Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #517414 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-08-28 09:22 -0500 |
| Last post | 2015-09-02 07:27 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 232 — 23 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
NUCLEAR TERRORISM IS HERE "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-28 09:22 -0500
Re: NUCLEAR TERRORISM IS HERE gilber34 <invalid@invalid.com> - 2015-08-28 09:33 -0500
Re: NUCLEAR TERRORISM IS HERE Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-08-28 18:42 +0200
Re: NUCLEAR TERRORISM IS HERE "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-29 11:01 -0500
Re: NUCLEAR TERRORISM IS HERE "%" <persent@gmail.com> - 2015-08-29 09:04 -0700
Re: NUCLEAR TERRORISM IS HERE "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-29 11:32 -0500
Re: NUCLEAR TERRORISM IS HERE jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-29 16:48 +0000
Re: NUCLEAR TERRORISM IS HERE "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-30 15:42 -0500
Re: NUCLEAR TERRORISM IS HERE jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-30 20:55 +0000
Re: NUCLEAR TERRORISM IS HERE (Jim is a joke) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-30 16:26 -0500
Re: NUCLEAR TERRORISM IS HERE (Jim is a joke) jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-30 22:51 +0000
Re: NUCLEAR TERRORISM IS HERE (Jim has eaten lies 'bout the PentaCON) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-30 21:14 -0500
Re: NUCLEAR TERRORISM IS HERE (Jim has eaten lies 'bout the PentaCON) jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-31 02:40 +0000
Re: NUCLEAR TERRORISM IS HERE (Jim is caught trolling) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-30 22:21 -0500
Re: NUCLEAR TERRORISM IS HERE (Jim is caught trolling) jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-31 05:27 +0000
Re: NUCLEAR TERRORISM IS HERE (4 Jim no moiré pattern) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-31 00:36 -0500
Re: NUCLEAR TERRORISM IS HERE (4 Jim no moir矰attern) Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-08-31 16:43 +0200
Re: NUCLEAR TERRORISM IS HERE (4 Jim no moir? pattern) jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-31 18:01 +0000
Re: NUCLEAR TERRORISM IS HERE (4 Jim no moir? pattern) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-31 14:17 -0500
Re: NUCLEAR TERRORISM IS HERE (4 Jim no moir? pattern) jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-31 19:58 +0000
Re: NUCLEAR TERRORISM IS HERE (4 Jim no moir? pattern) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-31 15:04 -0500
Re: NUCLEAR TERRORISM IS HERE (4 Jim no moir? pattern) jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-31 20:40 +0000
Caught Jim in MORE BULLSHIT "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-31 15:59 -0500
Re: Rocky's pathetic life jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-31 21:42 +0000
Jim proves he is FULL OF SHIT AGAIN "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-31 16:58 -0500
Re: Rocky's pathetic life jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-31 22:41 +0000
Re: Jim proves he is FULL OF SHIT AGAIN HVAC <Mr.HVAC@gmail.com> - 2015-09-01 07:03 -0400
Re: Jim proves he is FULL OF SHIT AGAIN gilber34 <invalid@invalid.com> - 2015-09-02 21:36 -0500
Re: Caught Jim in MORE BULLSHIT "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-31 16:50 -0500
Re: NUCLEAR TERRORISM IS HERE (4 Jim no moir? pattern) Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-09-01 04:38 +0200
Re: NUCLEAR TERRORISM IS HERE (4 Jim no moir� pattern) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-02 09:15 -0500
Re: NUCLEAR TERRORISM IS HERE (Proof we were given a life sized Disney Cartoon) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-02 14:19 -0500
Re: NUCLEAR TERRORISM IS HERE (Jim is caught trolling) "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-31 04:31 -0500
Re: NUCLEAR TERRORISM IS HERE (Jim has eaten lies 'bout the PentaCON) Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-08-31 06:39 +0200
Re: NUCLEAR TERRORISM IS HERE "%" <persent@gmail.com> - 2015-08-29 12:21 -0700
Re: NUCLEAR TERRORISM IS HERE moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-08-29 22:55 +0000
Re: NUCLEAR TERRORISM IS HERE reply to Michael "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-29 19:48 -0500
Re: NUCLEAR TERRORISM IS HERE reply to Michael jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-30 01:30 +0000
Re: NUCLEAR TERRORISM IS HERE reply to Michael "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-29 21:11 -0500
Re: NUCLEAR TERRORISM IS HERE reply to Michael jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-30 03:27 +0000
Re: NUCLEAR TERRORISM IS HERE Two videos of the pre vaporization event "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-30 21:32 -0500
Re: NUCLEAR TERRORISM IS HERE Two videos of the pre vaporization event jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-31 03:19 +0000
Re: NUCLEAR TERRORISM IS HERE Two videos of the pre vaporization event "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-30 22:57 -0500
Re: NUCLEAR TERRORISM IS HERE Two videos of the pre vaporization event jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-31 05:32 +0000
Re: NUCLEAR TERRORISM IS HERE Two videos of the pre vaporization event "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-30 22:54 -0500
Re: Rocky can't hold a job jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-31 05:34 +0000
Re: NUCLEAR TERRORISM IS HERE Two videos of the pre vaporization event Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-08-31 18:05 -0400
Re: NUCLEAR TERRORISM IS HERE (Sarah spelled CGI wrong) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-31 17:10 -0500
Re: NUCLEAR TERRORISM IS HERE (Sarah spelled CGI wrong) Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-08-31 18:29 -0400
Re: NUCLEAR TERRORISM IS HERE (Sarah spelled CGI wrong) Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-09-01 04:38 +0200
Re: NUCLEAR TERRORISM IS HERE Two videos of the pre vaporization event "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-30 23:39 -0500
Re: NUCLEAR TERRORISM IS HERE Two videos of the pre vaporization event "%" <persent@gmail.com> - 2015-08-30 21:51 -0700
Re: NUCLEAR TERRORISM IS HERE Two videos of the pre vaporization event jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-31 05:37 +0000
Re: NUCLEAR TERRORISM IS HERE reply to Michael gilber34 <invalid@invalid.com> - 2015-08-29 22:40 -0500
Re: NUCLEAR TERRORISM IS HERE reply to Michael gilber34 <invalid@invalid.com> - 2015-08-29 22:44 -0500
Re: NUCLEAR TERRORISM IS HERE reply to Michael "Checkmate, DoW #1" <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2015-08-29 21:22 -0700
Re: NUCLEAR TERRORISM IS HERE reply to Michael gilber34 <invalid@invalid.com> - 2015-08-30 15:29 -0500
Re: NUCLEAR TERRORISM IS HERE reply to Michael Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-08-30 08:34 +0200
Re: NUCLEAR TERRORISM IS HERE reply to Michael "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-30 04:45 -0500
Re: NUCLEAR TERRORISM IS HERE reply to Kent Wills "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-30 11:39 -0500
Re: NUCLEAR TERRORISM IS HERE reply to Kent Wills "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-30 15:36 -0500
Re: NUCLEAR TERRORISM IS HERE reply to Kent Wills gilber34 <invalid@invalid.com> - 2015-08-30 16:47 -0500
Re: NUCLEAR TERRORISM IS HERE reply to Kent Wills "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-31 04:28 -0500
Re: NUCLEAR TERRORISM IS HERE reply to Michael Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-08-30 19:47 +0200
Re: NUCLEAR TERRORISM IS HERE reply to Michael "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-30 15:40 -0500
Re: NUCLEAR TERRORISM IS HERE reply to Michael Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-08-31 01:15 +0200
Re: NUCLEAR TERRORISM IS HERE reply to Michael Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-08-31 18:05 -0400
Re: NUCLEAR TERRORISM IS HERE (? for Sarah) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-31 17:12 -0500
Re: NUCLEAR TERRORISM IS HERE (? for Sarah) Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-08-31 18:31 -0400
Re: NUCLEAR TERRORISM IS HERE ( Sarah proves she is an asshole ) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-12 18:24 -0500
Re: NUCLEAR TERRORISM IS HERE ( Sarah proves she is an asshole ) jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-13 00:08 +0000
Re: NUCLEAR TERRORISM IS HERE ( Sarah proves she is an asshole ) "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-12 20:18 -0500
Re: NUCLEAR TERRORISM IS HERE ( Sarah proves she is an asshole ) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-12 20:58 -0500
Re: NUCLEAR TERRORISM IS HERE ( Sarah proves she is an asshole ) "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-13 07:59 -0500
Re: NUCLEAR TERRORISM IS HERE ( Sarah proves she is an asshole ) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-13 09:22 -0500
Re: NUCLEAR TERRORISM IS HERE ( Sarah proves she is an asshole ) jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-13 15:53 +0000
Re: NUCLEAR TERRORISM IS HERE (Roger now claims he actually won his suit. It was dismissed, meaning he lost) "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-13 13:46 -0500
Re: NUCLEAR TERRORISM IS HERE (Roger still doesn't understand the law) "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-12 20:17 -0500
Re: NUCLEAR TERRORISM IS HERE ( Kid still doesn't understand the law at all ) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-12 21:01 -0500
Re: NUCLEAR TERRORISM IS HERE ( Roger PROVES he still doesn't understand the law at all and that he FEARS offering an honest answer to questions) "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-13 07:59 -0500
Re: NUCLEAR TERRORISM IS HERE ( Sarah proves she is an asshole ) Sarah Czepiel <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-09-12 22:45 -0400
Re: NUCLEAR TERRORISM IS HERE ( Sarah the stalker proves she is clearly lying now ) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-12 21:48 -0500
Re: NUCLEAR TERRORISM IS HERE ( wilma 6116 the stalker ) Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-09-12 23:42 -0400
Re: NUCLEAR TERRORISM IS HERE ( wilma 6116 the stalker + lp to Sarah the Stalker) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-13 06:24 -0500
Re: NUCLEAR TERRORISM IS HERE ( wilma 6116 the stalker + lp to Sarah the Stalker) Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-09-13 16:32 -0400
Re: NUCLEAR TERRORISM IS HERE ( wilma 6116 the stalker + lp to Sarah the Stalker) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-13 16:01 -0500
Re: NUCLEAR TERRORISM IS HERE ( wilma 6116 the stalker + lp to Sarah the Stalker) Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-09-13 17:41 -0400
Re: NUCLEAR TERRORISM IS HERE ( wilma 6116 the stalker + lp to Sarah the Stalker) gilber34 <invalid@invalid.com> - 2015-09-16 09:04 -0500
Re: NUCLEAR TERRORISM IS HERE ( Sarah proves she is an asshole ) "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-13 07:59 -0500
Re: NUCLEAR TERRORISM IS HERE (? for Sarah) "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-01 03:58 -0500
Re: NUCLEAR TERRORISM IS HERE reply to Michael "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-01 03:57 -0500
Re: NUCLEAR TERRORISM IS HERE reply to Michael Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-09-02 15:54 -0400
Re: NUCLEAR TERRORISM IS HERE reply to Michael "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-02 15:55 -0500
Re: NUCLEAR TERRORISM IS HERE Sarah is an imbecile "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-12 18:31 -0500
Re: NUCLEAR TERRORISM IS HERE Sarah is an imbecile Sarah Czepiel <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-09-12 22:21 -0400
Re: NUCLEAR TERRORISM IS HERE Sarah is an imbecile that can't prove she is smart "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-12 21:26 -0500
Re: NUCLEAR TERRORISM IS HERE ... Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-09-12 23:39 -0400
Re: NUCLEAR TERRORISM IS HERE ... "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-13 06:18 -0500
Re: NUCLEAR TERRORISM IS HERE ... "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-13 08:02 -0500
Re: NUCLEAR TERRORISM IS HERE ... Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-09-13 15:58 -0400
Re: NUCLEAR TERRORISM IS HERE reply to Michael moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-08-31 14:59 +0000
Re: NUCLEAR TERRORISM IS HERE reply to Michael "Checkmate, DoW #1" <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2015-08-31 08:25 -0700
Re: NUCLEAR TERRORISM IS HERE reply to Michael (Hoaxlahoma) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-31 11:36 -0500
Re: NUCLEAR TERRORISM IS HERE reply to Michael "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-31 11:09 -0500
Re: NUCLEAR TERRORISM IS HERE reply to Michael moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-09-01 06:42 +0000
Re: NUCLEAR TERRORISM IS HERE reply to Michael je suis charly <charlie-gordon1492@no.where> - 2015-09-01 00:03 -0700
Re: NUCLEAR TERRORISM IS HERE gilber34 <invalid@invalid.com> - 2015-08-29 18:08 -0500
Re: NUCLEAR TERRORISM IS HERE jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-29 16:36 +0000
Re: NUCLEAR TERRORISM IS HERE "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2015-08-29 11:06 -0700
Re: NUCLEAR TERRORISM IS HERE Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-08-29 21:17 +0200
Re: NUCLEAR TERRORISM IS HERE Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-08-29 16:33 -0400
Re: NUCLEAR TERRORISM IS HERE (Sarah still avoids my ?) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-29 19:00 -0500
Re: NUCLEAR TERRORISM IS HERE (Rocky still avoids my ?) Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-08-29 20:20 -0400
Re: NUCLEAR TERRORISM IS HERE (Rocky avoids Sarah's BS) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-29 20:57 -0500
Re: NUCLEAR TERRORISM IS HERE (Rocky avoids Sarah's BS) "%" <persent@gmail.com> - 2015-08-29 19:30 -0700
Re: NUCLEAR TERRORISM IS HERE (Rocky avoids Sarah's BS) Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-08-29 23:30 -0400
Re: NUCLEAR TERRORISM IS HERE (Rocky avoids Sarah's BS) jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-30 03:29 +0000
Re: NUCLEAR TERRORISM IS HERE (Rocky avoids Sarah's BS) "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-30 04:43 -0500
Re: NUCLEAR TERRORISM IS HERE (Rocky avoids Sarah's BS) Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-08-30 20:17 +0200
Re: NUCLEAR TERRORISM IS HERE (Telling FNN about the Sim switches) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-30 13:55 -0500
Re: NUCLEAR TERRORISM IS HERE (Telling FNN about the Sim switches) gilber34 <invalid@invalid.com> - 2015-08-30 16:48 -0500
Re: NUCLEAR TERRORISM IS HERE (Telling FNN about the Sim switches) Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-08-31 00:32 +0200
Re: NUCLEAR TERRORISM IS HERE (FNN is complete bullshit) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-30 19:36 -0500
Re: NUCLEAR TERRORISM IS HERE (FNN is complete bullshit) Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-08-31 05:31 +0200
Re: NUCLEAR TERRORISM IS HERE (Sarah still avoids my ?) Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-08-30 08:39 +0200
Re: NUCLEAR TERRORISM IS HERE (Sarah still avoids my ?) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-30 08:15 -0500
Re: NUCLEAR TERRORISM IS HERE (Sarah still avoids my ?) Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-08-30 19:30 +0200
Re: NUCLEAR TERRORISM IS HERE (FFN still avoids my photo?) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-30 13:06 -0500
Re: NUCLEAR TERRORISM IS HERE (FFN still avoids my photo?) gilber34 <invalid@invalid.com> - 2015-08-30 16:48 -0500
Re: NUCLEAR TERRORISM IS HERE (FFN still avoids my photo?) Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-08-31 00:44 +0200
Re: NUCLEAR TERRORISM IS HERE (FFN still avoids my photo?) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-30 19:37 -0500
Re: NUCLEAR TERRORISM IS HERE (FFN still avoids my photo?) moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-08-31 15:40 +0000
Re: NUCLEAR TERRORISM IS HERE (FFN still avoids my photo?) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-31 11:16 -0500
Re: NUCLEAR TERRORISM IS HERE (FFN still avoids my photo?) Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-09-01 04:43 +0200
Re: NUCLEAR TERRORISM IS HERE (Sarah still avoids my ?) "\"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117" <root@127.0.0.1> - 2015-08-31 03:19 -0400
Re: NUCLEAR TERRORISM IS HERE (Sarah still avoids my ?) "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-30 04:42 -0500
Re: NUCLEAR TERRORISM IS HERE jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-28 18:18 +0000
Re: NUCLEAR TERRORISM IS HERE "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-28 15:49 -0500
Re: NUCLEAR TERRORISM IS HERE gilber34 <invalid@invalid.com> - 2015-08-28 15:57 -0500
Re: NUCLEAR TERRORISM IS HERE jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-28 21:14 +0000
Re: NUCLEAR TERRORISM IS HERE "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-28 18:10 -0500
Re: NUCLEAR TERRORISM IS HERE jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-28 23:45 +0000
Re: NUCLEAR TERRORISM IS HERE "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-29 12:09 -0500
Re: NUCLEAR TERRORISM IS HERE jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-29 17:45 +0000
Re: NUCLEAR TERRORISM IS HERE "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-29 13:05 -0500
Re: NUCLEAR TERRORISM IS HERE jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-29 18:25 +0000
Re: NUCLEAR TERRORISM IS HERE "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-29 15:54 -0500
Re: NUCLEAR TERRORISM IS HERE "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-29 19:56 -0500
Re: NUCLEAR TERRORISM IS HERE "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-30 04:39 -0500
Re: NUCLEAR TERRORISM IS HERE gilber34 <invalid@invalid.com> - 2015-08-30 16:53 -0500
Re: NUCLEAR TERRORISM IS HERE gilber34 <invalid@invalid.com> - 2015-08-28 18:55 -0500
Re: NUCLEAR TERRORISM IS HERE Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-08-29 05:08 +0200
Re: NUCLEAR TERRORISM IS HERE 2 FFN "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-29 00:56 -0500
Re: NUCLEAR TERRORISM IS HERE 2 FFN "%" <persent@gmail.com> - 2015-08-28 23:07 -0700
Re: NUCLEAR TERRORISM IS HERE 2 FFN "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-29 09:52 -0500
Re: NUCLEAR TERRORISM IS HERE 2 FFN "%" <persent@gmail.com> - 2015-08-29 09:05 -0700
Re: NUCLEAR TERRORISM IS HERE 2 FFN jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-29 16:39 +0000
Re: NUCLEAR TERRORISM IS HERE 2 FFN "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-29 04:00 -0500
Re: NUCLEAR TERRORISM IS HERE 2 FFN "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-29 10:03 -0500
Re: NUCLEAR TERRORISM IS HERE 2 FFN jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-29 16:41 +0000
Re: NUCLEAR TERRORISM IS HERE 2 FFN Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-08-29 18:44 +0200
Re: NUCLEAR TERRORISM IS HERE 2 FFN "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-29 15:54 -0500
Re: NUCLEAR TERRORISM IS HERE 2 FFN Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-08-29 17:07 +0200
Re: NUCLEAR TERRORISM IS HERE 2 FFN jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-29 16:38 +0000
Re: NUCLEAR TERRORISM IS HERE 2 FFN Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-08-29 19:32 -0400
Re: NUCLEAR TERRORISM IS HERE 2 Sarah "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-29 19:16 -0500
Re: NUCLEAR TERRORISM IS HERE 2 Sarah Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-08-29 20:37 -0400
Re: NUCLEAR TERRORISM IS HERE 2 Sarah "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-29 20:22 -0500
Re: NUCLEAR TERRORISM IS HERE 2 Sarah Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-08-29 21:54 -0400
Re: NUCLEAR TERRORISM IS HERE 2 Sarah 2 "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-29 21:02 -0500
Re: NUCLEAR TERRORISM IS HERE 2 Sarah 2 Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-08-29 23:33 -0400
Re: NUCLEAR TERRORISM IS HERE 2 Sarah evidence of nukes. "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-30 07:50 -0500
Re: NUCLEAR TERRORISM IS HERE 2 Sarah evidence of nukes. "%" <persent@gmail.com> - 2015-08-30 09:01 -0700
Re: NUCLEAR TERRORISM IS HERE 2 Sarah evidence of nukes. "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-30 11:31 -0500
Re: NUCLEAR TERRORISM IS HERE 2 Sarah evidence of nukes. "%" <persent@gmail.com> - 2015-08-30 12:37 -0700
Re: NUCLEAR TERRORISM IS HERE 2 Sarah jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-30 03:33 +0000
Re: NUCLEAR TERRORISM IS HERE 2 Sarah Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-08-30 07:37 +0200
Re: NUCLEAR TERRORISM IS HERE 2 Sarah jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-30 01:32 +0000
Rocky the Retard discredits his own claims... Re: NUCLEAR TERRORISM IS HERE 2 Sarah "Kadaitcha Man" <nospam.nospam.nospam@k12.ed.music.tickling> - 2015-08-31 04:22 +0000
Re: NUCLEAR TERRORISM IS HERE caught Rick with no evidence and contradictory evidence "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-30 06:28 -0500
Re: NUCLEAR TERRORISM IS HERE caught Rick with no evidence and contradictory evidence gilber34 <invalid@invalid.com> - 2015-08-30 17:46 -0500
Re: NUCLEAR TERRORISM IS HERE caught Rick with no evidence and contradictory evidence Peter J Ross <peadar.ruadh@gmx.com> - 2015-08-31 22:14 +0000
Re: NUCLEAR TERRORISM IS HERE caught Rick with no evidence and contradictory evidence "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-31 17:34 -0500
Re: NUCLEAR TERRORISM IS HERE caught Rick with no evidence and contradictory evidence Peter J Ross <peadar.ruadh@gmx.com> - 2015-08-31 23:07 +0000
Re: NUCLEAR TERRORISM IS HERE caught Rick with no evidence and contradictory evidence "\"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117" <root@127.0.0.1> - 2015-08-31 19:18 -0400
Re: NUCLEAR TERRORISM IS HERE caught Rick with no evidence and contradictory evidence "Checkmate, DoW #1" <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2015-08-31 17:15 -0700
Re: NUCLEAR TERRORISM IS HERE caught Rick with no evidence and contradictory evidence Peter J Ross <peadar.ruadh@gmx.com> - 2015-09-02 19:10 +0000
Nomination - Rocky for KotM, August 2015 (was: Rocky the Retard discredits his own claims... Re: NUCLEAR TERRORISM IS HERE 2 Sarah) Peter J Ross <peadar.ruadh@gmx.com> - 2015-08-31 22:13 +0000
Re: Nomination - Rocky for KotM, August 2015 (was: Rocky the Retard discredits his own claims... Re: NUCLEAR TERRORISM IS HERE 2 Sarah) Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-08-31 18:33 -0400
Re: Nomination - Rocky for KotM, August 2015 Peter J Ross <peadar.ruadh@gmx.com> - 2015-08-31 22:49 +0000
Re: Nomination - Rocky for KotM, August 2015 "\"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117" <root@127.0.0.1> - 2015-08-31 19:29 -0400
Re: Nomination - Rocky for KotM, August 2015 "Checkmate, DoW #1" <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2015-08-31 17:29 -0700
Re: Nomination - Rocky for KotM, August 2015 Baron von Lurk <vonlurk@gmail.com> - 2015-08-31 21:02 -0700
Re: Nomination - Rocky for KotM, August 2015 Gary Burnore <gburnore@panix.com> - 2015-09-03 00:18 +0000
Re: Nomination - Rocky for KotM, August 2015 "Ms Kitty, DoW # 6" <kitty@meow.mix> - 2015-09-03 23:45 -0500
Re: Nomination - Rocky for KotM, August 2015 Gary Burnore <gburnore@panix.com> - 2015-09-03 00:17 +0000
Re: Nomination - Rocky for KotM, August 2015 Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-09-02 21:10 -0400
Re: Nomination - Rocky for KotM, August 2015 "Checkmate, DoW #1" <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2015-09-02 19:01 -0700
Re: Nomination - Rocky for KotM, August 2015 Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-09-03 16:32 -0400
Re: Nomination - Rocky for KotM, August 2015 "Ms Kitty, DoW # 6" <kitty@meow.mix> - 2015-09-03 23:49 -0500
Re: Nomination - Rocky for KotM, August 2015 (was: Rocky the Retard discredits his own claims... Re: NUCLEAR TERRORISM IS HERE 2 Sarah) "Checkmate, DoW #1" <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2015-08-31 17:12 -0700
Re: Nomination - Rocky for KotM, August 2015 (was: Rocky the Retard discredits his own claims... Re: NUCLEAR TERRORISM IS HERE 2 Sarah) Baron VonLurk <vonlurk@gmail.com> - 2015-09-01 15:20 -0700
Re: Nomination - Rocky for KotM, August 2015 (was: Rocky the Retard discredits his own claims... Re: NUCLEAR TERRORISM IS HERE 2 Sarah) "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_master.fake> - 2015-09-01 20:42 -0400
Re: Nomination - Rocky for KotM, August 2015 (was: Rocky the Retard discredits his own claims... Re: NUCLEAR TERRORISM IS HERE 2 Sarah) Cujo DeSockpuppet <cujo@petitmorte.net> - 2015-09-02 00:52 +0000
Re: Nomination - Rocky for KotM, August 2015 Peter J Ross <peadar.ruadh@gmx.com> - 2015-09-02 19:04 +0000
Re: Nomination - Rocky for KotM, August 2015 Peter J Ross <peadar.ruadh@gmx.com> - 2015-09-02 19:02 +0000
Re: Nomination - Rocky for KotM, August 2015 "Checkmate, DoW #1" <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2015-09-02 13:24 -0700
Re: Nomination - Rocky for KotM, August 2015 Peter J Ross <peadar.ruadh@gmx.com> - 2015-09-02 20:30 +0000
Re: Nomination - Rocky for KotM, August 2015 "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_master.fake> - 2015-09-02 16:34 -0400
Re: Nomination - Rocky for KotM, August 2015 "Checkmate, DoW #1" <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2015-09-02 13:38 -0700
Re: Nomination - Rocky for KotM, August 2015 "Ms Kitty, DoW # 6" <kitty@meow.mix> - 2015-09-03 23:46 -0500
Re: Nomination - Rocky for KotM, August 2015 "Checkmate, DoW #1" <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2015-09-03 21:54 -0700
Re: Nomination - Rocky for KotM, August 2015 "Ms Kitty, DoW # 6" <kitty@meow.mix> - 2015-09-04 00:01 -0500
Re: Nomination - Rocky for KotM, August 2015 "Checkmate, DoW #1" <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2015-09-02 13:36 -0700
Re: Nomination - Rocky for KotM, August 2015 "%" <persent@gmail.com> - 2015-09-02 13:35 -0700
Re: Nomination - Rocky for KotM, August 2015 Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-09-03 07:41 +0200
Re: Nomination - Rocky for KotM, August 2015 "Checkmate, DoW #1" <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2015-09-02 23:41 -0700
Re: Nomination - Rocky for KotM, August 2015 Gary Burnore <gburnore@panix.com> - 2015-09-03 00:24 +0000
Re: Nomination - Rocky for KotM, August 2015 "Checkmate, DoW #1" <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2015-09-02 19:06 -0700
Re: Nomination - Rocky for KotM, August 2015 "Ms Kitty, DoW # 6" <kitty@meow.mix> - 2015-09-03 23:48 -0500
Re: Nomination - Rocky for KotM, August 2015 "Checkmate, DoW #1" <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2015-09-03 22:00 -0700
Re: Nomination - Rocky for KotM, August 2015 "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_master.fake> - 2015-09-04 09:39 -0400
Re: Nomination - Rocky for KotM, August 2015 "%" <persent@gmail.com> - 2015-09-04 08:15 -0700
Re: Nomination - Rocky for KotM, August 2015 Gary Burnore <gburnore@panix.com> - 2015-09-03 00:19 +0000
Re: Nomination - Rocky for KotM, August 2015 "Checkmate, DoW #1" <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2015-09-02 19:02 -0700
Re: NUCLEAR TERRORISM IS HERE 2 Sarah Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-08-30 08:17 +0200
Re: NUCLEAR TERRORISM IS HERE 2 Sarah "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-30 04:40 -0500
Re: NUCLEAR TERRORISM IS HERE 2 Sarah now 2 Ediot "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-30 08:25 -0500
Re: NUCLEAR TERRORISM IS HERE 2 Sarah no 2 Kent "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-30 15:45 -0500
Re: NUCLEAR TERRORISM IS HERE 2 Sarah no 2 Kent "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-31 04:28 -0500
Re: NUCLEAR TERRORISM IS HERE Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-08-29 20:34 +0200
Re: NUCLEAR TERRORISM IS HERE NoeDOTNatDOTNoe <dedanoe@gmail.com> - 2015-09-02 07:27 -0700
Page 4 of 12 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 12 Next page →
| From | "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-30 15:36 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: NUCLEAR TERRORISM IS HERE reply to Kent Wills |
| Message-ID | <09q6ua5sfso7c39r5mc98hdbbda5ub9tm6@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #517896 |
On Sun, 30 Aug 2015 11:39:36 -0500, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
>"K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:82k5uatvtld8klrsbl6gso6dvf5oiem20h@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 30 Aug 2015 08:34:35 +0200 (CEST), Friendly Neighborhood Vote
>> Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> wrote:
>>
>>>> I am not called Michael or any variation of that name and people know
>>>> who I
>>>> am. I'm someone who has proven they won a jury trial 12 to 0 without an
>>>> attorney present to represent me. <G>
>>>
>>>Lying kook. You've yet again failed to provide any proof for your
>>>insane rantings. No, we've got you pegged, Mike. They're gonna lock
>>>you away in a nice padded room and pump you so full of anti-psychotics
>>>you won't even remember your own name. Michael Scott Guthrie, just
>>>FYI.
>>
>> It may be worth noting that Rocky's name in real life is Roger
>> Wittekind.
>> Some of his ranting can be found here:
>>
>> http://brokensixthamendment.com/
>>
>> http://overprotectivemother.com/
>
>And don't forget http://slimefest.com/exhibits/
I wasn't trying to offer a comprehensive list of your web sites.
Who is Kent Wills, and why are you so OBSESSED with him? I know
I've asked this several times, but you've never offered and answer.
--
Shill #3. Current Psychotronic World Dominator and FEMA camp
counselor
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | gilber34 <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-30 16:47 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: NUCLEAR TERRORISM IS HERE reply to Kent Wills |
| Message-ID | <mrvtlt$6u9$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #517896 |
On 8/30/2015 11:39 AM, Rocky wrote:
> "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:82k5uatvtld8klrsbl6gso6dvf5oiem20h@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 30 Aug 2015 08:34:35 +0200 (CEST), Friendly Neighborhood Vote
>> Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> wrote:
>>>> I am not called Michael or any variation of that name and people know
>>>> who I
>>>> am. I'm someone who has proven they won a jury trial 12 to 0 without an
>>>> attorney present to represent me. <G>
>>> Lying kook. You've yet again failed to provide any proof for your
>>> insane rantings. No, we've got you pegged, Mike. They're gonna lock
>>> you away in a nice padded room and pump you so full of anti-psychotics
>>> you won't even remember your own name. Michael Scott Guthrie, just
>>> FYI.
>> It may be worth noting that Rocky's name in real life is Roger
>> Wittekind.
>> Some of his ranting can be found here:
>>
>> http://brokensixthamendment.com/
>>
>> http://overprotectivemother.com/
>
> And don't forget http://slimefest.com/exhibits/
>
> Rocky
>
>
Child Abuser !
may they pick you up soon and let your ROT IN PRISON
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-31 04:28 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: NUCLEAR TERRORISM IS HERE reply to Kent Wills |
| Message-ID | <ah78uad7pe4bf0nm7lbreb1ftjobds3htm@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #517963 |
On Sun, 30 Aug 2015 16:47:43 -0500, gilber34 <invalid@invalid.com>
wrote:
>On 8/30/2015 11:39 AM, Rocky wrote:
>> "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:82k5uatvtld8klrsbl6gso6dvf5oiem20h@4ax.com...
>>> On Sun, 30 Aug 2015 08:34:35 +0200 (CEST), Friendly Neighborhood Vote
>>> Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> wrote:
>
>>>>> I am not called Michael or any variation of that name and people know
>>>>> who I
>>>>> am. I'm someone who has proven they won a jury trial 12 to 0 without an
>>>>> attorney present to represent me. <G>
>
>>>> Lying kook. You've yet again failed to provide any proof for your
>>>> insane rantings. No, we've got you pegged, Mike. They're gonna lock
>>>> you away in a nice padded room and pump you so full of anti-psychotics
>>>> you won't even remember your own name. Michael Scott Guthrie, just
>>>> FYI.
>
>>> It may be worth noting that Rocky's name in real life is Roger
>>> Wittekind.
>>> Some of his ranting can be found here:
>>>
>>> http://brokensixthamendment.com/
>>>
>>> http://overprotectivemother.com/
>>
>> And don't forget http://slimefest.com/exhibits/
>>
>> Rocky
>>
>>
>
> Child Abuser !
>
If I recall correctly, he was charged with harassment. Primarily
by phone. And the woman was close to his age.
> may they pick you up soon and let your ROT IN PRISON
>
He was already tried for the charge. He was found guilty in the
first trial. He appealed, as was his right, and a re-trial was
ordered. He was found not guilty at the re-trial.
--
Shill #3. Current Psychotronic World Dominator and FEMA camp
counselor
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-30 19:47 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: NUCLEAR TERRORISM IS HERE reply to Michael |
| Message-ID | <ceff5b2a9254aaebed642bd116775918@dizum.com> |
| In reply to | #517825 |
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker> K Wills (Shill #3), in <news:82k5uatvtld8klrsbl6gso6dvf5oiem20h@4ax.com> did thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: > On Sun, 30 Aug 2015 08:34:35 +0200 (CEST), Friendly Neighborhood Vote > Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> wrote: >>> I am not called Michael or any variation of that name and people know who I >>> am. I'm someone who has proven they won a jury trial 12 to 0 without an >>> attorney present to represent me. <G> >> Lying kook. You've yet again failed to provide any proof for your >> insane rantings. No, we've got you pegged, Mike. They're gonna lock >> you away in a nice padded room and pump you so full of anti-psychotics >> you won't even remember your own name. Michael Scott Guthrie, just >> FYI. > It may be worth noting that Rocky's name in real life is Roger > Wittekind. Yeah, I know... I was just trying to force the kook to publicly admit his real-life name and tie himself to his paranoid delusional schizophrenic rantings. But your having done so for Witless Roger Wittekind is nearly as good. You see, I don't go real-life. That would be wrong. <snicker> > Some of his ranting can be found here: > > http://brokensixthamendment.com/ > > http://overprotectivemother.com/ Now that it's been made public, it cannot be considered harassment to publicize the shit out of the fact that Roger Wittekind is a paranoid-delusional schizophrenic who was once dragged into court for telephone harassment of a woman, and all because she was trying to protect her daughter from Roger Wittekind's stalking. To wit: <http://www.ecases.us/case/illappct/2063244/wittekind-v-rusk> ==================================================== Roger WITTEKIND, Plaintiff-Appellant, Cross-Appellee, v. Beverly RUSK, Defendant-Appellee, Cross-Appellant. "At the hearing regarding defendant's motion for sanctions, the trial court made the following remarks to plaintiff: "I am just going to say it here that it is my absolute opinion that you ought to drop this case and quit trying to relive it. Quit trying to reopen it, and accept the fact that this case is over and done. * * * You do have a right to take this to a higher court. * * * But if you do take it to a higher court there's a provision in the Appellate Rules which also applies to frivolous appeals, and * * * the Appellate Court may give us some guidance as to what we should do in cases involving litigants who appear on their own and raise legal arguments that do not have merit." The trial court properly informed plaintiff that his case was over and should be dropped. Further, the court warned plaintiff that an appeal could be found frivolous by the appellate court. Disregarding the trial court's admonitions, plaintiff nevertheless continued this litigation by filing his notice of appeal. In Kubiak, we imposed sanctions under Rule 375(b) when the defendant appealed from a similarly meritless petition to vacate a judgment. We noted that the defendant's appeal required the plaintiff to continually defend against the defendant's "refusal to abide by this court's rulings." (Kubiak, 228 Ill.App.3d at 608, 170 Ill.Dec. at 522, 592 N.E.2d at 1202.) Here, plaintiff has refused to abide by our mandate affirming the trial court's judgment. Based upon the history of this case, we conclude that appropriate sanctions are warranted here. Plaintiff's appeal is not well grounded in fact or warranted by existing law. We recognize that plaintiff was not represented by an attorney before this court and filed his notice of appeal pro se. However, we find absolutely no legal basis for plaintiff's appeal. Also, the trial court essentially informed plaintiff that an appeal would be unwise. Under these circumstances, we conclude that sanctions should be imposed against plaintiff." ==================================================== Whooopsie... looks like the courts dismissed it because Witless Roger Wittekind kept trying to bring the dismissed court case back to life... then the court recommended *sanctions* against Witless Roger Wittekind the schizophrenic paranoid-delusional kook. LOL <http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Misc/misc.transport.trucking/2005-12/msg00724.html> ==================================================== Q. Is Roger Wittekind a good employee? A. No. He has problems dealing with co-workers. During his short employment with Mansur Trucking he had a couple of major run-ins with fellow workers and bosses. Just after a few weeks on the job he felt that he knew more than the Maps and Fuel girl Judy and ended up hanging the phone up on her while she was giving directions which lead to a conflict to where there was friction between the office and him. He went to extremes trying to prove his point even calling the owner on a Sunday complaining that Judy does not listen to him. He feels that since he's the one that requires the information he can dictate to the office that his needs are the most important. He received a warning from the company on his dealings with Judy. Then he failed to follow the direction of the shop supervisor when he had problems on the road. He was giving simple directions on where to go but he felt that wasn't good enough. His decision cost the company money since the vehicle stalled and had to be towed. The company did keep his sign-on bonus of $500 and wanted him to pay for the towing since he was responsible. After it was all over of course Roger posted that everyone involved had lied. This is all from his own postings back in 12/31/2003. ==================================================== <http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Misc/misc.transport.trucking/2005-12/msg00747.html> ==================================================== About Judy, "My first verbal warning that could lead to immediate dismissal" 12/26/2003 12:27pm, "Failed the redundant lecture drill after 4 or 5 repeats (can't handle nagging)" 12/31/2003 6:29pm, "My first verbal warning - Part Two" 1/16/2004 7:31pm, "Lost my sign on bonus part II" 1/16/2004 7:40pm, "What should I say when I start looking for my second trucking job?" 1/17/2004 5:58pm, "Could this be a safety issue?" 1/18/2004 9:08pm, "The days of rookies life, first meeting with CEO" 1/23/2004 8:27pm. About his lack of knowledge of truck operations and losing money, "Lost my sign on bonus because" 1/9/2004 11:09pm, "Can my vacation pay be f_cked with also" 1/11/2004 12:01pm. ==================================================== <http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Misc/misc.transport.trucking/2005-12/msg00774.html> ==================================================== Q. Is Roger Wittekind a safe driver? A. Not in the least. He's stated many times he's done unsafe acts while driving but this one example shows just how unsafe he really is. While driving some other drivers tried to warn Roger that his front tire was going flat. They gave a signal pointing at the front tire and holding their thumb down. He did not stop to check. He figured they were playing a trick on him so he keep driving. When he got back to the yard his front tire was almost completly flat. Reference; "This weeks breakdown" 12/24/2003 9:49pm. Q. Has Roger Wittekind lied? A. On several occasions about how much time he had worked. But one example he can not deny is the fact that he said he took 5 days vacation. A call to Mansur Trucking confirmed that no driver can take any vacation before 6 months on the job. He only had 3 months. Also during the same thread Topper had proved that Roger had lied about how much time he has on the job. Reference; Kyo Sakamoto 11/23/2005 1:42am under the thread of "Nobody gives a f_ck Revisited" by gpsman on 11/16/2005 2:06pm. ==================================================== Roger Wittekind is far too delusional and insane to drive a tricycle, let alone a truck. <snicker> All publicly available information, and all completely legal to make public all over again. Right, Roger? LOL -- Roger Wittekind, 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 falling 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, Mike. 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]
| From | "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-30 15:40 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: NUCLEAR TERRORISM IS HERE reply to Michael |
| Message-ID | <8eq6uadfpva7ij6dtcp53pincc3mc66uh7@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #517912 |
On Sun, 30 Aug 2015 19:47:11 +0200 (CEST), Friendly Neighborhood Vote
Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> wrote:
>Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>
>
>K Wills (Shill #3), in
><news:82k5uatvtld8klrsbl6gso6dvf5oiem20h@4ax.com> did thusly jump head
>first into the wood chipper again:
>
>> On Sun, 30 Aug 2015 08:34:35 +0200 (CEST), Friendly Neighborhood Vote
>> Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> wrote:
>
>>>> I am not called Michael or any variation of that name and people know who I
>>>> am. I'm someone who has proven they won a jury trial 12 to 0 without an
>>>> attorney present to represent me. <G>
>
>>> Lying kook. You've yet again failed to provide any proof for your
>>> insane rantings. No, we've got you pegged, Mike. They're gonna lock
>>> you away in a nice padded room and pump you so full of anti-psychotics
>>> you won't even remember your own name. Michael Scott Guthrie, just
>>> FYI.
>
>> It may be worth noting that Rocky's name in real life is Roger
>> Wittekind.
>
>Yeah, I know... I was just trying to force the kook to publicly admit
>his real-life name and tie himself to his paranoid delusional
>schizophrenic rantings.
>
I apologize for ruining your plan.
I did find it odd that you would post such information. At our
most heated, you never tried to post any personal information about
me. I suppose that should have been a clue to me.
>But your having done so for Witless Roger Wittekind is nearly as good.
>
>You see, I don't go real-life. That would be wrong.
>
><snicker>
>
>> Some of his ranting can be found here:
>>
>> http://brokensixthamendment.com/
>>
>> http://overprotectivemother.com/
>
>Now that it's been made public, it cannot be considered harassment to
>publicize the shit out of the fact that Roger Wittekind is a
>paranoid-delusional schizophrenic who was once dragged into court for
>telephone harassment of a woman, and all because she was trying to
>protect her daughter from Roger Wittekind's stalking.
>
It's only because of the mom's attempt to keep Rocky from her
daughter by lying that he was able to get a not guilty verdict at the
re-trial. Had she simply been honest about everything from the
beginning, he might well have had the original verdict affirmed.
I can understand her motivation. I wouldn't want the likes of
Roger having any unnecessary contact with my daughter. The idea of
lying to help ensure he's unable to be in contact with her would
likely cross my mind.
>To wit:
><http://www.ecases.us/case/illappct/2063244/wittekind-v-rusk>
>====================================================
>Roger WITTEKIND, Plaintiff-Appellant, Cross-Appellee,
>v.
>Beverly RUSK, Defendant-Appellee, Cross-Appellant.
>
>"At the hearing regarding defendant's motion for sanctions, the trial
>court made the following remarks to plaintiff:
>
>"I am just going to say it here that it is my absolute opinion that
>you ought to drop this case and quit trying to relive it. Quit trying
>to reopen it, and accept the fact that this case is over and done.
>
Roger doesn't bring it up too often. Over the course of a decade
plus, he's been able to move on, for the most part.
>* * * You do have a right to take this to a higher court. * * *
>
>But if you do take it to a higher court there's a provision in the
>Appellate Rules which also applies to frivolous appeals, and * * * the
>Appellate Court may give us some guidance as to what we should do in
>cases involving litigants who appear on their own and raise legal
>arguments that do not have merit."
>
>The trial court properly informed plaintiff that his case was over and
>should be dropped. Further, the court warned plaintiff that an appeal
>could be found frivolous by the appellate court.
>
>Disregarding the trial court's admonitions, plaintiff nevertheless
>continued this litigation by filing his notice of appeal. In Kubiak,
>we imposed sanctions under Rule 375(b) when the defendant appealed
>from a similarly meritless petition to vacate a judgment. We noted
>that the defendant's appeal required the plaintiff to continually
>defend against the defendant's "refusal to abide by this court's
>rulings." (Kubiak, 228 Ill.App.3d at 608, 170 Ill.Dec. at 522, 592
>N.E.2d at 1202.) Here, plaintiff has refused to abide by our mandate
>affirming the trial court's judgment. Based upon the history of this
>case, we conclude that appropriate sanctions are warranted here.
>Plaintiff's appeal is not well grounded in fact or warranted by
>existing law.
>
>We recognize that plaintiff was not represented by an attorney before
>this court and filed his notice of appeal pro se. However, we find
>absolutely no legal basis for plaintiff's appeal. Also, the trial
>court essentially informed plaintiff that an appeal would be unwise.
>Under these circumstances, we conclude that sanctions should be
>imposed against plaintiff."
Roger sought relief from malicious prosecution on the part of the
mom. The court found for the defendant, the mom. Roger appealed this
ruling, as was his right.
The appellate court affirmed the finding, Wittekind v. Rusk
(October 16, 1991), No. 3-91-0162.
He should have dropped the matter at this point. He had the not
guilty verdict. The small claims court found he lacked evidence of
malicious prosecution and the appellate court agreed. He had done all
anyone could reasonably expect.
>====================================================
>
>Whooopsie... looks like the courts dismissed it because Witless Roger
>Wittekind kept trying to bring the dismissed court case back to
>life... then the court recommended *sanctions* against Witless Roger
>Wittekind the schizophrenic paranoid-delusional kook. LOL
>
><http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Misc/misc.transport.trucking/2005-12/msg00724.html>
He had every right to appeal the initial dismissal, and he did
so. But he needed to accept the ruling of the appellate court and move
on with his life. But he couldn't.
This lead to sanctions. I confess I do experience a small level
of schadenfreude knowing that Roger had to pay $1500+ for trying to
cause harm to the mom via the courts.
>====================================================
>Q. Is Roger Wittekind a good employee?
>
[snip of items available at the link to save space]
>
>Roger Wittekind is far too delusional and insane to drive a tricycle,
>let alone a truck.
>
Here's more proof of that truth:
http://muscatinejournal.com/news/local/driver-charged-after-overturning-ethanol-tanker/article_58e1b452-a5bf-11df-bef7-001cc4c03286.html
If that should wrap, the following will take readers to the same page:
http://gg.gg/3th8y
><snicker>
>
>All publicly available information, and all completely legal to make
>public all over again. Right, Roger? LOL
I'm not Roger, but you are correct. There is nothing he, or
anyone else, can really do about your posting the information.
I anticipate Roger going ape crazy about how everyone was lying
about him (because he's important enough to warrant such a conspiracy,
of course) in an attempt to cause him grief.
--
Shill #3. Current Psychotronic World Dominator and FEMA camp
counselor
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-31 01:15 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: NUCLEAR TERRORISM IS HERE reply to Michael |
| Message-ID | <d5c9f779e0a304b4362ce967620122fc@dizum.com> |
| In reply to | #517945 |
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker> K Wills (Shill #3), in <news:8eq6uadfpva7ij6dtcp53pincc3mc66uh7@4ax.com> did thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: > On Sun, 30 Aug 2015 19:47:11 +0200 (CEST), Friendly Neighborhood Vote > Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> wrote: >> Roger Wittekind is far too delusional and insane to drive a tricycle, >> let alone a truck. > Here's more proof of that truth: Funnily enough, after the court system slapped him down, the woman stalker bleated hard about it, lying the whole way through: <http://desecratedsixthamendment.com> <http://brokensixthamendment.com> <http://overprotectivemother.com> <http://slimefest.com> Poor delusional little frothmonkey Roger Wittekind is a paranoid delusional schizophrenic woman-stalking failed trucker driver and deadly menace behind the wheel. LOL > http://muscatinejournal.com/news/local/driver-charged-after-overturning-ethanol-tanker/article_58e1b452-a5bf-11df-bef7-001cc4c03286.html Yup, posting publicly available information is completely legal. Roger T.E. Wittekind PO Box 471 167 40th Avenue East Moline, IL 61244 309-755-6374 309-755-6394 Related to: Scott Wittekind 167 40th Avenue and 4015 78th Avenue East Moline, IL 61244 So not only is Roger Wittekind far too delusional and insane to drive a tricycle, let alone a truck, but when he gets behind the wheel of a truck, he becomes a rolling deadly menace. LOL Roger Wittekind is a schizophrenic paranoid-delusional woman-stalking failed truck driver who is a danger whenever he's behind the wheel... and now no trucking company will hire him... except to sweep the floors. LOL Take your anti-psychotic meds, Roger Wittekind of East Moline, IL. You insane babbling conspiracy theorist kook. LOL -- 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, Mike. 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]
| From | Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-31 18:05 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: NUCLEAR TERRORISM IS HERE reply to Michael |
| Message-ID | <htj9ua1ehjeu8fhnfp4qevcm6h6d4ie724@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #517945 |
On Sun, 30 Aug 2015 15:40:41 -0500, "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> wrote: > I anticipate Roger going ape crazy about how everyone was lying >about him (because he's important enough to warrant such a conspiracy, >of course) in an attempt to cause him grief. Wow. LOL. I stepped away for a day and return to find Rocky isn't Michael but Roger and Roger is a complete turd.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-31 17:12 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: NUCLEAR TERRORISM IS HERE (? for Sarah) |
| Message-ID | <jOGdnYt39_YUTHnInZ2dnUU7-cudnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #518289 |
"Sarah Ehrett" <ninety7gt@cox.net> wrote in message news:htj9ua1ehjeu8fhnfp4qevcm6h6d4ie724@4ax.com... > On Sun, 30 Aug 2015 15:40:41 -0500, "K Wills (Shill #3)" > <compuelf@gmail.com> wrote: > >> I anticipate Roger going ape crazy about how everyone was lying >>about him (because he's important enough to warrant such a conspiracy, >>of course) in an attempt to cause him grief. > > Wow. LOL. I stepped away for a day and return to find Rocky isn't > Michael but Roger and Roger is a complete turd. And I told you I wasn't Michael but you just wouldn't listen. Shame on you. BTW is what you called me what you say about everybody that has proven they won a jury trial 12 to 0 by using the state's own evidence against them? Rocky
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-31 18:31 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: NUCLEAR TERRORISM IS HERE (? for Sarah) |
| Message-ID | <7cl9ua5ajqv4nmn4b2ls2u76efto4feu2s@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #518294 |
On Mon, 31 Aug 2015 17:12:47 -0500, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote: > >"Sarah Ehrett" <ninety7gt@cox.net> wrote in message >news:htj9ua1ehjeu8fhnfp4qevcm6h6d4ie724@4ax.com... >> On Sun, 30 Aug 2015 15:40:41 -0500, "K Wills (Shill #3)" >> <compuelf@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> I anticipate Roger going ape crazy about how everyone was lying >>>about him (because he's important enough to warrant such a conspiracy, >>>of course) in an attempt to cause him grief. >> >> Wow. LOL. I stepped away for a day and return to find Rocky isn't >> Michael but Roger and Roger is a complete turd. > >And I told you I wasn't Michael but you just wouldn't listen. Shame on you. Still posting as Rocky... >BTW is what you called me what you say about everybody that has proven they >won a jury trial 12 to 0 by using the state's own evidence against them? Do you stalk a lot of women, Roger?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-12 18:24 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: NUCLEAR TERRORISM IS HERE ( Sarah proves she is an asshole ) |
| Message-ID | <4MGdnYjil9LPKWnInZ2dnUU7-emdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #518299 |
"Sarah Ehrett" <ninety7gt@cox.net> wrote in message news:7cl9ua5ajqv4nmn4b2ls2u76efto4feu2s@4ax.com... > On Mon, 31 Aug 2015 17:12:47 -0500, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote: > >> >>"Sarah Ehrett" <ninety7gt@cox.net> wrote in message >>news:htj9ua1ehjeu8fhnfp4qevcm6h6d4ie724@4ax.com... >>> On Sun, 30 Aug 2015 15:40:41 -0500, "K Wills (Shill #3)" >>> <compuelf@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> I anticipate Roger going ape crazy about how everyone was lying >>>>about him (because he's important enough to warrant such a conspiracy, >>>>of course) in an attempt to cause him grief. >>> >>> Wow. LOL. I stepped away for a day and return to find Rocky isn't >>> Michael but Roger and Roger is a complete turd. >> >>And I told you I wasn't Michael but you just wouldn't listen. Shame on >>you. > > Still posting as Rocky... > >>BTW is what you called me what you say about everybody that has proven >>they >>won a jury trial 12 to 0 by using the state's own evidence against them? > > Do you stalk a lot of women, Roger? If that were true asshole there is no way all twelve jurors would have voted not guilty because jurors don't like stuff like that. The fact was proven to the jury that the crazy mother never had a valid reason to prevent me from answering her daughter's questions. DUH. ================================= The ORDER below proves that Judges in the Appellate Court are as reckless with the law and as reckless with the facts as a reckless attorney is. Duane Thompson was the reckless attorney in question and he failed to state correctly the decision of the Appellate Court in the Mack vs. First Security Bank of Chicago regarding the directed verdict At 110 Ill.Dec. page 542 the court reverses and remands the case. Duane Thompson knew from the way I worded my initial complaint against Beverly Rusk, the exhibits I used to completely impeach her in the jury trial I won and the argument I tried to make during the malicious prosecution lawsuit that the Mack vs. First Security Bank of Chicago fully supported my argument all along because I should be allowed to prove the probable cause was reckless and that the State knew there was evidence of malice before they brought charges against me. Duane Thompson's total mockery of justice relied on the fact that the Judge in the jury trial I won handed back the exhibits because that meant he and the judge in the malicious prosecution lawsuit could issue new rulings on the exact same exhibits that had been used to completely impeach all three of the State's witnesses with prior inconsistent statements. Page 20 line 13 shows I was only allowed to transfer one exhibit from the jury trial I won into a malicious prosecution lawsuit and it happened to be the only exhibit that was signed by my accuser. Duane Thompson also furnished false information about the existence of malice even after hearing where evidence of malice could be found and that "it can be used to prove malice" from the statements below. On page 18 line 17: THE COURT: He's showing the witness page 25 of the transcript. Then before the next statement was made Judge Telleen made it clear what word he would accept as malicious. On page 29 line 14: MR WITTEKIND: The words she uses to describe it can be used to prove malice. All the Appellate Court would do in their ORDER below when they allowed themselves to be duped by Duane Thompson was overlook the evidence of malice in the transcript for the jury trial, manipulate testimony that was completely impeached by prior inconsistent statements using the very facts these judges were making assumptions about and then go so far as to falsify evidence themselves in the fourth paragraph of their ORDER. But not only would Appellate Court Judges help Duane Thompson conceal evidence of one malicious prosecution they would help Duane Thompson conceal evidence of two malicious prosecutions where the evidence presented in the second jury trial proves the first jury trial was won by rendering the statue invalid with misleading jury instructions, using perjured testimony and using a woman that obstructs justice by furnishing false information about her daughter. http://nolegalauthority.com/ Rocky
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-13 00:08 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: NUCLEAR TERRORISM IS HERE ( Sarah proves she is an asshole ) |
| Message-ID | <8crecc-dug.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #520552 |
In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: > If that were true asshole there is no way all twelve jurors would have voted > not guilty because jurors don't like stuff like that. The fact was proven > to the jury that the crazy mother never had a valid reason to prevent me > from answering her daughter's questions. DUH. Nope, it proves you are bat shit crazy, which is what got you hauled into court in the first place. > The ORDER below proves that Judges in the Appellate Court are as reckless > with the law and as reckless with the facts as a reckless attorney is.i Your comment proves you are a delusional fuckwit. > Duane Thompson was the reckless attorney in question and he failed to state > correctly the decision of the Appellate Court in the Mack vs. First Security > Bank of Chicago regarding the directed verdict At 110 Ill.Dec. page 542 the > court reverses and remands the case. Your comment proves you are a delusional fuckwit. > Duane Thompson knew from the way I worded my initial complaint against The you are a delusional fuckwit. > Duane Thompson's total mockery of justice relied on the fact that the Judge > in the jury trial I won handed back the exhibits because that meant he and > the judge in the malicious prosecution lawsuit could issue new rulings on > the exact same exhibits that had been used to completely impeach all three > of the State's witnesses with prior inconsistent statements. Page 20 line > 13 shows I was only allowed to transfer one exhibit from the jury trial I > won into a malicious prosecution lawsuit and it happened to be the only > exhibit that was signed by my accuser. Your comment proves you are a delusional fuckwit. > Duane Thompson also furnished false information about the existence of > malice even after hearing where evidence of malice could be found and that > "it can be used to prove malice" from the statements below. Your comment proves you are a delusional fuckwit. Only a delusional fuckwit gets hauled into court for stalking and can't hold a job. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-12 20:18 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: NUCLEAR TERRORISM IS HERE ( Sarah proves she is an asshole ) |
| Message-ID | <nlj9vatiq0pv9vm085de1mddsvov3mid2i@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #520561 |
On Sun, 13 Sep 2015 00:08:08 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
[...]
>> Duane Thompson also furnished false information about the existence of
>> malice even after hearing where evidence of malice could be found and that
>> "it can be used to prove malice" from the statements below.
>
>Your comment proves you are a delusional fuckwit.
>
>Only a delusional fuckwit gets hauled into court for stalking and
>can't hold a job.
It should be noted Roger was charged with harassment. Stalking
laws weren't in existence at the time. Had they been, he probably
would have been charged with them as well.
The evidence he offers at his k00k sites would be a gimme for the
prosecution in a stalking trial.
--
Shill #3. Current Psychotronic World Dominator and FEMA camp
counselor
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-12 20:58 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: NUCLEAR TERRORISM IS HERE ( Sarah proves she is an asshole ) |
| Message-ID | <7Z-dnexq24_6RWnInZ2dnUU7-KWdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #520578 |
"K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> wrote in message news:nlj9vatiq0pv9vm085de1mddsvov3mid2i@4ax.com... Before you can state: "No it doesn't. You simply don't know how to read and interpret a ruling. You had better prove that you know exactly why the Mack vs. First Security Bank of Chicago was reversed and remanded. And I'll even give you some help. It is hard as hell to figure out what the error of law was in the watered down versions of that legal precedent on the Internet but I happen to have a copy of the printed version here: http://desecratedsixthamendment.com/Mack/ And if you compare the Internet version of the Mack vs. First Security Bank of Chicago with the printed version you will see what someone removed too. <G> Now let us see how really smart you are. What evidence was not allowed in the trial court that reversed and remanded the Mack vs. First Security Bank of Chicago? <G> Rocky
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-13 07:59 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: NUCLEAR TERRORISM IS HERE ( Sarah proves she is an asshole ) |
| Message-ID | <pnsava1jbko932hkc5fqp0pcuusvugjqgl@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #520584 |
On Sat, 12 Sep 2015 20:58:18 -0500, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 13 Sep 2015 00:08:08 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>
>>[...]
>>
>>>> Duane Thompson also furnished false information about the existence of
>>>> malice even after hearing where evidence of malice could be found and that
>>>> "it can be used to prove malice" from the statements below.
>>>
>>>Your comment proves you are a delusional fuckwit.
>>>
>>>Only a delusional fuckwit gets hauled into court for stalking and
>>>can't hold a job.
>>
>> It should be noted Roger was charged with harassment. Stalking
>>laws weren't in existence at the time. Had they been, he probably
>>would have been charged with them as well.
>> The evidence he offers at his k00k sites would be a gimme for the
>>prosecution in a stalking trial.
>
>Before you can state: "No it doesn't. You simply don't know how to read and
>interpret a ruling.
>
Where do you see such a claim in the post to which you replied?
Please be specific.
If you would rather offer a default admission that you are lying
and trying to divert attention from the truth, that will be acceptable
to me.
>You had better prove that you know exactly why the Mack vs. First Security
>Bank of Chicago was reversed and remanded.
>
How does Mack V First Security Bank connect to your being charged
with harassment and not stalking? I honestly don't see the connection.
>And I'll even give you some help. It is hard as hell to figure out what the
>error of law was in the watered down versions of that legal precedent on the
>Internet but I happen to have a copy of the printed version here:
>
> http://desecratedsixthamendment.com/Mack/
>
>And if you compare the Internet version of the Mack vs. First Security Bank
>of Chicago with the printed version you will see what someone removed too.
><G>
>
>Now let us see how really smart you are.
>
Smart enough not to try and divert attention from the truth of
another's post. Sadly, you're very real learning disability means you
thought your deception would benefit you in some way.
It didn't.
>What evidence was not allowed in the trial court that reversed and remanded
>the Mack vs. First Security Bank of Chicago? <G>
>
None, as far as I am aware. Some testimony wasn't permitted, but
to the educated mind, which clearly excludes you, testimony and
evidence are not the same thing.
Please explain how any of your C&P rant connects to what you were
actually charged with.
--
Shill #3. Current Psychotronic World Dominator and FEMA camp
counselor
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-13 09:22 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: NUCLEAR TERRORISM IS HERE ( Sarah proves she is an asshole ) |
| Message-ID | <G7mdnbdR_91yG2jInZ2dnUU7-IWdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #520658 |
"K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> wrote in message news:pnsava1jbko932hkc5fqp0pcuusvugjqgl@4ax.com... > On Sat, 12 Sep 2015 20:58:18 -0500, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >> since most of this is dealt with in another thread I'll stick with the basics. > How does Mack V First Security Bank connect to your being charged > with harassment and not stalking? I honestly don't see the connection. I won that harassment lawsuit hands down with a 12 to 0 verdict. See: http://slimefest.com/exhibits/ It was when I turned around and sued Beverly for Malicious Prosecution that I was cheated by throwing out the definition of "Probable Cause" to prevent me from using the probable cause itself to prove all the State really had was evidence that Beverly Rusk was guilty of obstructing justice. >>What evidence was not allowed in the trial court that reversed and >>remanded >>the Mack vs. First Security Bank of Chicago? <G> >> > > None, as far as I am aware. Some testimony wasn't permitted, but > to the educated mind, which clearly excludes you, testimony and > evidence are not the same thing. Dealt with in another thread. Rocky
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-13 15:53 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: NUCLEAR TERRORISM IS HERE ( Sarah proves she is an asshole ) |
| Message-ID | <aoigcc-j9d.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #520681 |
In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: > It was when I turned around and sued Beverly for Malicious Prosecution that > I was cheated by throwing out the definition of "Probable Cause" to prevent > me from using the probable cause itself to prove all the State really had > was evidence that Beverly Rusk was guilty of obstructing justice. Babble of a delusional fuck wit. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-13 13:46 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: NUCLEAR TERRORISM IS HERE (Roger now claims he actually won his suit. It was dismissed, meaning he lost) |
| Message-ID | <91hbvah1niccg61b46jlb6iqegpj17590k@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #520681 |
On Sun, 13 Sep 2015 09:22:57 -0500, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
>"K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:pnsava1jbko932hkc5fqp0pcuusvugjqgl@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 12 Sep 2015 20:58:18 -0500, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
>
>since most of this is dealt with in another thread I'll stick with the
>basics.
>
>> How does Mack V First Security Bank connect to your being charged
>> with harassment and not stalking? I honestly don't see the connection.
>
>I won that harassment lawsuit hands down with a 12 to 0 verdict. See:
> http://slimefest.com/exhibits/
>
Your lawsuit was dismissed. This means you LOST.
Why LIE about this?
Don't bother with your standard avoidance games. Answer the
question I've asked.
>It was when I turned around and sued Beverly for Malicious Prosecution that
>I was cheated by throwing out the definition of "Probable Cause" to prevent
>me from using the probable cause itself to prove all the State really had
>was evidence that Beverly Rusk was guilty of obstructing justice.
>
You mean the court used the legal definition and not your k00k
definition.
>>>What evidence was not allowed in the trial court that reversed and
>>>remanded the Mack vs. First Security Bank of Chicago? <G>
>>>
>> None, as far as I am aware. Some testimony wasn't permitted, but
>> to the educated mind, which clearly excludes you, testimony and
>> evidence are not the same thing.
>
>Dealt with in another thread.
Yes. You tried to claim you were a party in Mack v First
Security. You need serious mental health care.
--
Shill #3. Current Psychotronic World Dominator and FEMA camp
counselor
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-12 20:17 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: NUCLEAR TERRORISM IS HERE (Roger still doesn't understand the law) |
| Message-ID | <5jj9vap54di20o6cmbf8ej7i0binek3pnh@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #520552 |
On Sat, 12 Sep 2015 18:24:01 -0500, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
>"Sarah Ehrett" <ninety7gt@cox.net> wrote in message
>news:7cl9ua5ajqv4nmn4b2ls2u76efto4feu2s@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 31 Aug 2015 17:12:47 -0500, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
>>
>>>"Sarah Ehrett" <ninety7gt@cox.net> wrote in message
>>>news:htj9ua1ehjeu8fhnfp4qevcm6h6d4ie724@4ax.com...
>>>> On Sun, 30 Aug 2015 15:40:41 -0500, "K Wills (Shill #3)"
>>>> <compuelf@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I anticipate Roger going ape crazy about how everyone was lying
>>>>>about him (because he's important enough to warrant such a conspiracy,
>>>>>of course) in an attempt to cause him grief.
>>>>
>>>> Wow. LOL. I stepped away for a day and return to find Rocky isn't
>>>> Michael but Roger and Roger is a complete turd.
>>>
>>>And I told you I wasn't Michael but you just wouldn't listen. Shame on
>>>you.
>>
>> Still posting as Rocky...
>>
>>>BTW is what you called me what you say about everybody that has proven
>>>they won a jury trial 12 to 0 by using the state's own evidence against them?
>>
>> Do you stalk a lot of women, Roger?
>
>If that were true asshole there is no way all twelve jurors would have voted
>not guilty because jurors don't like stuff like that.
You weren't charged with stalking, stupid. As such, the matter of
your stalking wasn't a factor in the trial.
>The fact was proven
>to the jury that the crazy mother never had a valid reason to prevent me
>from answering her daughter's questions. DUH.
Where is this portion of the jury's verdict to be found?
>
>=================================
>
>The ORDER below proves that Judges in the Appellate Court are as reckless
>with the law and as reckless with the facts as a reckless attorney is.
>
No it doesn't. You simply don't know how to read and interpret a
ruling.
>Duane Thompson was the reckless attorney in question and he failed to state
>correctly the decision of the Appellate Court in the Mack vs. First Security
>Bank of Chicago regarding the directed verdict At 110 Ill.Dec. page 542 the
>court reverses and remands the case.
>
If he did as you claim, why didn't you file a brief correcting
the error? As you KNOW, I've been all over your sites about the case.
I've not seen a copy of such a brief available.
>Duane Thompson knew from the way I worded my initial complaint against
>Beverly Rusk, the exhibits I used to completely impeach her in the jury
>trial I won and the argument I tried to make during the malicious
>prosecution lawsuit that the Mack vs. First Security Bank of Chicago fully
>supported my argument all along
At what point were you called any applicable racial slur? It was
the racial slur used against Voy Mack the got the ruling.
You were called a "faggot." Calling a heterosexual a pejorative
typically reserved for homosexuals can never be made equal to calling
a black woman the "N" word.
>because I should be allowed to prove the
>probable cause was reckless and that the State knew there was evidence of
>malice before they brought charges against me.
>
So you claim. Yet the evidence on your sites does not support,
let alone prove, a claim of malice.
You had been asked, repeatedly, to cease any and all contact with
the daughter. But your mental issues wouldn't allow you to do as
requested. After a while, criminal charges were seen as the only means
of getting you to cease the harassment.
>Duane Thompson's total mockery of justice relied on the fact that the Judge
>in the jury trial I won handed back the exhibits because that meant he and
>the judge in the malicious prosecution lawsuit could issue new rulings on
>the exact same exhibits that had been used to completely impeach all three
>of the State's witnesses with prior inconsistent statements.
Do keep in mind the rules of evidence are different between a
criminal and civil trial. I think this was explained to you, by a
judge no less, in the trucking group.
Sadly, your mental health issue(s) prevent you from being able to
accept the truth. I wish that were an insult as opposed to the truth
as you present it in your posts.
> Page 20 line
>13 shows I was only allowed to transfer one exhibit from the jury trial I
>won into a malicious prosecution lawsuit and it happened to be the only
>exhibit that was signed by my accuser.
A prudent guess is that it was the only one you submitted within
the rules of evidence.
>
>Duane Thompson also furnished false information about the existence of
>malice even after hearing where evidence of malice could be found and that
>"it can be used to prove malice" from the statements below.
>
>On page 18 line 17: THE COURT: He's showing the witness page 25 of the
>transcript. Then before the next statement was made Judge Telleen made it
>clear what word he would accept as malicious. On page 29 line 14: MR
>WITTEKIND: The words she uses to describe it can be used to prove malice.
>
Calling you a "faggot," while mean, is not evidence of malicious
prosecution. Especially since your romantic OBSESSION with the
daughter proved you were not gay.
>All the Appellate Court would do in their ORDER below when they allowed
>themselves to be duped by Duane Thompson was overlook the evidence of malice
>in the transcript for the jury trial, manipulate testimony that was
>completely impeached by prior inconsistent statements using the very facts
>these judges were making assumptions about and then go so far as to falsify
>evidence themselves in the fourth paragraph of their ORDER.
>
>But not only would Appellate Court Judges help Duane Thompson conceal
>evidence of one malicious prosecution they would help Duane Thompson conceal
>evidence of two malicious prosecutions where the evidence presented in the
>second jury trial proves the first jury trial was won by rendering the
>statue invalid with misleading jury instructions, using perjured testimony
>and using a woman that obstructs justice by furnishing false information
>about her daughter.
>
Clearly the mom was willing to have a criminal record for perjury
follow her for the rest of her life to help ensure you stayed away
from her daughter.
What does this tell you, Roger?
> http://nolegalauthority.com/
All of that, and you still had to fork over a little over $1500
because of your k00k s00t.
A point of curiosity. What, to the best of your recollection,
were the questions the daughter asked of you? If these questions are
on any of your k00k sites, I missed them.
--
Shill #3. Current Psychotronic World Dominator and FEMA camp
counselor
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-12 21:01 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: NUCLEAR TERRORISM IS HERE ( Kid still doesn't understand the law at all ) |
| Message-ID | <cL-dnak9S8O-RGnInZ2dnUU7-TudnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #520577 |
"K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> wrote in message news:5jj9vap54di20o6cmbf8ej7i0binek3pnh@4ax.com... Before you can state: "No it doesn't. You simply don't know how to read and interpret a ruling. You had better prove that you know exactly why the Mack vs. First Security Bank of Chicago was reversed and remanded. And I'll even give you some help. It is hard as hell to figure out what the error of law was in the watered down versions of that legal precedent on the Internet but I happen to have a copy of the printed version here: http://desecratedsixthamendment.com/Mack/ And if you compare the Internet version of the Mack vs. First Security Bank of Chicago with the printed version you will see what someone removed too. <G> Now let us see how really smart you are. What evidence was not allowed in the trial court that reversed and remanded the Mack vs. First Security Bank of Chicago? <G>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-13 07:59 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: NUCLEAR TERRORISM IS HERE ( Roger PROVES he still doesn't understand the law at all and that he FEARS offering an honest answer to questions) |
| Message-ID | <5psava5h1hovfgrt7kntdsoi03fkbp9hcg@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #520585 |
On Sat, 12 Sep 2015 21:01:26 -0500, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
Context restored at no additional cost.
>>On Sat, 12 Sep 2015 18:24:01 -0500, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
>>
>>>"Sarah Ehrett" <ninety7gt@cox.net> wrote in message
>>>news:7cl9ua5ajqv4nmn4b2ls2u76efto4feu2s@4ax.com...
>>>> On Mon, 31 Aug 2015 17:12:47 -0500, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>"Sarah Ehrett" <ninety7gt@cox.net> wrote in message
>>>>>news:htj9ua1ehjeu8fhnfp4qevcm6h6d4ie724@4ax.com...
>>>>>> On Sun, 30 Aug 2015 15:40:41 -0500, "K Wills (Shill #3)"
>>>>>> <compuelf@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I anticipate Roger going ape crazy about how everyone was lying
>>>>>>>about him (because he's important enough to warrant such a conspiracy,
>>>>>>>of course) in an attempt to cause him grief.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Wow. LOL. I stepped away for a day and return to find Rocky isn't
>>>>>> Michael but Roger and Roger is a complete turd.
>>>>>
>>>>>And I told you I wasn't Michael but you just wouldn't listen. Shame on
>>>>>you.
>>>>
>>>> Still posting as Rocky...
>>>>
>>>>>BTW is what you called me what you say about everybody that has proven
>>>>>they won a jury trial 12 to 0 by using the state's own evidence against them?
>>>>
>>>> Do you stalk a lot of women, Roger?
>>>
>>>If that were true asshole there is no way all twelve jurors would have voted
>>>not guilty because jurors don't like stuff like that.
>>
>> You weren't charged with stalking, stupid. As such, the matter of
>>your stalking wasn't a factor in the trial.
>>
Roger?
>>>The fact was proven
>>>to the jury that the crazy mother never had a valid reason to prevent me
>>>from answering her daughter's questions. DUH.
>>
>> Where is this portion of the jury's verdict to be found?
>>
Roger?
>>>
>>>=================================
>>>
>>>The ORDER below proves that Judges in the Appellate Court are as reckless
>>>with the law and as reckless with the facts as a reckless attorney is.
>>>
>>
>> No it doesn't. You simply don't know how to read and interpret a
>>ruling.
>
>Before you can state: "No it doesn't. You simply don't know how to read and
>interpret a ruling.
>
>You had better prove that you know exactly why the Mack vs. First Security
>Bank of Chicago was reversed and remanded.
>
>And I'll even give you some help. It is hard as hell to figure out what the
>error of law was in the watered down versions of that legal precedent on the
>Internet but I happen to have a copy of the printed version here:
>
> http://desecratedsixthamendment.com/Mack/
>
>And if you compare the Internet version of the Mack vs. First Security Bank
>of Chicago with the printed version you will see what someone removed too.
><G>
>
>Now let us see how really smart you are.
>
>What evidence was not allowed in the trial court that reversed and remanded
>the Mack vs. First Security Bank of Chicago? <G>
>
Your C&P rant only serves to further PROVE you the mental defect
you were, are, and shall likely continue to be.
Now that your proof that you're mentally ill has been presented,
again, please address the points I raised. If you're mentally sound
enough to do so.
>>>Duane Thompson was the reckless attorney in question and he failed to state
>>>correctly the decision of the Appellate Court in the Mack vs. First Security
>>>Bank of Chicago regarding the directed verdict At 110 Ill.Dec. page 542 the
>>>court reverses and remands the case.
>>
>> If he did as you claim, why didn't you file a brief correcting
>>the error? As you KNOW, I've been all over your sites about the case.
>>I've not seen a copy of such a brief available.
Roger?
>>
>>>Duane Thompson knew from the way I worded my initial complaint against
>>>Beverly Rusk, the exhibits I used to completely impeach her in the jury
>>>trial I won and the argument I tried to make during the malicious
>>>prosecution lawsuit that the Mack vs. First Security Bank of Chicago fully
>>>supported my argument all along
>>
>> At what point were you called any applicable racial slur? It was
>>the racial slur used against Voy Mack the got the ruling.
>> You were called a "faggot." Calling a heterosexual a pejorative
>>typically reserved for homosexuals can never be made equal to calling
>>a black woman the "N" word.
>>
Roger?
>>>because I should be allowed to prove the
>>>probable cause was reckless and that the State knew there was evidence of
>>>malice before they brought charges against me.
>>
>> So you claim. Yet the evidence on your sites does not support,
>>let alone prove, a claim of malice.
>> You had been asked, repeatedly, to cease any and all contact with
>>the daughter and parents. But your mental issues wouldn't allow you to do as
>>requested. After a while, criminal charges were seen as the only means
>>of getting you to cease the harassment.
>>
Roger?
>>>Duane Thompson's total mockery of justice relied on the fact that the Judge
>>>in the jury trial I won handed back the exhibits because that meant he and
>>>the judge in the malicious prosecution lawsuit could issue new rulings on
>>>the exact same exhibits that had been used to completely impeach all three
>>>of the State's witnesses with prior inconsistent statements.
>>
>> Do keep in mind the rules of evidence are different between a
>>criminal and civil trial. I think this was explained to you, by a
>>judge no less, in the trucking group.
>> Sadly, your mental health issue(s) prevent you from being able to
>>accept the truth. I wish that were an insult as opposed to the truth
>>as you present it in your posts.
>>
Roger?
>>> Page 20 line
>>>13 shows I was only allowed to transfer one exhibit from the jury trial I
>>>won into a malicious prosecution lawsuit and it happened to be the only
>>>exhibit that was signed by my accuser.
>>
>> A prudent guess is that it was the only one you submitted within
>>the rules of evidence.
>>
Roger?
>>>Duane Thompson also furnished false information about the existence of
>>>malice even after hearing where evidence of malice could be found and that
>>>"it can be used to prove malice" from the statements below.
>>>
>>>On page 18 line 17: THE COURT: He's showing the witness page 25 of the
>>>transcript. Then before the next statement was made Judge Telleen made it
>>>clear what word he would accept as malicious. On page 29 line 14: MR
>>>WITTEKIND: The words she uses to describe it can be used to prove malice.
>>
>> Calling you a "faggot," while mean, is not evidence of malicious
>>prosecution. Especially since your romantic OBSESSION with the
>>daughter proved you were not gay.
>>
Roger?
>>>All the Appellate Court would do in their ORDER below when they allowed
>>>themselves to be duped by Duane Thompson was overlook the evidence of malice
>>>in the transcript for the jury trial, manipulate testimony that was
>>>completely impeached by prior inconsistent statements using the very facts
>>>these judges were making assumptions about and then go so far as to falsify
>>>evidence themselves in the fourth paragraph of their ORDER.
>>>
>>>But not only would Appellate Court Judges help Duane Thompson conceal
>>>evidence of one malicious prosecution they would help Duane Thompson conceal
>>>evidence of two malicious prosecutions where the evidence presented in the
>>>second jury trial proves the first jury trial was won by rendering the
>>>statue invalid with misleading jury instructions, using perjured testimony
>>>and using a woman that obstructs justice by furnishing false information
>>>about her daughter.
>>
>> Clearly the mom was willing to have a criminal record for perjury
>>follow her for the rest of her life to help ensure you stayed away
>>from her daughter.
>> What does this tell you, Roger?
>>
Roger?
>>> http://nolegalauthority.com/
>>
>> All of that, and you still had to fork over a little over $1500
>>because of your k00k s00t.
>> A point of curiosity. What, to the best of your recollection,
>>were the questions the daughter asked of you? If these questions are
>>on any of your k00k sites, I missed them.
>
Roger?
--
Shill #3. Current Psychotronic World Dominator and FEMA camp
counselor
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 12 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 12 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web