Groups > alt.conspiracy > #265851 > unrolled thread

Roger Wittekind altered court transcripts to bleat out his lies.

Started by	Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx>
First post	2015-08-31 06:56 +0200
Last post	2015-08-31 17:17 +0200
Articles	8 on this page of 28 — 7 participants

Back to article view | Back to alt.conspiracy

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#266119 — Re: Rocky is still a delusional kook stalker

From	jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com
Date	2015-09-02 20:22 +0000
Subject	Re: Rocky is still a delusional kook stalker
Message-ID	<sc2kbc-e8m.ln1@mail.specsol.com>
In reply to	#266110

In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
> 
> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message 
> news:5bmhbc-f9e.ln1@mail.specsol.com...
>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@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
a stalker, kook.

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.

<snip remaining kook babble>

-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#266129 — Re: List of things proven to Jim but he has his head buried in the dirt

From	"K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com>
Date	2015-09-02 15:52 -0500
Subject	Re: List of things proven to Jim but he has his head buried in the dirt
Message-ID	<1boeuat4h1i2vraq01ms8tq1gbr8jst3fb@4ax.com>
In reply to	#266110

On Wed, 2 Sep 2015 14:56:53 -0500, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote:

><jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message 
>news:5bmhbc-f9e.ln1@mail.specsol.com...
>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
>>>
>> How's the latest job search going, kook?
>
>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?

     Jim didn't ask for proof. He asked how your latest job search is
going.
     Shall we, the readers, take your avoidance as an indication that
you still haven't managed to find a job?

-- 
Shill #3. Current Psychotronic World Dominator and FEMA camp
counselor

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#266048

From	doug.bollen@rocketmail.com
Date	2015-09-01 14:26 -0700
Message-ID	<e5150713-301f-4b6f-ad10-9d5ebdf98c6e@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#266036

See http://www.ecases.us/case/illappct/2063244/wittekind-v-rusk

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#266057

From	"Rocky" <wookiee@att.net>
Date	2015-09-01 17:11 -0500
Message-ID	<oYGdnYQQtbgsv3vInZ2dnUU7-UmdnZ2d@giganews.com>
In reply to	#266048

<doug.bollen@rocketmail.com> wrote in message 
news:e5150713-301f-4b6f-ad10-9d5ebdf98c6e@googlegroups.com...
> See http://www.ecases.us/case/illappct/2063244/wittekind-v-rusk

First, despite what those judges claim I always had evidence of malice: 
See:
 http://slimefest.com/Exhibits/index.htm#evidenceofmalice

Plus if the real definition of Probable Cause had ever been applied I would 
have been granted the right to use both the Report of Proceedings an a 
police report that I used to win my jury trial 12 to 0 to prove both malice 
and a total lack of good faith.

And also see where I prove that ruling was done with no legal authority 
whatsoever:
 http://errorsoflawonthefaceoftherecord.com/

Rocky

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#266073

From	BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com>
Date	2015-09-02 00:02 -0400
Message-ID	<MPG.30503ed9de154bd98c25e@news.giganews.com>
In reply to	#266057

In article <oYGdnYQQtbgsv3vInZ2dnUU7-UmdnZ2d@giganews.com>, 
wookiee@att.net says...
> 
> <doug.bollen@rocketmail.com> wrote in message 
> news:e5150713-301f-4b6f-ad10-9d5ebdf98c6e@googlegroups.com...
> > See http://www.ecases.us/case/illappct/2063244/wittekind-v-rusk
> 
> First, despite what those judges claim I always had evidence of malice: 
> See:
>  http://slimefest.com/Exhibits/index.htm#evidenceofmalice
> 
> Plus if the real definition of Probable Cause had ever been applied I would 
> have been granted the right to use both the Report of Proceedings an a 
> police report that I used to win my jury trial 12 to 0 to prove both malice 
> and a total lack of good faith.
> 
> And also see where I prove that ruling was done with no legal authority 
> whatsoever:
>  http://errorsoflawonthefaceoftherecord.com/
> 
> Rocky 

You don't even have the awareness to understand that that case pretty 
much makes you look pretty much insane, do you? Yet you keep posting 
links to it..

BWHAHAHAHAHAHAH!

-- 
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.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#266067

From	"K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com>
Date	2015-09-01 21:09 -0500
Message-ID	<jhkcua51fgd6aol5j6qq5ibomirdgj6es1@4ax.com>
In reply to	#266036

On Tue, 1 Sep 2015 14:56:15 -0500, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote:

>
>"K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> wrote in message 
>news:4ki9uatapcvrkjtc8vvfun4pv48qqtp78m@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 31 Aug 2015 06:37:06 -0500, "Rocky" <wookiee@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. 

     That is a criminal trial, which is different from a civil trial.

>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.
>

     Not necessarily. But even if there were, your case would have
needed to be against the prosecution.

>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>
>

     How did you do this, exactly?

>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
>

     Again, a criminal trial and a civil trial are different. 

>And to see other errors of law on the Face of the Record check out:
> http://errorsoflawonthefaceoftherecord.com
>

     I see no errors of law. 
     Mom's alleged use of the word "faggot" was certainly intended as
an insult, not a statement of fact. Your interest in her daughter
would have indicated to mom that you were not a homosexual. As such,
it can't, to the rational mind, be seen as malice. Add that it's a one
time occurrence, according to you, and it's all the harder to claim
malice.
     FYI: Judge Brinn did not bring charges against you. Only the
prosecution could have done that.

>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
>

     I don't see anything that I would classify as fun. But we may
have differing definitions of fun. And I still don't see any act of
malice.

>>>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
>

     When did you claim anyone used a racial slur against you, then
tried to hide the use of the racial slur?
     I think you're lying about this, but I will give an honest
examination of any and all evidence you present.

>>>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>
>

     Clearly mom didn't want you to associate with her daughter. 
     It appears the daughter had some mental health issues that would
not benefit, and may cause harm, with your involvement in her life.
You may have believed you could help the daughter resolve these
issues, but you would not be able. 
     I don't know if mom's view that you would have caused harm is
accurate, but it is a reasonable position to take. Add that the
daughter wasn't interested in any sort of romantic relationship with
you and it's all the more reason for mom wanting you to leave the
daughter alone.

>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
>

     Having an interest is not illegal. But when the daughter made it
clear she wasn't interested, you should have accepted this and moved
on with your life.

>BTW the following exhibit from the jury trial I won was even missing a few 
>items:
> http://slimefest.com/exhibits/#Exhibit4
>

     Since it wasn't allowed in the civil action, I don't see the
relevance to our discussion.

>> 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
>

     It is not evidence of malice. But cite applicable statutory and
case law, if it is.
     It is possible she lied about your not being invited over to the
house. I hold the opinion that she lied, but that is nothing more than
my opinion, and I freely admit I have nothing upon which to support
this opinion.
     Certainly she was wrong, as you were able to prove. This likely
resulted in the jury questioning the whole of her testimony. But it is
not evidence of malice since the very real possibility that she did
not remember correctly existed.

>>     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>
>

     Not so. It raised reasonable doubt in the minds of those on the
jury. And that is all that is needed to be found not guilty.

>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?

     Mack v First Security does not, and did not, fully support your
arguments. Some aspects could be made to apply, but not the whole of
it. What really makes it difficult to apply to your case is that Voy
Mack was referred to with a racial slur. You were accused of being
infatuated with the daughter. What you've allowed to be seen of your
written correspondence with her could easily allow a mom to believe
you were.
     Mom, and maybe step-dad, called you a pejorative typically used
for people who are homosexual. Since you aren't a homosexual, someone
calling you "faggot" would never have the same impact as calling a
black person the "N" word.

-- 
There once was a girl of society
Who behaved with extreme propriety
She sat down one day and uncrossed her legs
And revealed his secret entirely.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#266071

From	Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx>
Date	2015-09-02 05:47 +0200
Message-ID	<6edd6e4157c157a701f42c502ff85905@dizum.com>
In reply to	#266036

Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>

Rocky (aka Roger Wittekind the woman-stalking schizophrenic
paranoid-delusional truck crashing kook), in
<news:yu6dnVcvGYWZnnvInZ2dnUU7-ROdnZ2d@giganews.com> did thusly jump
head first into the wood chipper again:

> Ba<SMACKAKOOK!>

You stalked a woman for nearly 20 years because she wore the same
color pants as you (let me guess... blue? LOL), and read into that a
lot of stuff that wasn't there. She displayed no interest in you, she
was just trying to avoid hurting your feelings because some people are
nice like that... if it weren't for your incessant obsessive stalking
of her, you wouldn't have ever entered her thoughts even once.

Then, when her mother recognized that you're a mental case and
attempted to protect her daughter from you, you attempted to
obsessively harass her via the court system, for which you were
officially sanctioned and fined $1500 after your kooksoot was
dismissed.

After the court system slapped you for being a retarded obsessive
kook, you then created *seven* kooksites, on which you misquoted, took
out of context and outright altered court transcripts in an attempt to
paint yourself as the victim after you'd stalked that woman for nearly
20 years... and you've kept those websites up for more than a decade
after your kooksoot was dismissed.

Then you got a job driving truck... and immediately got into quarrels
with management because you're such a delusional kook you think you
know better than anyone else. Your truck broke down several times
because you didn't listen to people smarter than you, you got your
sign-on bonus taken away from you, you had to pay a towing fee, then
you got fired after you rolled your tanker truck and got charged with
failure to maintain control of your vehicle.

So now you're an unemployable kook spewing retarded and utterly
impossible conspiracy theory blather as you become more and more irate
at the US government you blame for 9/11 because your broken brain
believes all that retarded shit you spew.

Your paranoid-delusional mind has graduated from merely obsessive OCD
stalking to outright schizophrenia.

It won't be long before your mental illness compels you to commit some
heinous act for which you'll receive a long jail sentence. You're a
future danger to civilized society, a ticking time bomb. As in all
cases of mental illness, yours is progressive, and will eventually
culminate in your becoming a danger to society. Therefore, you're now
on the radar of law enforcement on a local and federal level.

You can expect a visit from mental health professionals at some time
in the future.

Yer welcome, Roger.

<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 building shook, 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 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:
<e3f0e4f638e69c3db43076c8b842db91@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
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.

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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#265920

From	Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx>
Date	2015-08-31 17:17 +0200
Message-ID	<0a74871e809d203bce9c5314e96866a4@dizum.com>
In reply to	#265853

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:8qWdnZVRZfw3eH7InZ2dnUU7-RmdnZ2d@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" <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> 
> wrote in message news:bd3eb7fb3542131d783ec701a61ffafc@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) ======================================================
>> 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>

> Wa<SMACKAKOOK!>

Stalking schizo kook. LOL

-- 

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:
<e3f0e4f638e69c3db43076c8b842db91@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
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.

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

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

csiph-web

Roger Wittekind altered court transcripts to bleat out his lies.

Contents

#266119 — Re: Rocky is still a delusional kook stalker

#266129 — Re: List of things proven to Jim but he has his head buried in the dirt

#266048

#266057

#266073

#266067

#266071

#265920