprit and that is how I won my last Jury Trial also you
> >> > big Idiot.
> >>
> >> Yep, you sure showed her alright, and exposed her as the "culprit".
> >>
> >> How much was it you had to pay her again?
> >
> > Doesn't matter because the fact remains there is a textbook example of
> > why the Sixth Amendment rights of the falsly accused should not be
> > violated.
>
> Yep...it's cited all the time for sixth amendment issues...right?
Yes a lot of web searches find if.
> Nope. It's cited for a basis to deny frivolous litigation to continue.
Wait for it and I'm not going to give you a preview either.
> > When judges violated my rights they made unfair assumptions about
> > "Defense Exibht #1" that was signed by Judge Brinn and basically
> > trashed the most important piece of Evidence against the State!
>
> Wah!!!
grow up kid
> >> Dude, you could take a lesson from Richard. The man has all but quit
> >> what used to turn us against him. He's at least trying to fit in, and
> >> has worked on some of the things that used to drive us bonkers.
> >
> > You mean he is kissing butt. BFD you big Idiot
>
> Nope. He's amended his attitude and is offering respect and is now
> receiving a little respect, and that's more than you will ever do or
> achieve.
ROTFLMAO Besides who cares?
> >> Coin it as you see fit. It's a fact that you cannot get along with
> >> people, and I see nothing that will change that outlook any time
> >> soon.
> >
> > Moot point.
>
> I guess so, if you want to be a wallflower all your life.
You have got issues. Let me quote your own words: that is "not your
burden or business"
Visit My Blog Page
http://SlimeFest.com
Rocky - Tony, I am not your burden or business.
~Tony~
> ~Tony~ wrote:
>> "The Honorable Dr. Rocky Roads Presiding Judge" <woo...@att.net>
>> wrote in news:d8Gdnd7RRfWW9ArV...@giganews.com:
>>
>> > Moot point now. I wanted to learn from the extremly biased people
>> > on this newsgroup and I have.
>>
>> More proof that you're no trucker.
>
> Your remark above is certainly proof that you are a Troll since you
> are making a BFD over nothing again.
I'm not making a big deal over it. I'm pointing out a fact.
You...Are...Not...A...Trucker.
Your claim now is that you came into this group to learn some legal points
from some biased people in this group, whatever that means.
You post around the clock. You're in here every day.
A man who supposedly was working in the capacity of hauling petroleum
products would not find time to be able to do this, and would most likely
be working twelve hour shifts, and be rather busy during those shifts. Yet
you find yourself in the unique position of being able to find all the time
in the world to...what is it?..."face your accusers" day and night, within
minutes most of the time after someone offers commentary, and you respond
with long and carefully crafted posts.
So really...calling me a troll bothers me not one bit. Your participation
in here more than contradicts anything you claim to be, and only you
believe the stuff you spew.
>> > I've told Tim/realitytrasher that he can't hold a candle to MPB and
>> > you can't either because you are both big Idiots.
>>
>> Then you're likely to discover at some point that the world is filled
>> with your version of "idiots".
>
> No, not filled because Lucy sees you as an Idiot too. Remember Lucy's
> post where I had the Straight Flush in Spades King High? Lucy liked
> that post.
Lucy is the best example you can come up with?
First of all, Lucy is most likely a guy that was spurned by this group
under another identity, and for good reason, if it is who I think it is. He
was trying to take cash out of hard working truckers by trying to sell a
product that was worthless. He might or might not be a trucker too. The guy
morphs every now and again and comes back for brief attacks.
Or, he might well be another of your own long list of identities you
created to play games in here. Either way, a guy who posts under a woman's
nic, while most certainly hasadmitted to having a phallus between his legs
in reality, doesn't really generate enough credibility for anyone to work
up a sweat over, unless your name is Roger Wittekind, who is a man with no
credibility at all.
In other words, what Lucy likes or dislikes is of no consequence.
>> You can STILL prove me to be a liar anytime you desire.
>
> I'm getting tired of that too.
Then shut the fuck up about it, or quit calling me the liar. Your refusal
to prove much of anything to anyone erodes your credibility below that of a
snake.
You've clearly contradicted yourself over many issues to the point that
rebounding vack above ground is rather impossible at this point.
About the only thing anyone knows about you that can be considered facts,
is your name, the fact that you have been in trouble with the law several
times, that you were charged with, but aquitted of a crime once, that you
like to run in marathons, that you hold a driver's license by a thin margin
due to numerous tickets, that you own a server that holds the content of
several sel-created websites, that you sleep very little, and that you are
a self-admitted and confirmed stalker of a woman and her family for more
just short of 40 years.
Anything else you claim is conjecture, rumor, or innuendo.
>> > I will say one thing. I want dead silence for a day or two before
>> > I reply to MPB so the more you Trolls keep the flames going the
>> > longer it will take for what might be my Grand Finale.
>>
>> Oh brother...I could only hope that it would be true.
>
> Huh? Did you say something?
Yep. I'll hold my breath for several days to see if that is another one of
your many typewritten untruths.
>> >> Nope. You brought links to your shrine sites in here. No one gives
>> >> a crap about anything but the fact that you have ruined this
>> >> group. And the payback is getting to watch you hang yourself with
>> >> your own noose.
>>
>> > Look again dude. I can find post after post where I was accused of
>> > "Defending Richard" and prove that fraud was started by Dave Ruff
>> > on December 16, 2003 and he recanted it years later.
>>
>> > This whole newsgroup had been making "Much adu about nothing" for
>> > years and years just like Beverly Rusk made "much adu about
>> > nothing" when she refused to let me answer her daughter's
>> > questions.
>>
>> Look again yourself...DUDE. The only person who opened the door to
>> linking to your shirine sites, was you.
>
> That was well after tscottme, Dave Ruff, Zeke and realitytrasher had
> trashed this NG with their Trollbait so why cry about that now you big
> Idiot?
Poor Woger. You are the worlds biggest whiner about people who pick on you,
yet you provide all the material that allows others to make the jokes
about, yet you are completely innocent and so misunderstood.
You did it right there in the same sentence that you wrote to accuse me of
"crying", when the fact is that no one is crying over you Woger. We simply
detest your presence in this group, and have from the moment you began
disrupting this group with your silly and childish banter.
You have displayed a level of immaturity that is unsurpassed by most
everyone who has ever written so much as one word in here, and have been
accused so many times of being only capable of communicating on a level
that a kid could muster up, when the fact is that you are a man of 54 years
of age, and anyone who popped into this group for the first time would be
shocked to learn that, I assure you.
One might decide to tell you to "grow up", but the fact is...you can't.
You're still that pimple faced little boy, who was ushered around the high
school by a counselor, and introduced to other kids, who were encouraged to
speak to you because you were too shy to do it yourself.
But online and in MTT, you're a MAN. You're a legal scholar. You're
whatever creation you decide to be when you conjure it up. But what you
aren't is more important, and those of us who have went the distance and
have resisted putting up with your crap know what you are.
>> Everything else is of no concern to a soul in here. No one cares if
>> you live or die.
>
> I bet you say that too all the people that you consistantly post shit
> about? Am I right again?
Nope. Most people know when the jig is up, when to back off, or when to go
somewhere else when the welcome wears out.
You're an enigma.
>> >> Your claim to have a CDL and to be a trucker. But no one cares
>> >> anymore what you are.
>> >
>> > Yeah, I don't even care anymore. I got what I wanted after all
>> > this time. I got the chance to face my accusor and I'm going to
>> > savor this moment before I Reply to him.
>>
>> Gee...who'da thunk that you'd get to do that in a trucking newsgroup?
>
> Who says it's going to be in a trucking newsgroup? Or did you forget
> how to spell mlm again?
Go ahead and post it and see what happens. I'll be laughing for the next
month over the reception it will receive, if it is allowed to be posted at
all.
Your "accuser", as you call him, came in here...only. He had the wisdom and
good sense to not use that group to address your immature and senseless
posts.
>> It makes as much sense as anything else that has been going on in
>> here over the past four years.
>
> Yeah, like being call a "liar" right after posting a correct answer.
> I have to agree this place is full of fruits.
That's the part you just don't get. No one cares what you are correct
about, or what you whine about anymore. You could post for the next ten
years and be correct in every response, and it wouldn't change a thing.
Why not? Because you are a stalker, a kook, a liar, and a whiner.
>
>> > Don't forget who you are talking to. You are talking to a person
>> > that went into a Jury Trial without an Attorney and ended up
>> > surprising everybody!!! Once more don't forget that you big Idiot.
>>
>> Don't forget who you are talking to. I'm the one that completely
>> knows the truth as to how you pulled it off, and it was no great
>> feat.
>
> But, to this date you have not stated the two operations it took so I
> think you are BSing again.
You're presuming that I really care how you were able to walk out of that
courtroom a free man. By all rights, you should have been convicted. You
were as guilty as can be, and that judgment comes from the court of
opinion, and based upon the analysis of four years of you pouring evidence
into this newsgroup that has led to the vote to convict you.
No one cares about how YOU view it, or how it was done...but you of course.
> Plus if you really knew it is too bad you couldn't have told the State
> that they were making a big mistake before the Trial. It would have
> kept the egg off their faces. <G>
It's okay Roger. You fucked up when you attempted to take that aquittal,
retrieve $630, and then were denied it. Further harrassment by appealing
that decision three times made you have to write two checks for triple what
you were trying to take, so the joke is and will always be on yourself, and
you are the only person who will never see it any other way.
>> >> > The fact is, Beverly had no legal authority to have the letter
>> >> > written by Frank Fuhr in the first place and that is where Judge
>> >> > Brinn and the Appellate Court have made their biggest mistakes.
>> >>
>> >> The fact is, that I or anyone else can hire an Attorney to write a
>> >> letter threatening legal action to anyone at anytime. There's no
>> >> law against that.
>> >
>> > True, but this was different. It was a Prejudiced Mother using
>> > fraud to have a letter written that interfered with the rights of
>> > her very own daughter who was 27 years old at the time
>>
>> That's not, nor never has it been your issue to deal with. That was
>> her issue to deal with. It's that kind of argument that sinks you
>> every time you try to offer similar points to it.
>
> Your hopeless and the fact still stands Cheryl stated she had "Nothing
> to do with that."
Cheryl has been none of your business since she quit speaking to you when
you were out just out of high school. Nothing else in the way you see it
matters one bit.
>> > Bevelry would have had to have "Protective Custody" to do what she
>> > did and need I remind you that the reason I was allowed to force
>> > the State to issue a subpoena for Cheryl was because Beverly did
>> > not have "Protective Custody."
>>
>> But Cheryl didn't testify.
>
> She did when she was subpoenaed to testify in the Jury Trial I won won
> won won won won won won won won won won you big Idiot.
Thank you for contradicting yourself once again. Earlier in this very
thread, you claimed there were TWO jury trials, when in fact there was only
one. Given the fact that you fail to maintain any consistency in what you
claim from day to day, and in this case...the same day, who knows what the
truth is?
Your truth is what you claim it to be, when you conjure it up.
You were aquitted, but you won nothing. And that will forever be the case
as viewed by everyone but yourself.
>> > What makes it even funnier is look what happened when Beverly got
>> > her way. When I informed Cheryl she was history her mother got what
>> > she wanted but then what happened to Cheryl?
>>
> < Tony's shit flushed >
>>
>> > Her mother wasn't expecting that at all! And Beverly didn't figure
>> > out she was harming her daughter until late December 1989 when she
>> > tried to screw with her daughter's life again!
>>
>> Again, not your burden or business.
>
> Being a Good Samaritan is obviously not in your resume.
Hey...if she breaks down on the side of the road and you give her a lift or
change her tire and talk about old times, that's makes yout a good
samaritan. If you follow the woman for 40 years, track her whereabouts at
all times and know every facet of her life for all of those 40 years,
harrass her family repeatedly up to the point and including suing them
because they were protecting their daughter, it will and always will make
you a stalker.
>> >> > Don't forget how Perry Mason won a lot of his cases. He would
>> >> > find the real culprit and that is how I won my last Jury Trial
>> >> > also you big Idiot.
>> >>
>> >> Yep, you sure showed her alright, and exposed her as the
>> >> "culprit".
>> >>
>> >> How much was it you had to pay her again?
>> >
>> > Doesn't matter because the fact remains there is a textbook example
>> > of why the Sixth Amendment rights of the falsly accused should not
>> > be violated.
>>
>> Yep...it's cited all the time for sixth amendment issues...right?
>
> Yes a lot of web searches find if.
Well...I've had my laughing outburst for the day. What a claim to fame.
>> Nope. It's cited for a basis to deny frivolous litigation to
>> continue.
>
> Wait for it and I'm not going to give you a preview either.
I don't have to wait for anything. I KNOW that your case is repeatedly
cited in a negative manner all the time in law references. I've read them.
>> >> Coin it as you see fit. It's a fact that you cannot get along with
>> >> people, and I see nothing that will change that outlook any time
>> >> soon.
>> >
>> > Moot point.
>>
>> I guess so, if you want to be a wallflower all your life.
>
> You have got issues. Let me quote your own words: that is "not your
> burden or business"
You just remember Roger, YOU made it everyone's business when you came in
here with an agenda, and you posted all the links to your silly shrine
sites, offered your childish banter for four years, which has set you up to
be the group joker over and over.
--
Visit My Blog Page
http://turbotrucker.blogspot.com/
The Honorable Dr. Rocky Roads Presiding Judge
> "The Honorable Dr. Rocky Roads Presiding Judge" <woo...@att.net> wrote
> in
> news:51598250-8311-4058...@34g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:
< Tony the Spinster has had his shit shit-canned >
Tony you are spinning on me again and big time just like you have done
before.
You are going round and round and round and even though I had given you a
very long reply to this exact same post, I decided I'd leave that reply in
my "Drafts" folder and only address the piece of total shit from you below.
> >> > Bevelry would have had to have "Protective Custody" to do what she
> >> > did and need I remind you that the reason I was allowed to force
> >> > the State to issue a subpoena for Cheryl was because Beverly did
> >> > not have "Protective Custody."
> >>
> >> But Cheryl didn't testify.
> >
> > She did when she was subpoenaed to testify in the Jury Trial I won won
> > won won won won won won won won won won you big Idiot.
>
> Thank you for contradicting yourself once again. Earlier in this very
> thread, you claimed there were TWO jury trials, when in fact there was
only
> one. Given the fact that you fail to maintain any consistency in what you
> claim from day to day, and in this case...the same day, who knows what the
> truth is?
Look at what was said above: I stated: "in the Jury Trial I won won won won
won won won won won won won won you big Idiot."
I only won won won won won won won won won won won won **ONE** jury trial
and why are you making such a big fuss over that?
The above is a perfect example of how you twist shit and you do shit like
that whenever you can too!
But I will state this about Judge Brinn since you have already been a sucker
for his shit.
Judge Brinn made it look like he had nothing to do with the "Report of
Proceedings" and you, like the *sucker* you are believed him.
You have fallen for the shit from the Appellate Court when they didn't even
have the "Report of Proceedings" signed by Judge Brinn and they should not
have tried to make assumptions about it because all that proved is they were
incapable of making assumptions about the facts without the facts! DUH
That is what the Sixth Amendment is for!
http://DesecratedSixthAmendment.com
Rocky
realitytrucker
<wook...@att.net> wrote:
> "~Tony~" <alprov...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>
> news:Xns9AF19A39EA5Fal...@38.119.100.144...
>
> > "The Honorable Dr. Rocky Roads Presiding Judge" <wook...@att.net> wrote
>
> - Show quoted text -
You "won won won won won won" nothing, you asshole loser. It was a
gimmie based on an error in paperwork. It didn't prove perjury...it
didn't prove anything except maybe that someone made ...uh, lemmee
see...how should I phrase this so the wannabe might comprehend it..I
dunno...maybe it was an..ERROR IN THE PAPERWORK.
You're making a big deal out of NOTHING just to try and make yourself
look like a BIG SHIT. Trust me, wannabe. We all already think of you
as big (bull) shit so knock off the bragging and crowing.. You are
NOT a big time lawyer. You just got lucky. You won't be so lucky
when Judge Brinn hauls your ass into the courtroom.
BTW, wannabe, where's this bigtime response to the judge? You kept
posting "WAIT FOR IT". Where is it? Chicken out again? You've
already proven to us time and time again that in addition to being a
liar and a fraud you are also a COWARD. So we should assume, I guess,
that you chickened out yet again after all of your big talk.
Joyce
so why not ........can't lose anything else
he lost it all years ago.....
joyce
The Honorable Dr. Rocky Roads Presiding Judge
>
> ERROR IN THE PAPERWORK.
Don't you ever forget two things.
1. I could have used that "ERROR IN THE PAPERWORK" to win my first jury
trial if I'd known the tricks the States uses in that jury trial.
http://overprotectivemother.com/coppula.htm
2, That "ERROR IN THE PAPERWORK" remained there even after I was granted a
follow-up investigation as you can see from this page:
http://brokensixthamendment.com/badattorneys/RichardCoppulaWasABadAttorney.htm
> You kept posting "WAIT FOR IT". Where is it?
W A I T F O R I T
W A I T F O R I T
W A I T F O R I T
Rocky - W A I T F O R I T
bbelly
Is this part of the 'total silence'?
The Honorable Dr. Rocky Roads Presiding Judge
"bbelly" <brian-be...@SPAMshaw.ca> wrote in message
news:TRYlk.161241$gc5.151419@pd7urf2no...
I asked for a day or two and I've never seen more than a few hours so far.
But now I want to see *some* trucking related post from realitytrasher and
Tony also.
Anyway Brian, you are the best and I will always thank you for the
information about the "Belly Strap" found near the bottom of this post of
yours:
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.transport.trucking/msg/3184672f34d14203
Rocky - Many thanks to Brian
bbelly
The Honorable Dr. Rocky Roads Presiding Judge
Oh yeah, I forgot that some posters go weird when I post the phrase
"Belly Strap."
Rocky - still waiting for on topic post
realitytrucker
<wook...@att.net> wrote:
>
> Rocky - still waiting for on topic post- Hide quoted text -
Then try posting one instead of bragging about a court case that was
given to you.
The Honorable Dr. Rocky Roads Presiding Judge
> On Aug 5, 11:08�am, "The Honorable Dr. Rocky Roads Presiding Judge"
> <wook...@att.net> wrote:
>
>
> >
> > Rocky - still waiting for on topic post- Hide quoted text -
>
> Then try posting one
Yeah right so you can call me a "liar" after I post another correct
answer?
After that you will have to post on topic first.
http://mtt.JusticeGoneWild.com
Rocky - Been there done that
bbelly
>>> Anyway Brian, you are the best
coming from you, that is a vacant compliment
>>> and I will always thank you
I would far prefer you never refer to me or my nic ( you know ... the
one I've been using for ... forever ) in ANY of your incredibly tangled
threads.
>>> for the
>>> information about the "Belly Strap"
For the record, it is NOT a "belly strap" ... it's a BELLY WRAP, and
further, it can be performed with chains as well.
But just shut up already.
Why in hell don't you jump up and down, waving a print of this post,
shouting "I won - I won" ad nauseum, until the short bus picks you up again.
>>> found near the bottom of this post of
>>> yours:
>>> http://groups.google.com/group/misc.transport.trucking/msg/3184672f34d14203
I find you have an excellent mind for minutia ... you're some sort of
idiot savant ... like the guy recently in the news for having an
extraordinary memory of all things occurring during his life
>>> Rocky - Many thanks to Brian
Just STFU. Are you so insecure that you feel the need to suck up to
anyone who gives you the time of day? I cannot for the life of me
remember the circumstances where I tapped something on my keyboard. In
future, I will endeavor to avoid any semblance of agreement with
anything you may be stating ... I don't care to be forever remembered as
a contributor to your life affirming attempt to justify your waste of
oxygen on our troubled planet.
I'm all for improving the future, learn from the past, get on with it.
CAN YOU HEAR ME ? ?
>> go fuck yourself
I stand by this demand
> Oh yeah, I forgot that some posters go weird when I post the phrase
> "Belly Strap."
good thing it's not you that's weird, eh?
> Rocky - still waiting for on topic post
WHAT?
YOU ARE WAITING FOR AN "ON TOPIC POST"
It is to laugh.
Do you suspect for a moment that you could be virtually the sole
generator of off topic nonsense here (other than some cross posting of
OS problems) ... I thought not. [needless to say, you imagine otherwise]
You stated recently (in reply) that you could (talk) like a trucker ...
once more ... just a wannabee ... though language may be course, it is
more germain that it is well considered, inventive, and entertaining.
For instance, some of the more memorable postings towards your plight of
sleepless nights, did not use a single expletive, whereas you must have
some sort of key mapping program to aid repetitive foot stomping of all
those words you heard on the playground 'all those years ago'...[ctrl F
= 'I won 12-0']
Rather juvenile ... but we know that.
So you need "quiet" to formulate your 'grand finale'?
Might I suggest that YOU HAVE THE POWER (button).
In what part of your control system do you imagine that anyone would
entertain accepting instruction from YOU?
And whilst I am on a roll...
why why why do you not address the issues put to you?
I could care no less that you do not have a CDL - just admit to that,
and that subject is gone from the weave. The collective could then help
you - advise you - on how to come across to your next 'conquest' of how
to behave as 'billy big rigger' [sorry bullis ... and btw, you are
indeed much more acceptable to my sensibilities over the last while -
can't pin it to date/time/message or moment ... just demeanor]. Oh wait
... There are no 'conquests', are there? Just a pathetic, paranoid,
obsessed, self satisfied virgin.
ROCKY ... ya don't have to reply! DON'T WASTE THE EFFORT! We heard it
already. Please enjoy your "QUIET TIME" ... we await your reply after
your 'due deliberation of the legal ramifications of responding to that
anally orificed judge who may, as I type, issue a warrant for me, for
saying that, to be served the next time I pass through the 'world's
largest truck stop'. Though perhaps his radar is dialed in somewhat
closer to the crisis.
*** An observation ... why must the 'potty mouths' combine the terms
"asshole" and "full of shit"? Wouldn't one negate the other? RIP GC ***
ROCKY ... the sorry truth of your existence here is that you are an
entertainment. We have all colluded, since star date 7.12.465.12 to pick
on YOU, for our twisted amusement.
[I trust no one has informed rocky of our secret buliten board, where we
formulate the attacks upon the MMTT (Messiah of Misc Transport Trucking)
for that must surely lead to our reversion to on topic posting]
Due to the interruptions of having a LIFE (find one you twit!), I have
to leave this for now. I shall post it, incomplete as it is, to
entertain the audience.
Afterall, wannabe, that is all you are here!
realitytrucker
<snipped for brevity>
>
> Afterall, wannabe, that is all you are here!
Couldn't have said it any better myself.
ROTFLMAO!!!!!
The Honorable Dr. Rocky Roads Presiding Judge
then have a good one.
BTW I spoke to an Attorney at lunch today and he remembers MPB and his
dad. <EOT>
Rocky - Still waiting for Tim to post on-topic
bbelly
> then have a good one.
>
dogs in the que, I'd guess.
> BTW I spoke to an Attorney at lunch today and he remembers MPB and his
> dad. <EOT>
and this is topical to MY post ... HOW ?
>
> Rocky - Still waiting for Tim to post on-topic
just a silly little tag line.
[secret coded message to cartel >>> kdjfg lsi3946 lit w t[k[khz/' -
fjhlartt0w pijtwp946 n puys; u9wy p;ytj-=-ujynsb 'hjhg[ LOL LOL LOL !<<< ]
bbelly
> [secret coded message to cartel >>> kdjfg lsi3946 lit w t[k[khz/' -
> fjhlartt0w pijtwp946 n puys; u9wy p;ytj-=-ujynsb 'hjhg[ LOL LOL LOL !<<< ]
OH CRAP ... sorry guy's ... I thought talking to rocky was in a
different dimension from reality.
Odds are, he won't notice ... so much flies past him ... we should
remain safe ... resume private conversation.
[ Uh ... I hope I'm not going to be moderated out for my faux pas ...
please forgive my indiscretion...I promise to be more discreet ]
The Honorable Dr. Rocky Roads Presiding Judge
> bbelly wrote:
>
> OH CRAP ... sorry guy's
whatever
Rocky - Waiting 4 Tim & Tony 2 post on-topic
Gashauler
"The Honorable Dr. Rocky Roads Presiding Judge" <woo...@att.net> wrote in
message
news:23719026-6cec-426f...@a1g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
realitytrucker wrote:
> On Aug 5, 11:08?am, "The Honorable Dr. Rocky Roads Presiding Judge"
> <wook...@att.net> wrote:
>
>
> >
> > Rocky - still waiting for on topic post- Hide quoted text -
>
> Then try posting one
Yeah right so you can call me a "liar" after I post another correct
answer?
After that you will have to post on topic first.
You'll never be able to go into detail about trucks. Just in this thread
bbelly told you that you were wrong about your "Big Claim" about belly
straps. I've been driving for over 20 years and let's see that's 20 years
more than you and I didn't know about belly straps or any straps. I used
chains so big deal. But then again you wouldn't know about truck and
trailers and something simple like how many pivots points they have or how
to hook up a set of triples. You can not discuss simple trucking issues on
this group because when you do you come up wrong. Hell you don't even know
how to set the brakes or fill the truck with fuel. I've look back and you
are number one for posting off topic so we can add hypocrite to liar and
fraud. You'd think you would want to stop making yourself look so stupid all
the time but just like everyone says you can not listen. Show one post where
more than one poster has gone against anyone else. You can't but we can show
over 4 years where people have spoke against you. Tim's 100% right you need
help.
The Honorable Dr. Rocky Roads Presiding Judge
>
> bbelly told you that you were wrong about your "Big Claim" about belly
> straps.
You had better look a little closer at the facts.
On June 17, 2004 I posted that the strap in question was a "Belly
Strap."
Richard said it was not a "Belly Strap."
Tim started calling me a "liar" after Richard's post.
Then someone else posted it was a "choke strap."
I ended up believing it was a "choke strap" for years only to find out
from bbelly early this year that I had been right all along when I
posted it was a "Belly Strap!"
Now who are the assholes Dave Ruff?
You can find links and ways to get to all the post in question at:
http://mtt.JusticeGoneWild.com
Rocky - Dave Ruff is messed up as usual too.
bbelly
A certified driver of large-ish commercial vehicles would -
i) Know in the first place
ii) Have compadres to discuss this with
iii) Realize that it doesn't matter
iv) Get on with the job
v) Have a wife, life, and a beverage, rather than an ill obsession
with ... everything
AND ALL OF YOU MUST CEASE AND DESIST USING THE COPYWRITTEN TERM 'belly
strap' WHICH IS OBVIOUSLY A TERM I COINED ON THE CUSP OF THE THIRD MOON
OF THE EVENING LIGHT OF ...
oh sorry ... here I'm trying to sound as insane as Rocky, and ... just
can't. No talent for it.
Sigh...
"What a marroon ... Bugs Bunny" (an intellectual giant to rocky)
The Honorable Dr. Rocky Roads Presiding Judge
> The Honorable Dr. Rocky Roads Presiding Judge wrote:
> > Gashauler wrote:
> >> bbelly told you that you were wrong about your "Big Claim" about belly
> >> straps.
> >
> > You had better look a little closer at the facts.
> >
> > On June 17, 2004 I posted that the strap in question was a "Belly
> > Strap."
> >
> > Richard said it was not a "Belly Strap."
> >
> > Tim started calling me a "liar" after Richard's post.
> >
> > Then someone else posted it was a "choke strap."
> >
> > I ended up believing it was a "choke strap" for years only to find out
> > from bbelly early this year that I had been right all along when I
> > posted it was a "Belly Strap!"
> >
> > Now who are the assholes Dave Ruff?
> >
> > You can find links and ways to get to all the post in question at:
> > http://mtt.JusticeGoneWild.com
> >
> > Rocky - Dave Ruff is messed up as usual too.
>
> A certified driver of large-ish commercial vehicles would -
>
> i) Know in the first place
> ii) Have compadres to discuss this with
> iii) Realize that it doesn't matter
Sorry Brian but I have to thank you again. Thanks Brian.
Your humor is pretty good even when you are misguided.
Now that I've caught Dave Ruff, Tony and Tim all making stupid
mistakes in a fraud-war that is about to reach it's fifth year I feel
better.
Final note for Tim. The reason I went without an attorney to my first
jury trial is that trial was a gimme also. As a matter of fact I had
to work to lose it. Why did I want to lose it? So I could use the
neighbors and the police officers and have Beverly charged with
Perjury but Richard Coppula did a number on me there.
Rocky - Waiting for an on-topic post from Tim.
Gashauler
The only thing you've caught is a case of syphilis which explains why your
brain works the way it does. AGAIN you've proved nothing. OH Wait, you have
proven you're an idiot among other things so I guess you have proven
something. My bad..
The Honorable Dr. Rocky Roads Presiding Judge
All you proved is you are as unwilling to look at evidence as Judge
Brinn was. BFD.
Rocky - Dave go fishing and then stop fishing/trolling when you get
back here.
realitytrucker
> "The Honorable Dr. Rocky Roads Presiding Judge" <wook...@att.net> wrote in
> messagenews:23719026-6cec-426f...@a1g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>
> realitytrucker wrote:
> > On Aug 5, 11:08?am, "The Honorable Dr. Rocky Roads Presiding Judge"
> > <wook...@att.net> wrote:
>
> > > Rocky - still waiting for on topic post- Hide quoted text -
>
> > Then try posting one
>
> Yeah right so you can call me a "liar" after I post another correct
> answer?
I dunno. Try posting one and we'll see.
The Honorable Dr. Rocky Roads Presiding Judge
> On Aug 5, 5:14�pm, "Gashauler" <swordfi...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > "The Honorable Dr. Rocky Roads Presiding Judge" <wook...@att.net> wrote in
> > messagenews:23719026-6cec-426f...@a1g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > realitytrucker wrote:
> > > On Aug 5, 11:08?am, "The Honorable Dr. Rocky Roads Presiding Judge"
> > > <wook...@att.net> wrote:
> >
> > > > Rocky - still waiting for on topic post- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > > Then try posting one
> >
> > Yeah right so you can call me a "liar" after I post another correct
> > answer?
>
> I dunno. Try posting one and we'll see.
4
~Tony~
> Tony you are spinning on me again and big time just like you have done
> before.
What's your point, you spinning, diaper wearing ballerina?
> You are going round and round and round and even though I had given
> you a very long reply to this exact same post, I decided I'd leave
> that reply in my "Drafts" folder and only address the piece of total
> shit from you below.
Okey Dokey.
> Look at what was said above: I stated: "in the Jury Trial I won won
> won won won won won won won won won won you big Idiot."
>
> I only won won won won won won won won won won won won **ONE** jury
> trial and why are you making such a big fuss over that?
You lost. The two checks you wrote totaling $1,861.82 more than negate the
win, just as the Judge stated too.
> The above is a perfect example of how you twist shit and you do shit
> like that whenever you can too!
You lost.
> But I will state this about Judge Brinn since you have already been a
> sucker for his shit.
>
> Judge Brinn made it look like he had nothing to do with the "Report of
> Proceedings" and you, like the *sucker* you are believed him.
I have no response to that.
> You have fallen for the shit from the Appellate Court when they didn't
> even have the "Report of Proceedings" signed by Judge Brinn and they
> should not have tried to make assumptions about it because all that
> proved is they were incapable of making assumptions about the facts
> without the facts! DUH That is what the Sixth Amendment is for!
"Mr. Wittekind just doesn't understand the machinations of the law".
~Tony~
Rocky
>
> "Mr. Wittekind just doesn't understand the machinations of the law".
Quote from a possible post to mlm.
This whole issue is a love triangle that with the help of Judge Brinn and a
misrepresented legal preceedent turned into a legal precedent where they
claim the "Mack" case lets them violate the Sixth Amendment, overlook the
"Evidence of Malice" that was on the Transcript and throw away "Defense
Exhibit #1" even when that was the most damaging exhibit to the State's
case!
Rocky - Wait for it.
~Tony~
in news:l-GdndGmMOxg3wXV...@giganews.com:
> Don't you ever forget two things.
>
> 1. I could have used that "ERROR IN THE PAPERWORK" to win my first
> jury trial if I'd known the tricks the States uses in that jury trial.
Gee...then maybe you should have hired an Attorney, because most Attornies
"understand the machinations of the law".
> 2, That "ERROR IN THE PAPERWORK" remained there even after I was
> granted a follow-up investigation as you can see from this page:
And you lost all your appeals because why? because the Defendant acted in
"good faith" and because you had no "understanding of the machinations of
the law".
~Tony~
~Tony~
in news:ANqdne4qiJ3z-gXV...@giganews.com:
> I asked for a day or two and I've never seen more than a few hours so
> far.
>
> But now I want to see *some* trucking related post from realitytrasher
> and Tony also.
I told you a long time ago, diaper boy...you don't get to dictate anything
in here.
I don't care what you post. You're not fooling anyone but yourself, and no
one is going to be able to dig you out of the hole you are going to dig for
yourself before this is all over.
Rocky
> "The Honorable Dr. Rocky Roads Presiding Judge" <woo...@att.net> wrote
> in news:l-GdndGmMOxg3wXV...@giganews.com:
>
> > Don't you ever forget two things.
> >
> > 1. I could have used that "ERROR IN THE PAPERWORK" to win my first
> > jury trial if I'd known the tricks the States uses in that jury trial.
>
> Gee...then maybe you should have hired an Attorney, because most Attornies
> "understand the machinations of the law".
That is just it. I hired an attorney and he wouldn't talk to me about it
before the trial so I fired him. More about Joe Trujillo can be found at:
http://brokensixthamendment.com/badattorneys/GetRidOfJoe.htm
> > 2, That "ERROR IN THE PAPERWORK" remained there even after I was
> > granted a follow-up investigation as you can see from this page:
>
> And you lost all your appeals because why? because the Defendant acted in
> "good faith" and because you had no "understanding of the machinations of
> the law".
Quote from a possible post to mlm.
~Tony~
in
news:4d5bdeaa-e077-48db...@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:
> Oh yeah, I forgot that some posters go weird when I post the phrase
> "Belly Strap."
That's probably because most people have a deep seated fear in finding out
what you probably do with a "belly strap".
It's really no secret that you are rather sex starved.
~Tony~
Rocky
you are having your psycho problem.