 |
|
 |
Published : 6 months, 3 weeks ago (Mon, 12 May 2008 02:48:19 PDT)
Searched:
http://lookatmypugs.livejournal.com/11596.html 0 links
Related posts
Yet More Bullshit
From
Susan M.
"You Can't Trust A Word I Say. Honest."
Ellwood,
Liar, Jackass, Fool & Idiot
Well, Dear Readers, The Every So Very Estimable Susan M. "If You Had A Face As Dishonest As Mine, You'd Shave Your Ass And Walk Backwards" Ellwood, Liar, Jackass, Fool & Idiot, quite some number of weeks ago by now ... on Thursday, 17 April 2008 ... replied to my attorney's missive to her of Tuesday, 15 April 2008, which is reproduced in its entirety below in a previous entry.
As I had expected, it was her usual combination of Bilge, Bullshit, Bile and, of course and as always, Gross Unprofessionalism, to such an extent that I've become convinced that she's constitutionally incapable (pun, of course, entirely unintended, if only because Susan is quite obviously just as entirely unacquainted with the document) of comporting herself in any other manner ...
Today, we'll be taking a look at just one of the many idiocies that Susan committed in the afore-mentioned; you may rest assured that, as always, there were several, and if her clients are looking to get the most idiocies for the dollar, they've certainly gone to the right place.
The particular idiocy we'll talk about today, though, will be her reiteration, in said letter, of a deliberate and knowing lie she uttered in Court during the course of the hearing held on Tuesday, 5 February 2008 on her client's unsuccessful motion to suppress my First Amendment rights ...
And, of course, I will demonstrate, as I did in my penultimate entry, again not only beyond a reasonable doubt but beyond any possible doubt whatsoever, that said lie was, in fact, just that ... a lie and one that, as stated, was deliberately and knowingly uttered during the course of court proceedings.
And we all know just what that means, now don't we ... Susan? (Hint: see 12 V.S.A. § 5812, "Oath to be administered to attorneys," 13 V.S.A. § 1, "Felonies and misdemeanors defined," 13 V.S.A. § 11, "Habitual criminals," 13 V.S.A. § 2901, "Punishment for perjury," 13 V.S.A. § 2901a, "Perjury by inconsistent statements" & 13 V.S.A. § 2904, "False Swearing.")
Before commenting on the load of purulent and rotting garbage that vomited itself forth onto my attorney's desktop upon her opening of Susan's reply, I'll remind my Dear Readers that, as has been previously noted in this space, a year ago, on Wednesday, 2 May 2007, Susan, during the course of Court proceedings and in my absence, stated that I had been, over the preceding six months, "stalking" her client at some unspecified time or times, in one or more unspecifed manners.
A week later, Susan received mail from my attorney demanding that she either "support with specificity [her] claims against [me]," i.e., that she produce something other than merely her own dubious and entirely unsupported hearsay ... a police report, an arrest report, a record of a conviction, an eyewitness account, an anonymous 3:00 A.M. phone call from a complete and only marginally intelligible stranger, something, anything that might serve, in any manner whatsoever, to corroborate her accusation ... or, failing that, that she "send a letter to the Court withdrawing the allegation."
Of course and true to form and scumbag that she is, Susan did neither.
Rather, she did what I have come to expect of her.
She lied.
For in reply to the afore-mentioned letter, Susan, on Thursday, 10 May 2007, wrote my attorney, "I do not believe that I stated that your client violated the stalking statute or any other law," and that "[i]f that impression was left with you or anyone in chambers I will state herein that it was not my intention to indicate that I had any knowledge of your client violating any law or stalking Maria as defined by statute[,]" this being over a week after I'd left Vermont for a Secure & Undisclosed Location over a thousand miles away, and where I have been continuously since that time and as of this writing for over a year ... And as The Ever So Very Estimable Ms. Ellwood, Idiot, Liar, Jackass, Fool & Idiot has been well aware since, at the latest, Monday, 29 October 2007, she having been informed of the foregoing by my attorney during the course of a Status Conference held on that date; to the best of my knowledge, both Susan and her client had been unaware of my whereabouts prior to said date, even to that limited extent.
I will note, if only in passing, that the afore-mentioned Court proceedings of Wednesday, 2 May 2007 were the very first in this sorry and regretful matter and, true to form, Susan lied during said proceedings and in a manner most foul, accusing me in my absence of criminal activity directed against her client.
And, just as true to form, when confronted with her atrocious and appalling conduct, she lied again and denied that she had so accused me, disingenuously pleading that it was "impossible" for her "to remember every word that [my attorney] and [she] uttered in [Court]."
And yet, like the fucking moron she is, she fell all over herself making it clear that she never said what she denied having said in the first place.
Susan, any alleged lawyer who can't remember, a week after the fact, whether or not he or she she took the very serious step of accusing opposing counsel's client, during the course of Court proceedings and in opposing counsel's client's absence, of having engaged in criminal conduct directed against his or her client is, by defintion, woefully incompetent and entirely unfit to pratice law ... regardless of whether or not he or she had any factual basis, no matter how tenuous, for making such an accusation.
Oh, and Susan ... Word To The Wise Here, And Listen Very Carefully ... If you want to dispute my assertion that you lied to the Court on the afore-mentioned occasion, you're going to have to accuse my attorney of lying; we are both in possession of her mail to you of Wednesday, 9 May 2007.
Any assertion that you might make, Susan, that you didn't lie in Court on that date would directly contradict my counsel's statements in said letter; as such, her statements and any such assertion as you might make alleging that you didn't, on that occasion, lie to the Court would be what's called "Mutually Exclusive," i.e., only one or the other could be true, but not both.
And ... Susan ... if you want to call Deb Schoenberg a liar, you're far, far, far stupider that even I would have thought.
And that's saying something.
Fucking scumbag.
Susan, whatever other moral deficiencies with which you may be afflicted ... and they are doubtless many ... you're a lying sack of shit.
And that said, on Monday, 14 January 2008, Susan filed an Amended Motion with the Court, withdrawing her request that Court abridge my First Amendment rights and requesting of said Court, for the "protection and wellbeing [sic]" of her client and because "[my] actions over the last fourteen months [i.e., since her client's abrupt flight from what was once our home on Sunday, 22 October 2006] has [sic] caused her concern for her safety and wellbeing [sic][,]" that it issue a Restraining Order requiring me to "[r]emain a minimum of 300 feet away from [her client], her, [sic] her vehicle, residence or place of work at all times[,]" therefore alleging to the Court, if only by implication, that I somehow had been ... Magically?! ... Perhaps by means of Astral Projection?! ... that I somehow had been "stalking" her client or "violating [one or more] law[s]" in such a manner that "caused her [client] concern for her safety and wellbeing [sic]" from, again, over a thousand miles away ...
For surely, Susan, a professional with long experience in these matters, was and is well aware that the Court would not issue such an Order absent her ability to show that I had engaged in conduct that would make such an Order necessary, i.e., someone going into Court and alleging that someone else's "actions ... has [sic] caused her concern for her safety and wellbeing [sic]" and requesting that said Court issue a restraining order against the allegedly offending party, lacking the ability to support such a claim in at least some objective, demonstrable and factual manner ... a police report, an arrest report, a record of a conviction, an eyewitness account, an anonymous 3:00 A.M. phone call from a complete and only marginally intelligible stranger, something, anything that might serve, in any manner whatsoever, to corroborate her claims ... isn't going to get what she or he is requesting of the Court.
As such, Susan's request of the Court that it issue such an order can only be interpreted as an allegation that I had, in some manner, acted unlawfully, certainly to the extent that such an Order was necessary for her client's "protection and wellbeing [sic][,]" for it is difficult, at best, to imagine that naught but entirely lawful conduct on my part could have given her client any rational cause for any such "concern" ... And, of course, if said request did not constitute such an allegation it was, by definition, frivolous and itself, therefore, unlawful.
(Note to Susan: If you want to state that your request of the Court that it issue such a Restraining Order was not at the very least an implicit allegation on your part that I had engaged in unlawful conduct making such an Order necessary for your client's "protection and wellbeing [sic][,]" I'll be entirely willing to file a complaint with the Professional Conduct Board stating that you filed a frivolous and unlawful motion.)
That said, as has been noted, Susan had stated in writing, eight months previously that she "had [no] knowledge of [me] violating any law or stalking [her] client," certainly not as of the date on which she made that statement; as such, any allegation that she might have made that I had engaged in unlawful conduct sufficient to have "caused her [client] concern for her safety and wellbeing [sic]" must have been made, as a matter of definition and necessity, in reference to conduct in which I had engaged subsequent to that date, over a year ago as of this writing ... presumably, and as has also been noted, by means of Astral Projection or somesuch other supernatural means, given that, as has also been noted, I am and have continuously been, since that time, over a thousand miles away from both Vermont and her client ...
The Amended Motion that Susan filed with the Court consisted almost in its entirety (other than, as noted, her withdrawal of her request of the Court that it suppress my First Amendment rights before the Court had held a hearing on said request but after I had incurred substantial attorney's fees defending said rights ... and you'll be hearing plenty more about that singular act of idiocy by and by, Susan ... Jesus Christ, Susan, but are you fucking dumb or what?!) ... Said Amended Motion consisted almost in its entirety of a vicious, scurrilous and even venomous ... and entirely untrue ... attack upon my Good Name, Character & Reputation, this being how Susan has conducted herself throughout the whole of the proceedings in which her client and I have regretfully been engaged, said attack upon me being so vicious, scurrilous and even venomous as to be nothing other than patently ludicrous ... I mean, damn, Susan, if, at the age of fifty-one, I was that Bad A Dude, to paraphrase the great Merle Haggard, "the first thing I'd remember knowin'd be a lonesome whistle blowin'," and "I'd a turned twenty-one in prison doin' life without parole!"
It may be noted that the Court, having presumably read Susan's Patently Ludricous Amended Motion of Monday, 14 January 2008 in its entirety, said Patently Ludricous Amended Motion containing her written arguments made in support of the above-noted allegations and of her request for a Restraining Order, and having additionally heard Susan's additional arguments made in support of the same during the course of the hearing held on said Patently Ludricous Amended Motion on Tuesday, 5 February 2008 ... It may be noted that the Court did not grant her request, she having failed, despite her vicious, scurrilous and even venomous efforts to do so, to show cause as to why such an order might be necessary, i.e., the Court found her arguments to be "Unpersuasive," this being Lawyer-Speak for "Complete & Utter Bullshit."
And just what was this "Complete & Utter Bullshit," er, I mean just what were these "Patently Ludricous & Unpersuasive Arguments?"
Well ... Susan stated, in said Amended Motion, that "[I] also, upon information and belief, provided [my] counsel with information regarding [her client's] whereabouts and activities through the fall of 2007, which [my counsel] articulated at a status conference in this case October 29, 2007. This information was not conveyed to [me] by [her client]."
Susan went on to state, in said Amended Motion, that "[I] attempted to contact and lobby S.V. personally, and, when this failed, [I] sent her a three page email in September of 2007" and that "[t]his email speaks of [my] knowledge about recent changes in the Plaintiff's education and employment status (information not provided first hand by the Plaintiff, not known to S.V., and not publicly available)[.]"
("S.V." is a former mutual friend of Susan's client and myself, one Susan Viets of San Francisco, California, and we'll be speaking more of her shortly. For now, I'll simply say that it would appear that she and Susan's client are still friends, that the high regard in which I once held her was sadly misplaced and that she's apparently entirely lacking in anything even resembling mature adult judgement.)
When it became apparent to her that the Court had found her written arguments to be, ummmm, Patently Ludricous & Unpersuasive, The Ever So Very Estimable Susan M. "The Truth Ain't In Me" Ellwood, Liar, Jackass, Fool & Idiot, in embarassingly obvious, shamefully transparent and utter desperation, and in what I can only characterize as a pathetically stupid effort to persuade the Court to grant said Order, informed the Court that the only manner in which I could have become aware of certain of her client's activities was if I had been stalking her, following her around, skulking in the bushes, &.c, &c., my attorney having made mention, on at least one occasion, of certain of these activities during the course of Court proceedings, as Susan had noted in her Patently Ludricous & Unpersuasive Written Arguments, and I having remarked upon certain of them in this space ...
As has been noted, my attorney responded to this entirely typical Patently Ludricous & Unpersuasive Argument (i.e., Load of Complete & Utter Bullshit or, in more pointed terms, "Knowingly Made Material Falshood," which is to say, Blatant Lie) by stating, entirely truthfully, that I had learned everything that I know of Susan's client's activities since the date of her abrupt flight from what was once our home by reading her LiveJournal blog and the blogs of certain of her friends and family members.
And, of course, my Dear Readers will recall that Susan's immediate response to this was to state, unmistakably, emphatically and without any qualification of any nature whatsoever ...
"My client doesn't have a blog."
My Dear Readers will also recall that my attorney, having read Susan's client's blog, was apparently so dumbfounded that Susan would tell such a blatant and obvious lie in Court that she asked her to confirm what she had just said, in which request Susan, like the fucking moron she is and without any hesitation whatsoever obliged her, stating again ...
"That's right; my client doesn't have a blog."
Jesus Christ, Susan, the kindest thing you could do for yourself at this point would be to avail yourself of Rule 19 of Administrative Order No. 9 of Vermont's Professional Responsibility Board and go find yourself a job commensurate with the few meager skills you have like, say, flippin' burgers at McD's ... Taking care, as I've remarked previously, not to drool into the fries lest you be found unfit for even that simple task and, since you're Obviously Not Real Bright, I'll give you a Helping Hand here and, in an act of nothing less than Concerned & Benovolent Charity, observe for your benefit that people don't like drool in their fries ...
Shit-For-Brains (that's you, Susan, just in case it wasn't quite clear), since those memory problems to which you alluded in your letter to my attorney of a year ago, Thursday, 10 May 2007 ... you know, the letter in which you stated that "[you] [were] trying to remember every word that [my attorney] and [you] uttered in [Court] last week, which is, of course, impossible" ... since those memory problems were obviously still plaguing you, I'll refresh your admittedly and demonstrably poor memory and remind you that in your Amended Motion of Monday, 14 January 2008, as filed with the Court, you stated that ...
|
"There are ... references to the Plaintiff [i.e., your client], and her recent activities in [my] blog, presumably discovered by [me] from reviewing [your client's] online account, and those of her friends and family."
</b>
|
Let's summarize these astonishing revelations of Susan's further and continuing mendacity ...
-
Susan, on Monday, 14 January 2008, submitted to the Court written documents signed by her stating that "[t]here [were] ... references to [her client's] ... recent activities in [my] blog ... discovered by [me] from reviewing [her client's] online account[.]"
-
During the course of Court proceedings on Tuesday, 5 February 2008, in an effort to persuade the Court to issue a Restraining Order against me, Susan stated that the only manner in which I could have become aware of certain of her client's activities following her client's abrupt flight, on Sunday 22 October 2006, from what was once our home was if I had been stalking her client, following her, keeping her under observation, &c., &c.
-
Upon being informed by my counsel that I had learned all that I know of her client's activities following the afore-mentioned date from reading her client's blog, and those of certain of her friends and family members, Susan immediately replied, "My client doesn't have a blog."
-
In response to a direct question from my counsel asking her to confirm the afore-mentioned statement, Susan immediately replied, stating a second time, "That's right; my client doesn't have a blog."
-
Susan's written statement to the Court of Monday, 14 January 2008 and her statements made during the course of Court proceedings on Tuesday, 5 February 2008 are inarguably and incontrovertibly Mutually Exclusive of each other, i.e., they are Demonstrably Inconsistent with each other.
|
At this point ... Susan ... I believe that it would be appropriate to further refresh your admittedly and demonstrably poor memory, and to remind you, once again, of what 13 V.S.A. § 2901a, "Perjury by inconsistent statements," states, i.e. ...
13 V.S.A. § 2901a. Perjury by inconsistent statements
A person is also guilty of perjury and may be sentenced under section 2901 of this title if in one or more proceedings before or ancillary to a court or grand jury or in a contested case before a state agency pursuant to chapter 25 of Title 3:
(1) he or she knowingly makes two or more statements under oath or affirmation which are material in the proceedings;
(2) the statements are inconsistent to the degree that the person necessarily believed one of them to be false; and
3) both statements were made within the period of the statute of limitations.
Susan Ellwood, Monday, 14 January 2008:
"There are ... references to the Plaintiff [i.e., Susan's client], and her recent activities in [my] blog, presumably discovered by [me] from reviewing [Susan's client's] online account, and those of her friends and family."
Susan Ellwood, Tuesday, 5 February 2008:
"My client doesn't have a blog." ...
"That's right; my client doesn't have a blog." ...
|
And as if this wasn't enough, you asshole, you also stated in your Amended Motion of Monday, 14 January 2008 that ...
"[Your client] was a subscriber to the Vermonter's [sic] Group of Live Journal [sic][.]"
And, in reference to this statement,
"It is a feature of the Live Journal [sic] system to publicly identify the social groups to which a user belongs."
|
Thus confirming, yet again, your knowledge of your client's "Live Journal" [sic] account as, of course, one cannot be a "subscriber" to a "Group" of "Live Journal" [sic] without having a "Live Journal" [sic] account.
All of which, almost, brings us up to date, but to refresh everybody's memories, Susan's and those of my other Dear Readers alike, I'll note again that my attorney wrote Susan, on Tuesday, 15 April 2008 ...
|
[My client, i.e., Yours Truly, "The LiveJournal User Known As LookAtMyPugs"] notes additionally that during the hearing on Tuesday, February 5, 2008, and in an effort to support your client's request that the Court grant ... [a Restraining] Order, you alleged that the only manner in which my client could have become aware of certain of your client's activities subsequent to her departure from the parties' former Plainfield residence on Sunday, October 22, 2006 was if he had been following her, keeping her under observation, etc. When my client responded to your allegation by stating that he had learned all that he knows of your client's activities subsequent to that date from statements she published in her LiveJournal blog and in other publicly accessible online forums you replied, "My client doesn't have a blog." When asked again you made the same reply. My client notes finally and rather pointedly that you referred to your client's LiveJoumal account in your Amended Motion of Monday, January 14, 2008 as filed with the Court.
|
And, with that, let's take a look, finally and at long last, at Susan's reply to the above, said reply having been sent to my attorney on, again, Thursday, 17 April 2008 ...
|
I stand by my understanding of Maria's position, which is that she does not have a public blog in which she posts for anyone to see. Maria's Live Journal [sic] account was shut down some time ago and prior to that time, access was limited to those she approved.
|
The more observant of my Dear Readers may have perhaps noted that Susan started to "pervaricate" here just a bit, alleging that it's now "[her] understanding of Maria's position, which is that she does not have a public blog in which she posts for anyone to see."
And the most observant of my Dear Readers will have noticed that Susan didn't even bother to deny that she stated in Court on the date in question that "[her client] doesn't have a blog[;]" rather, and ever so true to form, she's attempting to rewrite history and allege that it was "[her] ... understanding of [her client's] position ... that she does not have a public blog[,]" and that "access [to said blog] was limited to those she approved."
Which, of course, begs the question ... How in the Blue Fuck was it that I "discovered" certain of her client's "recent activities ... from reviewing her online account???!!!"
Susan is doubtless next going to allege that I somehow "hacked" her client's "online account" or that I somehow magically obtained the password to said "online account" and, using it, accessed her client's "online account" ...
Susan, take note, and I am nothing other than entirely serious about this ...
I have never "access[ed]" a "Live Journal" [sic] "online account" other than this one, and if you should ever allege, in any manner, that I unlawfully obtained access to your client's "Live Journal" [sic] "online account," any of your client's other "online account[s]" or, for that matter, anybody else's "online account[s]," you will be accusing me of multiple federal felonies.
And if you do that lacking compelling if not incontrovertible objective documentation that I have done so ...
I'll sue you.
For libel, among other matters.
And that said ... Susan, one of the more salient characteristics that I've noted over the years of Dumb People ... and yes, Susan, that means you, you fucking idiot ... is that they can't begin to grasp that there are people who are, in fact, one whole hell of a lot smarter than they are ... and yes, Susan, that means me ... and that those folks aren't, in any manner, easily if at all beguiled by the kind of painfully transparent lies that you routinely spew whenever you're cornered, whenever you've been called on yet another of your painfully transparent lies ... You just dig yourself in deeper and deeper, with one lie after another after another, until you're buried up to your neck in U.S.D.A Grade A Prime Bullshit of your own making and with no hope whatsoever of escaping the consequences of your pathetically stupid conduct ...
Susan, please, for your own good, for whatever you might be able to salvage out of the wreck that you've made of your reputation and career, please ... Take heed ...
You cannot possibly hedge, waffle, prevaricate, dissemble, lie or even just plain bullshit your way out of this one, no more than you can lie your way out of the consequences of your prior knowledge of your client's intention to unlawfully take over $7,000 worth of disputed personal property in knowing violation of a Court Order, and your subsequent lie to the Court that you didn't know anything about it until well after said unlawful taking was a fait accompli.
And please ... Susan ... don't try to insult my intelligence, or anybody else's for that matter, by trying to claim that this is just yet another "disconnect," yet another "honest mistake ... understandable under the circumstances," yet another "miscommunication," that, once again, you "misspoke regarding [your] ... position" ...
'Cause see ... Susan ... that kind of self-serving and ridiculous bilge just doesn't cut it when you're caught red-handed, with your filthy & flea-ridden paw in the cookie jar clean on up to your elbow. It'd just make you look like an even bigger scumbag than you've already shown yourself to be.
And please ... fer chrissakes, as The Late & Lamented Herb Caen was wont to say ... fer chrissakes, please don't accuse me of "acting like an aggrieved party" or of "hysteria," don't tell me that it's "not going to work" and most especially of all ... Susan ... whatever you do, do not ask me to "give [you] a break," because ... I can assure you with Absolute & Total Certainty, well and entirely beyond any possible doubt of any nature whatsoever ... That's the last fucking thing you're ever going to get from me; insofar as your sorry & lying ass is concerned, I'm fresh outta mercy ... I ain't got none ... and the sooner you're disbarred, in consequence of your outrageous and unlawful conduct, the better, and it couldn't happen to a nicer alleged person.
Before I proceed to expose the remainders of your lies in this instance in detail ... Susan ... I'll ask you once more, as I've asked before in this space ...
Do you really expect anybody to believe any of the shit that comes out of your mouth, when you routinely spout the most shamefully transparent lies of which I've ever heard tell, the kind of painfully and embarrassingly obvious putrid swill that not even the most corrupt of ambulance chasers would ever once try to peddle, if only out of unadulterated self-interest?!
Earth, once more, to Susan, and please, this time take notes ... When you lie, it's supposed to be in your client's interests, which means you shouldn't ought to go on record, beforehand, with an incontrovertible contradiction of any subsequent lies you might care to make.
Otherwise, see, you're simply going to destroy whatever little credibility you might have, and no one will believe a word that you have to say ...
Particularly and most importantly ... The Judge in whose courtroom you're peddling your horseshit.
And the last I heard, that's not supposed to be conducive to making effective arguments on behalf of your clients; see, the whole point to the thing is ... You gotta be believable when you talk to the Judge, and that's kind a hard to do when you've lied in the man's courtroom and he saw right through it as you spouted your crap ...
Ok, excuse me a minute please; I'm trying Real Hard here not to laugh, and I'm not being all too terribly successful at it ...
BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!
WHATTA GODDAMN FUCKIN' IDJIT!!!
SHE PULLED A LIE OUTTA HER ASS IN COURT
'N FORGOT SHE SAID
THE EXACT OPPOSITE IN HER MOTION!!!
HA HA A A A HA HA A HA HA A A A HA HA A A HA!!!
HA HA A A A HA HA A HA HA A A A HA HA A A HA!!!
WHATTA FUCKIN' IDJIT!!!
And now ... Susan ... in depth and detail ... you averred, in your Amended Motion of Monday, 14 January 2008, that "[I] also, upon information and belief, provided [my] counsel with information regarding [your client's] whereabouts and activities through the fall of 2007, which [my counsel] articulated at a status conference in this case October 29, 2007. This information was not conveyed to [me] by [your client]."
Particularly, you therein were referring to my counsel's statement, made during the course of the Status Conference held on Monday, 29 October 2007, that your client had recently bought a motorcycle at an estimated cost of about $1800, and quite possibly more even assuming that she bought it used, and that she'd also recently been able to travel out of state for a five day Swing Dance workshop, at an estimated cost of about $700 and perhaps somewhat more.
And of course "[t]his information was not conveyed to [me] by [your client][,]" you fucking moron ... Like it's a Great Big Goddamn Secret she hasn't spoken a word to me since Sunday, 22 October 2006???!!!
So ... Just how was "[t]his information ... conveyed to [me]?"
Did I stalk her, did I follow her around, did I skulk in the bushes, did I observe her from a distance, did I ... ???!!!
Did I Astrally Project myself 1000+ miles back to Vermont, perhaps????!!!
Did it come to me in a dream, in a trance, in, perhaps, a fugue state???!!!
Did I read it in some tea leaves, did I have a vision, did I see it all in a crystal ball???!!!
Double, double, toil and trouble, did one of The Pugs whisper it in my ear as I lay sleeping the sleep of the just????!!!
Or was it ... gasp!!! ... "discovered by [me] from reviewing [your client's] online account???!!!"
Close, but no cigar; I found out that she'd bought the bike courtesy of her younger brother, who wrote about it in his "online account" on Monday, 8 October 2007 ... Thanks, Dan, and I'm certain that your sister will thank you, too, when she has to explain to the Court how she was able to afford that Ninja 250 and yet somehow wasn't able to afford to put another stove in my fucking house to replace the one she unlawfully removed from it in knowing violation of a Court Order, and with Susan's collusion and prior knowledge of her intention to do so ... "Oops" ...
And thanks to Susan's client's boyfriend ... You know, that married fella she began dating three months after she abandoned me, The Pugs, The Cat, her home and everything she owned but for what she could cram into a couple of suitcases just as quickly as could pack 'em; the married fella with whom she shacked up just about the time she ran me out of my home on false pretenses ... Thanks to Susan's client's boyfriend and a comment he left in Dan's blog, I "discovered" that she was planning to go to Swing Out New Hampshire, a five-day long Swing Dance Extravaganza at, as noted, an estimated cost of about $700, figuring in gas and miscellaneous out-of-pocket expenses ... And thanks, John, and I'm certain that your girlfriend will thank you, too, when she has to explain to the Court how she was able to afford to go to SONH with you and your friends Kate The Slavegirl and Beth, who thinks that sexual violence perpetrated upon men is a Goddamn Riot, and who regrets that she didn't commit a violent sexual assault upon her ex-husband (and, at some point, we'll be talking about that in this space) but somehow wasn't able to afford to put another stove in my fucking house to replace the one she unlawfully removed from it in knowing violation of a Court Order, and with Susan's collusion and prior knowledge of her intention to do so ... "Oops" again ...
And please note, John, that I've redacted your Username and your picture, as it serves no purpose that I can see, at least at the moment, for you to be publicly identified with this sorry matter; you got enough problems as it is, fella, believe me you do ... And if you don't now, you will, doubtless, all too soon ...
It may also be noted that I've redacted Susan's client's Username, as well; again, it serves no purpose that I can see, at least for now, for her Username to be published here, Google being what it is ... For that matter, the more observant of my Dear Readers may have noticed that I blurred all of the faces in the above image for the same reason; it serves no purpose for those individuals to identifiable.
Now ... Susan ... Listen up, Real Careful Like, ok???, and do please take heed ... If you allege publicly, or in correspondence with my attorney or, for that matter, to anyone and/or in any manner of which I become aware that I have, in any manner, manipulated this or any of the other blog images contained herein other than as noted, to redact information that would only serve to make public information that, at the moment, doesn't need to be made public, I'll post the unedited copies in a New York Minute before I suffer you to impugn my integrity. Do I make myself clear? If I haven't, try this ... If you lie about me again, I'm going to demonstrate, again, that you've done so, and if there's something about that simple statement you don't understand, you've got even bigger problems than already have.
And, in the event that there's any doubt that Susan's client actually attended Swing Out New Hanpshire, here's a post that she wrote from a message board that I'll leave unnamed, it once again serving no purpose that I can see to publicly identify it ...
And, if that isn't enough ... Susan ... I have a copy of a photograph taken of your client, astride the afore-mentioned Ninja 250, said photograph having been posted to one your client's "online accounts" by ... Your Client!!!
As well, I have copies of several photographs of your client that were taken at Swing Out New Hampshire, the links to which were posted by ... Your Client!!!
I am, for the moment, refraining from posting said photographs, but ... and again, take heed, Susan ... One more statement from you, either public or in correspondence with my attorney, that I learned of any of your client's activities subsequent to Sunday, 22 October 2006 by any means other than from her publicly accessible "online accounts," those of her friends and family members, &c., &c. and ... those pictures, and certain other materials of which I am in possession, will be posted to this space.
I will not suffer you to publicly attack my Good Name, Character & Reputation as you have; I shall just as publicly refute your damned lies with any and all documentation in my possession that serves that purpose.
Take careful note of that ... Susan ... all of your scurrilous and lying attacks upon my Good Name, Character & Reputation have been made publicly, in documents filed with the Court and in statements made during the course of Court proseedings.
As such, and as should be obvious, I haven't any compunctions about publicly exposing your lies for what they are, and I shall continue to do with each and every lie that you tell ... and that you have told, as time allows (i.e., there's plenty more coming; I'm just getting started here); they're all going up here ... Susan ... each and every one of them, as I have time to document them.
Continuing, and as the more astute of my Dear Readers may have deduced, Susan's client's purchase of a motorcycle ... a toy, in Vermont, with its harsh seasonal weather, and most assuredly so for someone who purchased a brand-new automobile, a Subaru Impreza, in December of 2006; Susan's client's purchase of said "250 Ninja" can in no manner be held to have been necessary for the purpose of transporation ... and her attendance at Swing Out New Hampshire ... which can fairly be held to have been a luxury and, at $700, an expensive one ... are, of course, entirely relevant ...
Given, that is, that she unlawfully took that Goddamn O'Keefe & Fucking Merritt from what was once our home, in knowing violation of a Court Order and with Susan's collusion and prior knowledge that she intended to do so ... said unlawful taking resulting in a devaluation of the property she and I regretfully still own of at least $2500 ... and given that she has, for the last ten months, since said unlawful taking occcured, refused to replace the fucking thing with another stove consistent with the décor of the house's kitchen or, for that matter, with any fucking stove of any nature whatsoever.
As of today, despite that I've made her a settlement offer that will, without any doubt whatsoever, leave her with a good deal more money in her pockets than the Court will, under any circumstances, give her, should this sorry and tragic matter wind up in Court, as she's insisting that it does ... and which will also leave her with the O'Keefe & Fucking Merritt, without asking that she give me so much as a fucking dime for it ...
Despite that, and despite that all I've asked of her in return for this is that she put another stove in the goddamn house that, as noted, is consistent with the décor of the house's kitchen ...
Despite all that ... She's refusing to negotiate, and is still, as of today, not only insisting on resolving her suit ny means of a trial, she's insisting on a "Fault Trial," the legal fees for which will be in the neighborhood of $15,000!!!
So ... Susan ... if your client continues to insist upon a "Fault Trial" ... Good luck, first, trying to persuade the Court to issue that Restraining Order; I'm prepared to show that in your pathetic and idiotic effort, on Tuesday, 5 February 2008, to support your request that the Court issue said Restraining Order, you willfully, deliberately and knowingly violated 13 V.S.A. § 2901a, "Perjury by inconsistent statements" ...
And, of course, it goes without saying that anyone who attempts to support an argument with a willful, deliberate and knowing lie, and particulary one that constitues the commission of a felony crime, doesn't really have much, if anything, to support his or her arguments ... Susan.
And Good luck next when I ask the Court to order your client to return the O'Keefe & Fucking Merritt to the house she and I regretfully still own; I'm prepared to show that not only did she unlawfully take it therefrom, in knowing violation of a Court Order, but that you had prior knowledge that she intended to do so, and that you lied to the Court in alleging that you didn't know the first fucking thing about it until over a week later.
And, of course, there's also that Small Matter of your statements to the Court, but five days before your client and her accomplices absconded with said O'Keefe & Fucking Merritt, "that the [O'Keefe & Fucking Merritt] could stay at the house" and that "[your client] had advised that the [O'Keefe & Fucking Merritt] could stay in the house" ...
I wonder what credibilty Judge Devine is going to ascribe to your assertions that you "misspoke regarding [your] client's position," that your statements were the result of a "miscommunication between [your] client and [yourself]," the result of a "disconnect," </b> that you made "an honest mistake [that was] understandable under the circumstances," &c., &c. ... I wonder what credibilty Judge Devine is going to ascribe to said assertions when it's brought to his attention that you had prior knowledge that your client "intend[ed] to remove the [O'Keefe & Fucking Merritt]" and that you subsequently lied to his Court, denying any knowledge of her intentions until you "learned that [she] had removed the [O'Keefe & Fucking Merritt] from the [house]," that it was not until then that you "discovered" that "[she] was not of [the] position" that "the [O'Keefe & Fucking Merritt] stay at the [house][.]"
I'm not going to even speculate as to what the answer to that question might be, but I do believe that it's entirely fair to ask it, given that as of today it appears that, one way or the other, Judge Devine will be answering said question himself in but a few short weeks.
Well, it's getting late and it looks as if I'm not going to have time to say all that I wanted to say here tonight before I head off to bed, so I'm going to wrap it up for now and come back and finish it as time allows ...
Before I do head off, though, a few more thoughts ...
Lest there be any doubt as to why I troubled myself to find Susan's client's blog, those of her friends, brothers, &c, &c., and to read them ... and, of course, lest Susan try, once again, to smear my Good Name and Character and allege that I'd been "stalking" her client, online ... In fact, come to think of it, she did try to play that pathetic card in Court on Tuesday, 5 February 2008, and actually asked the Court to order me to refrain from reading her client's (non-existent!!!) (Christ, whatta Fucking Idiot!!!) blog and those of her friends and family!!! ... The Court, needless to say, declined; Judge Devine opined that he didn't have any particular problem with me reading any publicly accessible materials, published by anyone who might choose to publish any such materials, and went on to note that in many divorce cases, the services of private investigators are retained by one or both parties ... and, of course, he also noted particularly that it would be unlawful for him to issue such an order, that it would constitue a violation of my Constitutional Rights ...
Lest there be any doubt about why I troubled myself to find said blogs and read them ... I've been sued and, all other considerations aside, there was and still is a not insubstantial amount of money to be apportioned ...
And, insofar as I'm concerned, anyone who's been sued for any reason whatsoever and who doesn't exert him- or herself to learn anything and everything that he or she can about whoever it is who's sued him or her ...
Is at least as big an idiot as is The Ever So Very Estimable Susan M. "Oh, Shit, Am I Drooling Again?!" Ellwood, Jackass.
And, while I may be characterized as many things, one thing I am not is ... That big a Fucking Idiot. But few people are ...
Alas, the nature of gathering intelligence is such that the vast and overwhelming majority of the intelligence that one gathers, unsurprisingly, isn't of any practical use or interest.
However, in and amongst the garbage, one usually does find a few flowers that are of some actual use.
As did I.
That said, despite Susan's allegation, in her letter to my attorney of Thursday, 17 April 2008 that "Maria's Live Journal [sic] account was shut down some time ago and prior to that time, access was limited to those she approved," the Truth of the matter is that Susan's client had a quite extensive blog, consisting of forty-four journal entries made between Friday, 30 March 2007 and Wednesday, 9 January 2008, or at a rate of about one every six days, about half of which were "for anyone to see," i.e., said journal entries constituted, inarguably, a "public blog" ... Up until, that is, some time on or about Thursday, 10 January 2008, the date on which the New York Times ran its article on this blog and Susan's client's unsuccessful attempt to suppress my Constitutional rights of Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the Press, as enshrined in the First Amendment ...
At which time Susan's client set all of her publicly accessible journal entries to be readable either only by herself or by those on her "Friends List;" however, as at about the same time she also deleted each and every one of her "Friends" from said "Friends List" and all of those "Friends" but for two deleted her from their "Friends Lists," I conjecture that she set said formerly publicly accessible journal entries to be readable only by herself.
However, up until that time, and as noted, said journal entries were there for anyone who wanted to read them.
As were the numerous comments she'd made in reply to the journal entries of certain of her friends.
That bullshit dismissed, to prove my point, and to prove, beyond any doubt whatsoever, that Susan lied in Court concerning the alleged non-existence of her client's blog ... you know, the one from which I "discovered" certain of her client's "recent activites" ... Here's one of Susan's client's journal entries; this one from Saturday, 26 October 2007, but three days before the Status Conference that was held on Monday, 29 October 2007 ...
The more observant of my Dear Readers (that, of course, excludes Susan, of whom it could be fairly said that she wasn't observant enough to realize that the papers she filed with the Court made the lie she told in Court that day laughably and transparently obvious, and readily shown to be what it was, yet another of her shoddily fabricated Loads Of Shit) ... The more observant of my Dear Readers will have noted that I have edited out not only Susan's client's LiveJournal handle (by which she is also known, far and wide, all over the 'net), but also that of the friend she mentioned in this post.
Now ... Susan ... before you fly off the handle and do something really stupid, i.e., your usual ... Such as, say, accuse me of having somehow magically "hacked" your client's LiveJournal account, or of somehow equally magically having obtained her password and, with it, obtained access to the blog that she "doesn't have" ...
Let me once again caution you, in no uncertain terms ... Any such unauthorized access would constitute a federal felony and, as such, should you so accuse me ...
I'll sue you for libel.
If you think I'm in any manner not serious about this, try it and see what happens.
Oh, and one last word here ... Susan ...
Your client's blog and message board posts and her brother's blog posts are staying up here unless and until I am ordered to remove them by a Court of Competent Jurisdiction, which, of course, means a Court other than the Washington County Family Court, Judge Devine having ruled that his Court lacks jurisdiction over such matters ...
Or until you write the Court and state, over your signature that on Tuesday, 5 February 2008 you willfully, deliberately and knowingly violated 13 V.S.A. § 2901a, "Perjury by inconsistent statements," by stating, during the course of the Hearing held on that date, that your "client doesn't have a blog" after having stated, in your Amended Motion filed with the Court on Monday, 14 January 2008, that "There are ... references to [your client], and her recent activities in [my] blog, presumably discovered by [me] from reviewing [your's client's] online account, and those of her friends and family," that "[Your client] was a subscriber to the Vermonter's [sic] Group of Live Journal [sic]" and, in reference to that statement, that "It is a feature of the Live Journal [sic] system to publicly identify the social groups to which a user belongs."
If you like, I'd be happy to draft the letter for you; should you like to avail yourself of my services, by all means do feel free to contact me via email and I'll ever so very cheerfully oblige you.
And I won't even charge you for it.
After all ... Susan ... the only reason said posts have been published here is to show, publicly, your lie for what it is, a willfull, deliberate and knowing lie, uttered publicly and of which there now exists a permanent public record, and uttered in a determined effort to besmirch my Good Name, Character & Reputation.
Barring one or the other of the preceding ... Those posts are staying up here until Hell freezes over.
Fuck you, Susan.
As Brendan Sullivan once so famously remarked, "I'm not a potted plant."
And, with that, it's off to bed ... I'll be back, in a day or so, to finish this up and when I have, I'll post an "Update" notice so that my Dear Readers ... Susan, of course, among you all ... know to come back for ... What Else?! ... The Rest Of The Story!
|
lookatmypugs
|
|
|
| More results for "" |
|
This is cached version of livejournal post retrieved by LjSEEK on 2008-05-12 02:48:42 . Post may have changed since that time. Click here for actual post version. LjSEEK.COM is not affiliated with author of this post and is not responsible for its content.
These search terms have been highlighted: |
Disable Highlighting
|
lookatmypugs's Search:
|
|
