Ron, you IGNORANT SLUT (Apologies to Jane Curtain)

Ronald D. "Ron" Hunter, goes Ape. Warning, strong language:

Ron in Houston who is Houston Family Law Attorney Ronald D. "Ron" Hunter.

On July 27, 2010 at 10:16 pm Ron in Houston said:
Hugh

Honestly FU

Just because you now know my full name doesn’t make you some wise person.

You’ve always been and still are a major league dumb ass.

Yeah, my name is Ron Hunter and I’m an attorney in Houston, Texas.

My next job is to track your sorry fucking ass down and forward to anyone who has any interaction with your sorry fucking ass your desire to fuck 7 year old girls as part of your religion.

Guess what dickhead? I’ll have a whole lot of support to do this.

Want to play anymore?

___________________

Hugh: I am evil.
But I am redeemed and being redeemed.

________________

Fuck no – evil never changes

—————–

me: Gee, we all have evil in us
Hugh: No, I’m evil.

________________

Gee, apparently yes!!!!

________________

Hugh: Like I was there….wait…I was.
2:30 PM Well, I’m a loser Ron. It’s lost it’s sting. Think about that.

______________

Well, it may have lost it’s sting to you in your mind, but in the court of public opinion your still a major league fucking loser.
_____________________

Hugh: Right. Keep that in mind. Plus my ethic is to keep the law. There is no compulsion for me to take girls as sex partners.
And it’s against the law.
If I am not married to them.
LEGALLY.

__________________________

Oh, really? How about your comment that their 14 to 15 year old vagina won’t know that you’re dick is over 50 years old?

Want to comment on that pervert?

Really, it’s past time for Blues to ban you. You’re a sick fucking twisted pervert.

Reply
On July 27, 2010 at 10:44 pm Hugh McBryde said:
Gee Ron, losing our religion are we?

Reply
On July 27, 2010 at 10:21 pm Ron in Houston said:
Nonestly Hugh, at this point I don’t give a shit. If it costs me $10,000 in my time to track your sorry ass down and force you to give me your broken down sorry assed RV down, then let’s go.

Hi everyone, I’m Ron Hunter from Houston, Texas. Will you help me find and track down Hugh McBryde formerly of Vermont? If so please contact ronlawhouston@gmail.com.

If you help, I promise at the least to send you my gratitude.

Reply
On July 27, 2010 at 10:42 pm The Lone Rider said:
Temper Temper now Ron. We all understand that you are having a bad day thanks to to the Utah Supreme Court but Hugh is more than justified in rubbing your noses in it.

Reply
On July 27, 2010 at 10:47 pm Hugh McBryde said:
Ron, please, you can’t bust a loser. It’s been done. Bring it on you sorry ambulance chaser.

Reply
On July 27, 2010 at 10:45 pm deci said:
Can everyone just shut the fuck up! Yes Ron, Hugh shouldn’t have posted that photo of you but jeez…calm down. You have to have known that outing was a possibility.

Reply
On July 27, 2010 at 10:59 pm Hugh McBryde said:
Why shouldn’t I have posted the photo of Ron? I actually did NOT “post” it, I opened a window in my blog, to HIS blog, and HE posted it.

What is this insanity that says you can go out and pick fights and hide, and are entitled to your privacy? You’re NOT. You go out and pick fights and as long as I don’t break any laws looking for you (such as hacking email addresses, blah, blah, blah) you’re FAIR GAME.

Now Baby Ron is having a HISSY fit and wagging his Lawyerness at me. What a TRIP. Ron, you pick on everyone from behind a shield of anonymity and you’re entitled to only as much of it as you can keep through skill. There is no legal entitlement to privacy when you go PUBLISH and use other people’s names and run them down publicly. NONE. NONE WHATSOEVER.

Like I said, don’t try to intimidate a loser. I’ve lost already. I don’t like being a loser, but I’m familiar with the territory. That’s half the battle. It’s not the unknown and I don’t fear it as much.

Ronald D. "Ron" Hunter. Texas Bar Card Number 10301760. Remember, he said it first.

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

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

Wiki Edit Wars, Pt 3, in which Ron (Fluffer) admits, he's spinning the page.

Oh, I was crazy to say "Ron in Houston" (whoever/whatever the heck that really is), was the culprit. But what's this?

"As I said, the documents you link contain no stipulation by Matt Smith that the raid was 'unlawful.' That is simply your spin as a polygamy proponent and one who feels you must control the 'substantiated perception.' This page is on my watch list and every time you change to try to add 'the raid was unlawful' I will revert the page." RonLawHouston (talk) 01:45, 9 April 2010 (UTC)"

But I thought I was wrong. Guys (gals, fluffers, committee, whatever), make up your minds!

And though I am also wrong about the use of the HPL (Houston Public Library) system, and a static IP (that's fixed terminal, hardwired to a "LAN") by Ron, and only at best "half right," Fluffer is posting now from what appears to be an offshore site to mask location. Though this post will appear April 9th, it was composed April 8th, and the above "correction" appeared notated as occurring 1:45 (UTC). That means Fluffer is in England, or using net camouflage. I'm wrong too about that, but now Fluffer is taking care to hide more thoroughly?

Enough of the gratuitous insults. The YFZ Ranch page used to read this way, after I successfully navigated Wikipedia notation protocols and created a referenced (with active linkage!) blurb about the suppression ruling in Arizona.

"On February 4, 2010, Arizona prosecutor Matt Smith signed a stipulation of the defense that '1.) That defendant's motion to suppress evidence (from YFZ be) granted, 2.)That evidence obtained thereby (be) suppressed (and) 3.) That the raid was 'unlawful.'[53] Judge Steven F. Conn accepted that agreement the following day[54] [55] stating that September 3rd, 2008 motion to suppress be granted[56]. None of the evidence may be used 'directly or indirectly' in Arizona. Jeffs is awaiting trial in Arizona on four counts of being an accomplice to sexual conduct with a minor, charges filed in 2007."

It now reads this way:

"On February 4, 2010, Arizona prosecutor Matt Smith signed a stipulation of the defense that '1.) That defendant's motion to suppress evidence (from YFZ be) granted, 2.)That evidence obtained thereby (be) suppressed [53] Judge Steven F. Conn accepted that agreement the following day[54] [55] stating that September 3rd, 2008 motion to suppress be granted[56]. None of the evidence may be used "directly or indirectly" in Arizona.' Jeffs is awaiting trial in Arizona on four counts of being an accomplice to sexual conduct with a minor, charges filed in 2007."

Ron the Site Fluffer is also Ron the Spinner. Lying is the order of the day. Fluffer is claiming that I said that Matt Smith said the raid was "unlawful." I did not. I said Matt Smith AGREED to a STIPULATION of the defense that said the raid was "unlawful." Ron is simply engaging in bald faced lying about what I said, and about what the orders, and motions say. Point three of the February 4th, 2010 stipulation written by the defense is SIGNED by Matt Smith, without reservation or qualification and contains the word "unlawful" to describe the raid. The Stipulation declares prosecution and defense agreement that the September 3rd, 2008 motion to suppress be granted. On page 26, the word "unlawful" is used. Judge Conn agrees without modification of the language of either document, to the September 3rd, 2008 motion.

Matt Smith AGREES to language that says the raid is "unlawful." Judge Conn accepts that language. Reporting that such language was used, is accurate. The liars on the other side cannot abide by people learning in a precise way, what the truth is. And that is, that the evidence was dismissed from Arizona courts, with extreme prejudice, as the result of an "unlawful" action, because Judge Conn states clearly, "The court signs the stipulation and adopts the terms thereof."

He might as well have said to Michael Piccaretta; "What YOU said."

 Oh, he did.

I would also note that the opposition has now caved to the reality that the evidence was in fact suppressed in Arizona, despite all the lying claims that it was not by their "ex spurt" legal team. They are now fighting the battle over the word "unlawful."

More →

Sphere: Related Content

More Wiki Wars (YFZ Ranch Skirmish)

I admit, it's sorta fun, in that I am learning a few things about "Wikipedia" that I may be able to use in the future.

The not so fun stuff is the bias I am running into in writing the page. The fun stuff? I'm getting a school of hard knocks education in Wikipedia. Something I may be able to use at a future date.

This is how the Wikipedia page on YFZ Court rulings now reads:

"On February 10, 2010, Arizona prosecutor Matt Smith agreed not to use any evidence seized from the YFZ raid at the upcoming trial of Warren Jeffs. Jeffs is awaiting trial in Arizona on four counts of being an accomplice to sexual conduct with a minor, charges filed in 2007."

This is a modification of my short lived experiment to successfully contribute to Wikipedia. The original addendum to the section on "Court Rulings," read as follows:

"On February 5, 2010, all evidence seized during the YFZ raid was ruled inadmissible in cases involving Warren Jeffs in Arizona. The prosecution was barred from using that evidence either directly or indirectly."

This, I might add, is scrupulously accurate, albeit brief. The current entry is a modification of mine. It is inaccurate as to date, and misleading. It implies Matt Smith only "agreed" not to use evidence from YFZ, but what he agreed to was a motion that was a motion to suppress brought by the defense. Since an evidence suppression hearing is like a trial of the evidence (something Judge Conn mentioned), the roles of defense and prosecution are reversed to some degree and the evidence goes on trial, with the defense prosecuting the evidence.

Under these circumstances when Matt Smith (defending the evidence) agrees with Michael Piccarreta (prosecuting the evidence), he is pleading the evidence guilty. The evidence is then "put to death" and cannot live again, in court. This is known as Evidence Suppression. Matt pled his client guilty. The evidence is suppressed.

At any rate, I figured I had done it wrong somehow, and I tried again, with this entry:

"On February 4, 2010, Arizona prosecutor Matt Smith signed a stipulation of the defense that 1.) That defendant's motion to suppress evidence (from YFZ be) granted, 2.)That evidence obtained thereby (be) suppressed (and) 3.) That the raid was 'unlawful.'[52] Judge Steven F. Conn accepted that agreement the following day[53] stating that September 3rd, 2008 motion to suppress be granted[54]. None of the evidence may be used 'directly or indirectly' in Arizona. Jeffs is awaiting trial in Arizona on four counts of being an accomplice to sexual conduct with a minor, charges filed in 2007."

The entry is now more detailed, and was now linked directly to the Mohave County Arizona court site, to each specific order or document, and quoted directly from those orders and motions.

I figured that Wikipedia's policies required more specificity on controversial topics, and while struggling with the formatting, I pretty much got it right. The formatting, that is.

It was almost immediately changed back to the way it reads now, and as if for spite, an additional "grind your heal into the neck" entry was made about Merril Leroy Jessop's conviction:

"On March 19,2010, Merril Leroy Jessop was sentenced to 75 years in prison for one count of sexual assault of a child. Jessop was convicted of illegally marrying and then fathering a child with a 15 year old female."

The culprit? "RonLawHouston"

In essence then, the page is being written by FLDS haters. The entries are superficially "neutral" but if even a factual edit is made that deviates from the narrative that is desired by the haters, someone swoops in, and changes the page back to the "less favorable to the FLDS" version. In this case, a version that is a lie in favor of a copiously researched and referenced version that just so happens to favor the FLDS case.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Vanity, thy name is.....Ron? UPDATED

About the middle of last month, someone made a rather brash promise, which I thought they would make good on, and did.

I got this little love note in the form of a comment from "Ron in Houston," whoever he/she/they is/are:

"Apparently your

'Authori -Tay'

has diminished and is well on its way to obscurity.

Your current Alexa rating: 387,641

Current rating of Texas FLDS: 383,772 and rising every day."

I'm sure it will, "Ron." Since last month those behind the site Ron brags up have been conducting what amounts to a small "denial of service attack" against their own site. Well, more accurately a "denial of service" attack is the same sort of tactic used to phony net ratings, multiplied exponentially, so as to block legitimate users from accessing a site, a sort of internet traffic jam.

The point is, the "hits" aren't real.

How do I know?

Aside from the fact that the "ratings rise" was meteoric in nature (approximately 2 weeks from the internet boondocks to stardom in a "no FLDS news" environment), there is this curious fact. FLDS Texas site visits, have no antecedent, no "precursor," or in internet lingo, no "upstream."

100 % of FLDS Texas visits go downstream to "Google," and none of them come FROM somewhere before they get to the blog.

By contrast there were several upstream sources and downstream destinations relating to the Modern Pharisee.

An analysis of search terms shows nearly 81% of the "other" site's visitors that came as a result of a search term, coming as a result of just the term "FLDS." The next place finisher also included FLDS and Walther, so really 85% came from one search term, the next place finisher was "Merril," at 1.26%.

For the "Modern Pharisee" there were 8 other search terms that outranked their second place finisher, including searches for me, by name, specifically as an exact phrase.

All this means is the numbers were "doped" or "juiced" and the obsession of those at that site is so overwhelming that they sought to win our little match by monkeying with their own score card. It also means that I am so important to them, that they felt it necessary to tie up several computers nailing their own site repeatedly so as to create the impression, all for my pleasure, that they were kicking my behind.

As you wish.

I haven't blogged about site rankings as a topic much in the last 7 months, the last significant post on the topic being in September of 2009.

It's also hard to believe that I'm dealing with many real people in that group, it's hard to even call them a "crowd." They continue to have remarkably similar sensitivities and bursts of temper and styles of trying to get a reaction out of me personally. You should see the emails I get. "Ron" even ended his little tantrum, with this:

"Post some more Marty Braemer posts and maybe those folks who really give a crap will boost you a few points."

Why do they care so much about Marty?

Marty is a guy who diddles teachers, and does it right in front of kids, and then calls the kids liars. He's an apparent embezzler from charitable and non profit organizations, like the Fort Plain Little league, and "they," whoever "they" are, seem to really be sensitive about me picking on Marty, "TxBluesMan," whatever the heck THAT is, once tried to extort me to remove posts ABOUT Marty.

TxBluesman (August 31st, 2009) - "I'll make a deal with you.

You take down the series of posts dealing with the adulterous preacher who you apparently dislike and issue a public apology, and I'll take down Stamp's comment and issue an apology for his comments.

You incessantly slammed this preacher, humiliated him and the woman he was involved with, when one post would have been sufficient. There was no need for that type of conduct."

Why the concern for a lecherous, adulterous Independent Free Baptist Pastor who abuses kids (albeit indirectly) by conducting sexual affairs right in front of them? I mean, I thought they were all about old men abusing kids in some sexual way. Granted, what Marty did isn't having sex with kids, but groping someone else's mother right in front of a kid, isn't a whole lot better.

Why the concern about someone who seems to have stolen kids baseball money?

Weird. I can't fathom it and I really don't spend much time trying.

Oh, while I was composing this, Ron wrote another love note:

"Boo!!!

Perhaps I'll boost your ratings...

Oops maybe not, because I only have Alexa installed on my firefox account!

How does it feel to be rapidly sinking into obscurity?"

Go back to your boiler room Ron. By the way, are you admitting to hammering your own sites with hits?

UPDATE (4/5/10 6:41pm Eastern): Best theory as to how "Ron" (who doesn't care about site rankings) faked it.

There is no "upstream" source for the hits to FLDS Texas, they are all direct.

Ron rigged the home pages for the Houston Public Library so that the would pull up FLDS Texas. The next page DOWNSTREAM from FLDS Texas, is Google. (Average user signs on, and says: What the !(*@)^#)(*, and then goes to Google.)

Is "Ron" more than a Lawyer? Is he...a....a.....LIBRARIAN?

Or is that just where Ron gives legal advice?

MORE WONKY STUFF: I mentioned above, there is no "UPSTREAM" to FLDS Texas site visits. What this means is that whoever is coming to the site, came there because the browser they used had it's "home page" set to the site, or they typed in the web address or accessed it from favorites on a "blank page."

FLDS Texas, during it's rocketing rise in Alexa Rankings, had a corresponding "Descent into Hell" plummet in it's visitors by "search results." Namely, over the last month, 75% fewer people found the site as a result of "googling" it. That suction was so powerful, that it took the 3 month ranking to -73%. By contrast, this site experienced a 114% increase in discovery by search, maintains a healthy "upstream" number and downstream one (in terms of diversity). The Pharisee's rise reversed a 3 month downward trend at a time when I wasn't posting much (sometimes going a whole week without opening my yap).

For those of you wondering, a "diverse" up and downstream means I am being visited by individuals, of their own volition who have their own agendas and come from wherever they were, going to wherever they want on the internet.

When no one looks for you in the cyber age, but you're suddenly found, and all those who find you go to the same somewhere immediately, the behavior is programmed and unnatural. Quite frankly, it is the "preponderance of evidence" needed to say that someone rigged a bunch of computers to go to a site to "fluff" it's numbers. Those computers (or some of them at least) are probably those of the Houston Public Library. And yes, I do have IP evidence, publicly available if anyone wants to know, of at least one "static" IP used at the Houston Public Library.

The network administrator of the Houston Public Library can identify and walk you to the actual computer in question.

More →

Sphere: Related Content