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.

Sphere: Related Content


Pliggy said...

I had to reminisce an old blog comment back in May of 2008 on Grits For Breakfast by Mr Doran Williams:


txbluesman* can certainly be irritating. (He?) (she?) (it?) has an excellent talent at smoothing out blemishes in the State's case, at glossing over fundamental problems with the State's case, at concealing ugly facts, and at burnishing a facade of legal competence. If (he) (she) (it) had gone into the business of applying stucco and plaster, instead of trying to practice law, (his) (her) (its) services would be in great demand.

But what else can you expect from someone who is as conflicted as txbluesperson is? According to his, her or its posting on coram non judice, txbluesperson believes limited government is the best government, but supports a law and order approach. (he) (she) (it) is a strict constructionist, but clearly has no problem with the ongoing and almost complete destruction of the Fourth Amendment by the Courts. He doesn't care what someone believes, but is comfortable with the State of Texas taking children from their parents because of the parents' religious beliefs. Strict construction of the First Amendment be damned, I suppose.

This person -- txbluesperson -- is a very conflicted and confused person. Once you understand why (he) (she) (it) is the way (he) (she) (it) is, (his) (her) (its) mutterings become understandable and less irritating.


*Until tx comes out from behind his, or her, or its, nom de plume (a form of lying, I want to point out), I cannot determine his or her gender, or lack thereof, and will hence forth refer to tx as "person."

Txbluesperson obviously wants to create a reputation as someone who knows the law and can predict future judicial decisions. When we add this conceit to txperson's apparent belief in being omniscent, the tax on tx's credibility just becomes too onerous. We have no basis for believing much about what txperson says about the law or about the facts. How can we take what a person says on such sensitive and complex subjects, when that person will not reveal his or her true identity? This is not Hollywood, you know: The Lone Ranger went out of style years ago. As did Batman and Robin.

C'mon out tx, it can't be that difficult."

mrscottyl said...

Congratulations Hugh. Personally, I knew you were telling the truth the entire time. I never doubted you. You are still in our prayers. Take care and may God bless you my friend.