The HBO Special on Women who love Men on Death Row
Christi
What did you think??
--
Christi
http://colesce.hypermart.net
>^,,^< >^,,^< >^,,^< >^,,^<
I tried to wrestle my demons once... but they used too many
illegal holds.
seria...@uswest.net
"Christi" <Wicke...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> Anyone else see it??
> What did you think??
>
> --
> Christi
> http://colesce.hypermart.net
> >^,,^< >^,,^< >^,,^< >^,,^<
I saw the HBO special, but it was called "Women Who Loved Killers", not
men on death row. Only a couple were on death row (Ramierez & Rolling).
Lyle Menendez got life. Anyway, it was interesting, but I certainly
would not have done an interview like that--somethings they talked about
were a bit much--things the public probably did not care about!! Maybe,
maybe not!!! However, since I had heard of Sondra London, it was nice
to put a face to the name. I actually felt bad for her, since it was
all so public, and it is really a private situation. Oh well! Did you
like it?
Bonnie
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Christi
I find it facinating that these women seem to ignore that facts of the
crimes....I think Richard's (I can't spell his last name) thinks he is
innocent - But I was wondering, how does a "pure" female get married to a
Satanist and what kind of wedding did they have???
I would suppose they find some measure of comfort that these men won't get
out of jail, so they don't have to "worry" if they are guilty. I guess we
have to remeber that most of these men are sociopathic and have tha "sleazy
charm" quality...........
I too, felt sorry for Sondra -
--
Christi
http://colesce.hypermart.net
>^,,^< >^,,^< >^,,^< >^,,^<
I tried to wrestle my demons once... but they used too many
illegal holds.
"=^.^=" <=^.^=@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:q89u4scbdvtf6tcvb...@4ax.com...
> I thought it was interesting..but I would have preferred
> less people and more depth...What I don't understand is
> why these women don't seem to mind the enormity of the
> crimes their men committed. Especially the nightstalker..eeekkk
> I missed the Rolling first few minutes...but I did
> get to see Sondra..
>
> nicki
KaEfEr
>I thought it was interesting..but I would have preferred
>less people and more depth...What I don't understand is
>why these women don't seem to mind the enormity of the
>crimes their men committed. Especially the nightstalker..eeekkk
>I missed the Rolling first few minutes...but I did
>get to see Sondra..
>
>nicki
>
Care to share you analysis of London? Just being curious as I don't get
to see those good shows living here.
KaEfEr
>
>
>On Thu, 09 Dec 1999 00:33:08 GMT, seria...@uswest.net wrote:
>
>>In article <82kmi6$m3u$1...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>,
>> "Christi" <Wicke...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>> Anyone else see it??
>>> What did you think??
>>>
>>> --
>>> Christi
>>> http://colesce.hypermart.net
>>> >^,,^< >^,,^< >^,,^< >^,,^<
>>
>>I saw the HBO special, but it was called "Women Who Loved Killers", not
>>men on death row. Only a couple were on death row (Ramierez & Rolling).
>> Lyle Menendez got life. Anyway, it was interesting, but I certainly
>>would not have done an interview like that--somethings they talked about
>>were a bit much--things the public probably did not care about!! Maybe,
>>maybe not!!! However, since I had heard of Sondra London, it was nice
>>to put a face to the name. I actually felt bad for her, since it was
>>all so public, and it is really a private situation. Oh well! Did you
>>like it?
>>Bonnie
>>
>>
>>Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
>>Before you buy.
Famous words from Barbara:
"No, either you misunderstand me or I was not clear."
"Just so there is no misunderstanding and to be perfectly clear I never claimed to be nice."
Christi
she'd never have that type of experience again and how she wishes happiness
for Danny and his fiancee. Danny also said how he felt sorry about what he
did to Sondra, but he had to "Follow his heart"....
Danny is the scariest *I* think because he has that "snake like" charm about
him.....Richard is obviously disturbed (with his satanic stuff) but Danny
never even mentions his crime cept to say " I been down the dark path for
sure......"
--
Christi
http://colesce.hypermart.net
>^,,^< >^,,^< >^,,^< >^,,^<
I tried to wrestle my demons once... but they used too many
illegal holds.
"=^.^=" <=^.^=@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:9vkv4s0lqsb1vpn08...@4ax.com...
>
> I had forgotten about the show..and I didn't turn it
> on until 10:08. She was being interviewed and I
> only got to see her for a minute or so...
>
> She looked very nice and well put together..
> had her make up and hair done by a professional
> I would imagine.
>
> I was so ticked that I missed her interview because I have read
> about her on this newsgroup. I didn't know she was
> on the documentary..but I had seen a picture of her once..so I knew it
> was her. Rolling went on and on about how he loves his new main
> squeeze and she is the one that I have doubts about her sanity...
> (he gives me the creeps!!!)
KaEfEr
>
>I had forgotten about the show..and I didn't turn it
>on until 10:08. She was being interviewed and I
>only got to see her for a minute or so...
>
>She looked very nice and well put together..
>had her make up and hair done by a professional
>I would imagine.
>
>I was so ticked that I missed her interview because I have read
>about her on this newsgroup. I didn't know she was
>on the documentary..but I had seen a picture of her once..so I knew it
>was her. Rolling went on and on about how he loves his new main
>squeeze and she is the one that I have doubts about her sanity...
>(he gives me the creeps!!!)
How did he meet his new main squeeze? Rolling gives me the creeps too.
That is why I have a hard time understanding London.
KaEfEr
****************************************
http://members.tripod.com/~KaEfY
****************************************
KaEfEr
<Wicke...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>They showed a clip of Danny singing to Sondra - and Sondra was saying how
>she'd never have that type of experience again and how she wishes happiness
>for Danny and his fiancee. Danny also said how he felt sorry about what he
>did to Sondra, but he had to "Follow his heart"....
What did he do to her?
>
>Danny is the scariest *I* think because he has that "snake like" charm about
>him.....Richard is obviously disturbed (with his satanic stuff) but Danny
>never even mentions his crime cept to say " I been down the dark path for
>sure......"
And people wonder why we want to execute the likes of him!
KaEfEr
****************************************
http://members.tripod.com/~KaEfY
****************************************
Hester Mofet
>
>Care to share you analysis of London? Just being curious as I don't get
>to see those good shows living here.
>
>KaEfEr
>
Aw, Penny, you do,too! Not too long ago, there was a whole special on Hindley
and Brady. I also know that they have recently been or are going to show
programs on Dahmer, Manson and Bundy. Or should I say programmes? :)
Hester
What if the Hokey Pokey *is* what it's all about?
Christi
I want to say the fiancee's name is Stella - but I can't be sure -
and they met basically like they all meet - by letters....
--
Christi
http://colesce.hypermart.net
>^,,^< >^,,^< >^,,^< >^,,^<
I tried to wrestle my demons once... but they used too many
illegal holds.
"KaEfEr" <kae...@REMOVECAPSlart.com> wrote in message
news:Xh5QOPc+3fl2lq...@4ax.com...
KaEfEr
wrote:
>Penny wrote:
>
>>
>>Care to share you analysis of London? Just being curious as I don't get
>>to see those good shows living here.
>>
>>KaEfEr
>>
>
>Aw, Penny, you do,too! Not too long ago, there was a whole special on Hindley
>and Brady. I also know that they have recently been or are going to show
>programs on Dahmer, Manson and Bundy. Or should I say programmes? :)
Hester, I honestly haven't seen any on our cable telly we use except
just recently Channel 5 started running the special on serial killers
and that isn't until late at night and we are in bed (hence the one you
are talking about with Dahmer, etc. which I did happen to catch). We do
get the Discovery channel but not the same programs as the Discovery
channel in the states. Maybe with another cable company they show it
but not with the one we use. Maybe I can ask Jason about it. CNN
isn't even as interesting as the one in the states.
Penny
>
>Hester
>
>
>What if the Hokey Pokey *is* what it's all about?
Famous words from Barbara:
KaEfEr
<Wicke...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>He dumped ner for his new fiancee.
>
>I want to say the fiancee's name is Stella - but I can't be sure -
>and they met basically like they all meet - by letters....
Thanks Christi. Was his currant fiancee on the show too?
KaEfEr
Christi
Yvette was her name - she is a hairdresser -
It was a good special - but I want to know if these women think these men
are guilty - I am under the assumtion that Yvette knows Danny is guilty.
The only other story where it seemed as if the woman knew the man was guilty
was the interacial couple.
Richards wife and the woman who married Eric (?) Menedez seem to think that
they are innocent....
--
Christi
http://colesce.hypermart.net
>^,,^< >^,,^< >^,,^< >^,,^<
I tried to wrestle my demons once... but they used too many
illegal holds.
"=^.^=" <=^.^=@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:o2j25s0b0bibqdcjr...@4ax.com...
>
> Yea..she was a young woman..it is going to be on HBO again in a few
> days and I will watch the first part this time...I thought her name
> was evette..or something
> like that..but I am not sure...
>
> nicki
KaEfEr
>
>Yea..she was a young woman..it is going to be on HBO again in a few
>days and I will watch the first part this time...I thought her name
>was evette..or something
>like that..but I am not sure...
>
>nicki
Please let me know the outcome of that show. We definitely don't get
HBO here.
KaEfEr
KaEfEr
<Wicke...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>YEAH
>Yvette was her name - she is a hairdresser -
>It was a good special - but I want to know if these women think these men
>are guilty - I am under the assumtion that Yvette knows Danny is guilty.
>The only other story where it seemed as if the woman knew the man was guilty
>was the interacial couple.
Are they allowed to touch or anything when visiting someone on death
row?
>
>Richards wife and the woman who married Eric (?) Menedez seem to think that
>they are innocent....
Who is Richards again? I heard Menedez's brother's wife is divorcing
him. Have you heard that?
Sondra London
>
> On Thu, 9 Dec 1999 18:10:37 -0500, "Christi"
> <Wicke...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> >He dumped ner for his new fiancee.
> >
> >I want to say the fiancee's name is Stella - but I can't be sure -
> >and they met basically like they all meet - by letters....
>
> Thanks Christi. Was his currant fiancee on the show too?
>
>
> Famous words from Barbara:
> "No, either you misunderstand me or I was not clear."
> "Just so there is no misunderstanding and to be perfectly clear I never claimed to be nice."
Her name was Yvette Perryman and she was never engaged to Rolling.
Shortly after these interviews were taped over a year ago, Perryman
ripped Rolling off for considerable artwork and dumped him. He was
pretty depressed for awhile, but he pulled himself together with a
little help from his REAL friends, and he managed to get over that one.
Rolling is now being worked by an operative who is being paid to keep
him happy. He doesn't want to believe she is being put up to it by a
certain spiderish Grandma, her son the pedo hacker, and the rest of the
interstate conspirators that have been threatening, harassing and
intimidating me for 3 years now. But as I've mentioned before, tricks
leave traces, and their indentities are known to law enforcement at more
than just the federal level.
More later.
--
Sondra London
http://www.sondralondon.com
Sondra London
> the documentary...I missed most of your part but it's
> on again next week..and I hope I will remember to watch it.
Producer Robert Duncan is from Canada. He is quite a gentleman, very
courteous. He has a very soft style of questioning. That's all I know.
I noticed a snide remark to this thread that my makeup and hair must
have been 'professionally done.' While I will interpret that as a
backhanded compliment, it is not the case. I have not seen this
documentary yet, but if it portrays me as less than hideous, it is more
likely due to the professional lighting than the makeup, which was the
same old makeup I wear in every public appearance. I don't remember how
I wore my hair at that time, but I always do it myself. Lighting is the
single most crucial element in determining how the human face appears on
camera.
> So it was filmed a year ago?
Over a year. It's been in the works for quite some time.
Could you have said what ever you
> wanted..or was it scripted??
>
None of the appearances I have done have been scripted. I always say
what I want, but typically the most important statements wind up on the
cutting room floor, because I say always say things that are not
conducive to the spin being put on my story by the vested interests who
intend to marginalize and neutralize me.
Every time a camera is pointed at me, I make one particular statement
and it has yet to be aired despite documentation that it is true: 'The
families of the victims of the Gainesville murders accepted thousands of
dollars for the story of their slain children; then threatened to kill
me if I were to reveal the truth about what happened in Gainesville.'
http://www.sondralondon.com/boots/brothers/brothers.html
> Is it impolite to ask if they paid you for the interview ?
I don't care. We're way beyond politeness at this point. This is a WAR.
Nobody ever pays for these interviews. They tell you it's supposed to be
good for your career to get exposure. The same line they feed you in the
music business to get you to appear for free, while everyone else is
being well-paid.
I JUST SAY NO to most of these requests. I also turned down an offer by
PARAMOUNT PICTURES to acquire the film rights to my life story.
However, I want to mention that the long-awaited 'non-fiction short
film' (NOT 'documentary,' mind you) about me by ERROL MORRIS has been
bought by Channel Four in England and Bravo in the US, and will most
likely air in March. It was filmed a couple of years ago. I haven't seen
it yet either, but I've been told by numerous industry professionals
that it is an outstanding piece of work, as is everything ERROL MORRIS
touches. I was thrilled to hear that MOMA is purchasing it for their
permanent collection as well.
> Who would pay someone to make Rolling happy??
Please download and save my entire lengthy post to the JASON MOSS thread
for future reference. See if you can figure out who is funding these
KNOWN individuals and why they are doing such a thing. I myself do not
know. I am a victim, a target, an unwilling participant in this
intrigue.
The purpose, so far as I understand it, is to discredit, defame,
marginalize, mystify, intimidate, and neutralize me as a source of
information; and at the very least to keep me so busy trying to sort it
all out that I will be unable to continue my work. However, despite this
intended effect, please note the numerous new websites I have posted to
my domain during the same time.
> i know,..nosey ....nosey
That's all right. Everybody seems to have an endless appetite for these
little personal details. However, I don't like to dwell on this sort of
information because I feel it detracts from the message I am trying to
get across in my work. So after this, if you don't mind, I'd like to
direct all interest in my persona back towards the topic; to wit:
DEDICATION: TO VICTIMS OF VIOLENCE
http://www.sondralondon.com/new/stop/ded.html
Martha <Leo Cox >
...
> Rolling is now being worked by an operative who is being paid to keep
> him happy. He doesn't want to believe she is being put up to it by a
> certain spiderish Grandma, her son the pedo hacker, and the rest of the
> interstate conspirators that have been threatening, harassing and
> intimidating me for 3 years now. But as I've mentioned before, tricks
> leave traces, and their indentities are known to law enforcement at more
> than just the federal level.
>
> More later.
Dear Sondra,
This is the sort of thing that makes it so hard for many of us to
support you. I know you have heavy emotional involvement here, but it
really doesn't do your cause any good to say these things.
Martha
Sondra London
threats I posted to the JASON MOSS thread in response to JACK OLSEN's
family being threatened because of me? Did you read the part where
"SARAH" mentions having money sent to "CATHERINE" from "the California
account" to "WORK DANNY LOVE"? And did you notice how SARAH goes on to
complain that she can't get close enough to hit me because there are
CHILDREN on the property?
I realize you have been fed MALICIOUS LIES about my 'shocking personal
life,' but it just ain't so. Just like I didn't 'turn JOE in to the
FBI.' Didn't you ever stop to think that maybe the lies fed to you
personally and directly had something to do with the other activity
being directed at me by the same people?
These things are real, Martha, it's not something I have invented. I
mention it because ignoring it hasn't made it go away. So out it comes.
Whether it does me any good is for me to judge. This goes way beyond
whether or not you are perceptive enough to understand what is going on
here and whether or not you 'support' me.
My life is being threatened and so is that of my daughter. I am
confident that revealing these threats and the identity of those behind
them has a prophylactic effect; and in any case if the activity does
continue, and escalate, all of the documentation is being carefully
reported.
--
Sondra London
http://www.sondralondon.com
A J Davenport
are allowed some contact.
I know of one couple who attempted homestyle artifical insimination by
having him jack off into a cup and her using the fluid to get pregnant.
Why in the world she would do this is beyond me, but then again I don't
want kids at all much less one I would have to raise on my own.
A J
Because, somebody has to be the Diva!
Martha <Leo Cox >
>
> Martha, I haven't said a single thing I can't prove. Did you read the
> threats I posted to the JASON MOSS thread in response to JACK OLSEN's
> family being threatened because of me? Did you read the part where
> "SARAH" mentions having money sent to "CATHERINE" from "the California
> account" to "WORK DANNY LOVE"? And did you notice how SARAH goes on to
> complain that she can't get close enough to hit me because there are
> CHILDREN on the property?
>
> I realize you have been fed MALICIOUS LIES about my 'shocking personal
> life,' but it just ain't so. Just like I didn't 'turn JOE in to the
> FBI.' Didn't you ever stop to think that maybe the lies fed to you
> personally and directly had something to do with the other activity
> being directed at me by the same people?
>
> These things are real, Martha, it's not something I have invented. I
> mention it because ignoring it hasn't made it go away. So out it comes.
> Whether it does me any good is for me to judge. This goes way beyond
> whether or not you are perceptive enough to understand what is going on
> here and whether or not you 'support' me.
>
> My life is being threatened and so is that of my daughter. I am
> confident that revealing these threats and the identity of those behind
> them has a prophylactic effect; and in any case if the activity does
> continue, and escalate, all of the documentation is being carefully
> reported.
Dear Sondra,
I am not disputing anything you allege. I have no first-hand, personal
knowledge of any of it. My point is that I *want* to be on your side in
the Danny Rolling situation, but your dragging other issues, like your
ongoing business with Grandmother Spider, is a) a distraction and b)
distressing and c) irrelevant.
Much of the animosity that exists here against you is based more on your
personal life than on your work. My unsolicited advice is to try to
keep the two separate, at least when posting here. I have seen ugliness
on both sides, and it seems to me that it's counterproductive to confuse
the public issues with the private ones.
Martha
KaEfEr
>On Fri, 10 Dec 1999 22:28:36 +0000, KaEfEr <kae...@REMOVECAPSlart.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 10 Dec 1999 15:17:40 -0500, "Christi"
>><Wicke...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>
>>>YEAH
>>>Yvette was her name - she is a hairdresser -
>>>It was a good special - but I want to know if these women think these men
>>>are guilty - I am under the assumtion that Yvette knows Danny is guilty.
>>>The only other story where it seemed as if the woman knew the man was guilty
>>>was the interacial couple.
>>
>>Are they allowed to touch or anything when visiting someone on death
>>row?
>>
>>>
>>>Richards wife and the woman who married Eric (?) Menedez seem to think that
>>>they are innocent....
>>
>>Who is Richards again? I heard Menedez's brother's wife is divorcing
>>him. Have you heard that?
>>
>>KaEfEr
>>
>
>
>Richard Rameriz...
>
>I think that is the correct spelling...he was the ~Night Stalker~
>there is a book about him..very frightening to read
>but well written and interesting..( its called the same name)
>you should look for it in a used book store...
>he was in Southern california...
Oh yes, I have heard about him. Wasn't there a movie done as well?
>I've told this story before...but...
>I'll always remember him because my son was
>about 10 years old during his terror....and they
>kept talking about a serial killer on the news....and my son
>refused to eat cereal for months...
Probably scared the bejeesus out of him.. hehe .. How did you convince
him to finally eat cereal?
>
>Richard had a large contingent of groupies..
I just don't understand what draws women to animals like that.
>
>I think the woman said she divorced the menendez brother,..
>she caught him writing to another woman..
>she was a play boy bunny..
>
Oh wow.. cheating on the wifey. I don't know why she married him to
begin with. There has to be something in it for women like this but
what is beyond me.
KaEfEr
>nicki
****************************************
http://members.tripod.com/~KaEfY
****************************************
KaEfEr
wrote:
>Death row inmates are not allowed congigal [sp?] visits. Family members
>are allowed some contact.
Thanks, A J. Who is considered family? Fiance part of that?
>
>I know of one couple who attempted homestyle artifical insimination by
>having him jack off into a cup and her using the fluid to get pregnant.
>
>Why in the world she would do this is beyond me, but then again I don't
>want kids at all much less one I would have to raise on my own.
Maybe to make some money or something? Dunno about the minds of women
who find a need to become involved with killers.
KaEfEr
>
>A J
>Because, somebody has to be the Diva!
>KaEfEr wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 10 Dec 1999 15:17:40 -0500, "Christi"
>> <Wicke...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>
>> >YEAH
>> >Yvette was her name - she is a hairdresser -
>> >It was a good special - but I want to know if these women think these men
>> >are guilty - I am under the assumtion that Yvette knows Danny is guilty.
>> >The only other story where it seemed as if the woman knew the man was guilty
>> >was the interacial couple.
>>
>> Are they allowed to touch or anything when visiting someone on death
>> row?
>>
****************************************
http://members.tripod.com/~KaEfY
****************************************
A J Davenport
>
> On Sat, 11 Dec 1999 10:42:03 +0000, A J Davenport <aj...@ix.netcom.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Death row inmates are not allowed congigal [sp?] visits. Family members
> >are allowed some contact.
>
> Thanks, A J. Who is considered family? Fiance part of that?
>
Varies from state to state I would imagine. Parents, kids, spouse and
fiance qualify in CA.
> >
> >I know of one couple who attempted homestyle artifical insimination by
> >having him jack off into a cup and her using the fluid to get pregnant.
> >
> >Why in the world she would do this is beyond me, but then again I don't
> >want kids at all much less one I would have to raise on my own.
>
> Maybe to make some money or something? Dunno about the minds of women
> who find a need to become involved with killers.
>
Kids don't make you money they cost you money. If you are interested in
the physcology of why women get involved with killers I suggest you read
Women Who Love Men Who Kill by Sheila Isenberg.
Sondra London
>
> Dear Sondra,
>
> I am not disputing anything you allege. I have no first-hand, personal
> knowledge of any of it. My point is that I *want* to be on your side in
> the Danny Rolling situation, but your dragging other issues, like your
> ongoing business with Grandmother Spider, is a) a distraction and b)
> distressing and c) irrelevant.
>
> Much of the animosity that exists here against you is based more on your
> personal life than on your work. My unsolicited advice is to try to
> keep the two separate, at least when posting here. I have seen ugliness
> on both sides, and it seems to me that it's counterproductive to confuse
> the public issues with the private ones.
>
> Martha
Martha,
The discussion in this thread is neither about crime nor about my work.
It is about "Women who love Men on Death Row." The question was raised
about what happened to Danny Rolling after Yvette dumped him. The answer
is he is being "worked." My information reached me mixed in with
threats.
I guess the annotated report I posted to the JASON MOSS thread was too
lengthy for you to read or too complicated for you to figure out. I will
try again, to make it easy for you to follow.
Here's the part about "Catherine working Danny love." You will note the
"fl.gov" and the "Spiderlegz" and the "656...@msn.com" (Jason Moss) and
the "donn...@atrocketmail.com" and "mne...@dwp.net" (Moss socks).
From: "IM HOTEP"
>>>>To: lamb...@fl.gov
>>>>Cc: 656...@msn.com, donn...@atrocketmail.com
>>>>Subject: [Fwd: RE: Lumin called me]
>>>> >>>>I got this from Spiderlegz today.
>>>>she said it will happen, but she cant get close right now.
>>>>She has Catherine working Danny love;
From: lamb skin
>To: mne...@dwp.net
>Reply-To: lamb...@fl.gov
>Subject: RE: FW: [Fwd: RE: Lumin called me] Opportunity$
>X-Sender: lambskin
>Errors-To: lamb...@fl.gov >
>Marion, I agree and can't do more from here. Christo is ready to just walk up to her disguised and smash her with a hammer ha ha ;) Get back to my after you talk to Lumin.
>The kid writing Starke is workin out ok. I sent her a money order from the California address.
The "business with Grandmother Spider" is far from irrelevant. It is she
who CLAIMS that she "has Catherine working Danny." It is she who has
taken credit for similarly working Jesperson, Rogers and Ferrell to
point these killers at me like weapons.
The other parts of the threats I posted make it clear who is lurking
around my house, looking in my windows, noticing children, expecting to
see me in court, and soliciting to have me blinded, crippled and worse.
Regarding my daughter, I repeat: I have always endeavored to protect her
privacy. It is Grandma who has posted my daughter's photos and sent them
to Gypsy to post along with her filthy lies and impersonations of me. It
is Grandma (here as Karmanji) involved in offering "more $" to "get" my
daughter.
From: "SOVE REIGN" <sove...@planetmatrix.com>
To: Murd...@hotmail.com
Subject: [Fwd: more $]
Date: Sat, 4 Sep 1999 13:42:54-0700
This is from Mark, up for a ride ?
$overeign
>What up dawg,
>If u can help me find her daughter we can get more $ fro it.
From: Karm...@aol.com
>Date: Sat, 4 Sep 1999 13:11:40 EDT
>To: Lucife...@wickedmail.com
>Subject: more $
>>****** Forwarded Message Follows *******
>>Mark,
>>If you can find her daughter there is extra in it for you.
I have been repeatedly threatened that I must keep "SILENT" about these
threats. In the past, I have refused to be drawn into a contretemps with
these people, and have only been reporting them to law enforcement,
journalists and investigators - not the general public. Now that they
have announced their intention to have me "blinded by the millenium,"
those days have expired. These are not faceless cyberphantoms. Their
proximity and identity are KNOWN.
The "animosity about my personal life" is an artifact created with
malicious intent by the same people vigorously circulating FRANK LIES.
Going back now to that little GenX episode with the tin hat and the
"mignet" and all the rest of the lunacy FALSELY and MALICIOUSLY
attributed to me - I need to remind you that CHRISTINE SNYDER, reporting
back to GRANDMA SPIDER, with a very vigorous intervention by GYPSY,
widely circulated all sorts of outrageous false allegations about me. I
refuse to drag all those allegations up again, because they are NOT
TRUE, and many people reading these posts can't seem to sort out who is
saying what. I will merely state the most important FACT.
I reported to FT. LAUDERDALE POLICE HOMICIDE DETECTIVE JOHN KING as soon
as I arrived at CHRISTINE SNYDER'S condo upon her insistently repeated
invitations, after my home address was posted to Usenet by GYPSY, my
apartment was entered, my computer tampered and left on to be noticed
upon my return, and many other terroristic incidents occurred.
Upon my arrival, I turned over the collection of threats I had received
up to that date to my friends at the FT. LAUDERDALE POLICE DEPT. And
then when SNYDER was triggered into her psychotic break over the phone
by "CAPTAIN AMERICA" one month later, I went right straight back to the
police.
KING repeatedly attempted to get SNYDER to talk to him; she REFUSED to
cooperate. If any of the disinfo she has circulated about my private
life was true, she would have been happy to have the circumstances
investigated. Never happened.
"Something's happening here, but you don't know what it is, do you, Mr.
Jones?"
Gloves off,
Sondra London
http://www.sondralondon.com
Martha <Leo Cox >
<snip>
Well, Sondra. You've lost me. I give up.
Martha
KaEfEr
<Son...@Sondralondon.com> wrote:
>KaEfEr wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 9 Dec 1999 18:10:37 -0500, "Christi"
>> <Wicke...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>
>> >He dumped ner for his new fiancee.
>> >
>> >I want to say the fiancee's name is Stella - but I can't be sure -
>> >and they met basically like they all meet - by letters....
>>
>> Thanks Christi. Was his currant fiancee on the show too?
>>
>> KaEfEr
>>
>> Famous words from Barbara:
>> "No, either you misunderstand me or I was not clear."
>> "Just so there is no misunderstanding and to be perfectly clear I never claimed to be nice."
>
>Her name was Yvette Perryman and she was never engaged to Rolling.
>Shortly after these interviews were taped over a year ago, Perryman
>ripped Rolling off for considerable artwork and dumped him. He was
>pretty depressed for awhile, but he pulled himself together with a
>little help from his REAL friends, and he managed to get over that one.
>Rolling is now being worked by an operative who is being paid to keep
>him happy. He doesn't want to believe she is being put up to it by a
>certain spiderish Grandma, her son the pedo hacker, and the rest of the
>interstate conspirators that have been threatening, harassing and
>intimidating me for 3 years now. But as I've mentioned before, tricks
>leave traces, and their indentities are known to law enforcement at more
>than just the federal level.
>
>More later.
You know, I have NO sympathy towards Rolling what so ever. Whatever he
gets, he deserves. How any woman can fall for an admitted monster like
him is beyond me.
BTW: I haven't seen an answer to the question I asked you. Have you
ever given Rolling any gifts?
Sondra London
>
> BTW: I haven't seen an answer to the question I asked you.
I don't read every post.
Have you
> ever given Rolling any gifts?
Yes, I have sent him art supplies. I gave him a gold ring and a gold
cross on a chain. A photo album. And photos. That's it. No money, ever.
This was his stated preference.
No need for me to lie. All this is easily verified. You can't send
anything in to someone in prison without it being accounted for. And
these personal gifts are not considered by the state to have anything to
do with the Son of Sam Law.
I understand your skepticism. Common sense would suggest that in a case
about a felon profiting from accounts of crime, there would at least be
some profit, some money, SOMETHING. But there's not. That's why they had
to reach so hard to fabricate this unheard-of legal principle of a
"unique & special relationship" with absolutely NO material result. As
the years have gone by they STILL can't find anything else to tie me to
Danny Rolling. They filed suit under this untested law in 1993 as a form
of prior restraint so they just had to make up these novel legal
principles on the fly to justify keeping it going.
Please rest assured that we are both all too well aware of the
unprecedented level of scrutiny we are under. It is my intention that
this test case progress through on the merits of the issues, not be
sidetracked by any noncompliance or impropriety on my part. And Danny
feels the same.
The amount of investigation directed at me, the attempts to entrap me
and draw me into making a false move, to justify putting me "behind
bars," as the AAG continually threatens to do, in this - a civil lawsuit
- after all these years, all this would have surely uncovered any
questionable or wrong activity, if it had ever taken place. It hasn't.
Period.
Christi
I don't understand WHY these people would bither doing all this to you -
I missed the beginning of the story - have been to your website - and I
still
don't understand......
?
--
Christi
http://colesce.hypermart.net
>^,,^< >^,,^< >^,,^< >^,,^<
I tried to wrestle my demons once... but they used too many
illegal holds.
"Sondra London" <Son...@Sondralondon.com> wrote in message
news:385379...@Sondralondon.com...
Sondra London
>
> Sondra -
> I don't understand WHY these people would bither doing all this to you -
> I missed the beginning of the story - have been to your website - and I
> still
> don't understand......
>
> ?
>
It's a long story.
Informed minds dare to speculate. But not openly. When the situation
itself strains credibility, any explanation will follow suit.
Every9man
From: Sondra London <Son...@Sondralondon.com>
Period.
--
Sondra London
http://www.sondralondon.com
**********
I'm told that the Son of Sam law in Florida is written differently than it was
in New York. Since New York's law was declared unconstitutional but for
narrowly defined reasons ( I think), I'd be curious to read the Florida Law. Do
you perhaps have a copy you could post?
I've always thought that if the gifts were considered part of the *plunder*,
the state would have confiscated them along with your money. Since they didnt,
it's obvious that they dont even have them as an excuse.
Barbara
Sondra London
>
> I'm told that the Son of Sam law in Florida is written differently than it was
> in New York. Since New York's law was declared unconstitutional but for
> narrowly defined reasons ( I think),
Not so narrow. It's hard to get around the unequivocal language the
Supreme Court used in TROUNCING this type of law. Read it & weep:
Excerpts from the Opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court, 12/11/91 [The
Criminal
Law Reporter, Vol. 50, No. 11] Re: Simon & Schuster, Inc. v. Members of
the
New York State Crime Victims Board et al. No. 90-1059, Argued October
15,
1991; Decided December 10, 1991:
Justice O'Connor, speaking for the majority, began with the "obvious
proposition that "[a]
statute is presumptively inconsistent with the First Amendment if it
imposes a financial burden on
speakers because of the content of their speech." The Son of Sam law
falls into that suspect
category, O'Connor said, because it "singles out income derived from
expressive activity for a
burden the State places on no other income, and it is directed only at
works with a specified
content.
The Board's claim that the law is permissible under the [First]
Amendment because it focuses
generally on an "entity" rather than specifically on the media, falters
first on semantic grounds,
since any entity that enters into a contract with a convicted person to
transmit that person's
speech becomes by definition a medium of communication, and second, on
constitutional
grounds, since the governmental power to impose content-based financial
disincentives on
speech does not vary with the identity of the speaker.
A statute is presumptively inconsistent with the First Amendment if it
imposes a financial burden
on speakers because of the content of their speech... As we emphasized
in invalidating a
content-based magazine tax, "official scrutiny of the content of
publications as the basis for
imposing a tax is entirely incompatible with the First Amendment's
guarantee of freedom of the
press."... This is a notion so engrained in our First Amendment
jurisprudence that last Term we
found it so "obvious" as to not require explanation... It is but one
manifestation of a far broader
principle: "Regulations which permit the Government to discriminate on
the basis of the content
of the message cannot be tolerated under the First Amendment."
As we reiterated in Leathers, "The constitutional right of free
expression is... intended to remove
governmental restraints from the area of public discussion, putting the
decision as to what views
shall be voiced largely into the hands of each of us... in the belief
that no other approach would
comport with the premise of individual dignity and choice upon which our
political system
rests."
The government's power to impose content-based financial disincentives
on speech surely does
not vary with the identity of the speaker.
As we have often had occasion to repeat, "[T]he fact that society may
find speech offensive is not
a sufficient reason for suppressing it. Indeed, if it is the speaker's
opinion that gives offense, that
consequence is a reason for according it constitutional protection."
"If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is
that the Government may
not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the
idea itself offensive or
disagreeable."
Had the Son of Sam law been in effect at the time and place of
publication, it would have
escrowed payment for such works as The Autobiography of Malcolm X, which
describes crimes
committed by the civil rights leader before he became a public figure;
Civil Disobedience, in
which Thoreau acknowledges his refusal to pay taxes and recalls his
experience in jail; and even
the Confessions of Saint Augustine, in which the author laments "my past
foulness and the
carnal corruptions of my soul," one instance of which involved the theft
of pears from a
neighboring vineyard.
Amicus Association of American Publishers, Inc., has submitted a
sobering bibliography listing
hundreds of works by American prisoners and ex-prisoners, many of which
contain descriptoins
of the crimes for which the authors were incarcerated, including works
by such authors as Emma
Goldman and Martin Luther King, Jr. A list of prominent figures whose
autobiographies would
be subject to the statute if written is not difficult ot construct: The
list could include Sir Walter
Raleigh, who was convicted of treason after a dubiously conducted 1603
trial; Jesse Jackson,
who was arrested in 1963 for trespass and resisting arrest after
attempting to be served at a lunch
counter in North Carolina; and Bertrand Russell, who was jailed for
seven days at the age of 89
for participating in a sit-down protest against nuclear weapons.
Here a law is directed to speech alone where the speech in question is
not obscene, not
defamatory, not words tantamount to an act otherwise criminal, not an
impairment of some other
constitutional right, not an incitement to lawless action, and not
calculated or likely to bring about
imminent harm the State has the substantive power to prevent. No further
inquiry is necessary to
reject the State's argument that the statute should be upheld.
The inapplicability of the compelling interest test to content-based
restrictions on speech is
demonstrated by our repeated statement that "above all else, the First
Amendment means that the
Government has no power to restrict expression because of its message,
its ideas, its subject
matter, or its content."
"Regulations which permit the Government to discriminate on the basis of
the content of the
message cannot be tolerated under the First Amendment."
I'd be curious to read the Florida Law. Do
> you perhaps have a copy you could post?
>
FLORIDA STATUTE 944.512
State lien on proceeds from literary or other type of account of crime
for which convicted.
(1) A lien prior in dignity to all others shall exist in favor of the
state upon royalties, commissions, proceeds of sale, or any other thing
of value payable to or accruing to a convicted felon or a person on his
behalf, including any person to whom the proceeds may be transferred or
assigned by gift or otherwise, from any literary, cinematic, or other
account of the crime for which he was convicted. A conviction shall be
defined as a guilty verdict by a jury or judge, or a guilty or nolo
contendere plea by the defendant, regardless of adjudication of guilt.
The lien shall attach at the time of the conviction in county or circuit
court. In the event of an appeal, the funds will be held in the
Revolving Escrow Trust Fund of the Department of Legal Affairs until the
appeal is resolved.
(2) The proceeds of such account shall be distributed in the following
order:
(a) Twenty-five percent to the dependents of the convicted felon. If
there are no dependents, this portion shall be distributed to the Crimes
Compensation Trust Fund to be distributed as awards for crime victims.
(b) Twenty-five percent to the victim or victims of the crime or to
their dependents, to the extent of their damages as determined by the
court in the lien enforcement proceedings. If there are no victims or
dependents, or if their damages are less than 25 percent of the
proceeds, this portion, or its remainder, shall be distributed to the
Crimes Compensation Trust Fund to be distributed as awards to crime
victims. (c) After payments have been made pursuant to paragraph (a) or
paragraph (b), an amount equal to pay all court costs in the prosecution
of the convicted felon, which shall include, but not be limited to, jury
fees and expenses, court reporter fees, and reasonable per diem for the
prosecuting attorneys for the state, shall go to the General Revenue
Fund. Additional costs shall be assessed for the computed per capita
cost of imprisonment or supervision by the state or county correctional
system. Such costs shall be determined by the Auditor General. (d) The
rest, residue, and remainder to the Crimes Compensation Trust Fund to be
distributed as awards to crime victims.
(3) A judge may place a lien prior in dignity to all others in favor of
the state or county upon any financial settlement payable to or accruing
to a convicted offender or person on his behalf, as a result of injury
incurred during or at the time of a violation of the state law, or as a
result of an attempt to flee apprehension for the offense for which the
offender was convicted. A conviction is defined as in subsection (1).
The lien shall be attached by order of the judge at the time of the
conviction in county or circuit court. In the event of an appeal, the
funds shall be held in the Revolving Escrow Trust Fund of the Department
of Legal Affairs until the appeal is resolved.
(4) The proceeds of such account shall be distributed in the following
order:
(a) Payment of all medical care, treatment, hospitalization, and
transportation resulting from said injury. (b) Payment to the victim or
victims of the crime or to their dependents, to the extent of their
damages as determined by he court in the lien enforcement proceeding.
(c) Payment of all court costs in the prosecution of the convicted
felon, which shall include, but not be limited to, jury fees and
expense, court reporter fees, and reasonable per diem for the
prosecuting attorneys and public defenders. (d) Payment of cost of
incarceration in state or county facilities. (e) The rest, residue,
remainder to the injured party.
(5) The department is hereby authorized and directed to report to the
Department of Legal Affairs the existence or reasonably expected
existence of circumstances which would be covered by this section. Upon
such notification, the Department of Legal Affairs is authorized and
directed to take such legal action as is necessary to perfect and
enforce the lien created by this section.
SEE ALSO: http://www.sondralondon.com/rolling/legal/legal.html
Agreement Between Sondra London & Danny Rolling
Florida's "Son of Sam" Statute
"Son of Sam" Laws Declared Unconstitutional by U.S. Supreme Court
Brief on the Alleged Constitutionality of This Discriminatory Act of
Censorship, by the State of Fla.
Brief on the Unconstitutionality of This Unlawful Lien, by Defendant
Rolling
Brief on the Unconstitutionality of This Encroachment on the First
Amendment, by Defendant London
Statement on the Egregiousness of this Discriminatory Action, by Counsel
for Defendant London
Statement on Prison Censorship, by Defendant Rolling
Final Judgment for the Plaintiff, by Trial Judge Martha Lott
Rolling & London v. Fla., Brief on Unconstitutionality, by Appellant
Rolling
Rolling & London v. Fla., Brief on Unconstitutionality, by Appellant
London
Rolling & London v. Fla., Reply to State's Appellate Brief
Danny Rolling's Death Penalty Appeal Brief (328 K)
News stories about Sondra London's Day in Court 12/1/99
This is a very ill-conceived statute. Please note that 1/4 of the seized
proceeds go to THE FELON's family... which puts us right back where we
started. All Danny ever wanted on his own behalf was to help his
daughter. So now the state makes her the beneficiary! And under the
terms of the agreement I have with Rolling, neither he nor his family is
due to receive ANY MONEY AT ALL from me for anything EVER.
This law assigns a lien PRIOR IN DIGNITY TO ALL OTHERS. That means it
blocks the vicfams from suing the felon for wrongful death and
recovering ALL of his assets from ANY source whatsoever. It's stupid.
All these little details are shoved under the rug while the headlines
scream about the felon "profiting from crime."
That is called disinformation.
> I've always thought that if the gifts were considered part of the *plunder*,
> the state would have confiscated them along with your money.
Well, they would have at least MENTIONED them as part of their case
against me. My attorney assured me there was no reason not to send Danny
the few small gifts I did send, and he was right.
Since they didnt,
> it's obvious that they dont even have them as an excuse.
> Barbara
It's important to realize that in finding against me, the 1st District
Court of Appeals did NOT rule on the Son of Sam law. They sidestepped it
and based their decision on a CRIMINAL statute that allows a lien to be
assessed against a felon AT TIME OF SENTENCING; two ways the statute
does not apply in this case. It's a civil case, and no lien was assessed
at time of sentencing.
This unconstitutional statute remains open to challenge.
KaEfEr
<Son...@Sondralondon.com> wrote:
>KaEfEr wrote:
>>
>> BTW: I haven't seen an answer to the question I asked you.
>
>I don't read every post.
>
>
> Have you
>> ever given Rolling any gifts?
>
>
>Yes, I have sent him art supplies. I gave him a gold ring and a gold
>cross on a chain. A photo album. And photos. That's it. No money, ever.
>This was his stated preference.
And none was paid for by the money you made from the book?
>
>No need for me to lie. All this is easily verified.
I am not nor have ever said you lied. I just don't approve of your
methods. And I just don't understand how you could fall in love with
such a monster as Rolling. Especially after knowing what horrible
crimes he committed.
>You can't send
>anything in to someone in prison without it being accounted for. And
>these personal gifts are not considered by the state to have anything to
>do with the Son of Sam Law.
I know how prisons work since I have had a brother in there for most of
his adult life. The state has come right out and said that the gifts
were exempt?
>
>I understand your skepticism. Common sense would suggest that in a case
>about a felon profiting from accounts of crime, there would at least be
>some profit, some money, SOMETHING. But there's not. That's why they had
>to reach so hard to fabricate this unheard-of legal principle of a
>"unique & special relationship" with absolutely NO material result. As
>the years have gone by they STILL can't find anything else to tie me to
>Danny Rolling. They filed suit under this untested law in 1993 as a form
>of prior restraint so they just had to make up these novel legal
>principles on the fly to justify keeping it going.
>
>Please rest assured that we are both all too well aware of the
>unprecedented level of scrutiny we are under. It is my intention that
>this test case progress through on the merits of the issues, not be
>sidetracked by any noncompliance or impropriety on my part. And Danny
>feels the same.
>
>The amount of investigation directed at me, the attempts to entrap me
>and draw me into making a false move, to justify putting me "behind
>bars," as the AAG continually threatens to do, in this - a civil lawsuit
>- after all these years, all this would have surely uncovered any
>questionable or wrong activity, if it had ever taken place. It hasn't.
>
>Period.
I just don't have any kind thoughts or feelings towards a monster like
Rolling. We shall all see the outcome of this mess.
Every9man
From: "Dog3" <do...@mindspring.com>
Date: Mon, 13 December 1999 03:05 AM EST
Message-id: <83217p$pmv$1...@nntp3.atl.mindspring.net>
x-no-archive: yes
"Sondra London" <Son...@Sondralondon.com> wrote in message
news:385379...@Sondralondon.com...
> KaEfEr wrote:
> >
> > BTW: I haven't seen an answer to the question I asked you.
>
> I don't read every post.
>
>
> Have you
> > ever given Rolling any gifts?
>
>
> Yes, I have sent him art supplies. I gave him a gold ring and a gold
> cross on a chain. A photo album. And photos. That's it. No money, ever.
> This was his stated preference.
There you have it. The answer.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ah yes! Perhaps the state should march right into Danny's cell and rip the
cross off of his neck to put into escrow.
Jeezus Michael!
Barbara