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

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

What He Said....

Another great one from Bill.

Read it here.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

And he does not deny, most importantly, that he is TxBluesMan

I got a letter from someone purporting to be Gregory Prickett:

"September 22, 2010



Mr. Scott Ledbetter

(redacted)



Mr. Hugh D. McBryde

(redacted)



Mr. William J. Medvecky

(redacted)



Sent via: E-Mail



Gentlemen:



I have recently been made aware that your weblogs “Ye Olde Journalist” (http://mrscottyl.blogspot.com), “Modern Pharisee” (http://hughmcbryde.blogspot.com), and “Free the FLDS Children” (http://www.flds.ws) contain false and defamatory statements about me.



You have published the following false statements and / or substantively similar statements; if not immediately retracted, these false statements will damage my personal and professional reputation and interfere with my ability to conduct my business in the community in which I live and practice my profession:



1. Any statement or implication that I, directly or by omission, participated in the use of excessive force.



2. Any label such as “Rent-a-cop” or similar terminology as applied to me.



3. Any statement, implication, or reference to my having possession or distributing “kiddie porn” or child pornography.



4. Any statement or implication that I am a pedophile or sexual deviant.



5. The statement “We filed a complaint against TBM, who we know wrote all of the FLDS information on the Wiki site for filing info under different, false names (A violation of Wiki rules) and this was his (The Pricks) response to that complaint” or any statement of substantially similar substance.



6. Any statement or implication that any family members of mine are involved in publishing FLDS related materials on the internet or elsewhere.



7. Any statement or implication that I have distributed or disclosed protected health information in violation of any Privacy Act.



8. Any statement or implication that I have used University equipment, property, the University’s name, or my position in violation of any state or federal rule, regulation, or statute.



By this letter, demand is hereby made that you immediately and prominently retract in writing each and every of the foregoing false statements and substantively similar false statements. Demand is further made that you immediately cease and desist from making further false statements about me. Your failure to immediately retract the statements pursuant to this notice will be regarded as an intentional and malicious course of conduct designed to harm me.



Demand is hereby made that any you immediately cease and desist further release of private matters of a non-public nature. Your failure to immediately cease such activities pursuant to this notice will be regarded as an intentional and malicious course of conduct designed to harm me.



Each or all of you have communicated false, defamatory and abusive statements about me to individuals at my place of employment. These statements will damage my professional reputation and interfere with my ability to practice my profession, now and in the future. Demand is hereby made that you immediately cease and desist from communicating at my place of business and that you immediately cease and desist from making further false or abusive statements about me. Your failure to immediately cease making statements pursuant to this notice will be regarded as an intentional and malicious course of conduct designed to harm me.



Regards,







Gregory J. Prickett"

Oh Puh-Leeeeeeeez

More →

Sphere: Related Content

My opinion? Yes: GregJackP = UNT Sgt Greg Prickett = TxBluesMan of "Coram Non Judice"

A week ago you'd have found me about 98% sure, but as you know, I've made an ass of myself before on this topic.

I will be removing posts soon that suggest anyone else was "da Blues."

Without his confession, it's hard to say all doubt has been removed, but if Greg isn't Blues, then Blues stole his "CV" and Greg hasn't the sense to realize the trouble Blues has gotten him into.

I called Greg today. He denied everything, but didn't threaten me like cops do when they have the high ground. That's probably because he can't afford to do so. Then he hung up. GOTCHA!!

We (meaning the politically ecumenical group of persons "Blues" has ticked off) got together over all things on global warming. We don't agree. Blues & I do agree, but we could all agree his methods were unfair & outrageous. TxBluesMan has that effect on people. He rubs so many diverse people the wrong way that they end up liking each other, when normally they might be at each others throats. Thanks Blues. You've made me a bunch of friends I wouldn't have even sought, and I am a better man for it.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

The Mysterious case of Gregory J. Prickett

There are of course, more than one of them in the world, some are Dentists for instance. But who is this one?

Bad Precedent (#106995)
by Gregory J Prickett on March 12, 2007 at 1:35 PM
According to Spitzer, we must always adhere to precedent, even if terrible and clearly out of line with the Constitution.

If this were the case, then Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) stating that "seperate but equal" was constitutional would still be the law of the land. Obviously this is not the case, due to Brown v. Board of Education overturning that decision.

In a like manner, in Betts v. Brady (1943), the Supreme Court held that Betts did not have a right to appointed counsel in his robbery trial. Thankfully this was overturned by Gideon v. Wainright (1963) and Escobedo v. Illinois (1964).

Bad precedent is just that - bad - and can easily be overturned.

As a side note, Spitzer ignores the facts that the cases he claims are clear and decisive are anything but that.

Presser v. Illinois does not address the question of an individual right to keep and bear arms, stating "Whether a State may not prohibit its citizens from keeping or bearing arms for other than militia purposes is a question which need not be considered..." If it doesn't address the question Mr. Spitzer, then there is no precedent established.

In a like manner, Mr. Spitzer misconstrues the other decisions, but I won't list all the details.

This one writes like TxBluesMan, of Coram Non Judice. When there is a Police Sgt. at the University of North Texas and a Wiki editor by the name of GregJackP who posts seemingly from UNT and "TxBluesMan" who has precisely the same background and interests as GregJackP, you wonder. Is there another Greg J. with a last name starting with P at UNT or is Sgt. Prickett the same person as TxBluesMan. At least, one of the people behind the persona.

Inquiring minds want to know.

Blues has of course closed his blog, making it hard for us to compare writing styles.

Inquiring minds dare him to open it up again.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Not Linking, but Linking

A while back, Brooke Adams pissed me off, and I've pretty much stayed that way. Yes, I can say "piss" since the King James Bible also says a variation of that word.

Brooke now runs "Wordpress" for her blog, and on rare occasions I take a trip to the "Dashboard" of my account with "The Plural Life" (now called "The Polygamy File") and observe.

Does Brooke know that as a pissed off enemy I am the primary driver of traffic to her blog? Either that, or the "feed" that shows on the dashboard is incomplete. Here's what it said when I checked today:

The Pharisee linked here saying, "Will Elissa Wall repeat herself and drop charges i ..."
The Pharisee linked here saying, "I won a book! From "Frienemy" Brooke at the Plural ..."
Toes linked here saying, "Neatly tucked away between her book giveaways, Bro ..."
MPB linked here saying, "Hm, I really wonder what strange and malicious tal ..."
The Pharisee linked here saying, "I figured it would end this way: "On February 5, 2 ..."
The Pharisee linked here saying, "Of course he is a neutral party, not wasting money ..."
Toes linked here saying, "From the Plural Life's Weekly Twitter Updates: •Th ..."
The Pharisee linked here saying, "After taking an overly long time to decide what sh ..."
The Pharisee linked here saying, "Brooke Adams is pointing to a ruling where it says ..."
The Pharisee linked here saying, "Brooke Adams has a new post up at her blog involvi ..."

And I don't link that often, actually. The Polygamy File is not on my blogroll because she "Pisseth me off," but I dutifully link to items she posts and news she uncovers after a brief period of petulance where I didn't do that, merely mentioning instead where the material came from but not linking.

If I drive that much traffic to her just in blog posts where I link out of courtesy, think of how much traffic I would drive to her if she WAS on my blogroll.

Another thing, the remaining linkers coming into Brooke's Blog are all in the category of "Pro." Since I recently had it admitted to me by someone in a position to know that the "Antis" are in fact doped, this is further proof that despite the lofty rankings of the "Anti" FLDS bloggers, no one reads them really, because they link in too, but they don't show up and many of these links on my dashboard at Brooke's, are quite old.

So, to those blogging on the Anti side, no one cares what you think, and no one is reading it either. Except idiots like me.

And another thing, who is basically "pissing in the wind here?".

More →

Sphere: Related Content

What we are supposed to believe

Since I have drilled several dry holes on the identity of TxBluesMan. Hear first, this disclaimer. This, is a guess, but it's a good one, and it's one "Blues" brought on....HERSELF?

In the Wiki War controversy going on over at Wikipedia concerning the YFZ Ranch page, one of the immediate "interveners" was "BlueSooner." The little dust up over there served to help me understand several things about how Wikipedia works, including finding and identifying page editors, at least insofar as those editors identify themselves for the record. In other words, they use "handles," not real names in most cases.

Stroll around the identities of "Loquitor," "BlueSooner" and "BlueSooner/Natalie Malonis" and tell me if they don't know each other. One of the things you will see is that "BlueSooner" appears to be a "Storefront" for "BlueSooner/Natalie Malonis. When I discovered this, you could still see edits on the Coram/Wikipedia history page, now they only appear as "BlueSooner." Quite simply, "BlueSooner" is giving us every reason to believe they are "BlueSooner/Natalie Malonis," but now you can't find that ID, unless you look very hard, or already know where it is. That ID links to the "BlueSooner" ID, but "BlueSooner" doesn't link back to "BlueSooner/Natalie Malonis."

Quite simply All seem to come into existence at roughly the same time (March 2010) and create the "Coram Non Judice" self promotional page on Wikipedia (a no no if Blues and Nat are the same) and edit each other. "Loquitor" and "Blue Sooner/Natalie Malonis" hail from "Vassar" College, which though it is now co-educational, was known primarily as a "Girls School" until recently. This seems to suggest Loquitor is BlueSooner/Natalie Malonis, and we already seem to know that Bluesooner is Natalie Malonis.

The other possibilities are that Natalie and "Whoever Blues Really is" at least briefly shared an identity. That's also a "no no" for Wikipedia. It would be as if I tried to get around my current ban by posting as someone else. The bottom line though is that these posters named "BlueSooner" in some way shame or form have deliberately confused themselves and there is now more circumstantial evidence that they are the same poster, than there was to convict Scott Peterson of the murder of Lacey.

There may be exculpatory evidence that emerges, but right now, as it stands, TxBluesMan=BlueSooner=Natalie Malonis by their own deliberate or inadvertent acts of confusion. If they're not, then let them prove it. I've already had Nat mail me and say she represents TxBluesMan. It was speculated then, that she may have a fool for a client. There are some other possibilities emerging, such as past (present?) associates nearby that went to the right law school, but that's how it stands.

Now.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Meat Puppets VS The Pharisee

And maybe Sock Puppets too, but that's harder to prove.

Read all about it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hugh_McBryde#Your_message_about_YFZ_Ranch

I don't want to lose editing privileges at Wikipedia, just when I seem to be getting the hang of it, but I wouldn't be getting the hang of it any time soon, had I not gotten embroiled in this business. Read all about it:

"In short, my edits, which started as a simple edit declaring that the evidence had been suppressed in Arizona, have been scrupulously true and unbiased. The motion granted termed the raid, in the Arizona Court's official legal opinion, as 'Unlawful.' They did this by ADOPTING the motion of 9/3/2008 by means of accepting the agreement of both defense and prosecution in the form of a stipulation. Those who are also engaged in reverting and editing the YFZ Ranch page have striven to alter it's content to show that a stipulation only was signed, and have elsewhere striven to equivocate the rejected offering or attempt at a unilateral stipulation on the part of the defense at an earlier date as being the one accepted. The 'war' started when persons having an agenda, and having a 'Single Interest' tried to obscure the little known fact (nevertheless a fact) that the evidence was genuinely suppressed in Arizona while using the terms 'unlawful' and in fact countenancing defense terminology in the process using the word 'illegal.'

'BlueSooner' is almost certainly 'TxBluesMan' who has written an advertisement for his Blog 'Coram Non Judice' on Wikipedia. A check of the authorship and edits shows that 'Bluesooner' and 'Natalie Malonis' (a single interest source opposed to the FLDS) authored the 'Coram' page. 'RonLawHouston' is almost certainly 'RonInHouston' who also posts on the same blogs and sites that 'BlueSooner/TxBluesman' posts at. Both are virulently anti FLDS and are engaged in self promotion. They almost certainly confer offsite, and make coordinated edits. The likelihood that 'Hope4Kids' who honestly declares bias is also acting in coordination with 'BlueSooner/TxBluesman' and 'RonLawHouston/RonInHouston' is extremely high. There are perhaps other contributing editors who also act in conjunction with these three. This is, as I understand it, by Wikipedia definition 'Meat Puppetry.' It may also be 'Sock Puppetry' but this is difficult to prove. The likelihood that these posters have other Wikipedia editor identities is high. There is considerable evidence from the 'Coram Non Judice' blog 'promotion/advertising' page that 'BlueSooner' shares editing identity with "Natalie Malonis" and may (long shot) even BE the same person. There is no assurance that these editors are even separate at all though it is likely that there is more than one real person behind them all.

These persons are fervently interested in suppressing the simple legal fact that there was a relatively unknown but nonetheless real setback for those prosecuting the various FLDS cases and defendants in Arizona. They have an agenda. They are certainly single interest, they have a high conflict of interest. They haven't even been here at Wikipedia as long as I have. I joined without any intent to promote or discuss FLDS issues as can be proved by my join date. These other editors, from what I can tell, joined after the raid commenced.

As a final offering, I am a real person, I have a name, I have no other identities. I post under the same name on my driver's licence and birth certificate. All of my qualifications, biases and interests can easily be researched and evaluated." Hugh McBryde 22:20, 11 April 2010 (UTC)--Hugh McBryde 22:20, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Extra! Extra! Read all about it!

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Natalie says she wouldn't talk to Brooke, (and then does)

Brooke Adams has a new post up at her blog involving documents and the UEP trust, and people getting subpoenas in Texas.

It's essentially a teaser, advertising as many of her recent posts have, the possibility, or the near certainty that Brooke knows more than she's saying, now.

This little drama may play out before I have the chance to throw in my "swag" (Scientific Wild Ass Guess), but there was this interesting little tidbit:

The Plural Life - "(Natalie) Malonis told me on Thursday she had to check with Wisan to see what she was 'at liberty' to say. No answer yet."

My guess here is that if Wisan hasn't fired her yet, it's because it's the only way to keep her mouth shut, or hope to. It is more likely that whoever Texas Blues Man is, she has terminated that "attorney-client" relationship, unless of course Wisan is the Blues.

That's not a guess, that's rhetorical by the way, and somewhat amusing to speculate.

So much for Nat's claim that she wouldn't talk to Brooke.

So did Blues get a subpoena?

"(Patrick) Crimmins told me Friday no one in his department received a subpoena.

Earlier in the week, Jerry Strickland, a spokesman for the Texas Office of the Attorney General, gave me this statement when I asked about the dictations:

'Neither OAG nor law enforcement has made these documents available to the parties to the UEP Trust litigation.'

So who in Texas got the subpoenas?"

I wouldn't believe Patrick necessarily. He is a convincing liar, based on direct experience, and making the mistake of believing him. That's once Patrick.

But assuming it is true, as it is possible that no one got such a subpoena in Texas Government. Apparently from what Brooke is saying, someone did.

Jerry Strickland makes Patrick Crimmins more believable.

So is one of those someone's the Blues?

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Brooke Adams continues to write about her unholy relationship

About the time that Natalie Malonis wrote me, declaring that she was "TxBluesMan's" attorney (ok, EXACTLY that time), I gave up on trying figure out the answer to the question, "who dat (blues?)"

After all I figured, anyone with Natalie Malonis as an attorney, is not all that bright. Also, having switched to "wordpress" as a platform, "Coram Non Judice" experienced a sharp drop off in readership that "Blues" (whoever Blues is), did not recover.

The Salt Lake Tribune - "Bloggers who operate the sites 'Coram Non Judice' and 'FLDS Texas' announced on Monday a new blog, FLDS Priesthood Records, where they would publish 'previously undisclosed' dictations made by Jeffs they said had been filed in an unnamed Arizona court case.

The bloggers described the dictations as containing 'the thoughts and actions of the FLDS' during a four-year period. By Tuesday, the bloggers had posted dictations from September through December of 2002 -- though one post contained dictations from January 2006 about FLDS temple ordinances and religious blessings given to members."

Now who's the attention whore? After ignoring that vacuous shill for the better part of the last 6 months, the vacuous shill is back, nose deep in hot water. It reminds me of a child who can't get attention, pitching increasingly annoying fits, until that child is noticed again.

Well Blues. You got noticed.

But wait you say; isn't this a post headlining Brooke Adams, SL Trib Polygyny beat reporter?

Why yes, it is. We'll get to that, in a bit.

It is now becoming more and more likely that TxBluesman, who we cannot even be sure is a.) a man (not that there is anything wrong with not being a man). b.) one person (as opposed to a committee), is extraordinarily connected. The blogger that started blogging right before the news became public about the "cry for help" being a "hoax of a cry" has been an unwavering and increasingly strained Anti FLDS apologist now for nearly two years. Lately Blues has been trying to pass off a court ruling, in favor of a motion to suppress as only a stipulation of the prosecution offered and accepted by the court. All from someone who writes well, but can't tell hac from hoc. So no lawyer, or not a good one, but connected and a good writer, shilling. For whom?

This smacks of a hired gun trying to make trouble on main street. Trying to get noticed. Trying to start fights. So not getting enough attention of late, Blues went on a privacy destroying document dump that possibly violates "HIPAA."

This is where Brooke Adams comes in. Brooke has favored TxBluesMan for quite some time, linking to Blues Blog (up until recently) and mentioning Blues regularly in posts. Basicly, Brooke shills for Blues from time to time. Is this a quid pro quo?

Does Blues get things that others cannot and passes them along to Brooke? I'd guess yes. Blues is a Salt Lake Tribune/Brooke Adams source. In exchange, Blues is regularly promoted, and given credibility by a major newspaper.

If Blues is a source for Brooke, then Brooke has known who Blues is for a while, or should know.

Now it seems like she wants a divorce. Blues is the story now, like Mark David Chapman became the story when he couldn't stand being a fan in the shadows any longer. Brooke Adams is realizing this (or should be), and pushing Blues away.

How can Brooke and the Tribune not report NOW, on who this shadowy character assassin is? I'm guessing the who da blues is, is going to be news soon. If not, it ought to be, because frankly, the story is now who Blues knows, why those persons have given Blues material, and why Blues writes about it so singlemindedly and without empathy for those Blues tramples. Like a hired gun.

I'm going to have to buy more popcorn. This Western is starting to get very interesting.

Will Blues "connectivity" eventually result in him winding up in court as a defendant?

Shame....

PS: The Salt Lake Tribune - (Natalie) Malonis did not return a telephone call or an e-mail request for an interview.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Malonis Mails Me! (How do you "represent" a "Sock Puppet?")

Seriously, now Malonis acknowledges an attorney client relationship with TxBluesMan.

September 30, 2009

Mr. Hugh McBryde
Via email: hughmcbryde@gmail.com

RE: Txbluesman

Dear Mr. McBryde,



I have been engaged by "txbluesman" (txbluesman@live.com/coramnonjudice.blogspot.com) to represent his legal interests in connection with potential criminal and/or civil actions which you anticipate may be taken against you as a result of your presence and activities on the World Wide Web. "Txbluesman" has informed me that, for purposes unknown to him, you have indicated that you may attempt to serve papers upon him. In that regard, please direct all communications to me at the address listed below, save and except those papers to which "txbluesman" is entitled to personal service or service by process.

If you have any questions, please contact me at this email address or the mailing address listed below.

Sincerely,

Natalie E. Malonis

The Malonis Law Firn
Attorneys and Counselors
1173 Bent Oaks Court, Suite 200
Denton, Texas 76210

The header:

Delivered-To: hughmcbryde@gmail.com
Received: by 10.151.111.20 with SMTP id o20cs310695ybm;
Wed, 30 Sep 2009 17:44:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.220.79.140 with SMTP id p12mr905487vck.57.1254357854935;
Wed, 30 Sep 2009 17:44:14 -0700 (PDT)
Return-Path:
Received: from imr-ma05.mx.aol.com (imr-ma05.mx.aol.com [64.12.100.31])
by mx.google.com with ESMTP id 6si14069198vws.141.2009.09.30.17.44.14;
Wed, 30 Sep 2009 17:44:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 64.12.100.31 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of nmalonis@nmalonis.com) client-ip=64.12.100.31;
Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com: 64.12.100.31 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of nmalonis@nmalonis.com) smtp.mail=nmalonis@nmalonis.com
Received: from imo-ma01.mx.aol.com (imo-ma01.mx.aol.com [64.12.78.136])
by imr-ma05.mx.aol.com (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id n910iAtx010991;
Wed, 30 Sep 2009 20:44:10 -0400
Received: from nmalonis@nmalonis.com
by imo-ma01.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v42.5.) id o.d0a.593bd151 (37093);
Wed, 30 Sep 2009 20:44:08 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from [10.76.198.22] (166-205-007-002.mobile.mymmode.com [166.205.7.2]) by cia-db07.mx.aol.com (v125.7) with ESMTP id MAILCIADB073-90e54ac3fb5213; Wed, 30 Sep 2009 20:44:06 -0400
References: <592e90970909301133l6e8397e0wca6bbe56b324760a@mail.gmail.com>
Message-Id: <73925C61-D6EC-49DE-8E24-93421767B92F@nmalonis.com>
From: Natalie Malonis
To: "hughmcbryde@gmail.com"
In-Reply-To:
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=us-ascii;
format=flowed;
delsp=yes
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (7A400)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (iPhone Mail 7A400)
Subject: Txbluesman
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 19:43:51 -0500
Cc: "txbluesman@live.com"
X-AOL-IP: 166.205.7.2
X-Spam-Flag:NO
X-AOL-SENDER: nmalonis@nmalonis.com

Hmmm, be careful for what you beg? You just might get it?

Thanks Blues. Christmas early this year.

Thanks to Nat.

xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo

(Hugs)

Oh, I replied after careful consideration:

You don't represent Jack you daffy twit.

"Txbluesman" (txbluesman@live.com/coramnonjudice.blogspot.com) is not an entity. Unless you can demonstrate to me that you represent an actual person or fictitious person (such as a partnership, LLC, or Corporation), your contention is ludicrous on the face.

I apologize and retract the above if it turns out you do have a client in association with this matter, whose name is "Jack."

Hugh McBryde
PO Box ***
Montpelier VT, 05601-****

More →

Sphere: Related Content

And so it begins (UPDATE #3) Blues Takes Malonis as Attorney

I blog, not anonymously, but as myself, so that I may be accountable. I am a threat it would seem, to some. Odd though, that it is not someone with a face that threatens me, but someone without one:

Anonymous said...

"By the way Pharisee, I turned you in this morning in (V)ermont for harassment to local police, after reading how you have harassaed [sic] and threatened another poster on this blog.

Strange the officer seemed to know who you are , and stated, this isn't the first time someone has complained about you."

My reply:

"Do you mind telling me which agency Anonymous? I will be happy to pay them a visit."

And the coward added this:

"I also turned in a complaint to google for invasion of privacy of another poster."

September 30, 2009 1:13 PM

Further, Anonymous said...

"Im [sic] sure you will be getting a visit shortly Pharisee"

September 30, 2009 1:14 PM

Strangely reminiscent of how this all went down to start with. Isn't it?

I do not think that blogging in the clear is a magic lotion with which I righteously anoint myself so that nothing bad will happen to me. It is a bane for most cowards, but not for other truly ugly ones.

Hugh McBryde
Montpelier, Vermont

UPDATE:

I contacted the following agencies:

Berlin City Police Department, Vermont.
I work in the Berlin Jurisdiction. No complaints have been filed.

Montpelier Police Department, Vermont.
I live in Montpelier. No complaints have been filed.

The Vermont State Police, located in our Capitol City, Montpelier, where I live.
No complaints have been filed.

Barre Vermont Police Department.
Some people easily confuse the location I live in with Barre, I called them, they have received no complaint. They assured me they would not even respond to a complaint made about me as I do not live or work in their jurisdiction.

The Washington County Sheriff refers all such complaints to the State Police. They have received no complaint, and have not passed it on.

UDPATE #2 - At 5:35pm EDT, "Blues" updated his blog by deleting my posts. Meh. That his his privilege. He runs his site, I do not. If He/She thinks I will violate his "strong suggestion" that I not post at his site or communicate with him, she/he is wrong, but let us say the issue of "censorship" is now settled.

TransBluesMan seems to think that Natalie Malonis is a hotshot attorney, and has retained her, or so "Blues" alleges:

"I have deleted all of Hugh's posts since he went on a rant and hijacked the thread.

Hugh, check your e-mail. It has instructions for any further communications with me to be through my attorney, since you saw fit to threaten legal action.

Do not contact me directly, including through this blog by posting comments."

Blues however, chose to leave up the remarks in which an anonymous poster says they HAD already turned me in to law enforcement. Again, meh, since that was not done.

What is interesting is, that Blues has now identified Natalie Malonis as Blues legal representative. If you have any complaints, I'd rush right over to her law office and file them. Here is the text of Blues email missive. It should be noted that Blues first contacted me, many months ago. Not the other way around. Now she doesn't want to talk anymore:

"Hugh,

I have retained Natalie Malonis to represent me in this matter. She will be contacting you to provide the location where the subpoena may be served. All communications about this matter should be through her.

Sincerely,

Texas Bluesman"

I now pronounce thee, Attorney and Troll. Sore losers.

UPDATE #3 (and hopefully the last) From LambChop's blog:

"Anonymous said...

Just to let you all know, I did NOT turn Pharisee into the police in Vermont..

I did however file a complaint against him with google, because of his treatening behaviour.

His constant accusing and threats against bloggers should be stopped.

Threatening someone by internet, email , or stalking or harassing them is illegal.

If you read the terms of service for google, he would know that.

I stated I called the police, hoping Pharisee would stop his malicious behaviour. I see it didn't.

I am a real person, and Im not TxBlueman or Betty or anyone else.

Hannah"

One poster is now going to report me to the "Southern Poverty Law Center." I suppose reports to Google and fictitious reporting to LE isn't working.

This is why I only allow "registered" comments, and also why I moderate my comments. Originally this blog had no controls on who commented, but as it became more popular, I restricted comments to registered users, and finally, moderated the comments.

The reasoning is as follows:

Registered users are accountable to someone. I greatly prefer up front postings by people who are known, but if a user is registered, they generally can be found if the need arises. By the entity who registered them.

Because that did not stop wild accusations and "oh yeah" type postings, I also made the comments moderated. This blog has NEVER encouraged comments, it ACCEPTS comments. I have even considered full scale private registration for commenting on the blog, and thereby making those who comment, always known to me and then allowing within that context, unmoderated posting.

It would APPEAR that Blues is concerned that blues is identified as the "anonymous" poster. Blues could clear that up a little by requiring registered posters. Blues could also moderate comments. Blues does not.

The fact is "Hannah" is not believable. Hannah has stated that Hannah lies for manipulative effect. Everything that comes out of Hannah's mouth after that, is subject to belief by verification only. I cannot accept reliably that "Hannah/Anonymous" was "Anonymous/Threatener." I cannot accept reliably that "Hannah/Anonymous" is not not the Threatening Anonymous any more than I can accept that Blues is not either. You see, whoever made the claim to have called the police is a bald faced liar. Whoever made the claim that they were the liar that called the police, admits to being a liar. It's a house of cards.

Blues COULD take down the threats. All of them, including vile remarks that go entirely to character assassination, just as Blues removed remarks of mine to make it appear as if I had done something threatening myself. Blues is an anonymous troll, and if he has offended you, contact Blues Attorney Malonis, and get them to show up in court.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Bring it on

A coward, and a nobody whose gender we do not even know, Texas Blues (Man?) aka "HeShe," aka "Hac Hoc" is telling me that I am risking a lawsuit. Do we REALLY think this is because he cares about what happens to me?

Bring it on. All of you. I would LOVE to make this an issue about ME. That is truly beyond my wildest dreams that I would be sued, and then have the opportunity to subpoena and depose and have testify, all these persons who I am alleged to treat poorly.

I am serious. Oh please. Oh please, OH PLEASE just do it.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Can We Stop Taking Legal Advice From This Guy Now?

I'm going to qualify this by saying I'm NOT a lawyer, but I don't think Wikipedia has this wrong.

So with the heavy qualification of, "I don't believe everything I read on the internet," let's go to the record:

Coram Non Judice - "The information that I have received is that the Utah Bar has approved noted Denton attorney Natalie Malonis' application to appear Pro Hoc Vice in the case of Jessop v. Jessop, and that Carolynn's local attorney has filed a motion and order in the case sponsoring Malonis' appearance. This may correspond with the upcoming hearing on the matter in Judge Walther's court in Schleicher County, Texas that is currently scheduled for September 28th.

I wonder if Grandpa Bile Medvecky's post on Pro Hac Vice [sic]* gave Malonis the idea to appear for Carolyn in the Utah court? Thanks, Bill, that was a good idea..."

Except, for this interesting tid bit from the "Wiktionary: "pro hoc vice" is a common MISSPELLING of "pro hac vice."

Bill Medvecky appears to be RIGHT.

Whoever, or Whatever TxBluesMan is, he/she is not right.

Feel free to advise your Modern Pharisee. I could have it wrong, I'm not a lawyer. But if I'm right, whatever Blues is, is at best, a bad lawyer.

* Means "spelling in context," meaning the author is quoting as spelled by the one he quotes and generally meant to question the spelling found "in context." To note something [sic] is to suggest one of two things, that there is an alternative and legitimate spelling, or that the author quoting another author (for it must be spelled) is saying the quoted author is probably WRONG in their spelling choice. From this flows the common misunderstanding (just as in the hac/hoc controversy) that it means "spelling in-correct." Functionally, after examination, this is usually what is being claimed but not strictly what [sic] means, as it's true meaning is more polite.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

He's BAAAAAAAAACK

Coram is back. Now, Blues, put up your forecast and why before the ruling comes down from Walther.

Of course this colors all my speculations on the business.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

And now down goes "Rozita's" blog. (And up it goes again)

UPDATED (Back up, you can never figure an attention whore) You never try to expose your more paranoid musings. This time I'm going to have to.

"What Princess Says Goes" is also down, a day after "Coram Non Judice" when down.

The writer(s) and/or owners of http://estraletta.blogspot.com/ gave plenty of reason to any reader that the owner of the blog and it's author was the Rozita Estraletta Swinton of YFZ infamy. Not the least of which was the sharing of a photo of Rozita's right eye which appeared last fall/winter in cache's of a MySpace page that had a 99% plus certainty of being Rozita's "My Space" page.

Essentially it takes plotting of a paranoid's wildest imaginations to produce a MySpace account well in advance of the YFZ raids, place pictures on that page, do a little dabbling around the internet and then in March of 2008 launch an attack on the FLDS in Texas and then spend the next year leading pro FLDS bloggers down a garden path populated by dated evidence that makes them think they're talking to people who are fictitious.

To put it simply, "Rozita" uses a picture in her profile on MySpace, a profile that only the best internet sleuths might have found, and then in her blogger profile, and not be the same person. Since that MySpace profile predates the FLDS raid by a year or more, the notion that it's really Rozita's picture is a pretty safe one and it's pretty safe to assume it's on "blogger" and "myspace" because Rozita put both of them there. There's also the matter of the linkage to another MySpace album of pictures by an obscure older White Guy in Burley Idaho, pictures of Rozita again. Really and Truly.

So the evidence points to "What Princess Says Goes" as being "really and truly" the blog of Rozita Estraletta Swinton. Now the real paranoia.

If it's not her, I personally have been fed a line of very carefully crafted and sophisticated bull. Gee fellas (gals), I'm flattered. 'Lil ole me? Only two scenarios fit Myspace: The grooming of a human missile in the person of Rozita years before her attack on YFZ. A group of "psy ops" FBI/Texas Ranger/Flora Jessop types that have been feeding misinformation, researching Ms. Swinton, hacking MySpace (or cooperating with them) all to discredit and mislead and distract a small contingent of pro FLDS unpaid "pajamas media" types. Think of it this way. The ownership of the MySpace page tagged "rozitas" had to be co-opted from it's original owner, or found and pilaged and an elaborate hoax created, or MySpace had to let Law Enforcement create a fake ID complete with fake dates dating two to three years into the past. If you look at it today the ages don't match, if you looked at it a few weeks ago, they did. BTW, this MySpace Page is apparently the same person.

Top that off with almost all hits I have been able to trace to the Estraletta blogger and her support group coming from the Chicago area and suddenly, emails associated with them ALSO coming from the Chicago area (won't say which one of them) and Coram and Princess going down in successive days, and it gets a paranoid to wondering. It would get a normal mind to wondering. The hair stands up on the back of your neck and you wonder just how badly you might have been "had."

Except I'm OK with it. I'd love to prove a connection between the blogger of "Coram" and the blogger of "Princess" even if it's just two simpatico souls spreading misinformation. It would be even more embarassing to the Salt Lake Tribune who still banners the defuct blog of "Texas Blues Man" to this day on the "Plural Life." A hoaxer? Linked to by a "Major News Source" as credible? If the connection got any deeper, or more widespread, that would work for me too. If it spread to people working for Texas or the FBI, I'd be ecstatic. I'd have been wrong, and paranoid, and my worst paranoid fears would have come true, but it would work, really, it would.

Of course, it could be nothing at all. Rozita closed her blog once before, to modify it's template and it was back up in a hurry. It's THURSAY! What do you people want from me?

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Blues for Texas

"Opposition Leader," the anonymous "Texas Blues Man" is blogging no more, at least for now, perhaps longer.

I have no reason to believe that his departure from the blogging scene is for any reason other than he hasn't got the time for it.

There will no doubt be speculation that TBM is under some sort of situational pressure relating to his chosen profession and his opinions, but we'd have to know what his chosen profession WAS, to know the answer to that one. For now I'll take him at his word that he simply doesn't have the time.

If other "Anti-FLDS" blogs start going down like flies I'll begin to wonder. The following is found at the blog "FLDS Texas" and I received an email also from "Blues."

"I am taking Coram Non Judice down for an indefinite period of time. I have to take care of some real life issues that preclude me from paying enough attention to the blog. Although the blog states 'invited' members only, that is the generic Blogger page, and no one has access to it. If circumstances change, I’ll bring it back up later."

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Warren's Attorneys formally acknowledge bogus photo.

Remember that photograph that wasn't of the YFZ raid? Anti FLDS members of the blogging world got all torqued out of shape about it.

It's being pulled from the identical motion in Arizona.

More →

Sphere: Related Content