More "Seasonal" greetings. No stunt doubles.
More "Seasonal" greetings. No stunt doubles.
Sphere: Related Content
"Mr. McBryde,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.
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.
"You're still a loser and a coward. I don't know who "email@example.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.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.
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."
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.
|The Three Piggies and Warren|
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.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.
'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 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.
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 to move that brass fitting, or I can't fix the heater.|
|Coastal Carolina Alum Tyler Thigpen|
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.
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.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?
'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."
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.
"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.
|How UNT Sgt. Greg Prickett gets his way.|
|Updated Photo of Greg Prickett?|
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.
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.
Lt. West Gilbreath
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.
|The "Hot Check."|
§ 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
(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
(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
(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
(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
(f) An offense under Subsection (a) or (b) is a felony of the
(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.
|NSF for GJP?|
|The Big PRICKett|
|He/She's "The Hot Check."|
"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|
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.
|FLDS Texas watching the Boomerang|
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."
"Lt. West Gilbreath,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.
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 :You can find this at the "FLDS Texas" blog, here is the link:
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 :
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”.This can be found at the following link: http://texasflds.wordpress.com/2010/09/09/open-discussion-37/#comment-32129
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
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."
Label Number: 7010 0290 0001 1982 6703As 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.
Service Type: Priority Mail Certified Mail
Shipment Activity Location Date & Time
Acceptance MISSOULA MT 59808 10/01/10 2:25pm
"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).
"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.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.
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."