info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Roger Wittekind altered court transcripts to bleat out his lies.
14 views
Skip to first unread message
Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
Aug 31, 2015, 12:59:43 AM8/31/15
to
<http://misc.legal.narkive.com/zSNeO9Nn/can-anyone-decipher-this>
Hi, misc.legal! Just bringing home to roost one of your old-timer
kooks... ready your pointy sticks, because he's even kookier now than
when you last saw him. LOL
Roger Wittekind, the broken-brained schizophrenic paranoid-delusional
conspiracy theory kook, woman stalking nutjob, malicious obsesso who
got smacked down by the court system when he tried to harass a woman
via the courts for having the audacity to try to protect her daughter
against his nearly two decades of stalking, and the guy who rolled his
tanker truck and got charged with failure to maintain control of his
vehicle... and now he's an unemployable loser spending his few
remaining days bleating out wholly impossible 9/11 nuclear demolition
conspiracy theories that violate the laws of physics in several ways.
Of course, par for the course, RockyRetard says everyone but him is
lying. All of NYC were paid "disinformation agents", apparently. Ask
him about his "speshul" nukes that had magical detonators such that
they wouldn't produce an EMP or any radioactive fallout. Ask him about
his magical nukes that could autonomously dig through miles of solid
bedrock in only seconds prior to detonating. Ask him about his magical
nukes that could somehow pick and choose which buildings they
affected. LOL
Some select quotes about Rocky (aka Roger Wittekind the schizophrenic
paranoid-delusional woman-stalking failed truck driver):
1) ======================================================
He didn't know how to get exhibits entered into evidence and didn't
know how to overcome a hearsay objection. The defense attorney's
objections were successful as to most evidence offered by plaintiff.
Plaintiff lost the case on a directed verdict motion and blames the
attorney and the judge for violating his constitutional rights. He
refers to the sixth amendment even though it has nothing to do with a
civil lawsuit trial. Since I didn't read any of the transcripts that
are apparently available by links, I could be completely wrong about
what happened. I am willing to look, and form an impression, and
report the results, but I am not willing to make a project out of
understanding a rant.
This website is not unusual in one sense. In-pro-per litigants often
blame others for their failure to learn enough to authenticate and
enter evidence in a civil trial. For some reason I can never get one
of them to clarify, they believe that common sense and logical
arguments should be enough to win a civil trial when one is right,
that the judge should ignore all rules of evidence when the in-pro-per
litigant thinks this would lead to the right result, that all evidence
they offer should be automatically admissible because it is on the
side of the angels. When they lose, it is always someone else's fault.
I noticed that even now, after the trial and after enough time has
passed to create a website, he still doesn't say anything about what
was legally wrong with a hearsay objection or what specifically was
legally wrong with the judge's ruling on any of the other objections
made by the opposing counsel. That means to me that he has still not
looked up the law concerning admissibility of the evidence.
=========================================================
It very quickly devolves into raucous laughter at the broken-brained
kook...
2) ======================================================
Even as stupid as you are you should be able to see what's wrong with
that . But, no...not perfect Roger. He never does anything wrong. He
never stalked that poor girl. She had on the same type jeans as he did
so that means she was hopelessly in love with him so its all her
fault. She looked at him so that means she was hopelessly in love with
him. I don't know why the judge and jury couldn't see that. It's soooo
obvious.
And here's MORE proof: He uses a laptop while driving. He takes photos
while driving. He's run his truck out of fuel not once but TWICE and
bragged about it right here on this group for all the world to see!!
And if THAT isn't the mark of a REAL truck driver I just don't know
what is! I know I don't do those things so I must not be a real truck
driver.
NOTE: He actually ran out of fuel *3* times in his short truck driving
career. LOL
=========================================================
3) ======================================================
You forgot that time he didn't set the brakes...
=========================================================
4) ======================================================
He wants everyone to believe he was pulling oversized loads barely 3
months outta truckdriver school.
=========================================================
Poor stupid schizophrenic paranoid-delusional Roger Wittekind... he's
been a loser and a liar for decades, and he's sliding downhill fast.
<snicker>
--
Roger T.E. Wittekind
PO Box 471
167 40th Avenue
East Moline, IL 61244
309-755-6374
309-755-6394
Roger Wittekind the woman-stalking failed truck driver from East
Moline, IL.
Roger Wittekind (aka Rocky), your brain is grasping at straws in
trying to avoid admitting *you* *are* *wrong*, and as your brain
becomes more and more desperate to avoid the truth we promulgate
(which utterly demolishes your kook conspiracy theory), it makes
larger and larger leaps of illogic.
For instance:
=============================
A) You said the satellite uplink inteference seen in the WCBS video
*you* *provided* was a nuke EMP, so your broken brain told you they
must have buried nukes under the twin towers. Being a simpleton, you
believed they just dug shallow holes, dropped the nukes in, smoothed
over the concrete and walked away for 33 years.
B) Your timing on the WCBS video *you* *provided* between the
satellite uplink interference (what you deemed to be a "nuke EMP") and
the tower shaking being 12 seconds (it was actually 14 seconds, but
kooks can't count) means your supposed nukes had to have been buried
from 37.28 to 96.93 *miles* below the surface (dependent upon soil
composition and thus speed of compressive blast transmission). Never
mind that we don't have the technology to drill that deep even today,
let alone in 1968. Your broken brain had to yet again change your
kooky little conspiracy theory to at least try to orient itself at
some acute angle to reality. So no "dug a shallow hole, dropped the
nukes in, covered it up, walked away for 33 years" anymore, now it was
"dug an impossibly deep hole, dropped the nukes in, covered it up,
walked away for 33 years".
C) You're such a simpleton you didn't realize nukes require periodic
replacement of their neutron-source trigger, which naturally
radioactively decays over time, building up the decay byproduct xenon,
which absorbs neutrons. It's called xenon poisoning. So your broken
brain told you that someone had to service those nukes to keep the
triggers viable... which means your broken brain was thus *forced* to
change from "dug a shallow hole, dropped the nukes in, covered it up,
walked away for 33 years", to "dug an impossibly deep hole, dropped
the nukes in, covered it up, walked away for 33 years", to "built an
entire *facility* impossibly deep under the WTC, complete with service
personnel and" "4 blast doors to keep the explosion from getting back
into the area the nukes were maintained" (your words).
D) Your broken brain then said there were 19 nukes instead of your
original 3, because you knew there were 19 instances of satellite
uplink interference in the WCBS video *you* *provided*, in which you
k'lamed one of the instances of satellite uplink interference was an
EMP. And if you k'lame one of them is an EMP, they *all* must be EMPs,
so your broken brain now tells you there were 19 nukes detonated in
rapid succession... completely ignoring the fact that even one nuke
detonation would plunge the city into darkness due to EMP burning out
electrical substations, and completely ignoring the fact that no
nuclear detonation byproducts were found in the rubble, in the
vicinity of the rubble, or anywhere in NYC.
E) Now that your broken brain was convinced that the nukes were buried
deeply, of course, they had a very wide blast radius, which screwed up
your kooky k'lame that they were used to demolish WTC1 and WTC2, but
somehow missed WTC3 and WTC4... so your broken brain conceived that
the nuclear weapons could somehow dig themselves up from that
miles-deep facility to just below the WTC towers prior to exploding,
in order to make their cone of destruction smaller. Nevermind that
your broken brain said they dug through 37.28 to 96.93 *miles* of
*solid* *bedrock* in *12* *seconds*. LOL
F) So I've led you by the nose in a full circle... if those bombs your
broken brain is telling you existed *did* dig their way up to
underneath the WTC twin towers before detonating (they didn't... first
because there were no nukes, second because it'd be impossible, but
for the sake of argument, we'll continue), that leads right back to
your calculation of the time between your claimed "EMP" (the satellite
uplink interference on the WCBS video *you* *provided*) and the time
the buildings fell, which is pretty much where we started. So I've
proven by drop-kicking your retarded ass around the perimeter of
sanity full-circle that you're insane. LOL
G) Realizing the utter ridiculousness of your kook blather above, your
broken brain has backpedaled and expanded your delusion even more as a
desperate attempt at attaining some semblance of plausibility...
saying there were 34 mini-nukes, and they were within and underneath
the twin towers. If those 34 nukes you claim existed *did* explode,
where are the nuclear detonation byproducts? The highly radioactive
metal? The radiation burns and radiation sickness of people in the
vicinity? Where are the nuclear detonation signature seismographs? Why
did the electrical grid, all electronics and all vehicles survive not
just one but *34* nuclear EMPs? And what about that timing between the
WCBS video satellite uplink interference (what you claimed was "EMP")
and the shaking and collapse of the tower? That's now off by 14 whole
seconds, just as it was when your kooky conspiracy theory began. LOL
H) Now you're saying the OKC bombing was nuclear in nature (MID:
<e3f0e4f638e69c3d...@dizum.com>), and a new era of
widespread nuclear terrorism has arrived... proof positive that you're
off your meds, Roget Wittekind.
IOW, your broken brain is far too stupid to discern fantasy from
reality, so you've caught yourself in an unresolvable logic hole. And
the harder you try to resolve it, the more you run around in little
tard-circles, banging your head with your fist and doing your very
best Rainman impersonation. I can twist your brain into a Gordian Knot
with my knowledge. And I've just barely even started, I haven't even
worked up a sweat yet.
=============================
Kook. LOL
Hi, misc.legal! Just bringing home to roost one of your old-timer
kooks... ready your pointy sticks, because he's even kookier now than
when you last saw him. LOL
Roger Wittekind, the broken-brained schizophrenic paranoid-delusional
conspiracy theory kook, woman stalking nutjob, malicious obsesso who
got smacked down by the court system when he tried to harass a woman
via the courts for having the audacity to try to protect her daughter
against his nearly two decades of stalking, and the guy who rolled his
tanker truck and got charged with failure to maintain control of his
vehicle... and now he's an unemployable loser spending his few
remaining days bleating out wholly impossible 9/11 nuclear demolition
conspiracy theories that violate the laws of physics in several ways.
Of course, par for the course, RockyRetard says everyone but him is
lying. All of NYC were paid "disinformation agents", apparently. Ask
him about his "speshul" nukes that had magical detonators such that
they wouldn't produce an EMP or any radioactive fallout. Ask him about
his magical nukes that could autonomously dig through miles of solid
bedrock in only seconds prior to detonating. Ask him about his magical
nukes that could somehow pick and choose which buildings they
affected. LOL
Some select quotes about Rocky (aka Roger Wittekind the schizophrenic
paranoid-delusional woman-stalking failed truck driver):
1) ======================================================
He didn't know how to get exhibits entered into evidence and didn't
know how to overcome a hearsay objection. The defense attorney's
objections were successful as to most evidence offered by plaintiff.
Plaintiff lost the case on a directed verdict motion and blames the
attorney and the judge for violating his constitutional rights. He
refers to the sixth amendment even though it has nothing to do with a
civil lawsuit trial. Since I didn't read any of the transcripts that
are apparently available by links, I could be completely wrong about
what happened. I am willing to look, and form an impression, and
report the results, but I am not willing to make a project out of
understanding a rant.
This website is not unusual in one sense. In-pro-per litigants often
blame others for their failure to learn enough to authenticate and
enter evidence in a civil trial. For some reason I can never get one
of them to clarify, they believe that common sense and logical
arguments should be enough to win a civil trial when one is right,
that the judge should ignore all rules of evidence when the in-pro-per
litigant thinks this would lead to the right result, that all evidence
they offer should be automatically admissible because it is on the
side of the angels. When they lose, it is always someone else's fault.
I noticed that even now, after the trial and after enough time has
passed to create a website, he still doesn't say anything about what
was legally wrong with a hearsay objection or what specifically was
legally wrong with the judge's ruling on any of the other objections
made by the opposing counsel. That means to me that he has still not
looked up the law concerning admissibility of the evidence.
=========================================================
It very quickly devolves into raucous laughter at the broken-brained
kook...
2) ======================================================
Even as stupid as you are you should be able to see what's wrong with
that . But, no...not perfect Roger. He never does anything wrong. He
never stalked that poor girl. She had on the same type jeans as he did
so that means she was hopelessly in love with him so its all her
fault. She looked at him so that means she was hopelessly in love with
him. I don't know why the judge and jury couldn't see that. It's soooo
obvious.
And here's MORE proof: He uses a laptop while driving. He takes photos
while driving. He's run his truck out of fuel not once but TWICE and
bragged about it right here on this group for all the world to see!!
And if THAT isn't the mark of a REAL truck driver I just don't know
what is! I know I don't do those things so I must not be a real truck
driver.
NOTE: He actually ran out of fuel *3* times in his short truck driving
career. LOL
=========================================================
3) ======================================================
You forgot that time he didn't set the brakes...
=========================================================
4) ======================================================
He wants everyone to believe he was pulling oversized loads barely 3
months outta truckdriver school.
=========================================================
Poor stupid schizophrenic paranoid-delusional Roger Wittekind... he's
been a loser and a liar for decades, and he's sliding downhill fast.
<snicker>
--
Roger T.E. Wittekind
PO Box 471
167 40th Avenue
East Moline, IL 61244
309-755-6374
309-755-6394
Roger Wittekind the woman-stalking failed truck driver from East
Moline, IL.
Roger Wittekind (aka Rocky), your brain is grasping at straws in
trying to avoid admitting *you* *are* *wrong*, and as your brain
becomes more and more desperate to avoid the truth we promulgate
(which utterly demolishes your kook conspiracy theory), it makes
larger and larger leaps of illogic.
For instance:
=============================
A) You said the satellite uplink inteference seen in the WCBS video
*you* *provided* was a nuke EMP, so your broken brain told you they
must have buried nukes under the twin towers. Being a simpleton, you
believed they just dug shallow holes, dropped the nukes in, smoothed
over the concrete and walked away for 33 years.
B) Your timing on the WCBS video *you* *provided* between the
satellite uplink interference (what you deemed to be a "nuke EMP") and
the tower shaking being 12 seconds (it was actually 14 seconds, but
kooks can't count) means your supposed nukes had to have been buried
from 37.28 to 96.93 *miles* below the surface (dependent upon soil
composition and thus speed of compressive blast transmission). Never
mind that we don't have the technology to drill that deep even today,
let alone in 1968. Your broken brain had to yet again change your
kooky little conspiracy theory to at least try to orient itself at
some acute angle to reality. So no "dug a shallow hole, dropped the
nukes in, covered it up, walked away for 33 years" anymore, now it was
"dug an impossibly deep hole, dropped the nukes in, covered it up,
walked away for 33 years".
C) You're such a simpleton you didn't realize nukes require periodic
replacement of their neutron-source trigger, which naturally
radioactively decays over time, building up the decay byproduct xenon,
which absorbs neutrons. It's called xenon poisoning. So your broken
brain told you that someone had to service those nukes to keep the
triggers viable... which means your broken brain was thus *forced* to
change from "dug a shallow hole, dropped the nukes in, covered it up,
walked away for 33 years", to "dug an impossibly deep hole, dropped
the nukes in, covered it up, walked away for 33 years", to "built an
entire *facility* impossibly deep under the WTC, complete with service
personnel and" "4 blast doors to keep the explosion from getting back
into the area the nukes were maintained" (your words).
D) Your broken brain then said there were 19 nukes instead of your
original 3, because you knew there were 19 instances of satellite
uplink interference in the WCBS video *you* *provided*, in which you
k'lamed one of the instances of satellite uplink interference was an
EMP. And if you k'lame one of them is an EMP, they *all* must be EMPs,
so your broken brain now tells you there were 19 nukes detonated in
rapid succession... completely ignoring the fact that even one nuke
detonation would plunge the city into darkness due to EMP burning out
electrical substations, and completely ignoring the fact that no
nuclear detonation byproducts were found in the rubble, in the
vicinity of the rubble, or anywhere in NYC.
E) Now that your broken brain was convinced that the nukes were buried
deeply, of course, they had a very wide blast radius, which screwed up
your kooky k'lame that they were used to demolish WTC1 and WTC2, but
somehow missed WTC3 and WTC4... so your broken brain conceived that
the nuclear weapons could somehow dig themselves up from that
miles-deep facility to just below the WTC towers prior to exploding,
in order to make their cone of destruction smaller. Nevermind that
your broken brain said they dug through 37.28 to 96.93 *miles* of
*solid* *bedrock* in *12* *seconds*. LOL
F) So I've led you by the nose in a full circle... if those bombs your
broken brain is telling you existed *did* dig their way up to
underneath the WTC twin towers before detonating (they didn't... first
because there were no nukes, second because it'd be impossible, but
for the sake of argument, we'll continue), that leads right back to
your calculation of the time between your claimed "EMP" (the satellite
uplink interference on the WCBS video *you* *provided*) and the time
the buildings fell, which is pretty much where we started. So I've
proven by drop-kicking your retarded ass around the perimeter of
sanity full-circle that you're insane. LOL
G) Realizing the utter ridiculousness of your kook blather above, your
broken brain has backpedaled and expanded your delusion even more as a
desperate attempt at attaining some semblance of plausibility...
saying there were 34 mini-nukes, and they were within and underneath
the twin towers. If those 34 nukes you claim existed *did* explode,
where are the nuclear detonation byproducts? The highly radioactive
metal? The radiation burns and radiation sickness of people in the
vicinity? Where are the nuclear detonation signature seismographs? Why
did the electrical grid, all electronics and all vehicles survive not
just one but *34* nuclear EMPs? And what about that timing between the
WCBS video satellite uplink interference (what you claimed was "EMP")
and the shaking and collapse of the tower? That's now off by 14 whole
seconds, just as it was when your kooky conspiracy theory began. LOL
H) Now you're saying the OKC bombing was nuclear in nature (MID:
<e3f0e4f638e69c3d...@dizum.com>), and a new era of
widespread nuclear terrorism has arrived... proof positive that you're
off your meds, Roget Wittekind.
IOW, your broken brain is far too stupid to discern fantasy from
reality, so you've caught yourself in an unresolvable logic hole. And
the harder you try to resolve it, the more you run around in little
tard-circles, banging your head with your fist and doing your very
best Rainman impersonation. I can twist your brain into a Gordian Knot
with my knowledge. And I've just barely even started, I haven't even
worked up a sweat yet.
=============================
Kook. LOL
Rocky
Aug 31, 2015, 1:27:09 AM8/31/15
to
"Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus" <FN...@altusenetkooks.xxx>
wrote in message news:bd3eb7fb3542131d...@dizum.com...
>
> He didn't know how to get exhibits entered into evidence and didn't
> know how to overcome a hearsay objection.
Wait a second. It doesn't matter to me what happened in the malicious
> He didn't know how to get exhibits entered into evidence and didn't
> know how to overcome a hearsay objection.
prosecution lawsuit because the fact remain as proven by why the Mack vs.
First Security Bank of Chicago was reversed and remanded: I should have been
allowed to use the exact same exhibits I used to win my jury trial 12 to 0
in the Malicious Prosecution lawsuit but I wasn't.
And why would I want to win that trial anyway since I know that family as a
bunch of liars and I even proved they were liars in the jury trial I won.
So wining might have been worse.
And obviously you missed the fact I really did know how to present the
evidence for impeachment purposes in the jury trial I won. See:
http://overprotectivemother.com/coppula.htm
But in the malicious prosecution lawsuit it was impossible for me to state
what the law really consisted of because the judges wanted to believe what
the lying sack of shit Duane Thompson said about the decision of Mack vs.
First Security Bank of Chicago instead.
=========================
Now if you want to see a great video that shows screw up after screw up
after screw up in the Great 9/11 Hoax watch
Steve Grage & James Easton's PHYSICS 9/11 - THE NO PLANES MOVIE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p1D1C94eE8U
Rocky
%
Aug 31, 2015, 1:30:03 AM8/31/15
to
Rocky
Aug 31, 2015, 7:37:52 AM8/31/15
to
"K Wills (Shill #3)" <comp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:hn78uahoh2mt5aoda...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 31 Aug 2015 00:26:27 -0500, "Rocky" <woo...@att.net> wrote:
>
>>"Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus" <FN...@altusenetkooks.xxx>
>>wrote in message news:bd3eb7fb3542131d...@dizum.com...
>>>
>>> He didn't know how to get exhibits entered into evidence and didn't
>>> know how to overcome a hearsay objection.
>>
>>Wait a second. It doesn't matter to me what happened in the malicious
>>prosecution lawsuit because the fact remain as proven by why the Mack vs.
>>First Security Bank of Chicago was reversed and remanded: I should have
>>been
>>allowed to use the exact same exhibits I used to win my jury trial 12 to 0
>>in the Malicious Prosecution lawsuit but I wasn't.
>>
>
> We can presume you failed to follow the rules of evidence if your
>
>>"Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus" <FN...@altusenetkooks.xxx>
>>wrote in message news:bd3eb7fb3542131d...@dizum.com...
>>>
>>> He didn't know how to get exhibits entered into evidence and didn't
>>> know how to overcome a hearsay objection.
>>
>>Wait a second. It doesn't matter to me what happened in the malicious
>>prosecution lawsuit because the fact remain as proven by why the Mack vs.
>>First Security Bank of Chicago was reversed and remanded: I should have
>>been
>>allowed to use the exact same exhibits I used to win my jury trial 12 to 0
>>in the Malicious Prosecution lawsuit but I wasn't.
>>
>
> evidence wasn't allowed.
YOU FCUKER it didn't have anything to do with the rules of evidence.
Plain and simple Duane Thompson played the Mack vs. First Security Bank like
a script and then he misrepresented the exact same legal precedent too.
Here, to make a long story short look what I could have done with my first
"Reply Brief."
http://trashedsixthamendment.com/ReplyBrief/
Rocky
Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
Aug 31, 2015, 10:04:55 AM8/31/15
to
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>
Rocky (aka Roger Wittekind the paranoid-delusional schizophrenic
woman-stalking failed truck driver), in
<news:X4qdnVf2cJUVoXnI...@giganews.com> did thusly jump
head first into the wood chipper again:
>> On Mon, 31 Aug 2015 00:26:27 -0500, Rocky (aka
>> Roger Wittekind the paranoid-delusional schizophrenic
Stupid delusional stalker kook. LOL
>> We can presume you failed to follow the rules of evidence if your
>> evidence wasn't allowed.
> YO<SMACKAKOOK!>
Schizophrenic paranoid-delusional woman-stalking truck-wrecking kook.
LOL
> Rocky
Now, get to addressing the 20 ways your kook conspiracy theory
violates the laws of physics:
======================================================
1) Your estimation of the time between detonation and the time of
collapse puts the nukes between from 37.28 to 96.93 *miles* deep below
the towers, a depth we don't even have the technology to drill to
today, let alone back in 1968. Not to mention the fact that at that
depth, the temperature is so high things like metal *melt*. That's
*why* we can't drill much deeper than the 7.636 miles of the Al
Shaheen oil well in Qatar (the deepest hole *ever* dug in human
history)... the equipment fails. That's why the Kola Superdeep
Borehole was abandoned at 7.619 miles deep.
2) The claimed "EMP pulse" in the WCBS video *you* provided wasn't an
EMP pulse at all, it was satellite uplink interference. If it'd been a
nuke EMP (especially one sized 150 kt), the nanosecond time frame of
the explosion (and thus the sharp peak of the EMP) would have caused
the camera's electronics to burn out. No amount of shielding would
have been sufficient to prevent that. That there is video of the
immediate aftermath proves there was no nuke, especially one sized
your claimed 150 kt, which would have destroyed all electronics for
dozens of miles radius.
3) The radiation experienced was of such short duration that there's
no way it was neutron or gamma bombardment from a nuke. If it had been
from a nuke the metal in the buildings would have shown high levels of
radioactivity for decades. It was found to be beta radiation from the
tritium in the aircraft exit signs and law enforcement weapon sights
that was the source. That you're gullible enough not to know that a
nuke would spread radiation far and wide is testament to how
delusional you are.
4) No nuclear detonation byproducts were found at the WTC complex or
anywhere in NYC (MID: <e62c14c89ab831a6...@dizum.com>).
They found tritium from the aircraft exit signs and law enforcement
weapons sites, radium from industrial sources unrelated to nuclear
weapons and background levels for all other sources of radiation.
5) The seismic waves caused by a small 150 kt nuke wouldn't be
sufficient to drop the buildings, it'd barely even be felt by people
in the vicinity, especially with the bombs buried, as you k'lamed,
from 37.28 to 96.93 *miles* deep. It would take on the order of 2
MEGAtons to do so, especially at the depths you k'lame the bombs were
buried.
6) The trigger that sets off the nuclear explosion is a neutron
source. It naturally radioactively decays over time, and its decay
byproducts, the elements the neutron source transmutes into as it
decays, include xenon, which is a neutron absorber. It's called xenon
poisoning. Any bomb that has sat for 33 years without its trigger
being replenished will not have a trigger that is viable to start any
sort of nuclear chain reaction.
7) I've provided a video from *inside* one of the towers *as* *it*
*was* *collapsing*, showing the vibration from the buckling vertical
support column and *NO* EMP:
======================
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1xYjoSvzWeo>
You'll note the massive shaking from the central support column
buckling, but *NO* EMP. And that was INSIDE the WTC tower. No amount
of shielding would have saved that camera from a nuke EMP.
======================
8) Why aren't you explaining how those supposed nukes were going to
survive at a depth of 37.28 miles (where the temperature would be
approximately 960 degrees F) to 96.93 miles (where the temperature
would be approximately 1840 degrees F), Ko0K?
9) Explain how a nuclear weapon can direct its explosion through a
hole without any of the compressive blast going out into surrounding
rock.
10) Explain how 19 nukes (according to you, another leap of logic
taken by your broken brain to explain away the 19 instances of
satellite uplink interference in the video *you* provided) were
detonated at the WTC complex in rapid succession, yet no ill effects
were experienced by electronics, the electrical grid or aircraft.
11) Why aren't you explaining how the personnel you claim were sent
down to service those nukes (because now that you know the
neutron-source triggers for nuclear weapons require replacement on a
periodic basis, your broken brain *had* to construct an entire
facility at 37.28 to 96.93 miles deep (far deeper than we have the
technology to dig even today, let alone back in 1968), complete with
admit it was wrong when it told you those nukes sat untouched for 33
years and maintained their viability) are supposed to survive in 960
to 1840 degree heat?
12) You admitted (MID:<ed75e9d6f7ccf729...@dizum.com>)
that all the materials used in construction of the twin towers (all
1.5 million tons of it) had been accounted for and trucked off to the
Fresh Kills landfill. How will you reconcile your admission with your
kook blather that significant percentages of the buildings "vaporized"
(your word) and "floated toward Europe" (your words)?
13) Why can't you provide proof of the nuclear explosion seismic
signatures for these 19 nukes you k'lame were detonated at the WTC
site on 11 Sep 2001?
14) Where were the vertically-directed plumes of dust and debris
kicked up from your claimed nuclear weapons being detonated deep
underground, Ko0K?
15) Explain how the 19 nukes you claimed to have existed could have
tunneled holes from the underground installation 37.28 to 96.93 miles
deep that you claimed to have existed, to directly under the WTC
complex... in 12 seconds... through solid bedrock... prior to
detonating directly below the WTC towers (which, of course, fucks up
your timing between the detonations you claim took place (for which
you used the WCBS video, claiming the satellite uplink interference
was "EMP") and the collapses, leading you back to where your delusion
started. Congratulations, Dimwit, you've made the full circuit on The
Island of Insanity. Now go 'round again.).
16) Explain why you're now saying there were 34 nukes
(MID:<345fee8b286a9103...@dizum.com>), as opposed to your
previously k'lamed 19 nukes (and your previously, previously k'lamed 3
nukes)... would it be because your broken little brain is squirming
under the scorching twin beams of truth and reality, screaming in
agony at its being forced to see just how delusional it truly is?
While you're at it, get to explaining how the regular rad sweeps
(radiological surveys) at the twin towers (because the space was
primarily rented by government agencies) showed no nukes or any
contamination whatsoever, and how 34 nukes were obtained and put in
place without drawing any attention whatsoever. Of course, this
*still* fucks up your timing between the detonations (ie: your claimed
"EMP" on the WCBS video) and the collapses, leading you back to where
your delusion started... that unresolvable logic hole rears its ugly
head again. LOL
17) Your broken brain is yet again expanding your delusion with your
"34 or more nukes" blather (you're now saying there were 65 nukes
(MID: <984122ddbf1e4e5d...@dizum.com>))... eventually,
your broken brain will be telling you that NYC today is a CGI and the
real city was blown up by
1,592,629,490,173,371,449,138,916,004,581,949 intelligent nano-nukes
which autonomously dug their way up from their secret underground
MoleMan base 15,682,941 miles below the surface of our hollow planet
and attached themselves to every steel part of every building in NYC
and vaporized them and they all floated down to MoleVille, and the
fact that the EMP from all those nukes detonating at once didn't burn
out every electrical generating station, electrical substation, every
piece of electronic equipment, every vehicle, every aircraft... that's
*proof* that NYC is a CGI today! LOL
18) Explain how a nuclear weapon wouldn't have nuclear detonation
byproducts with the right nuclear trigger, according to your words
"with the right detonator you could have a 'clean' nuke" (MID:
<43acc7488b179f3b...@dizum.com>).
19) Now you're saying the OKC bombing was nuclear in nature (MID:
20) Now you're saying the Ogallala Aquifer is radioactive (what's that
got to do with the WTC?)... with absolutely no proof... all you have
is the paranoid delusional rantings of other schizophrenics like you.
Do you see how utterly ridiculous you're beginning to sound? Get back
on your meds, you delusional loon.
======================================================
There are now 20 ways your kook konspiracy theory violates the laws of
physics... now you'd better get to work addressing each one, point by
point, or people are gonna know you're just a retard who can't grasp
simple physics.
Kook. LOL
the building shook, which is pretty much where we started. So I've
now further k'laming there is such a thing as a magical "detonator"
that causes a nuclear weapon to be a "clean nuke" which expulses no
EMP and leaves no radiological contamination... heaping proof upon
proof that you're off your meds, Roger Wittekind.
Rocky (aka Roger Wittekind the paranoid-delusional schizophrenic
woman-stalking failed truck driver), in
<news:X4qdnVf2cJUVoXnI...@giganews.com> did thusly jump
head first into the wood chipper again:
>> On Mon, 31 Aug 2015 00:26:27 -0500, Rocky (aka
>> Roger Wittekind the paranoid-delusional schizophrenic
>> woman-stalking failed truck driver) <woo...@att.net> wrote:
>>> "Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus" <FN...@altusenetkooks.xxx>
>>> wrote in message news:bd3eb7fb3542131d...@dizum.com...
>>>> He didn't know how to get exhibits entered into evidence and didn't
>>>> know how to overcome a hearsay objection.
>>> Wa<SMACKAKOOK!>
>>> "Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus" <FN...@altusenetkooks.xxx>
>>> wrote in message news:bd3eb7fb3542131d...@dizum.com...
>>>> He didn't know how to get exhibits entered into evidence and didn't
>>>> know how to overcome a hearsay objection.
Stupid delusional stalker kook. LOL
>> We can presume you failed to follow the rules of evidence if your
>> evidence wasn't allowed.
Schizophrenic paranoid-delusional woman-stalking truck-wrecking kook.
LOL
> Rocky
Now, get to addressing the 20 ways your kook conspiracy theory
violates the laws of physics:
======================================================
1) Your estimation of the time between detonation and the time of
collapse puts the nukes between from 37.28 to 96.93 *miles* deep below
the towers, a depth we don't even have the technology to drill to
today, let alone back in 1968. Not to mention the fact that at that
depth, the temperature is so high things like metal *melt*. That's
*why* we can't drill much deeper than the 7.636 miles of the Al
Shaheen oil well in Qatar (the deepest hole *ever* dug in human
history)... the equipment fails. That's why the Kola Superdeep
Borehole was abandoned at 7.619 miles deep.
2) The claimed "EMP pulse" in the WCBS video *you* provided wasn't an
EMP pulse at all, it was satellite uplink interference. If it'd been a
nuke EMP (especially one sized 150 kt), the nanosecond time frame of
the explosion (and thus the sharp peak of the EMP) would have caused
the camera's electronics to burn out. No amount of shielding would
have been sufficient to prevent that. That there is video of the
immediate aftermath proves there was no nuke, especially one sized
your claimed 150 kt, which would have destroyed all electronics for
dozens of miles radius.
3) The radiation experienced was of such short duration that there's
no way it was neutron or gamma bombardment from a nuke. If it had been
from a nuke the metal in the buildings would have shown high levels of
radioactivity for decades. It was found to be beta radiation from the
tritium in the aircraft exit signs and law enforcement weapon sights
that was the source. That you're gullible enough not to know that a
nuke would spread radiation far and wide is testament to how
delusional you are.
4) No nuclear detonation byproducts were found at the WTC complex or
anywhere in NYC (MID: <e62c14c89ab831a6...@dizum.com>).
They found tritium from the aircraft exit signs and law enforcement
weapons sites, radium from industrial sources unrelated to nuclear
weapons and background levels for all other sources of radiation.
5) The seismic waves caused by a small 150 kt nuke wouldn't be
sufficient to drop the buildings, it'd barely even be felt by people
in the vicinity, especially with the bombs buried, as you k'lamed,
from 37.28 to 96.93 *miles* deep. It would take on the order of 2
MEGAtons to do so, especially at the depths you k'lame the bombs were
buried.
6) The trigger that sets off the nuclear explosion is a neutron
source. It naturally radioactively decays over time, and its decay
byproducts, the elements the neutron source transmutes into as it
decays, include xenon, which is a neutron absorber. It's called xenon
poisoning. Any bomb that has sat for 33 years without its trigger
being replenished will not have a trigger that is viable to start any
sort of nuclear chain reaction.
7) I've provided a video from *inside* one of the towers *as* *it*
*was* *collapsing*, showing the vibration from the buckling vertical
support column and *NO* EMP:
======================
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1xYjoSvzWeo>
You'll note the massive shaking from the central support column
buckling, but *NO* EMP. And that was INSIDE the WTC tower. No amount
of shielding would have saved that camera from a nuke EMP.
======================
8) Why aren't you explaining how those supposed nukes were going to
survive at a depth of 37.28 miles (where the temperature would be
approximately 960 degrees F) to 96.93 miles (where the temperature
would be approximately 1840 degrees F), Ko0K?
9) Explain how a nuclear weapon can direct its explosion through a
hole without any of the compressive blast going out into surrounding
rock.
10) Explain how 19 nukes (according to you, another leap of logic
taken by your broken brain to explain away the 19 instances of
satellite uplink interference in the video *you* provided) were
detonated at the WTC complex in rapid succession, yet no ill effects
were experienced by electronics, the electrical grid or aircraft.
11) Why aren't you explaining how the personnel you claim were sent
down to service those nukes (because now that you know the
neutron-source triggers for nuclear weapons require replacement on a
periodic basis, your broken brain *had* to construct an entire
facility at 37.28 to 96.93 miles deep (far deeper than we have the
technology to dig even today, let alone back in 1968), complete with
"4 blast doors to keep the explosion from getting back into the area
the nukes were maintained", or your brain would have been forced to
admit it was wrong when it told you those nukes sat untouched for 33
years and maintained their viability) are supposed to survive in 960
to 1840 degree heat?
12) You admitted (MID:<ed75e9d6f7ccf729...@dizum.com>)
that all the materials used in construction of the twin towers (all
1.5 million tons of it) had been accounted for and trucked off to the
Fresh Kills landfill. How will you reconcile your admission with your
kook blather that significant percentages of the buildings "vaporized"
(your word) and "floated toward Europe" (your words)?
13) Why can't you provide proof of the nuclear explosion seismic
signatures for these 19 nukes you k'lame were detonated at the WTC
site on 11 Sep 2001?
14) Where were the vertically-directed plumes of dust and debris
kicked up from your claimed nuclear weapons being detonated deep
underground, Ko0K?
15) Explain how the 19 nukes you claimed to have existed could have
tunneled holes from the underground installation 37.28 to 96.93 miles
deep that you claimed to have existed, to directly under the WTC
complex... in 12 seconds... through solid bedrock... prior to
detonating directly below the WTC towers (which, of course, fucks up
your timing between the detonations you claim took place (for which
you used the WCBS video, claiming the satellite uplink interference
was "EMP") and the collapses, leading you back to where your delusion
started. Congratulations, Dimwit, you've made the full circuit on The
Island of Insanity. Now go 'round again.).
16) Explain why you're now saying there were 34 nukes
(MID:<345fee8b286a9103...@dizum.com>), as opposed to your
previously k'lamed 19 nukes (and your previously, previously k'lamed 3
nukes)... would it be because your broken little brain is squirming
under the scorching twin beams of truth and reality, screaming in
agony at its being forced to see just how delusional it truly is?
While you're at it, get to explaining how the regular rad sweeps
(radiological surveys) at the twin towers (because the space was
primarily rented by government agencies) showed no nukes or any
contamination whatsoever, and how 34 nukes were obtained and put in
place without drawing any attention whatsoever. Of course, this
*still* fucks up your timing between the detonations (ie: your claimed
"EMP" on the WCBS video) and the collapses, leading you back to where
your delusion started... that unresolvable logic hole rears its ugly
head again. LOL
17) Your broken brain is yet again expanding your delusion with your
"34 or more nukes" blather (you're now saying there were 65 nukes
(MID: <984122ddbf1e4e5d...@dizum.com>))... eventually,
your broken brain will be telling you that NYC today is a CGI and the
real city was blown up by
1,592,629,490,173,371,449,138,916,004,581,949 intelligent nano-nukes
which autonomously dug their way up from their secret underground
MoleMan base 15,682,941 miles below the surface of our hollow planet
and attached themselves to every steel part of every building in NYC
and vaporized them and they all floated down to MoleVille, and the
fact that the EMP from all those nukes detonating at once didn't burn
out every electrical generating station, electrical substation, every
piece of electronic equipment, every vehicle, every aircraft... that's
*proof* that NYC is a CGI today! LOL
18) Explain how a nuclear weapon wouldn't have nuclear detonation
byproducts with the right nuclear trigger, according to your words
"with the right detonator you could have a 'clean' nuke" (MID:
<43acc7488b179f3b...@dizum.com>).
19) Now you're saying the OKC bombing was nuclear in nature (MID:
<e3f0e4f638e69c3d...@dizum.com>), and a new era of
widespread nuclear terrorism has arrived... proof positive that you're
off your meds, Roger Wittekind.
widespread nuclear terrorism has arrived... proof positive that you're
20) Now you're saying the Ogallala Aquifer is radioactive (what's that
got to do with the WTC?)... with absolutely no proof... all you have
is the paranoid delusional rantings of other schizophrenics like you.
Do you see how utterly ridiculous you're beginning to sound? Get back
on your meds, you delusional loon.
======================================================
There are now 20 ways your kook konspiracy theory violates the laws of
physics... now you'd better get to work addressing each one, point by
point, or people are gonna know you're just a retard who can't grasp
simple physics.
Kook. LOL
proven by drop-kicking your retarded ass around the perimeter of
sanity full-circle that you're insane. LOL
G) Realizing the utter ridiculousness of your kook blather above, your
broken brain has backpedaled and expanded your delusion even more as a
desperate attempt at attaining some semblance of plausibility...
saying there were 34 mini-nukes, and they were within and underneath
the twin towers. If those 34 nukes you claim existed *did* explode,
where are the nuclear detonation byproducts? The highly radioactive
metal? The radiation burns and radiation sickness of people in the
vicinity? Where are the nuclear detonation signature seismographs? Why
did the electrical grid, all electronics and all vehicles survive not
just one but *34* nuclear EMPs? And what about that timing between the
WCBS video satellite uplink interference (what you claimed was "EMP")
and the shaking of the tower? That's now off by 14 whole seconds, just
sanity full-circle that you're insane. LOL
G) Realizing the utter ridiculousness of your kook blather above, your
broken brain has backpedaled and expanded your delusion even more as a
desperate attempt at attaining some semblance of plausibility...
saying there were 34 mini-nukes, and they were within and underneath
the twin towers. If those 34 nukes you claim existed *did* explode,
where are the nuclear detonation byproducts? The highly radioactive
metal? The radiation burns and radiation sickness of people in the
vicinity? Where are the nuclear detonation signature seismographs? Why
did the electrical grid, all electronics and all vehicles survive not
just one but *34* nuclear EMPs? And what about that timing between the
WCBS video satellite uplink interference (what you claimed was "EMP")
as it was when your kooky conspiracy theory began. LOL
H) Now you're saying the OKC bombing was nuclear in nature (MID:
<e3f0e4f638e69c3d...@dizum.com>), and a new era of
widespread nuclear terrorism has arrived... proof positive that you're
off your meds, Roget Wittekind.
I) To back up yor "nuclear terrorism era" k'lame in H) above, you're
H) Now you're saying the OKC bombing was nuclear in nature (MID:
<e3f0e4f638e69c3d...@dizum.com>), and a new era of
widespread nuclear terrorism has arrived... proof positive that you're
off your meds, Roget Wittekind.
now further k'laming there is such a thing as a magical "detonator"
that causes a nuclear weapon to be a "clean nuke" which expulses no
EMP and leaves no radiological contamination... heaping proof upon
proof that you're off your meds, Roger Wittekind.
Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
Aug 31, 2015, 11:20:25 AM8/31/15
to
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>
Rocky (aka Roger Wittekind the schizophrenic paranoid-delusional
woman-stalking failed truck driver), in
<news:8qWdnZVRZfw3eH7I...@giganews.com> did thusly jump
head first into the wood chipper again on Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2015
00:26:27 -0500:
Woot! The first after-midnight bleatfart from my newest kook. I'll
soon having him melting down as badly as I had Chimpy melting down...
but unlike Chimpy this kook is far too stupid to run away... meaning
I'm gonna bootfuck him to an early grave, just as I did to Fat Fred
Hall.
<evil snicker>
> "Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus" <FN...@altusenetkooks.xxx>
> wrote in message news:bd3eb7fb3542131d...@dizum.com...
>> <http://misc.legal.narkive.com/zSNeO9Nn/can-anyone-decipher-this>
>>
>> Hi, misc.legal! Just bringing home to roost one of your old-timer
>> kooks... ready your pointy sticks, because he's even kookier now than
>> when you last saw him. LOL
>>
>> Roger Wittekind, the broken-brained schizophrenic paranoid-delusional
>> conspiracy theory kook, woman stalking nutjob, malicious obsesso who
>> got smacked down by the court system when he tried to harass a woman
>> via the courts for having the audacity to try to protect her daughter
>> against his nearly two decades of stalking, and the guy who rolled his
>> tanker truck and got charged with failure to maintain control of his
>> vehicle... and now he's an unemployable loser spending his few
>> remaining days bleating out wholly impossible 9/11 nuclear demolition
>> conspiracy theories that violate the laws of physics in several ways.
>> Of course, par for the course, RockyRetard says everyone but him is
>> lying. All of NYC were paid "disinformation agents", apparently. Ask
>> him about his "speshul" nukes that had magical detonators such that
>> they wouldn't produce an EMP or any radioactive fallout. Ask him about
>> his magical nukes that could autonomously dig through miles of solid
>> bedrock in only seconds prior to detonating. Ask him about his magical
>> nukes that could somehow pick and choose which buildings they
>> affected. LOL
>>
>> Some select quotes about Rocky (aka Roger Wittekind the schizophrenic
>> paranoid-delusional woman-stalking failed truck driver):
>>
>> 1) ======================================================
>>
>> Hi, misc.legal! Just bringing home to roost one of your old-timer
>> kooks... ready your pointy sticks, because he's even kookier now than
>> when you last saw him. LOL
>>
>> Roger Wittekind, the broken-brained schizophrenic paranoid-delusional
>> conspiracy theory kook, woman stalking nutjob, malicious obsesso who
>> got smacked down by the court system when he tried to harass a woman
>> via the courts for having the audacity to try to protect her daughter
>> against his nearly two decades of stalking, and the guy who rolled his
>> tanker truck and got charged with failure to maintain control of his
>> vehicle... and now he's an unemployable loser spending his few
>> remaining days bleating out wholly impossible 9/11 nuclear demolition
>> conspiracy theories that violate the laws of physics in several ways.
>> Of course, par for the course, RockyRetard says everyone but him is
>> lying. All of NYC were paid "disinformation agents", apparently. Ask
>> him about his "speshul" nukes that had magical detonators such that
>> they wouldn't produce an EMP or any radioactive fallout. Ask him about
>> his magical nukes that could autonomously dig through miles of solid
>> bedrock in only seconds prior to detonating. Ask him about his magical
>> nukes that could somehow pick and choose which buildings they
>> affected. LOL
>>
>> Some select quotes about Rocky (aka Roger Wittekind the schizophrenic
>> paranoid-delusional woman-stalking failed truck driver):
>>
>> 1) ======================================================
>> He didn't know how to get exhibits entered into evidence and didn't
Stalking schizo kook. LOL
I) To back up yor "nuclear terrorism era" k'lame in H) above, you're
now further k'laming there is such a thing as a magical "clean nuke"
that expulses no EMP and leaves no radiological contamination...
heaping proof upon proof that you're off your meds, Roger Wittekind.
Rocky
Sep 1, 2015, 3:56:56 PM9/1/15
to
news:4ki9uatapcvrkjtc8...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 31 Aug 2015 06:37:06 -0500, "Rocky" <woo...@att.net> wrote:
>
...
> If your evidence wasn't allowed, there must be a reason. That you
> failed to follow the rules of evidence is the most plausible reason.
Basically what to this day Judges have missed is that the way I won my jury
trial 12 to 0 was to use the probable cause itself for impeachment purposes.
When I did that I proved right then and there that there was a lack of a
valid probable cause for the charges against me. More about that later.
Plain and simple I was always dealing with a misrepresented lawsuit and the
fact that judges never even tried to state the proper definition of
"probable cause" proves they did not want to abide by it's definition. <G>
To start with I'll prove to you that despite what numerous judges have tried
to say there was always "Evidence of Malice" in the jury trial I won. See:
http://SlimeFest.com/Exhibits/index.htm#EvidenceOfMalice
And to see other errors of law on the Face of the Record check out:
http://errorsoflawonthefaceoftherecord.com
And to see how much fun I had making fun of the ruling against me that was
not supported by legal authority check out:
http://nolegalauthority.com
>>Plain and simple Duane Thompson played the Mack vs. First Security Bank
>>like
>>a script and then he misrepresented the exact same legal precedent too.
>>
>
> In what way, exactly, did he do so? Cite applicable statutory and
> case law.
In short the Mack vs. First Security Bank of Chicago was reversed and
remanded for all the reasons I was aruging but the courts let Duane Thompson
get away with the exact same errors of law that reversed and remanded the
Mack vs. First Security Bank of Chicago. More at;
http://errorsoflawonthefaceoftherecord.com
>>Here, to make a long story short look what I could have done with my first
>>"Reply Brief."
>>
>> http://trashedsixthamendment.com/ReplyBrief/
>>
>
> I can't know if you were obsessed with the daughter.
ROTFLMAO because the most important thing to notice is Cheryl I were on
talking terms and it was always her misguided mother that did her best to
keep us from talking.. <G>
And there is no crime in having an interest in someone that shows an
interest in you as proven by the verdict of 12 to 0 in the jury trial I won.
DUH
BTW the following exhibit from the jury trial I won was even missing a few
items:
http://slimefest.com/exhibits/#Exhibit4
> Many
> comments you've included on your web sites would support someone, like
> mom, thinking you are.
> Mom's use of the word "faggot" was undoubtedly an insult. Your
> interest in her daughter would surely indicate that she did not think
> you were a homosexual.
But that word is evidence of malice as proven by the judges own words. Here
see for yourself:
http://SlimeFest.com/Exhibits/index.htm#EvidenceOfMalice
> Based on what you've allowed me, and anyone else who reads the
> page, to know, the ruling was proper. When you were told you lacked
> sufficient grounds for the suite, you should have accepted it and
> moved on with your life.
ROTFLMAO because the exhibits I used to impeach all the States witnesses in
the jury trial i won I had alreay proved a lack of a valid probable cause
and the definition of malice should have been applied to Beverly's use of
the word faggot. <G>
So the Mack vs. First Security Bank of Chicago still fully supports my
argument tothis very day and if the judges had ever tried to properly apply
the definition of probable cause I would have been allowed to use the
"Report of Proceedings" and the police report to prove my case. OK?
Rocky
> On Mon, 31 Aug 2015 06:37:06 -0500, "Rocky" <woo...@att.net> wrote:
>
...
> If your evidence wasn't allowed, there must be a reason. That you
> failed to follow the rules of evidence is the most plausible reason.
Basically what to this day Judges have missed is that the way I won my jury
trial 12 to 0 was to use the probable cause itself for impeachment purposes.
When I did that I proved right then and there that there was a lack of a
valid probable cause for the charges against me. More about that later.
Plain and simple I was always dealing with a misrepresented lawsuit and the
fact that judges never even tried to state the proper definition of
"probable cause" proves they did not want to abide by it's definition. <G>
To start with I'll prove to you that despite what numerous judges have tried
to say there was always "Evidence of Malice" in the jury trial I won. See:
http://SlimeFest.com/Exhibits/index.htm#EvidenceOfMalice
And to see other errors of law on the Face of the Record check out:
http://errorsoflawonthefaceoftherecord.com
And to see how much fun I had making fun of the ruling against me that was
not supported by legal authority check out:
http://nolegalauthority.com
>>Plain and simple Duane Thompson played the Mack vs. First Security Bank
>>like
>>a script and then he misrepresented the exact same legal precedent too.
>>
>
> case law.
In short the Mack vs. First Security Bank of Chicago was reversed and
remanded for all the reasons I was aruging but the courts let Duane Thompson
get away with the exact same errors of law that reversed and remanded the
Mack vs. First Security Bank of Chicago. More at;
http://errorsoflawonthefaceoftherecord.com
>>Here, to make a long story short look what I could have done with my first
>>"Reply Brief."
>>
>> http://trashedsixthamendment.com/ReplyBrief/
>>
>
ROTFLMAO because the most important thing to notice is Cheryl I were on
talking terms and it was always her misguided mother that did her best to
keep us from talking.. <G>
And there is no crime in having an interest in someone that shows an
interest in you as proven by the verdict of 12 to 0 in the jury trial I won.
DUH
BTW the following exhibit from the jury trial I won was even missing a few
items:
http://slimefest.com/exhibits/#Exhibit4
> Many
> comments you've included on your web sites would support someone, like
> mom, thinking you are.
> Mom's use of the word "faggot" was undoubtedly an insult. Your
> interest in her daughter would surely indicate that she did not think
> you were a homosexual.
But that word is evidence of malice as proven by the judges own words. Here
see for yourself:
http://SlimeFest.com/Exhibits/index.htm#EvidenceOfMalice
> Based on what you've allowed me, and anyone else who reads the
> page, to know, the ruling was proper. When you were told you lacked
> sufficient grounds for the suite, you should have accepted it and
> moved on with your life.
ROTFLMAO because the exhibits I used to impeach all the States witnesses in
the jury trial i won I had alreay proved a lack of a valid probable cause
and the definition of malice should have been applied to Beverly's use of
the word faggot. <G>
So the Mack vs. First Security Bank of Chicago still fully supports my
argument tothis very day and if the judges had ever tried to properly apply
the definition of probable cause I would have been allowed to use the
"Report of Proceedings" and the police report to prove my case. OK?
Rocky
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
Sep 1, 2015, 4:16:05 PM9/1/15
to
In sci.physics Rocky <woo...@att.net> wrote:
> Basically what to this day Judges have missed is that the way I won my jury
> trial 12 to 0 was to use the probable cause itself for impeachment purposes.
> When I did that I proved right then and there that there was a lack of a
> valid probable cause for the charges against me. More about that later.
Rambling, semi-coherent, delusional blather just like your delusional
> Basically what to this day Judges have missed is that the way I won my jury
> trial 12 to 0 was to use the probable cause itself for impeachment purposes.
> When I did that I proved right then and there that there was a lack of a
> valid probable cause for the charges against me. More about that later.
blather about 9/11.
If you had sought help for your mental problems you wouldn't have been
in court in the first place, you might have been able to hold a job,
and you might have a girlfriend instead of being seen as a raving
lunatic by one and all.
<snip remaining delusional babbling>
--
Jim Pennino
Rocky
Sep 1, 2015, 4:58:53 PM9/1/15
to
<ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message
news:r3dhbc-...@mail.specsol.com...
> In sci.physics Rocky <woo...@att.net> wrote:
>
>> Basically what to this day Judges have missed is that the way I won my
>> jury
>> trial 12 to 0 was to use the probable cause itself for impeachment
>> purposes.
>> When I did that I proved right then and there that there was a lack of a
>> valid probable cause for the charges against me. More about that later.
>
> Rambling, semi-coherent, delusional blather just like your delusional
> blather about 9/11.
Here maybe I can spell it out for you.
>
>> Basically what to this day Judges have missed is that the way I won my
>> jury
>> trial 12 to 0 was to use the probable cause itself for impeachment
>> purposes.
>> When I did that I proved right then and there that there was a lack of a
>> valid probable cause for the charges against me. More about that later.
>
> Rambling, semi-coherent, delusional blather just like your delusional
> blather about 9/11.
When the accused in a crime goes to court without an attorney and simply
takes the evidence from the State itself and uses it to completely impeach
all of the State's witnesses in a jury trial he wins 12 to 0 SOMETHING IS
WRONG.
Truth is that trial was just friends at the courthouse helping friends at
the courthouse without ever considering they had zero evidence against and
tow of them even knew I had evidence to prove their main witness was a
proven pathological liar without a valid reason to lie either. <G>
For judges to claim I never proved a lack of a probable cause never
considered the fact that the way I won my jury trial was by using the
probable cause against me for impeachment purposes. When I did that I
proved there was no valid probable cause against me. <G>
Is that good enough or are you too stupid even for that?
---------------------------
The facts about 9/11 remain.
Nobody including NIST has a valid explanation for how (not why) the Twin
Towers came down.
And for a long time nobody had a valid explanation for how the Twin Towers
ended up until I saw the following video:
Dimitri Khalezov - WTC Nuclear Demolition [Complete / Full Length]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lec9giab90I
Rocky
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
Sep 1, 2015, 5:16:05 PM9/1/15
to
In sci.physics Rocky <woo...@att.net> wrote:
> <ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message
> news:r3dhbc-...@mail.specsol.com...
>> In sci.physics Rocky <woo...@att.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Basically what to this day Judges have missed is that the way I won my
>>> jury
>>> trial 12 to 0 was to use the probable cause itself for impeachment
>>> purposes.
>>> When I did that I proved right then and there that there was a lack of a
>>> valid probable cause for the charges against me. More about that later.
>>
>> Rambling, semi-coherent, delusional blather just like your delusional
>> blather about 9/11.
>
> Here maybe I can spell it out for you.
You already have, you insane halfwit.
> <ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message
> news:r3dhbc-...@mail.specsol.com...
>> In sci.physics Rocky <woo...@att.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Basically what to this day Judges have missed is that the way I won my
>>> jury
>>> trial 12 to 0 was to use the probable cause itself for impeachment
>>> purposes.
>>> When I did that I proved right then and there that there was a lack of a
>>> valid probable cause for the charges against me. More about that later.
>>
>> Rambling, semi-coherent, delusional blather just like your delusional
>> blather about 9/11.
>
> Here maybe I can spell it out for you.
You are a babbling, semi-coherent, delusional lunatic.
If you were to seek help from a mental health professional you might
not have been in court in the first place, might be able to hold a
job, might be able to get a girlfriend, and might not be such a
laughingstock with your delusional 9/11 rants.
<snip remaining semi-coherent, delusional blather>
--
Jim Pennino
Rocky
Sep 1, 2015, 5:39:29 PM9/1/15
to
<ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message
news:9vghbc-...@mail.specsol.com...
>
> You are a babbling,
Oh shit I forgot you don't even know what the definition of "Probable Cause"
is so trying to talk to you is like talking to a total idiot.
-------------------------------
Neither you or your 9/11 buddies have never explained the following and you
would know that if you ever looked at the NIST bullshit yourself
http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg
And as for all the bogus jets that flew around in Nuke York City.
You would know they were bogus if you ever looked at how many
inconsistencies there were in altered videos that the media kept throwing in
our faces. See:
Steve Grage & James Easton's PHYSICS 9/11 - THE NO PLANES MOVIE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p1D1C94eE8U
people that made the life of Nicolaus Copernicus a living hell.
Rocky
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
Sep 1, 2015, 6:01:07 PM9/1/15
to
> <ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message
> news:9vghbc-...@mail.specsol.com...
>>
>> You are a babbling,
>
> Oh shit I forgot you don't even know what the definition of "Probable Cause"
> is so trying to talk to you is like talking to a total idiot.
What makes you think, other than your delusions of course, that I want
> news:9vghbc-...@mail.specsol.com...
>>
>> You are a babbling,
>
> Oh shit I forgot you don't even know what the definition of "Probable Cause"
> is so trying to talk to you is like talking to a total idiot.
to hear anything about the legal actions that resulted your delusions
about some poor girl that had the misfortune to know you or your idiotic
9/11 fantasies, you raving kook?
<snip remaining kook babble>
--
Jim Pennino
Rocky
Sep 1, 2015, 6:17:25 PM9/1/15
to
<ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message
news:jdjhbc-...@mail.specsol.com...
Well all you are is bullshit.
You lied about NIST because they never addressed what was left standing of
the Twin Towers and you lie about hijacked airplanes in Nuke York City
because there is plenty of evidence that proves they were just CGIs that
could not make the roadrunner cutouts in the Twin Towers. See:
Steve Grage & James Easton's PHYSICS 9/11 - THE NO PLANES MOVIE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p1D1C94eE8U
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
Sep 1, 2015, 6:46:05 PM9/1/15
to
In sci.physics Rocky <woo...@att.net> wrote:
>
> <ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message
> news:jdjhbc-...@mail.specsol.com...
>> In sci.physics Rocky <woo...@att.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> <ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message
>>> news:9vghbc-...@mail.specsol.com...
>>>>
>>>> You are a babbling,
>>>
>>> Oh shit I forgot you don't even know what the definition of "Probable
>>> Cause"
>>> is so trying to talk to you is like talking to a total idiot.
>>
>> What makes you think, other than your delusions of course, that I want
>> to hear anything about the legal actions that resulted your delusions
>> about some poor girl that had the misfortune to know you or your idiotic
>> 9/11 fantasies, you raving kook?
>
> Oh, I get it. You don't want me to defend myself against all your bullshit.
The only bullshit is your your ass landing in court over your delusions
>
> <ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message
> news:jdjhbc-...@mail.specsol.com...
>> In sci.physics Rocky <woo...@att.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> <ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message
>>> news:9vghbc-...@mail.specsol.com...
>>>>
>>>> You are a babbling,
>>>
>>> Oh shit I forgot you don't even know what the definition of "Probable
>>> Cause"
>>> is so trying to talk to you is like talking to a total idiot.
>>
>> What makes you think, other than your delusions of course, that I want
>> to hear anything about the legal actions that resulted your delusions
>> about some poor girl that had the misfortune to know you or your idiotic
>> 9/11 fantasies, you raving kook?
>
> Oh, I get it. You don't want me to defend myself against all your bullshit.
about some poor girl and you thinking the whole thing is some sort of
victory on your part.
Well, that and all your bullshit about 9/11 such as there being no
airplanes in spite of thousands of eye witnesses, there being nukes
in spite of no evidence of nukes, there being an international
conspiracy to suppress data from evey seismograph on the planet,
there being some magical nuclear device that can start at the top
of a building and work it's way back towards the device, etc.
You are a raving lunatic in dire need of professional help?
How's the latest job search going, kook?
--
Jim Pennino
BDK
Sep 2, 2015, 12:04:33 AM9/2/15
to
In article <5bmhbc-...@mail.specsol.com>, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
says...
Oh, I bet his interviews are....interesting.
--
BDK: Head Government Shill, and future Psychotronic World Dominator.
Master of Remote Viewing. Level 5 expert in kOOkStudies.
Former FEMA camp activities director. Head Strategic Writer. Former
Black Helicopter color consultant.
says...
--
BDK: Head Government Shill, and future Psychotronic World Dominator.
Master of Remote Viewing. Level 5 expert in kOOkStudies.
Former FEMA camp activities director. Head Strategic Writer. Former
Black Helicopter color consultant.
Rocky
Sep 2, 2015, 3:30:01 PM9/2/15
to
<ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message
news:5bmhbc-...@mail.specsol.com...
> In sci.physics Rocky <woo...@att.net> wrote:
>>
>> <ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message
>> news:jdjhbc-...@mail.specsol.com...
>>> In sci.physics Rocky <woo...@att.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> <ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:9vghbc-...@mail.specsol.com...
>>>>>
>>>>> You are a babbling,
>>>>
>>>> Oh shit I forgot you don't even know what the definition of "Probable
>>>> Cause"
>>>> is so trying to talk to you is like talking to a total idiot.
>>>
>>> What makes you think, other than your delusions of course, that I want
>>> to hear anything about the legal actions that resulted your delusions
>>> about some poor girl that had the misfortune to know you or your idiotic
>>> 9/11 fantasies, you raving kook?
>>
>> Oh, I get it. You don't want me to defend myself against all your
>> bullshit.
>
> The only bullshit is your your ass landing in court over your delusions
> about some poor girl and you thinking the whole thing is some sort of
> victory on your part.
You are such an idiot because if the jury really thought they were delusions
>>
>> <ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message
>> news:jdjhbc-...@mail.specsol.com...
>>> In sci.physics Rocky <woo...@att.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> <ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:9vghbc-...@mail.specsol.com...
>>>>>
>>>>> You are a babbling,
>>>>
>>>> Oh shit I forgot you don't even know what the definition of "Probable
>>>> Cause"
>>>> is so trying to talk to you is like talking to a total idiot.
>>>
>>> What makes you think, other than your delusions of course, that I want
>>> to hear anything about the legal actions that resulted your delusions
>>> about some poor girl that had the misfortune to know you or your idiotic
>>> 9/11 fantasies, you raving kook?
>>
>> Oh, I get it. You don't want me to defend myself against all your
>> bullshit.
>
> The only bullshit is your your ass landing in court over your delusions
> about some poor girl and you thinking the whole thing is some sort of
> victory on your part.
at least one of them would have voted against me but there where none.
The fact remains Cheryl had questions for me, I had asnwers for her and to
assume it was anything other than that is where you are wrong.
Put yourself in my shoes. If a third person in a love triangle started a
bunch of lies about you there is no way you can start any sort of
relationship without addressing the lies first or they will always be there.
So if they want to keep their lies let them. I don't need people like that.
> Well, that and all your bullshit about 9/11 such as there being no
> airplanes in spite of thousands of eye witnesses, there being nukes
> in spite of no evidence of nukes, there being an international
> conspiracy to suppress data from evey seismograph on the planet,
> there being some magical nuclear device that can start at the top
> of a building and work it's way back towards the device, etc.
>
> You are a raving lunatic in dire need of professional help?
we saw where CGIs flying into the Twin Towers and there is no way in hell a
real jet could make life sized roadrunner cutouts in the Twin Towers. <G>
Here, try to watch the following and be specific on what part you have
trouble with. <G>
Rocky
Sep 2, 2015, 3:57:35 PM9/2/15
to
<ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message
news:5bmhbc-...@mail.specsol.com...
Not only have I proven
1. Something else was responsible for the Twin Towers floating way besides
jet fuel.
2. NIST was complete and udder bullshit every step of the way and the way
they failed to address why the Twin Towers floated away and left next to
nothing on the ground is hilarious and the NIST cartoons rank NIST right up
there with the 9/11 Disney presentation.
2. The CGIs that were flown in Nuke York City have a lot of inconsistencies
with real jets.
3. The roadrunner like cutouts in the Twin Towers could not be made the way
you think they were made.
Because you couldn't handle any of that evidence above why should I bother
trying to prove anything else to you asshole?
Rocky
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
Sep 2, 2015, 4:31:07 PM9/2/15
to
In sci.physics Rocky <woo...@att.net> wrote:
>
> <ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message
> news:5bmhbc-...@mail.specsol.com...
>> In sci.physics Rocky <woo...@att.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> <ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message
>>> news:jdjhbc-...@mail.specsol.com...
>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <woo...@att.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> <ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:9vghbc-...@mail.specsol.com...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You are a babbling,
>>>>>
>>>>> Oh shit I forgot you don't even know what the definition of "Probable
>>>>> Cause"
>>>>> is so trying to talk to you is like talking to a total idiot.
>>>>
>>>> What makes you think, other than your delusions of course, that I want
>>>> to hear anything about the legal actions that resulted your delusions
>>>> about some poor girl that had the misfortune to know you or your idiotic
>>>> 9/11 fantasies, you raving kook?
>>>
>>> Oh, I get it. You don't want me to defend myself against all your
>>> bullshit.
>>
>> The only bullshit is your your ass landing in court over your delusions
>> about some poor girl and you thinking the whole thing is some sort of
>> victory on your part.
>
> You are such an idiot because if the jury really thought they were delusions
> at least one of them would have voted against me but there where none.
If it weren't for the delusions, you wouldn't have been in court in
>
> <ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message
> news:5bmhbc-...@mail.specsol.com...
>> In sci.physics Rocky <woo...@att.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> <ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message
>>> news:jdjhbc-...@mail.specsol.com...
>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <woo...@att.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> <ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:9vghbc-...@mail.specsol.com...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You are a babbling,
>>>>>
>>>>> Oh shit I forgot you don't even know what the definition of "Probable
>>>>> Cause"
>>>>> is so trying to talk to you is like talking to a total idiot.
>>>>
>>>> What makes you think, other than your delusions of course, that I want
>>>> to hear anything about the legal actions that resulted your delusions
>>>> about some poor girl that had the misfortune to know you or your idiotic
>>>> 9/11 fantasies, you raving kook?
>>>
>>> Oh, I get it. You don't want me to defend myself against all your
>>> bullshit.
>>
>> The only bullshit is your your ass landing in court over your delusions
>> about some poor girl and you thinking the whole thing is some sort of
>> victory on your part.
>
> You are such an idiot because if the jury really thought they were delusions
> at least one of them would have voted against me but there where none.
the first place, delusional kook.
As for you delusions about what happened on 9/11:
The facts are some airliners were hijacked.
Two of them crashed into the World Trade Center towers, starting fires
which weakened the central support columns and the buildings collapesed
almost 2 hours later.
One of them crashed into the Pentagon causing a partial collapse of the
western side and one of them crashed into a field in Pennsylvania.
When a nuclear device explodes, it creates a unique seismic signature
that can be detected anywhere on the planet.
There were no nuclear seismic signatures detected on 9/11 but the
collapse of the two towers as well as the plane crash at the Pentagon
and the crash in Pennsyvania were detected.
This alone is enough to disprove any nuclear devices were used on 9/11.
Everything else is kook babble.
That there were nuclear exposives involved is kook babble.
That there is missing rubble is kook babble.
That there has ever been a nuclear building demolition is kook babble.
That part of the buildings were vaporized is kook babble.
That part of a building was left standing proves there were nuclear
devices is kook babble.
That there was an EMP is kook babble.
That nuclear devices could be detonated underground and yet were not
seen by every seismograph in the world is kook babble.
That a failed US Government project that ended in 1973 has anything
to do with what happened is kook babble.
That the scene was radioactive is kook babble.
That there is any simularity between New York and either Hiroshima
or Nagasaki is kook babble.
That the area was called ground zero proves the event was nuclear
is kook babble.
That a nuclear bomb can be buried for decades without maintenance
and still be expected to work is kook babble.
That non-government entities can obtain not one, but multiple nuclear
bombs is kook babble.
That there were not thousands of eyewitnesses who heard and saw the
airplanes hit the towers is kook babble.
That all the video was CGI is kook babble.
That the exterior walls were designed to deflect airplanes is kook babble.
That the exterior walls were anything other than supports for the
windows is kook babble.
That two of the aircraft landed somewhere else is kook babble.
That a shotgun works anything like an underground nuclear explosion
is kook babble.
There is nothing in an airplane that transmits the flight number to
ATC and saying the transponder does that is kook babble.
Saying a missile of any kind hit the Pentagon is kook babble.
Rantings about specially treated dirt is kook babble.
Saying people worship their television and capitalizing "television" is
kook babble.
Capitalizing things that shouldn't be capitalized is kook babble.
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
Sep 2, 2015, 4:31:07 PM9/2/15
to
In sci.physics Rocky <woo...@att.net> wrote:
>
> <ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message
> news:5bmhbc-...@mail.specsol.com...
>> In sci.physics Rocky <woo...@att.net> wrote:
>>>
>> How's the latest job search going, kook?
>
> Not only have I proven
All you have proven is that you are a raving, delusional lunatic and
>
> <ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message
> news:5bmhbc-...@mail.specsol.com...
>> In sci.physics Rocky <woo...@att.net> wrote:
>>>
>> How's the latest job search going, kook?
>
> Not only have I proven
a stalker, kook.
0 new messages