For the Sake of us All...

In article ,
"Two Buddha" wrote:

Sure did. First amendment. Amazing how you freaks ignore that......

If it was a first amendment issue, why didn't you do so under your own
name?

--
"The iPhone doesn't have a speaker phone" -- "I checked very carefully" --
"I checked Apple's web pages" -- Edwin on the iPhone and how he missed
the demo of the iPhone speakerphone.

Dave Cartman wrote:
In article ,
"Two Buddha" wrote:


"Dave Cartman" wrote in message
...


He neither respected the court order, nor did he challenge it, nor did
he engage in "civil disobedience.

Of course I didn't respect it. It was an illegal, unconstitutional order
based entirely on lies. Why should I respect the fruit of repeated perjury
and false allegations made to a judge and the cops?
Civil disobedience. And I never saw the **** cop, Leanne Shirey. Because
she suborned perjury. And I could prove it.


Nonsense. If you could have proven it, you would have. A real man
would have stood up for himself and his constitutional rights. You
didn't.

And the ACLU wouldn't back him either.
What a pathetic blowhard.

Two Buddha wrote:

"Dave Cartman" wrote:
"Two Buddha" wrote:
"Dave Cartman" wrote:
Yabahoobs wrote:

If Scott is legally banned from posting in usenet, won't someone
please report his constant (pathetic) posts to the Seattle district
(no clue what county, but Im sure someone can locate the judgement
against him that has been linked to many times in here) court ?

After all, as good citizens, we should all want to see justice served.

Scott's court ordered restraining order banning him from post to usenet
is long expired. Sadly, he repeatedly violated in a poorly disguised
anonymous nickname.

Sure did. And proud of it.

Yeah, you denied it for a long time until Bert "outed" you.

You just made up another whopper. I think you're doing too much dope, Dave.

I think Scott used "I" rather than "he" when talking about one of
bobaloobob's posts before Bert blabbed.

--
Cheers, Bev
-----------------------------------------
"Not everyone can be above average so why
shouldn't we be the ones to suck?"
--Anonymous School Board Member

"The Real Bev" wrote in message
...
Two Buddha wrote:

"Dave Cartman" wrote:
"Two Buddha" wrote:
"Dave Cartman" wrote:
Yabahoobs wrote:

If Scott is legally banned from posting in usenet, won't someone
please report his constant (pathetic) posts to the Seattle district
(no clue what county, but Im sure someone can locate the judgement
against him that has been linked to many times in here) court ?

After all, as good citizens, we should all want to see justice
served.

Scott's court ordered restraining order banning him from post to
usenet
is long expired. Sadly, he repeatedly violated in a poorly disguised
anonymous nickname.

Sure did. And proud of it.

Yeah, you denied it for a long time until Bert "outed" you.

You just made up another whopper. I think you're doing too much dope,
Dave.

I think Scott used "I" rather than "he" when talking about one of
bobaloobob's posts before Bert blabbed.

Bev Ashley is well aware that several of her friends committed perjury. No
doubt that she was informed of the plot and participated. Amazing how the
freaks never discuss deliberately lying to the cops.....

"BrritSki" wrote in message
...
Dave Cartman wrote:
In article ,
"Two Buddha" wrote:


"Dave Cartman" wrote in message
...


He neither respected the court order, nor did he challenge it, nor did
he engage in "civil disobedience.

Of course I didn't respect it. It was an illegal, unconstitutional order
based entirely on lies. Why should I respect the fruit of repeated
perjury and false allegations made to a judge and the cops?
Civil disobedience. And I never saw the **** cop, Leanne Shirey.
Because she suborned perjury. And I could prove it.


Nonsense. If you could have proven it, you would have. A real man would
have stood up for himself and his constitutional rights. You didn't.

And the ACLU wouldn't back him either.

Never asked them to back me. Another outright lie from a sick freak who
deliberately lied to the cops and a judge, made false allegations, annd
continues to brag about his dickless cowardice.

What a pathetic blowhard.

Pathetic blowhards take cheap shots behind people's backs, commit felonies,
and never have the balls to do so in person.
Pathetic blowhards like you, Roger Tilsbury, dickless wimp and criminal.

"Alan Baker" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Two Buddha" wrote:

Sure did. First amendment. Amazing how you freaks ignore that......

If it was a first amendment issue, why didn't you do so under your own
name?

Ah, the insane irony of it all. This deranged wack job NEVER questions ANY
anonymous poster here, no matter how egregiously they lie. But he wants to
give me **** for telling the truth about the criminal stalking and
harassment of his dickless friends.

In article ,
"Two Buddha" wrote:

"Alan Baker" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Two Buddha" wrote:

Sure did. First amendment. Amazing how you freaks ignore that......

If it was a first amendment issue, why didn't you do so under your own
name?

Ah, the insane irony of it all. This deranged wack job NEVER questions ANY
anonymous poster here, no matter how egregiously they lie. But he wants to
give me **** for telling the truth about the criminal stalking and
harassment of his dickless friends.

Perhaps that's because -- like Norm just did -- I realize that you never
back up what you say.

You claim there were felonies committed, but you won't report them to
anyone.

You claimed Richard Henry would be going to jail "soon" and that was --
what? -- two years ago.

You claim "scores" or sometimes "thousands" of "death threats"
(interesting how those to amounts are contradictory) and talk about the
"dozens" of meetings you've set up, but when asked to produce proof from
the Google records, you *always* refuse.

And then there's the whole thing about declaring me a "stalker" and a
"terrorist" simply because I had the temerity not to take your word
about all of this...

--
"The iPhone doesn't have a speaker phone" -- "I checked very carefully" --
"I checked Apple's web pages" -- Edwin on the iPhone and how he missed
the demo of the iPhone speakerphone.

Two Buddha wrote:
"BrritSki" wrote in message
...

Dave Cartman wrote:

In article ,
"Two Buddha" wrote:



"Dave Cartman" wrote in message
...


He neither respected the court order, nor did he challenge it, nor did
he engage in "civil disobedience.

Of course I didn't respect it. It was an illegal, unconstitutional order
based entirely on lies. Why should I respect the fruit of repeated
perjury and false allegations made to a judge and the cops?
Civil disobedience. And I never saw the **** cop, Leanne Shirey.
Because she suborned perjury. And I could prove it.


Nonsense. If you could have proven it, you would have. A real man would
have stood up for himself and his constitutional rights. You didn't.


And the ACLU wouldn't back him either.


Never asked them to back me. Another outright lie from a sick freak who
deliberately lied to the cops and a judge, made false allegations, annd
continues to brag about his dickless cowardice.

As if you wouldn't have done anything to get free legal advice if it had
been possible. BWAHAHAHAHAHA

As if you wouldn't have killed (metaphor) for the opportunity to prove
the "dweebs" wrong in court considering when you brag endlessly about
Ted not being able to provide a post in court. BWAHAHAHAHAHA

What a pathetic blowhard.


Pathetic blowhards take cheap shots behind people's backs, commit felonies,
and never have the balls to do so in person.
Pathetic blowhards like you, Roger Tilsbury, dickless wimp and criminal.


Are you talking to me ?

In article ,
BrritSki wrote:

As if you wouldn't have done anything to get free legal advice if it had
been possible.

Sadly, I think the free legal advice Scott got was a large part of the
problem.

I wonder if Scott got the ideas of "presumed intent" and "no duty to
retreat" from Bert Hoff too.

Dave

--According to Jeff Davis, Scott Abraham is "no threat to anyone."

Two Buddha wrote:
"Dave Stallard" wrote in message
. ..
Two Buddha wrote:
Sure did. First amendment. Amazing how you freaks ignore that......
Why didn't you have the courage to openly challenge the order on those
grounds, then?

Why spend the money when I'm going to ignore it anyway?

What do you mean? The ACLU does all its work pro bono (not that you
have any money anyway).

And you didn't ignore it. Quite the contrary. You posted under an
assumed name because of it.

What is truly
laughable is that a chicken**** liar like you uses the word "courage". Why
don't you or any of the detestable cowards who lied to the judge and the
cops have the courage to man up and admit their dickless, backstabbing
manipulations?
Speaking of courage, bitch, I've never met you. Which means you ain't got
the standing to use the word, freak.

Why didn't the ACLU take up your case?

Never asked them to. Why waste my time?

I thought you said the ACLU "begged" you to "let them" take up the case.
Hah-hah. What I read in news accounts was that they were
"non-committal" about it, and were waiting until they had seen all the
facts. Evidently, once they had, they decided you had no 1rst Amendment
case, as I never heard of it again.

Why did you
sneak around under a pseudonym instead of using your own name?

For fun. You do it, plenty of your buddies do. Why?

Thanks for admitting that you broke the law. Here is a chart
describing the various types of restraining order in WA state:

http://www.wscadv.org/Resources/Comp...ders_11_06.pdf

Your order must have been either a "No Contact Order" or a regular
"Restraining Order". Violating either results in mandatory arrest,
possible criminal contempt charges, and a charge of "Gross Misdemeanor".
A Gross Misdemeanor in WA state is punishable by up to 1 year in jail
and/or a $5,000 dollar fine. See below:

http://www.wsba.org/media/publicatio...s/criminal.htm

Dave