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

Saturday, October 23, 2010

No Explanations, but Here it is:

Gram Parsons.
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!

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


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:
You can find this at the "FLDS Texas" blog, here is the link:

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:

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