Thursday, December 30, 2010

Oh Canada! - Happy New Year



More "Seasonal" greetings. No stunt doubles.
More →

Sphere: Related Content

Saturday, December 25, 2010

Happy Holidays

For what it's worth.


More →

Sphere: Related Content

Wednesday, December 22, 2010

City of Irving Police Department, Report #10-33189

Oh Greg....
I'll see your civil lawsuit, and raise you to one criminal complaint. Why do they know you so well there? Never mess with my family you towering idiot.

You see Greg, once you were discharged (retired/quit), your internal investigation file at UNT? That became "probable cause," or "reasonable suspicion."
More →

Sphere: Related Content

Tuesday, December 21, 2010

Half Right? Bad Blart (da Big Prick) Speaks

So, if he lost his job, but still is working the court case, I'm half right. In response to a letter to him titled "Loser," the content of which was one word; "Coward," the Loser Speaks:
"Mr. McBryde,

I don't normally check your blog on a regular basis anymore. I don't know where you got your information on court, but I was at the 9:00 a.m. docket call. In addition, I filed the non-served returns for Ledbetter and Medvecky, in addition to Plaintiff's 1st Amended Motion for Service by Publication. The return for Schroeder was returned by the New York County Sheriff's Office as non-served today also. I have attached a file-stamped copy of that motion for service by publication, along with a motion to reset the hearing for the Temporary Injunction until such time that service could be accomplished on the defendants (including you). Judge Tobolowsky has taken the motions under advisement.

If you wish to respond to the suit prior to being served by publication, you can execute a waiver of service and file your answer with the clerk of the 298th District Court, 600 E. Commerce St. #101, Dallas, TX 75202. I have attached a copy of such a waiver. If you chose to be a man, to stand up and answer the lawsuit, this would be the fastest and easiest way to proceed. You of course do not have to do so, you can wait until you are served by publication, but one way or another, you will be served.

I have attached a copy of the complaint, although I believe that you have already seen it.

To make it perfectly clear to you, I am not dropping the lawsuit.

GJP"
I got my info verbally from court employees yesterday by phone, and they told me no one showed. You say someone did. (ASSuming the writer of this letter is the EX Sgt. Gregory J. Prickett.) My only official knowledge of this case is that it existed, and has been dropped due to non action.

Serve me and prove otherwise you yellow piece of crap who attacks young women as a substitute for manly confrontation.

My Answer to the Yellow (ex) Mall Cop of Texas:
"You're still a loser and a coward. I don't know who "gregoryjprickett@gmail.com" is. Never have. If you are one in the same as the UNT Prick, great. I don't have any way of knowing that and I don't open attachments from "suspects" like that.

Yellow cowards who threaten my daughter are SCUM. If you are that SCUM, PRICKett, you are the worst type of sniveling low life. You are no man. You disgrace the law. You are a creepy stalking sociopathic sadist who hides behind a badge and attacks young women to settle differences men do, face to face, honorably and publicly.

Own up. Man up. It's never too late.

You haven't ever tried to serve any of us. Barratry is a felony, but oddly, only in Texas."
I sent the letter to all three known addresses that are answered, by "TxBluesMan" (AKA Gregory Jack Prickett/Bad Blart). Bad Blart only answered from the "gmail" address that I have no way of certifying is Gregory Jack Prickett. I called Dallas County yesterday, I had them list the "defendants" in Bad Blart's lawsuit and I was in fact one of them and I said, "I'm one of those people," (if in fact I am the same Hugh McBryde). There are other "Hugh McBrydes" if only a few others, in this country. The court said no one showed. As of this publication, there is no new court date.

This is my only official knowledge so far.

I really have no reason to ask Dallas County about this matter again.

If Texas Judges set court dates for 9am, and no one shows and then they show later and the Judge allows this crap to continue, that's really new information for me. I always thought "no show" amounted to "dismissed case" or "default judgement." No show on the part of the plaintiff? Dismissed case.

So I'll grant "Bad Blart" the benefit of the doubt for the purposes of discussion only and say the case is still active. For the purposes of discussion. So I'm half right. Or two thirds.

Bad Blart, the Big Prick is still Yellow. He's still a Coward. I note he doesn't claim to be employed. I note he doesn't deny (again) being TxBluesMan of Coram Non Judice infamy. 1-2-3-4 (right) 1 wrong (again for the purposes of discussion).

That's 4-1 Bad Blart. I'm batting .800. You're still a loser.
More →

Sphere: Related Content

Monday, December 20, 2010

Sgt. Gregory J. Prickett loses Job, loses Court Case (Job Loss Confirmed w/UNT admin)

I have now officially ascertained that I was a defendant in case DC-10-13278M in Dallas County Texas' "Civil Division." Also, "Sam" becomes the second UNT Police Dept. Member to confirm that he no longer works there. Greg was a "no show" in court today.

This makes it Hugh Darby McBryde 1 Billion, SGT. Gregory Jack Prickett ZERO. Game, set, match, FINIS. That means what I accused him of is in fact TRUE. TxBluesman/GregJackP and what ever other stupid alias he's using or has used, violated the LAW to SMEAR his opposition. He's a liar, a felon, a coward, a sadist and now an EX Cop.
More →

Sphere: Related Content

Wednesday, December 15, 2010

Gone for Good?

That would be my thought.
Calls to UNT now get the response from his (former?) fellow officers that Sgt. Gregory J. Prickett "no longer works there (UNT).
More →

Sphere: Related Content

Thursday, December 02, 2010

You doubted me? Just read the latest.

Oh, you doubted me did you? You thought I was spinning a wild yarn of male bovine manure reading too much into the details of yesterdays arraignment of Warren Jeffs? Just read how the local rag immediately characterized Warren's arrival in Texas. I mean, they LEAD with the verbal version of the negative photo op, as if it means anything:
The San Angelo Standard-Times - "Warren Jeffs, the leader of the polygamy sanctioning Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, walked into the Tom Green County courthouse for an arraignment with a gray sweater tucked into the chains that surrounded his waist, covering the top of the bright orange jumpsuit."
If you're BLIND you're going to get the message. If photos don't make that big an impression on you, you're going to get the message. If you read a text version or a print only version or some reprinted version of the story emailed to you without a picture.

You're going to get the message.

Warren was in a gray sweater (sweatshirt) and a BRIGHT ORANGE jumpsuit. About the only thing left to the imagination is WHO wears BRIGHT ORANGE?

Most of us reading the article know it's a PRISON INMATE.

You're supposed to look at Warren and think of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

Not like Khalid wants you to see him, but as a criminal. And we all know that criminals are unshaven, disheveled and have just been rousted out of bed.

Granted, Khalid is guilty, he confessed. In addition Khalid does not have the rights of a US Citizen, because he's not one (Warren is). If you want to know the remaining stereotype that no racial group or gender will ever give up it's "good looking" vs "bad looking." We want to believe that the disheveled and slovenly in appearance look that way because it's a reflection of their true moral character. When we go out in public, we put on our best for the most part. If he ever goes to trial, Khalid will try to appear as he wants to be seen, so will Warren but neither man is how they appear at their best or worst. They are what they are.

An American, like Warren, is entitled to be pure as the driven snow in front of the law, until it is proven otherwise. We need to remember that, and not what the Government/Media complex wants us to believe.
More →

Sphere: Related Content

Wednesday, December 01, 2010

Cost is NOT a factor, including your freedoms....

The Three Piggies and Warren
Does Government not care what rights or treasure of yours it takes to expand it's power? Does a former drill instructor make a really bad therapist?

The money, while it is probably a prodigous amount, is not important to the State of Texas.  Texas thinks it's probably some amount YOU would think is inappropriate, considering the lack of prosecutorial success (vs Warren) elsewhere.

How do we know it's too much?

They'd tell you if it was cheap.  (Either that, or they don't know, which ought to bother you as well.  Strickland says he doesn't know.)

It doesn't matter to Texas, they got their desired photo op. Not Warren as depicted in the last post, but Warren in prison sweats and prison orange with what looks like a bit of a 50+ five o'clock shadow, in irons, flanked by fat pigs dressed in their best.

Oh.

You think I meant something pejorative?

Those guys aren't a bit porky looking to you?

Considering Mr. Jeffs is more or less a cardiologists ideal by comparison, Texas did need to "weight" (sorry, no, not really) the photo op in their favor.  I've been driving through Texas a lot recently and they are the most cliché bound bureaucracy I know of. "Don't Mess with Texas" one Government billboard preaches, and yet another declares; "the Eyes of Texas are upon You."

So when it comes to whether or not Texas will spend infinite amounts of Tax Payer $$$ to get a picture of Warren looking his worst with a three overweight cowboy wannabes flanking him like he was going to shoot his way out of the "joint," or be rescued by "King Willie, the Thug," gangster style, they spare no expense.
The San Angelo Standard-Times - "Jerry Strickland, spokesman for the Attorney General’s Office, said they flew Jeffs into San Angelo from Utah at 9 p.m. Tuesday night and then drove him to Big Lake.

'Attorney General Abbott and his office his prosecutors have been handling the prosecution of cases related to the YFZ ranch,' Strickland said, as he walked into the courtroom Wednesday morning. '... Today 7 of 12 men have been convicted of sexually assaulting children. This case stems from that action.'

When asked about costs related to trying Jeffs in Texas, Strickland said he doesn’t have specific numbers, but that cost is not a factor.

'What I do know is, Attorney General Abbott is committed to protecting children in this state,' Strickland said. 'You cant’ put a price tag on protecting children and because of that, this case will be handled with prosecutors (from) the AG’s (attorney general’s) office.' "
The great difficulty is that they are not just spending your tax dollars (and with the "co-mingling" of Federal and State money that is Revenue Sharing, yes, it's yours too), they're spending your freedom as well.

Texas wanted to make this "statement" as you see above, and Texas wanted their picture. Now they've got it. In the process they ran roughshod over Warren's right to a "speedy trial" (it doesn't matter if he didn't want it before, he wants it now) and they got to treat him like a fugitive. No one in Texas wanted a Dapper Warren Jeffs showing up in wing tips and business suit, with stylish coiffure, fatherly appearance, etc, walking through the front door and surrendering to authorities, they wanted to fly him out and drag him around much like Achilles is supposed to have done with Hector after defeating him in battle.

Well, there you go Texas. And America? There went your money, though granted, it was mostly Texas dollars (except they won't account for it), and there went your freedom, with Warren. You have to decide: Does the prosecution of a man for crimes Texas probably can't prove warrant the setting aside of the rights your founding fathers insisted on having for each citizen PRIOR to signing our Constitution in favor of the rights of the State to extradite?

I think you know my answer. What's yours?
More →

Sphere: Related Content

Warren Jeffs in Texas

Personally, I think they should have fought it out to the US Supreme court, but I don't really know how such a process might work, or if it is available to Warren. I agree with his attorneys that this effectively ends any attempt to prosecute Mr. Jeffs in Utah, it's just that you won't hear that said in the upcoming stories about his trial in Texas.
The Salt Lake Tribune - "(Warren Jeffs') first court hearing is scheduled for 11 a.m. (today), a spokesman for the Texas Attorney General’s Office said."
That's in ten minutes.
More →

Sphere: Related Content

Tuesday, November 23, 2010

Utah Supreme Court: Extradite Warren Jeffs

I don't like it. Under cover of terrible weather, the Utah Supremes side with the right of the State, over the individual.

I will never buy into the notion that an individual's right to a speedy trial is trumped by extradition.
More →

Sphere: Related Content

Friday, November 19, 2010

"Covenanters"


This is here primarily as an exercise in remembering the history of Reformed Churches.
More →

Sphere: Related Content

Wednesday, November 17, 2010

Life as a Wheel

Nearly two years later, and guess what? More →

Sphere: Related Content

Why you want Warren to Win his appeal, even if you want Warren in Jail forever.

It's quite simply, the sixth amendment of the US Constitution.
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.
During this business in Texas, I have heard, unchallenged, the assertion that the State (in this case Texas) has the "right to a fair trial." No such right exists for the State. The State is not a person, people have rights in the United States. The State? It has none.

I have also heard, as an obscene echo of the "Borking" of Clarence Thomas (and other political figures), that the "seriousness of the charges" somehow outranks the less serious charges in Utah.

In short, I hear a lot of what amounts to "horse feathers" and myth in regard to the rights of the State in the matter of "The State of Texas VS the FLDS."

I was not a big fan of Warren in the past, but even in my most loathing stage of Warren Jeffs dislike, I disliked even more the way in which Utah, the United States and various other states were trying to "get" him. I believed from the outset that Warren should not be convicted, and when he was, I saw it as a travesty of justice.

So taking a page from "the time when I thought Warren was a creep," I recommend that you too put aside personal dislike and deal with what is really at stake for you, in the way Warren is being treated.

Warren, per our US Constitution, has Sixth amendment rights. If his are not adequately defended, if the existence of Sixth amendment rights are said to be compromised by a State right to a "fair trial" or a superiority of "Serious Charges" (charges that Warren must be regarded as "not guilty" of until proven otherwise), you lose. You lose big.

Arguments that Texas must have Warren before charges in Utah are resolved (because Texas' charges are more serious) are nowhere found in the US Constitution. The argument that Texas might need him now, so as to better prosecute him and obtain a "fair trial" for Texas, this argument too is nowhere found in the US Constitution.

Warren's Sixth Amendment rights are YOUR Sixth Amendment rights. You cannot compromise them without compromising your own. You might need them. A loved one of yours might need them. Warren needs them and if you don't let him have them, you won't have them. At least, you won't have a full version of them.

The practical upshot of Warren winning his appeal is quite simple. There will be no new trial in Utah. Warren will "go free," and summarily be arrested by Texas in some way shape or form, and go to Texas. You, who hate Warren, will be deprived only of one thing. The illusion that Warren Jeffs is being sought for rape in Utah, and the illusion that Warren Jeffs was on the "FBI Ten Most Wanted" list for a crime that he was actually guilty of.

You still get Warren in Texas. He is still tried in Texas. He's just tried as Warren Jeffs, who has never done anything wrong (so far as we know) in his life. If he has done something wrong, you'll get your chance to prove it.

In the meantime, by rooting for him briefly, you'll do yourself a big favor.
More →

Sphere: Related Content

Tuesday, November 16, 2010

The Phrustrated Pharisee

I have to move that brass fitting, or I can't fix the heater.
First, some housecleaning. "Hey Greg, I'm at HOME, if you really wanted to SERVE me...." On to what really "phrustrates" me.
Living out of a suitcase has it's severe limitations. Right now the Pharisee (when he is not on the road in a small bunk area or drivers seat), is in an RV. It's cold, and water leaks and failed water heaters don't mix well with cold. They demand replacement. Not today, not this week, but RIGHT NOW.

All of this got me to thinking, because I have limited access to everything because everything doesn't fit here.

First, what got me to thinking:

Every time I make a move to fix the water heater problem, I run into designs of other people who didn't want me to fix it. They might not have a preference for sending me to the service center to replace the water heater, but there's no motivation to keep me out of one either. RV's are like submarines and helicopters. (Why didn't I mention Space Capsules you say? They don't fix at all.) One system is overlaid on top of another system, or crammed into a small space, or made of miniaturized parts or all of the above. To repair a furnace, sometimes you have to remove a water heater.

Fortunately for me, I only have to repair the water heater, but that's the extent of my good fortune. To adequately diagnose the problem I have to remove the water heater, and that's where I am stalled. I thought that my tools were in the truck, but they are in the storage unit instead. My wife isn't answering her phone. She has the keys. I can't get them. Normally I could bully a fitting with a monkey wrench and a pair of pliers, but brass tends to shred. I need something more specific to the application at hand and I can't get it.

Which got me to thinking, but didn't get me all the way to the end of my thought process. The first part of my thinking is along the lines of how my wife does things. She sets up all systems in the house so that if I want to find something, I have to talk to her. Namely, there's a roadblock, you stop, she advises, you go on. Please understand that in this case I probably chose to leave the tools in the storage shed so it's not her fault, it's mine, but I first started grumbling about her not having the right tools at hand, and then started blaming myself. And the people who design propane fittings NOT to be worked on. Nevertheless, my wife took the keys with her, and I am at "all stop."

Then I moved to the next part of the equation. My partner is coming back to pick me up but I don't know when. He is at least 2 days away at the moment, but I'm not exactly sure where we are meeting, so I don't know where he is two days away from. That could mean I have a day essentially, so I tried to get a hold of him, he answered, said he'd get back to me, and then apparently went to sleep.

Why did I try to get a hold of him? Because I can't determine where he is going from the company website. Normally I can look up my duty assignment based on the truck number and know where I'm going.

So I digress again, but I'm going somewhere. Trust me.

There are two types of systems when it comes to managing people. At least in this case. There are management systems that track employee movement and activity. Essentially I don't have a problem with those since I am prepared to explain what I am doing. That's a "Tracking" or "Monitoring" system. It's based on "management by exception" and it largely trusts the employees in question, it just wants to know what's going on and occasionally someone monitoring a tracking system, asks questions.

Then there are security systems. Security systems treat virtually everyone like criminals. Your movement is monitored, or maybe not even monitored so much, but in a security system, there are roadblocks. When you encounter a roadblock, you stop and wait until the gatekeeper gets to you.

This is where I am going. I often find that my wife sets up security systems that alert her to everything going on in the house and you have to go through her to get something done in the home. Usually she is there so that's not a problem, but you find yourself explaining why you are doing something, before you can do it. This prompts discussion if she does not like what you're doing. I point to the fact that she has the keys and I don't. Instead of working on the water heater, I'm writing this.

Meanwhile the truck is barreling towards an eventual reunion with me, and I don't know where it's going. Before I cut a giant hole in the wall of my residence and compromise the propane system that operates the stove, I need to know how much time I have. I don't.

So we have the next security system.

Up until sometime Monday, I could look up the dispatches my truck was under, and know where it was going. Then someone noticed that I wasn't signing into the driving system and wordlessly I was cut off from that information. My employer uses a "Security" oriented people management system. If I want to know what's going on, I have to call a busy person, annoy them, and explain why I need to know something instead of just looking it up.

Management by exception monitoring systems trust people and use course correction and inquiry to stay on top of things.

Security management systems don't trust people and make them stop and explain themselves to security personnel before they can proceed.

My wife has a deep need to know what's going on, so she sets up security systems.

The manufacturer of my RV wants to keep me from working on it (I suspect) because they want to have one of their service centers do it for $1000.00 instead of $99.00 in parts and frustrated labor from yours truly.

My employer doesn't trust anyone and wants to know what they're doing so they can tell them not to.

Thus all employ security systems.

I tend to employ monitoring systems because I manage by knowledge, exception and course correction, not prevention and permission as security systems tend to do. I grant as much permission as I can, and advise.

So me and Security? Oil and water, and I'm Phrustrated. And my water heater isn't getting fixed. And time is running out. And I don't know how much I had, to begin with.

PS:  The RV dealership locally was very helpful.  It was suggested that a "frozen" pipe fitting might eventually be persuaded to move if "WD-40" (the second most indispensable thing compared to Duct Tape) were sprayed on the fitting.  It was said the WD-40 would "work it's way into the threads, and loosen them."  Guess what?  It did.

Problem Solved!

More →

Sphere: Related Content

It's what you do without the ball...

Coastal Carolina Alum Tyler Thigpen
We depart serious subjects YOU want to talk about, to stuff only I (and maybe a few of you) want to talk about. SPORTS! Of course, my favorite and only consistent fanatical interest in sports for the past 43 years has been the Miami Dolphins!
My team is a mediocre 5-4 this year, only winning it's first game at home on Sunday. I got to watch part of it while doing my laundry.

Chad Pennington went down. Ouch. Chad is one of my favorite people. I really think I could throw the ball as often and as far down the field as Chad Pennington does, even at 56. The man has what is known as a "noodle arm" which hadn't been helped much by the fact that had three shoulder surgeries throughout his career, on his THROWING arm. The latest came last year. Pennington is a trooper, a magician and relentlessly upbeat. He does everything without the ball that a quarterback should be expected to do.

That brings us to Chad Henne. Henne seems reticent, not quite as bright (for all I know he has twice the IQ Pennington does) and more a company man waiting "his turn." He seems to want to learn "on the job" as opposed to "off the field." Henne was replaced by Pennington after eight games because the team needed to know that change was necessary to have a championship season. That's how it goes if you're a quarterback. It may not be Henne's fault that the team didn't have a winning record before Sunday's game, but it wasn't his fault that they had one either as evidenced by the fact that, well, they didn't have a winning record. Thus we went back to ole spark plug Pennington who can work his way down the field with virtually no arm at all.

Only on Sunday Chad P went out after two passes, for the season, again (fourth throwing shoulder injury).

Then Chad H put in a good performance, and went down for a while (who knows how long?) with a knee injury, and in walks Tyler Thigpen, picked up as insurance last year for a low round draft choice from Kansas City. I LIKE Tyler Thigpen. I liked him when he was with KC.

Tyler only put icing on the cake and did what he needed to do when the game was on the line to win the game. He was third string. That means NO practice with the first team. But Tyler said he took "100 mental reps" before he went into the game.

That, and the picture above makes me think the Coastal Carolina product (not known for producing NFL players) may kick everyone out of the driver seat and take over. Tyler has the attitude of a quarterback, much like Dan Marino's successor (Jay Fiedler) did. In the above picture, Tyler does not have the ball, he's not "under center" or throwing or dropping back in some classic pose, he's completely out of the play, probably between plays, and look at him.

He think he's in charge. Comments from the locker room make me think the team sees him that way too. Good luck to you Mr. Thigpen. May you stop my team from wasting endless 2nd round draft picks (A J Feeley, Daunte Culpepper, John Beck, Pat White and perhaps now even Chad Henne) on QUARTERBACKS. A lot of people think it's bad coaching but I think it's the ghost of (I didn't win any superbowls) Dan Marino, that has hobbled my team for the last 11 years. Look at what we've spent to replace him. In the end it may be that the two most durable starters will turn out to be bargain bin acquisitions. The aforementioned Mr. Fiedler and Mr. Thigpen.
More →

Sphere: Related Content

Monday, November 15, 2010

Warren ain't goin' NOWHERE...

At least for the next two days:
The Salt Lake Tribune - "(Warren) Jeffs will remain in Utah at least until Nov. 17, when the state’s response to Jeffs appeal is due. The court will likely take a day or two to make a decision on the case, said Utah State Courts spokeswoman Nancy Volmer."
That answers THAT question.
More →

Sphere: Related Content

Is Warren off to Texas now?

Honestly, I don't know, but it looks like it:
The Salt Lake Tribune - "3rd District Judge Terry Christiansen sided with prosecutors who argued once a governor signs an extradition orders, courts can only decide whether the papers are in order.

'I don’t believe it’s proper for this court to substitute its judgment for that of the governor,' said Christiansen in making his ruling Monday.

Defense attorneys are appealing the decision. Neither prosecutors nor defense attorneys immediately knew when Jeffs might be moved to Texas.

The 54-year-old Jeffs appeared in court wearing a dark suit, smiling at times and acknowledging some people in the courtroom gallery.

Jeffs was convicted in Utah of forcing a 14-year-old girl to marry her 19-year-old cousin in 2007, but that conviction was overturned by the Utah Supreme Court earlier this year. The justices cited faulty juror instructions.

Washington County prosecutors have not yet decided whether they will re-try Jeffs."
What I don't know is; do defense attorneys appeal this decision while Warren is still in Utah, or can they react speedily enough to do so, or does he simply go to Texas? If the decision is appealed and if Warren's attorney's prevail and he is in Texas, what happens then?

As far as I know he's on an executive jet flying over Texas right now in the custody of Texas Rangers. If there is time granted for the filing of an appeal and Warren can't leave until that window expires, that's a different story. Again this is where my limited expertise (extremely limited) falls short.

I know that constitutionally it doesn't sit well with me. Warren has a right to a speedy trial. The Governor of Utah, and in fact no Governor in any state has the right to abbreviate that right or eliminate it, or modify it to suit themselves. Then however, we get into the realm of judicial mechanisms and they may in fact be designed in such a way as to not provide for the protection of Warren's rights under the Constitution.

If you ask me what happens if Warren is successful, my answer is quite simply that he still goes to Texas, but the circumstance changes. If Warren wins, without going to Texas (something that may be too late to do anything about), Washington county DROPS the charges, and quickly. Texas still gets him.

The assembled persecutors of Warren Jeffs are so petty and prone to prejudicial tactics though, that they want him going to Texas not as a free man arrested in Utah, but as a man under the charge of rape in Utah, even though it is known by all involved that the charges will never see the light of day in another Utah court.
More →

Sphere: Related Content

Where in the world am I? Monday November 8th, 2010 (UPDATED)



UPDATE- Legal Genius Renaldo Stowers found this photograph THREATENING to Sgt. Prickett.  NO LIE!  (How does a picture of Eldorado's Main Drag threaten Sgt. Prickett?)   If no one gets it (Toes, you know so you don't count), I'll post another more obvious hint tomorrow, God willing.
Of course, the story is now out, and this is Eldorado Texas.
More →

Sphere: Related Content

Thursday, November 11, 2010

Wednesday, November 10, 2010

That's less than Michael Emack Bargained For!

A big expensive trial, and one of the longer ones if I recall correctly, from gavel to verdict. What does the state of Texas get for it's trouble? Less time for Keith Dutson Jr. than Michael Emack plea bargained to get and not even a decent "perp walk," that's what:
The San Angelo Standard-Times - "Keith Dutson Jr. was escorted out of the Tom Green County Courthouse, his hands uncuffed, showing a pleasant demeanor despite having just been sentenced to six years in prison and fined $10,000 on a conviction for sexual assault of a child."
Of course real victory would have been an acquittal or "jury nullification," but you take what you can get. As I observed above, this is better than Michael Emack "bargained for."
" 'None of us can presume to know the mind of the jury,' Eric Nichols, the lead prosecutor, said outside the courthouse after the sentence."
Read that as: "I would have plea bargained this earlier this year, had I known."
"Dutson, 25, is the youngest member of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints to be sentenced out of the seven who have undergone prosecution on evidence seized in the raid on the FLDS-owned Yearning for Zion Ranch in Schleicher County."
Face it, he's younger and the "ick" factor is lower. Our society has taught us to believe in "dirty old men" which is a form of age discrimination, but no one wishes to see it that way.

I'm going to make a graphic comment that I have made before.

So don't read anymore if you don't want to read graphic sexual detail.

To be truthful, I have NO idea what sort of damage a 50 year old penis does that a 16 year old penis wouldn't do as well. In fact, I'd hazard a guess to say the 50 year old "tool" so to speak, does less damage on average, at least in these cases.

My reasoning is as follows. 16 on 16 sex is rarely "committed." What I mean is it's more illicit and along the lines of fornication than permanent. Without going into great detail I know of two people in a church I once went to who had illicit relations who later got married. He was older, though not as much as Keith was, and she was the same age as Keith's bride. They were stupid. They tried to conceal the "deed" and for some reason, because she says she did not "clean up" afterward and tried to conceal the act from her parents, she contracted a vaginal/uterine infection. Not an STD mind you, an infection relating to inexperience, concealment and then continued concealment of the illness she had contracted.

They are married now, and that is good, but she is damaged.

Keith and his wife were not "concealing" their relationship from their community. Sexual relations were expected. There were plenty of other women available to advise his bride. The same goes for any bride of any man regardless of age in the FLDS community.

An older man doesn't want sex as often, particularly if the older man has other wives. I know I'm going to be called sexist but I frankly hear of more younger men complaining that their wives won't "put out" than I hear of younger women complaining of the same. There are recent studies that say that many women simply don't prioritize sex as much as men. They are comforted by it, they find it to be "expected," and they like the closeness, but on average, research and anecdote tell us that women just aren't as hot to trot as guys.

If we're looking for physical hardship coming from sexual activity, I'm afraid the older man is probably kinder to the younger woman than someone her own age. He's less experienced, he's more "physical" in his "love making" and he wants it more. To be blunt, if we're concerned with the younger woman's health, then give her an older more experienced man. On average, it's a better deal.

Nevertheless, it is the impression of society that sexual exploration among the young who are going to "do it anyway" is better than sexual commitment by a younger girl to an older man. I say horse feathers. As stated before, a vagina doesn't know how old a phallus is, and if anything, the tool itself is less damaging and used less often with more skill. By less damaging I'm trying to be as delicate as I can in a very blunt discussion.

Really what it's all about, as said before, is the "ick" factor. We don't want, collectively, as a society, to see a wrinkly old man mounting a 14 year old girl. We'll go to the movies and revel in tales of lost virginity that are rated "R" and pitched to those same 14 and 15 year olds as we say are harmed by older men, and we seem to like seeing Joe Sixteen mount Jill Fourteen. We pay to see younger looking 21 year old actors and actresses hump like bunnies and get vicarious thrills out of it, but if Joe Sixteen is Sixty instead, it's a horror movie.

To those of you reveling in the long sentences of FLDS men, stop being such hypocrites.
"The raid was provoked by a call claiming abuse at the ranch, a call later determined to be a hoax."
Yes Rozita, you were never there, and the call was a hoax, and you were the hoaxer.
More →

Sphere: Related Content

Monday, November 08, 2010

Prickett's (TxBluesMan) Court Date with the Pharisee?

How UNT Sgt. Greg Prickett gets his way.
Like it will ever happen. The Yellow Mall Cop of Texas doesn't dare face me.
I still haven't been served and no self respecting Judge keeps a December 20th court date. I hear the "hearing" has been rescheduled from today, until December 20th. That means next year, or never.

TxBluesMan. Prickett. You are NOT a man. You hide behind threats to my daughter. You are yellow scum. A coward. Slime.

His accomplices?  Renaldo Stowers, Richard Deter, West Gilbreath, Nancy Footer and John Ellis Price.
More →

Sphere: Related Content

Friday, November 05, 2010

My Métier? Getting Banned. This time? All UNT Property

Updated Photo of Greg Prickett?
The University of North Texas has set aside (for this brief moment) their intensive 6 week investigation of Sgt. Gregory J. Prickett, to issue a verbal warning to me, not to set food on UNT property, anywhere, anytime. If I do, I'll be arrested. Can they do that?
The following is an open letter to all the media:
Lt. West Gilbreath, so impotent that after over a month of investigating an internal matter that he can come to no conclusion, was able to act decisively today. I would assume he had the assistance of the office of General Counsel of UNT.

The solution? An entire police force and the legal experts of UNT that are in the death grip of fear when it comes to talking to me, has decided to move decisively after 6 weeks of investigation (still ongoing I might add). They will solve the problem of Sgt. Prickett vaguely implying something unfortunate will happen to my daughter if I do not behave the way Sgt. Prickett wants me to by banning me from all UNT property. I was "verbally warned" by Lt. West Gilbreath not to set foot on UNT property today. Any of it. Anywhere. No time limit.

Lt. West Gilbreath
This presents the amusing picture of an over the road truck driver scaring an entire administration, it's legal counsel and police force so badly that they have put aside their hurried (6 week) internal investigation of Sgt. Prickett, while Sgt. Prickett enjoys paid administrative leave, and they have brought all their skill together, to threaten one of the victims, with arrest.

The University does not say "We've investigated this matter and you're full of beans Mr. McBryde," they simply plead "ongoing investigation," which is looking more and more like a tactic to sequester evidence and prevent University personnel from talking about the matter. Quite frankly, after this length of time, if the University is still investigating the matter, it's because it has merit.

I would emphasize the following things. I am 56 years old and have no criminal record. I have not been arrested. I am not a suspect nor have I been the suspect in any investigation. In short, I am simply not some tightly wound ticking time bomb waiting to "go off." I'm just inclined to be verbal and up front about any differences I might have with others. I am law abiding and do so because I believe it is my duty before God to be law abiding. I don't do so because I think I might get caught. I am no danger to anyone unless they are trying to hide the truth.

The University in banning me is bringing the full force of it's own law enforcement agency and it's legal counsel to prevent a victim from obtaining relief. I inveigh on behalf of my own offended status, and that of my daughter, whom Sgt. Prickett threatens as a means of modifying my behavior with respect to him. Behavior, I might add, that is entirely legal.

Hugh McBryde
Pimpin' Stowers
I have yet to see a "Temporary Restraining Order" from Sgt. Prickett and his bosom buddy, "The Hot Check." Nevertheless, about a month ago the massively self important Senior Assistant General Counsel ("Don't call me Renaldo") Stowers declared that the University couldn't talk to me, because the of this alleged restraining order. This was nothing more than a big fat lie.

Combine that with today's news from Lt. Gilbreath that the investigation of Sgt. Prickett is still "ongoing," and we have a situation where SAGC Renaldo, is essentially pimping for Sgt. Prickett and The Hot Check. It is now all but conclusively proved that Stowers is covering for Prickett and Gilbreath is too.

This is an expensive investigation folks, what with the Big Prick on extended paid vacation and all. They have to pay him and they have to pay his replacement(s) though I don't really know that they have to since all the Big Prick did was sit around and chase enemies from his office computer and use University resources with which to dig up dirt on them.

Trust me, this is not tough stuff. All Prickett (rhymes with briquette) has to do is DENY it and stand aside to let all of his PDA's and computers at work be looked at for such use. The fact that 6 weeks later the University of North Texas is still investigating the matter, is proof that the University of North Texas already KNOWS it's true.

For that reason I'm going to stick my neck out a bit since I know Sgt. Prickett already knows this anyway. Hey, BUB. MY LEGAL MAILING ADDRESS IS: PO Box 18336, Missoula MT, 59808 and it has been for the last FIVE YEARS. While it's true that I have had other addresses, I have always maintained that one. Always.

The "Hot Check."
I have always received mail there since it was opened. The one YOU used, Prickett, was almost completely unknown and had not been used for MORE than five years, that being PO Box 10485 in Bozeman MT.

The Big Prickett has always had access to PO Box 433 in Montpelier VT and knew it was good as it was published as my address of record with the State of Vermont. Guess what Prick? There's a FORWARDING ORDER on that address. The Big Prickett has along with his buddies made constant fun of my polygyny legalization effort, and were thoroughly aware of that address.

Instead I have been told, he used one in Bozeman that was only part of my drivers license record, before August of this year.

He's apparently been able to serve NOBODY on his list, all of whose names he knows.

He didn't want to.

Sgt. Prickett is engaged in Barratry, in the only state in the Union where that crime is a felony.
More →

Sphere: Related Content

Wednesday, November 03, 2010

Barratry

Bringing a frivolous lawsuit with the intent to harass? It's a Felony, in Texas
§ 38.12. BARRATRY AND SOLICITATION OF PROFESSIONAL
EMPLOYMENT. (a) A person commits an offense if, with intent to
obtain an economic benefit the person:
(1) knowingly institutes a suit or claim that the
person has not been authorized to pursue;
(2) solicits employment, either in person or by
telephone, for himself or for another;
(3) pays, gives, or advances or offers to pay, give, or
advance to a prospective client money or anything of value to obtain
employment as a professional from the prospective client;
(4) pays or gives or offers to pay or give a person
money or anything of value to solicit employment;
(5) pays or gives or offers to pay or give a family
member of a prospective client money or anything of value to solicit
employment; or
(6) accepts or agrees to accept money or anything of
value to solicit employment.
(b) A person commits an offense if the person:
(1) knowingly finances the commission of an offense
under Subsection (a);
(2) invests funds the person knows or believes are
intended to further the commission of an offense under Subsection
(a); or
(3) is a professional who knowingly accepts employment
within the scope of the person's license, registration, or
certification that results from the solicitation of employment in
violation of Subsection (a).
(c) It is an exception to prosecution under Subsection (a)
or (b) that the person's conduct is authorized by the Texas
Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct or any rule of court.
(d) A person commits an offense if the person:
(1) is an attorney, chiropractor, physician, surgeon,
or private investigator licensed to practice in this state or any
person licensed, certified, or registered by a health care
regulatory agency of this state;
(2) with the intent to obtain professional employment
for himself or for another, sends or knowingly permits to be sent to
an individual who has not sought the person's employment, legal
representation, advice, or care a written communication that:
(A) concerns an action for personal injury or
wrongful death or otherwise relates to an accident or disaster
involving the person to whom the communication is addressed or a
relative of that person and that was mailed before the 31st day
after the date on which the accident or disaster occurred;
(B) concerns a specific matter and relates to
legal representation and the person knows or reasonably should know
that the person to whom the communication is directed is
represented by a lawyer in the matter;
(C) concerns an arrest of or issuance of a
summons to the person to whom the communication is addressed or a
relative of that person and that was mailed before the 31st day
after the date on which the arrest or issuance of the summons
occurred;
(D) concerns a lawsuit of any kind, including an
action for divorce, in which the person to whom the communication is
addressed is a defendant or a relative of that person, unless the
lawsuit in which the person is named as a defendant has been on file
for more than 31 days before the date on which the communication was
mailed;
(E) is sent or permitted to be sent by a person
who knows or reasonably should know that the injured person or
relative of the injured person has indicated a desire not to be
contacted by or receive communications concerning employment;
(F) involves coercion, duress, fraud,
overreaching, harassment, intimidation, or undue influence; or
(G) contains a false, fraudulent, misleading,
deceptive, or unfair statement or claim.
(e) For purposes of Subsection (d)(2)(E), a desire not to be
contacted is presumed if an accident report reflects that such an
indication has been made by an injured person or that person's
relative.
(f) An offense under Subsection (a) or (b) is a felony of the
third degree.
(g) Except as provided by Subsection (h), an offense under
Subsection (d) is a Class A misdemeanor.
(h) An offense under Subsection (d) is a felony of the third
degree if it is shown on the trial of the offense that the defendant
has previously been convicted under Subsection (d).
(i) Final conviction of felony barratry is a serious crime
for all purposes and acts, specifically including the State Bar
Rules and the Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 866, § 2, eff. Sept. 1,
1989; Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 723, § 2, eff. Sept. 1, 1993;
Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994; Acts
1997, 75th Leg., ch. 750, § 2, eff. Sept. 1, 1997.
More →

Sphere: Related Content

Friday, October 29, 2010

Natalie Writes a Hot Check for Gregory J. Prickett

NSF for GJP?
Supposedly, there is a Temporary Restraining Order on yours truly with regard to negative comments made about Sgt. Gregory Jack Prickett (rhymes with Briquette). I have what amounts to knowledge of this business only through rumor and third hand information. For instance, someone with a gmail email account that has the same name as Sgt. Prickett has emailed me a file I tried to open three times, but could not. Good sense prevailed eventually, and I ceased to open a file from a person I did not know, or had no prior knowledge of, because that's how you get a virus on your computer. To this day an email lies in my inbox with an attachment that I have given up trying to open, because it could be dangerous.

But I digress.

Liar Stowers
When I called Renaldo Stowers, "Senior Assistant General Counsel" for the University of North Texas (that's a mouthful, isn't it?) a few days ago, he said he "couldn't talk to me" because of this "temporary restraining order" that I don't have (and still don't have).

Renaldo is a stinking liar. Many attorneys trade in stinking lies, and Renaldo is one of them. If such a "restraining order" exists (I wager), it is written with regard to MY behavior, not with regard to the University's behavior or any of it's agents.

It works like this:

A "TRO" (Temporary Restraining Order) is asked for and issued by the court. Whatever court that is. Remember, I have no official knowledge of any kind of a case against me. I only go by what "Kent" at "Save the FLDS Children" has written. This is second or third hand information. I still know nothing officially. Official notice is for a purpose, it serves to let everyone know I actually know or know of something. It is legalistic and strict for a reason.

The Big PRICKett
If we believe that Sgt. Gregory Jack Prickett did file a lawsuit naming me, and did get a restraining order against me, he then needs to serve it, so I know. An officer of the court, or a duly authorized representative showing up in some legal capacity at my door or mailbox serves to let me know I'm not being lied to, but that some official function of some Government is being applied to my person.

If I don't have said document in hand, for the purposes of the law, I don't know anything and it doesn't apply to me. In short, until someone says "stop," I can keep going. No one has said "stop," what I have is anonymous twaddle offered to me over the internet by unknown persons. We all know we can always believe in what's found on the internet, right?

So back to that lying sack Renaldo Stowers. He told me that HE couldn't talk to me because of a restraining order. That's a lie. I can't talk to him if I want to avoid contempt of court charges if I have been ordered by the court not to talk to him, and I have received such notice. The fact is I can go right on flapping my jaw in the case of getting the TRO and in the case of not getting it. In the former case though, I will probably end up paying dearly. So the pompous self important Renaldo (don't call me Renaldo, call me Mr. Stowers) lied, and knows he lied.

I assume this court that I am supposedly going to answer to is in Texas. I wonder what law enforcement crazy "don't mess with Texas" does with attorneys who write hot checks on behalf of plaintiffs who represent themselves pro se does to those plaintiffs and their lawsuits?

I know in some venues, in the past, you were in trouble with the court for the NSF check itself, and whatever you filed was deemed never to have been filed at all.

Kent and I agree that this supposed lawsuit (if it has been filed indeed) was only filed to make it so people like Renaldo could have an excuse for not talking to me, so that when the disciplinary action came up regarding Sgt. Gregory Jack PRICKett (rhymes with "briquette"), they would have enough cover (of the "I did not KNOW that variety) to let him off.

Lt. West Gilbreath told me, if you recall, that they had not opened a criminal investigation, only an internal one. This served two useful purposes.

The University was free to act solely in it's own intersts (and possibly those of Sgt. Prickett) with regard to my complaint.

The University would not have to talk to me because it was an internal matter involving the "privacy" of Sgt. Prickett, who is on paid Administrative Leave.

So far the only damage I appear to have done to Sgt. PRICKett (rhymes with "briquette") appears to have been giving him a long paid vacation during Sooner Season.

He/She's "The Hot Check."
Oh, and why is Natalie Malonis writing "Hot Checks?" Inquiring minds want to know.  (I'm using the "Wikipedia" definition of "Hot Checks" which links directly to the NSF/Non Sufficient Funds article.  You have to assume Nat and PRICKett have had the opportunity to edit the article.)

Is that limb your out on a little short and thin there Nat? Is there anyone with a saw behind you? Have you LOOKED? Same thing goes for you too Sgt.

Still unanswered are questions like why the University doesn't care about the apparent threatening of my daughter by a person that is almost certainly Sgt. Gregory Jack Prickett of UNT.

What they countenance what amounts to extortion, apparently by the same person.

Why is it OK for OLD men to follow around YOUNG GIRLS that they don't know in other states, and then prowl the corridors of a state University, which is filled with young women?
More →

Sphere: Related Content

Thursday, October 21, 2010

Overheard on the CB Radio

Moi, at just before sunrise.
In a massive traffic backup outside Cincinnati.
We've been delayed for over an hour, and some wise guy of a trucker says "what day is this?"
More →

Sphere: Related Content

Saturday, October 09, 2010

FLDS Texas Renamed as "Hugh McBryde Montana."

A good friend told me they had.
I didn't think it was true. Oh, by the way, Don't Throw Me In That Brier Patch.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Friday, October 08, 2010

A certain blogger was down and out for about a day.

Inappropriate images, see them here instead. (WARNING, CONTENT):
And it's been going on for years!


The OUTRAGE!
More →

Sphere: Related Content

Thursday, October 07, 2010

Ok, got my answer (UPDATED)

I had a legal question, it's answered.
I'm good to go. For lack of better description, it was a question of a time stamp. Did or did I not say something on or before a certain point in time. I haven't deleted anything, I've archived one post that in my mind is essentially meaningless.

For the record, I was "by invitation only" for about 6 hours today while I got that question answered. When I got it answered, I went back to public. If anyone has a concern about the one post in question, which is really a post of content written by someone else referred to by me, then I'll be happy to discuss it with them. Except for those 6 hours, the Modern Pharisee has been up and running continuously open to anybody since June of 2006.
More →

Sphere: Related Content

Tuesday, October 05, 2010

Sgt. Gregory J. Prickett on Administrative Leave

Unnamed sources at the University of North Texas have confirmed: Sgt. Gregory J. Prickett is on administrative leave, as a result of the stalking/extortion investigation started by my complaint to the University.
His response is to file for "ex parte" relief.

Having read the petition for "ex parte" relief, I note that Sgt. Prickett still does not deny being TxBluesMan of Coram Non Judice. Maybe I missed something.
More →

Sphere: Related Content

Monday, October 04, 2010

Yes it is

This is in fact, a picture of my step daughter, the blog in question does in fact use her name, and they name my wife.
FLDS Texas equates what I am doing (picturing Sgt. Gregory J. Prickett) with what they are doing (vaguely questioning the chastity of my daughter as "concubine" or "girlfriend") with a picture taken at a University of Montana Food Fair. The picture here, will come down when they take down their picture of her, since I am linking to their pirated picture of my daughter.  The gentleman with her is merely Saudi and a friend, nothing else.  He usually dresses in jeans.

In addition, they name my ex wife (fortunately though by the wrong name). I will not provide them with her correct name for reasons that among other things, I remain oddly protective of my ex. It's not what she could tell about me, it's that I am sure she does not wish to be bothered. And no, I did not "beat up" my ex wife. Nothing close to that ever happened. Yes, she did have a propensity to kick doors off their hinges when she was upset. I don't think she's going to want to talk to you. Really.

There are other quotes:
"If the university does not take action against Hugh, there’s a real problem. He won’t stop until someone stops him."
My daughter and another Saudi Friend
They probably aren't, because if it isn't Greg Prickett, it's someone else or several someone's at the University and it's almost certain that Greg knows that, and knows who he/she/they are. I remain as convinced as you can be without touching the smoking gun or hearing his confession, that it's him. Part of it is the reaction of FLDS Texas when you poke at Prickett. He certainly seems to be part of the monster. I'd ask, when you confront someone, and all they do is attempt to make your actions more costly or painful to you than they had been in the past, what are they saying when they say "I need to be stopped?" What are they saying when they make my innocent and uninvolved daughter the moral equivalent of a combatant?

I'm not picturing people uninvolved, I'm picturing people involved. They are picturing persons in the neighborhood in the hopes that I will find the experience to frightening or costly to them, and will give up.

That's EXTORTION. Extortion is a FELONY. In addition, it's being conducted across state lines.
I’m a little disturbed about people bringing up the full names and even pictures of people unrelated to this whole issue except for their connection to a nutcase. Let Hugh and Bill and the other slimeballs drag innocent bystanders into this if they must but shouldn’t we have a higher standard of ethics?
No Rebeckah, the people you hang out with are in fact, low life slimeballs. Make no mistake, bad company corrupts good morals.

And no, you don't "stalk" anonymous antagonists, you simply find them.
More →

Sphere: Related Content

Bwahahahahahahaha........





Found at "Tater Tots for the Masses." Hat tip to "I Own the World."
More →

Sphere: Related Content

Sunday, October 03, 2010

Just when you think they can't get any dumber...

FLDS Texas watching the Boomerang
Like a pile up in the fog on an Interstate, FLDS Texas remains the wreck that keeps on growing:
Anny Moose @ FLDS Texas - "What SHugh needs to realize is that obtaining driver’s license information is available on the internet to any and everyone who is willing to pay for it. You don’t have to be involved in law enforcement to get that kind of information any longer. It’s just a matter of whether or not you’re willing to pay."
Really? My understanding of such internet services is that there is a legitimate commercial use clause. Completely apart from the idea that it's an awful quick update for "Stamp" to have gotten less than a month after I got my CDL, the information ON my CDL. The choices are "obsessive whack job pounding on the enter key every five minutes looking for the lastest update" or, "that's not how you got it liar, you pulled it through information sharing resources that a law enforcement agency has."

Please don't make me go into a long drawn out explanation of why it is I don't think you have the brains to figure it out on your own and be that confident of your information.

With the first choice, of getting my DL information through a "pay for" service, I'm going to want to know what legitimate use you had for the knowledge. In the second instance, I'm going to want to know what Law Enforcement investigation was being conducted on me that required such information.

In both cases, I'm going to want to know what make you think you can disperse and publish your findings. So really people, thanks for the admission that you DID pull my DL record and thanks for the admission that you did so without legitimate purpose. You may think you're digging up dirt on me, but what you're really doing, is digging a hole for yourselves.

Any of you clowns have money?

Any of you clowns want to visit the iron bar motel you keep thinking you're going to march me off to? Any of you care to explain how it is you know HOW LONG I supposedly went to school?
More →

Sphere: Related Content

To Lt. West Gilbreath, UNT Police (CID) (UPDATED)

UPDATE: It has been verbally requested that Renaldo Stowers and Lt. West Gilbreath not be pictured in this story, as a courtesy I have removed the links to other websites where they are both pictured.

The following has been emailed, and should arrive in written form tomorrow, portions have been "redacted."
"Lt. West Gilbreath,

My complaint is as follows:

Though references to them are disappearing from readily available sources on the internet (they now exist only in "cache") , your Sgt. (redacted) as "TxBluesMan" on Coram Non Judice (and elsewhere as a commenter) has been encouraging the portrayal of me as a pedophile, calling me a pedophile, and has coined an abbreviation ("PPSG" or Polygamy and Pedophile Support Group) to state that I support pedophilia. Thus it can be said that I have a legitimate interest in knowing who "TxBluesMan" is, because he is creating a slander of me that could (and probably has) materially affected my life. I'm sure Lt. Gilbreath, that you would not wish to hire a pedophile were you in a position to make such a decision.

Once a person's name becomes associated with such activity, a good percentage of employers would simply stay away from the individual altogether, preferring to move on to a candidate not implicated in such an activity. Sgt. (redacted) is also known to post under a variety of different names, including "GregJackP," "Bluesooner," and "Bluesooner/Malonis" at the online encyclopedia "Wikipedia." He is thus known to share identities and have a large number of aliases on the internet for the purposes of further concealing his identity. He was recently found to have altered a climate change article at Wikipedia by unacceptable methods ("Meat" and "Sock" puppetry) in which he appears to be a large faction of individuals advocating for a change, as opposed to one or two. His identity as "GregJackP" is in fact how we found Sgt. (redacted) as "TxBluesMan." He is an equal opportunity offender and aggravated some tech savvy people on the anthropogenic climate change side of the aisle. They found me, we compared notes, we found Sgt. (redacted).

Because Sgt. (redacted) uses many aliases, it is not known always if he is commenting, or encouraging comments. Here is an example of such a comment:
AN OPEN LETTER TO ALL EMPLOYERS OF (ME) : PAST, PRESENT AND FUTURE :
WE THOUGHT THAT YOU MIGHT FIND THIS OF INTEREST – APPARENTLY (ME) FINDS 7 YR OLD GIRLS SEXUALLY ATTRACTIVE. YOU SHOULD STRONGLY RECONSIDER HIRING THIS MAN IF CHILDREN ARE PRESENT IN YOUR OFFICE SETTING – SEE THE LINK BELOW :

http://64.119.179.84/forums/showthread.php?t=23839&page=22
You can find this at the "FLDS Texas" blog, here is the link:

http://texasflds.wordpress.com/2010/09/09/open-discussion-37/#comment-32071

The remarks are grossly out of context. The larger discussion says that in theory I would consider a mentally, physically and spiritually mature 7 year old, if there was such a person, and I had both judicial and parental permission, but that I still almost certainly, wouldn't be interested. This has been sliced down to the smallest quotation to make it appear that I had interest in a 7 year old, and frequently quoted at the blog. I have no such interests.

Furthermore "pedophilia" is clinically defined as interest in pre-pubescent individuals, and I clearly stated the opposite consideration in the discussion quoted. Legally, if there is such a thing as "pedophilia," it has to do with illegal contact, and I stated clearly that all such considerations would have to be with judicial sanction, thus removing myself from any legal definition of pedophilia, if it exists. I do not have an interest in 7 year olds and I have not been interested in young girls since I was a young boy myself.

Slanders such as the above, have have been repeated many times in comments and in posts over the past two years at both "Coram non Judice" and at "FLDS Texas." I have lost more than one job in that time frame and had prospective employers suddenly drop interest in me and cease communications with me after initial avid interest. It is not unreasonable for me to believe that "research" on me may have led to a discovery of such charges and a reconsideration of me as an employee, or potential employee.

Again, all of this is to give you context for why it was that I would be interested in the identity of the individual or individuals behind the internet persona "TxBluesMan" of "Coram Non Judice." I think recent behaviors on the part of "TxBluesMan," who I obviously am convinced is Sgt. (redacted) further evidence they are one in the same.

Shortly after the publication of Sgt. (redacted)'s name, the following appeared:
Hugh thinks that the FLDS case of child molesting convictions will lead to the legalization of “Polygyny”.
Anyone else finding Crack in their Lucky Charms? Maybe driving an 18 wheeler gives him special Leprechaun powers?

Stamp said this on September 19, 2010 at 8:17 AM
This can be found at the following link: http://texasflds.wordpress.com/2010/09/09/open-discussion-37/#comment-32129

The evidence is circumstantial, but since I had informed few people, all of whom were allies and well aware of my desire for employment privacy, I am inclined to think that someone with the ability to do so, pulled my drivers license record. It would have revealed the following:


  • 1.) I had recently acquired a Class A CDL in (redacted) (one month prior, suggesting constant monitoring).
  • 2.) That CDL had an address of (redacted).
  • 3.) I was almost certainly employed by (redacted).


The jump then to speculate I was driving an 18 wheeler would be very small, and in fact, correct. (A note, the conclusion about my employer is incorrect). (SEE UPDATE)

This then forms the basis of my further complaint, that Sgt. (redacted) has been extorting me all along using HIPPA violations in an effort to silence my point of view that the Yearning of Zion Ranch raid in April of 2008 was an unlawful search. He also deeply resents my desire to legalize polygamy and has been extorting me for that reason as well. Another individual Sgt. (redacted) inveighs against has had (redacted) accessed and that access paid for (by UNT).

Shortly after the publication of Sgt. (redacted)'s picture, he found and published (a relative)'s picture. You and other agencies and persons have misconstrued this as an issue I cannot be concerned with because she is an adult and needs to complain herself. For the issue of stalking, that may well be true, and Sgt. (redacted) is now stalking my (relative). That in itself is a disturbing crime for a law enforcement officer to be involved in and UNT should be concerned about him as an employee for that reason. The issue with me though, is that through stalking my (relative), Sgt. (redacted) is further extorting me, and now is doing so with the clear message of "this is your (relative), see, I know who she is and what she looks like." There can be no reason to do this other than to let me know that something untoward may happen to my (relative), if I don't comply with his wishes, or that having already exposed him, revenge is about to be exacted on me, through my (relative). Thus he is no longer just extorting me but he involved in conspiracy to commit some form of battery up to and possibly including murder.

After UNT's investigation of this matter began, Sgt. (redacted) published another picture of my (relative), this one showing more of her face than the last. I can see this in only one way. He's saying "STOP or I'll do more of this." This then becomes a disturbing trend where Sgt. t is stating to me that he has no limit to his behavior and that every undesirable action on my part will be met with increased pressure from him with my (relative) as the hostage.

The only comment I would have on this last observation is, that if for no other reason, the University of North Texas should arrest Sgt. (redacted) for whatever crimes would be associated with his actions and confine him and have him prosecuted, because if he is allowed to continue, someone may well die. It is not my desire to sue UNT, but if my (relative) is harmed as a result of his inappropriate, illegal and dangerous behaviors, I will sue them to a cinder. The numerous phone calls and complaints I have made, as well as this letter will be shouting witnesses to your negligence."
I have also dared UNT to arrest me presenting said dare to both UNT Counsel Renaldo Stowers and Lt. West Gilbreath when they threatened to charge me with some form of harassment (I called many UNT officials at home).  I stated that I'd love to go in front of a jury, and show them a picture of this relative, and state what the Sgt. did, and ask them what they would do in my circumstance.  I gave UNT my name, birth date, address and social security number and volunteered to present myself for arrest in Texas.  I have not been threatened with charges since that dare.

As stated, this was sent via email and also under the following cover:
Label Number: 7010 0290 0001 1982 6703

Service Type: Priority Mail Certified Mail

Shipment Activity Location Date & Time
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acceptance MISSOULA MT 59808 10/01/10 2:25pm

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As of 10/4/2010, Lt. Gilbreath acknowledges to me he is receipt of my written complaint. He revealed to me in a disturbing conversation that he has not seen fit to open a criminal investigation, only an internal one.

At FLDS Texas, the following appeared, along with the name of my daughter, and another closer view of her:
"We’re not taking anything down."
Odd, as I had not made the request that her pictures be taken down to anyone at FLDS Texas, nor had I made that request publicly. In fact, I had ONLY made that request to Lt. West Gilbreath, which seems to mean West has spoken with "TxBluesMan," who certainly seems to be Sgt. Gregory L. Prickett (rhymes with Briquette).
More →

Sphere: Related Content

Saturday, October 02, 2010

Sunday, September 26, 2010

Come Clean? No need, but to recap...

Concerning my prior marriage. At one time or another, I have said all of the following (which pertain to my first marriage) in the clear, and in public. I will link to them as I find them to demonstrate this, but for now, this recap which is prompted by certain folks claiming I need to "come clean" with regard to my past. I already have, so it's not news. Nevertheless, I will pull it all together in one place so that it can be conveniently referenced.
What follows is the content of a letter to a good friend, slightly modified so as to remove personal information and protect certain persons privacy:
"TBM (who is almost certainly Prickett) is going after one of my children. Please understand that this is my STEP daughter. I am in all ways (except for paternity) like a father to her, and she, like a daughter to me.

Neither my wife, nor my daughter has sought the spotlight and do not publish. This is also true of my ex wife whom they are now going after as well. There is a lot of unresolved junk between my first wife and I, I for my part have done everything I could do to put those issues to rest and can do no more unless she does and I am at peace with the LORD concerning it and do not spend any time thinking of the matter, except when it comes up.

For that reason it takes me a while to run down to the vault of old memories and respond to accusations in that arena because I truly don't dwell on those issues until someone does a kind of 'aha' attack on my character.

I have stated in the past, publicly, the following:

A divorce always has one party primarily responsible for it, and in my divorce (without trying to duck responsibility I may have) was clearly my first wife's fault. Having said that I have reflected on my first marriage and pronounced myself a lousy husband. Not a cheater or a beater, but a lousy husband. I could have done better. Much better. I should have.

My wife (according to a counselor and witnesses of the marriage) started trying to break up the marriage approximately two years into the relationship that ended up lasting 15 years (officially).

For a period of time in the marriage it got physical. From about the second year to sometime in year 6 or 7 (maybe 8, probably not) there was shoving that went on. She started it. I regrettably participated. It is my position that this does not absolve me, I think men should be more responsible. Men have the greater physical power. At a point in time I resolved NEVER to touch anyone in anger ever again, and I never have. That was about 1987 or 1988.*

I do not wish to make excuses or diminish what has to be classified as violence, but the problem with the term violence is that it has massive dynamic range. My violence began with what you might call 'gateway' violence, and ended there before it got worse. I am, and was ashamed of myself, it was wrong, but I have not been violent since, and pretty much was not violent before that. Having said that my wife was the first violent person in the marriage, and she was the last, having jumped on my back and beaten me with her fists while trying to pull out my hair about a month before she threw me out of the house. She did this in front of the children.

The worst thing I did in that case was laugh. I had not touched her (shoved) since the time I resolved not to. Before I was married to her, I did not hit or shove. During the marriage I descended into the shoving sort of physicality, I quit, and haven't ever done it again. As I said, I am deeply ashamed of my failure. It is what it is though. I did not beat my wife, she did not seek a divorce for that cause. The restraining order information is frankly news to me. Perhaps she sought one and it was denied. I was never served with one to my recollection. I visited my children at our home (soon to be hers) during that time and picked them up and dropped them off there, I had several conversations there with my first wife, including one in her bedroom after she kicked me out.

I do know she spread the story that I was dangerous in the whole town of Fairfield MT, which is very small. For that reason after a period of time I always resolved to drive around and not through it so that no one could ever say they saw me there to give legs to her claims.

Additionally, I wanted at times very badly to 'cheat' on my wife, and on occasions, very seriously contemplated doing so, but did not. I say 'cheat' for the sake of convention. I have only been with two in my life, my first, and my second wife, and my first wife threw me out of the house prior to my meeting my second wife, though I met my second wife that very same day.

My first wife's lawyer was an amoral man. His name was Michael S. Smartt. He was fond of creating conflicts real or imaginary to then base his case upon them. Michael later became a Justice of the Peace, and spent all his time in his office, hiding his computer screen from his staff, surfing gay porn. He was drummed out of office, and later committed suicide in the basement of the Rainbow Motel in Great Falls. To say he was not a happy man, or at peace with his life was an understatement. He also was charged with extorting sex from other men that he had contact with in the penal system, in exchange for probation favors. That was my wife's attorney.

In the last year my first wife and I were together, 1995, I was (in human terms) solely responsible for finding, retrieving and helping her second son (my step son) get help for his bipolar disorder. After successful resolution of that more than a year long crisis, both her, and her son (who I still care for very much) declared I had saved his life, my wife was particularly pointed about it holding me close to her and stating: 'You saved (his life), no one else could have done it, he knows it and says so, I know it, and all our friends know it. You are the greatest man I know. I cannot even stand next to you.'

Within a month, she wanted a divorce.

There are of course, many more details, some make me look better, others make me look worse. I know I could have done a great deal more to save my marriage, but I did not. If I have omitted anything it is because it would be a limited market chronicle of an obscure relationship that would fill a volume the size of "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich."

From the State of Montana's perspective, the divorce was final in November of 1996. I had not lived under the same roof as my wife for a year. I did not contest the divorce, though I showed up for the hearing. Her lawyer asked for sole custody of the children and as a result of my not resisting, got it.

I sent her a letter in 2001 stating I was divorcing her and had communicated many times to her that I did not regard the Civil divorce as valid, until I made a decree of divorce. That may have been the basis for her restraining order, an order I was not aware of and never tested.

Nevertheless, it is now clear to me that though she has remarried (the basis of my letter of divorce), I still care about her. I have not publicly expressed anger about the invasion of my stepdaughter's life until now, nor have I expressed much anger over their past threats to "out" my first wife, but now that they have, I feel a very strong desire to protect her as well. I would advise those using her name publicly that she has not been legally connected to me for 14 years. To drag her into this is to place yourselves in peril from a woman who knows how to defend herself in a court of law. Proceed at your own risk, but I don't think you will find her willing to discuss the matter."
I have always been forthcoming about this matter, and will be so long as I draw breath and possess the memory necessary to recall it.


*This apparently is being seen by some as an admission of a 5 year period of continuous violence.  It was intermittent, not continuous.  It was punctuated by incidents like my wife kicking a door down.  Eventually I saw there were only two ways out.  Escalate, or quit.  My first wife came from a violent home where the answer was "escalate."

Another reason for mentioning who started it is NOT to fix blame.  As noted, I blame myself, however few the incidents were, or however "light" in terms of force they were.  They were my fault, entirely.  Inevitably though, someone asks "why did you shove her, even if it was only a few times?"  The answer is not that I spontaneously started shoving my wife, she shoved me (not an excuse for my behavior) and I chose entirely on my own, to respond in kind.  It was a terrible and stupid, sinful choice.  All I am saying is that I didn't just start shoving my wife because I was angry with her, or for some other reason.
More →

Sphere: Related Content