|NSF for GJP?|
But I digress.
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 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."|
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?
Sphere: Related Content