| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Comm
Guest
|
 Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2008 7:18 am Post subject: Ping Kori Houghton |
 |
|
To Kori (and anyone else who wants to know):
You asked a legit question that deserves a legit answer. No flames.
You asked why we (I and quite a few other people that I can assume you don't
know and never heard of) are being sued? It's a first amendment thing. Why
is anyone on there being sued? Good question! I had NO freaking idea who
these people were - and sure, I kinda know who Aquino is - just like I kinda
know who YOU are. Eg. I don't know you OR him at all. He's more well
known than you are, military, on TV, all that. I know way more about Barak
Obama than I know about either of you, if you see what I mean, here. Now I
sort of know a tiny bit about who at least two of those women are, a jury
person and a doctor of some kind. That's about it. From what I can see,
these people are all strangers. Or - at least they WERE. Who knows now.
They probably are instructed not to talk to each other by lawyers. I'm
guessing.
Well, here is the thing, or perhaps a shortened version of it. The original
was about 500 pages long with "evidence" (mostly jokes, flames, usenet
stuff) being another 500 pages or so. No, I did not read it. Vision
problem. I did scan thru portions where my name came up - and I'm very
peripheral to all of this. The person that served me with it had to swear
it was serious because he was laughing too much, i.e, I have to at least
answer it. The lawyers I talked to (not my lawyer) had to try hard to keep
straight faces and stop laughing and apologize repeatedly because they knew
it wasn't funny. And so. Here:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/4981526/Diana-Napolis-vs-Michael-Aquino-lawsuit-2008
Hmm, if that doesn't work or freezes up the puter, try this:
http://www.geocities.com/go_darkness/NapolisvAquino.pdf
I just uploaded it so you can see it. Do I hear a "thank you?" You're
welcome.
Here is her account of stuff - her description of defendants (her victims)
is extremely biased or conspiratorial (legally malicious).
http://diananapolis.wordpress.com/
Here is some from the first trial where she was arrested:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=9_lMyMi3UdQ
Also see this pertaining to the lawsuit - the pertinent documents are up on
PACER, but it's easier to access here (and it's free) if you get to the
pertinent portions, which I'll point out below:
http://www.xeper.org/maquino/nm/Napolis.pdf
Item 4. is Aquino's critique of her wordpress webpage. Not pertinent, imo.
Pertinent history of the plaintiff starts under the heading "Napolis Space
Alien Adventures" items 6. through 8. These are her own words, mind you.
She claims this. She insists it's true.
These documents keep informing up until the incident where she stalked the
actress Jennifer Love-Hewett and made death threats - and something with
Spielberg too, I forgot. It's in there if you want to really know about
this. Items 9. through 14. is about what happened, she was committed to a
hospital for the criminally insane instead of going to jail, as it all
explains. Items 15 and 16 are not pertinent to the case. She was diagnosed
as paranoid schizophrenic, I think, or delusional.
Next, the San Diego Probation Department section, items 17. through 20.
That's part of the case, and imo quite revealing as to what is happening to
these victims; since she is being given leave to amend - she was given these
documents. That's it. Very interesting reading, imo. I didn't write to
anyone.
Those two women are terrified - and I can't really imagine what it's like
for them to live in fear, wondering if the next person around the corner on
their jobs might be her with a gun, or a bump in the night is her trying to
break in. These two very white-bread women are not used to leaving their
homes, walking to a bus, and having to be on orange alert and ready to fight
to the death lest they get killed, and perhaps finding 4 severed heads on
the way to the bus, or someone ripped out of the bus seat and beaten half to
death by thugs. They are really NOT used to that. I am. Ah, the WONDERS
of diversity!
I do not feel sorry for them. They dropped the ball thinking that the ball
would roll away, that the ball was "nobody." Oh? The ball terrorized one
of them so much that she had to leave the country - and then was
cyberstalked to the new country and terrorized there via "free speech" that
literally incited violence and threats against her. That's nobody? Heh.
The ball terrorized one of them and incited violence against one of them so
bad that a riot ensued where she could have been killed by an angry mob, a
mob set against her by the plaintiff (her cyberstalker) exercising more
"free speech." That's nobody? And these women, once they found out WHO
their stalker was, dropped the ball? They let it go. So, I don't feel
sorry for them.
I can't really imagine these women beating the living shit out of, or
defending with lethal force, anyone confronting them with intent to do them
harm. Lucky them, they are not used to that HELL. Oh, but I am. I never
lost a night's sleep in Newark NJ when a riot was blasting outside, when,
for years after all that hell and the destruction of my beautiful city, it
was really easy for anyone to break into the house (and a few times, that
did happen) and where anyone in the house could have been murdered. So.
For almost 20 years I had to LIVE and/or WORK in that environment. As I
said, those women are lucky. Privileged, ahem.
If you read all of that, the links, then you might wonder how all of these
people, self included, violated her 1st amend. rights (free speech). Well,
it's really rather simple (not). She is accusing all her victims of being
responsible for her "mistaking" Love-Hewett and Spielberg as her attackers.
The attacks, she alleges, were done via alien/CIA or whatever kind of
technology, and, in the mental institution, she admitted that she may have
been mistaken about Spielberg and Love-Hewett possessing her or mind-talking
to her, or whatever she claimed was done (read her own words for the
details). Instead, her new victims are responsible for it. How is that 1st
Amendment? Hold on....
Due to her being confined for stalking and threatening (and assaulting too,
I think) the actress or her mother or whoever, she was confined to a mental
institution. Thus she was unable to get to the internet and type more of her
"free speech." The lady seriously does mistake slander, incitement to
murder and hate-speech for "free speech." Also, on probation she was not
allowed to get on the internet and continue where she left off until she got
a judge to OK her actions once again. I have not seen it, but her probation
officer might be subject of some suit and some other new people might be on
a suit, too. I'm not sure. I have not been paying attention!
Now - If you want to know what this is about - go read. For more, you'd
have to get on PACER if you want to bog yourself down with super legalese.
And oh yes, all of them, Jones, Curio, Harwer, Filan and whoever else, were
spewing the same identical bilge on here, blah blah blah - and no, I never
really read it all and only saw some of it (but enough) in hard copy - but
it went like this: Aquino or Aqueeno, Nazi mother, pedophile, Book of
Cuming Out, eyebrows, spooky face scares kids, army, Mr. Spock, blah blah
blah. Nuff said. Aquino states that himself in the Item 1 Cover letter:
"During 1995-2000 my wife Lilith and I were aggressively defamed and
cyberstalked on the internet by an unidentified source using a VARIETY OF
FICTITIOUS NAMES...." I knew who the ONE person was and he was using a
kazillion fictitious names. I saw some of it in hard copy BACK THEN, all of
it has a pseudonym on it. I was told by quite a few people that Kevin was
writing all of that. Then I saw some later on and it was Kevin out in the
open doing it. You saw that yourself. He was saying the same, identical
stuff.
Now, you know that Wanda is Harry. Yet you are calling HER - Wanda. You do
not refer to HER as "him." You speak to "her" as if it is a "she." Yet you
know who HE is. Same thing. That's usenet. You even called him "Dr.
Wanda," or so I was told.
From my POV, dear - it's just like YOU and your buddies on here (current
ones) are One Person, you all repeat and say the same bilge and pretty much
nothing much else. That is, this is what I seem to see when you are not in
my killfile. I can go not seeing any of it for months - and then see it in
another account or place and - and it's the same old shit, the same tune,
another variation of it. Tani Tani Tani. Obsession. A cop insists you are
Eve Kochel. Walter thinks Kevin is a gov plant and he won't believe
otherwise. Whatever. Who the fuck knows - OR CARES. BUT......
It sort of goes like this because HEY - I think that maybe I have a new
heroine already:
What were YOU doing in my head the other night, aiming psychic rays at me -
no, not psychic rays (lemme go look up all that information on those super
secret weapons that my new heroine insists are out there), YOU USED THEM ON
ME and you were giving me a whopping headache. Now my vision is worse. I
used to have 20/5 vision. Now I'm legally blind. YOU DID IT, YOU AND YOUR
PALS. And was that your buddy's voice I heard making threats to burn my
house down and do (just think up some awful shit)? He was using that other
super secret technology (lemme go look that one up too, that voice to brain
thing). Yes, it was HIM, HIM. And it was YOU, YOU. I'm gonna sue. You
guys were using that technology on ME and torturing me. And.....
I can sue. You'd be legally served, too. You'd HAVE to respond to it, too.
Funny how this dumbfuck country is when it comes to wasting the taxpayer's
money. I wouldn't get anything for it because the suit would be frivolous
and malicious - but that wouldn't be judged that way the first or even
second time around, especially if I did it pro se. OK? AND Barak Obama is
being sued by an attorney or something, sued because the Democrat Berg (the
plaintiff) insists that Barak Obama is not Barak Obama and not a citizen of
the USA. And the suit, as far as I know, was dismissed without merit. But
he might try again.
And I notice that the only ONE REALLY SATANIC ORGANIZATION in the whole wide
world that is NOT on this lawsuit is - the One and Only, drum roll - Church
of Satan. They themselves admit that they are the One True Satanism, right?
They had so far THREE, not two, pedophiles as Priests in that organization -
they got caught and ended up in jail. Is she perhaps working FOR the REAL
SATANISTS? Who is the friendly alien that sent her a fax? Harry? You?
Peter? Peggy? If there is a fax, it can be traced!  Members and fans
of that One True Satanic Organization persecuted her a lot - according to
her own words - and she named them all. And they are not on the lawsuit?
VERY SUSPICIOUS so would say any paranoid person finding that out.
Why was I included in that suit? I'm not sure, perhaps because I called her
a "nut" in 2001 and voiced my free speech opinion of what should be done to
people that stalk? I think so. I did not threaten her in any way shape or
form. Then again, I think I'm on there because her - HANDLERS in the
Church of Satan persuaded her to add me on there. I think so, Kori. I
REALLY think so. Where is the fax. I want that fax TRACED, along with the
anon harassers on here going after me. Or is that YOU and YOUR PALS? Ah
ha! And so forth.
Ah, but I too have freedom of speech. I have the freedom of speech to say
that I hope Bush DIES before he gets us into WW3. I have the free speech to
say that I HATE John McCain, can't stand his god damned voice and whatever
else. He may look like a senior, but he's 100% ANTI senior and out to screw
seniors.
On a very serious note, however, it is very curious that she is not going
after the One True Satanic Organization out there that self-proclaims to be
the One True. The only Satanic Organization that has to its name THREE
pedophiles in jail because they got caught. Meanwhile, she is committing
hate-crime by slandering the shit out of Satanism, a religion protected by
law - and the Church of Satan knows it.
I am not a Satanist. I can't even relate to the stupid shit because it IS
stupid shit. It's not spooky or scary. It's STUPID. These days, "Satan"
conjures up "the USA and Israel - Big and Little Satan" - you know Islamic
Jihad talk, and before it used to conjure up stupid BORING Hollywood movies
about Fundie Christian bullshit - stuff so fucking stupid that Catholic
friends don't even know what the hell the movies are talking about - and
they went to Catholic schools and don't know. STUPID shit.
Asat, Sat and Tan is Vedantic - and making a PUN to make "satan" out of it
does not make it into Satanism. Both Phil and I have stated for ages that
Set is NOT Satan and that the ToSet is not Satanic. "Evolution Christians
and Setians" should suffice - on Vad's website for anyone to read. Good
essay "Neter" is another essay, up there to read. Our website, with
very positive information for anyone that wants to know about Darkness/Light
Theology - comes up in web searches when anyone types "satanism" into
google. HENCE, the name. The FAQ is up front. It's there to be read. I
could care less WHO thinks "any Darkness" is satanism. They are all
Christian background people that hate their own backgrounds that think this.
(Sorry Comrades, anyone reading this). We have ALL KINDS of people in the
org - INCLUDING 3, so far, Christian Minister/Pastor/Priest. They like the
politics and the Darkness/Light Theology explanations. The only time an
almost quarrel broke out was due to Vad (Danish) versus an Islamic Comrade
in Indonesia getting into it. It was about the cartoons of Mohammed.
According to the Setian or Sethian Heresy (early form of Christianity) -
Jesus was an incarnation of Set.
Now you don't have to ask what it's all about. I just gave you the links to
all the information you need to see what it's about. Why is she suing me
(or trying to?) Why is she suing ANYONE on there is the better question.
There is no case. It is utterly and completely without merit. Free speech
is not being violated, but there is a point when free speech becomes
bonafide "incitement to violence hate-speech." She's completely free to
spew this and anyone can see that.
Now, you and your buddies STOP using that secret voice to mind and other
technology on me - or I'll SUE YOU  . (Sure, but I won't get a cent.....) |
|
| |
|
 Back to top |
Sly Taan Boodhika
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2008 7:18 am Post subject: Re: Ping Kori Houghton |
|
|
On Sep 23, 10:18 pm, "Comm" <N...@spam.com> wrote:
| Quote: | To Kori (and anyone else who wants to know):
You asked a legit question that deserves a legit answer. No flames.
You asked why we (I and quite a few other people that I can assume you don't
know and never heard of) are being sued? It's a first amendment thing. Why
is anyone on there being sued? Good question! I had NO freaking idea who
these people were - and sure, I kinda know who Aquino is - just like I kinda
know who YOU are. Eg. I don't know you OR him at all. He's more well
known than you are, military, on TV, all that. I know way more about Barak
Obama than I know about either of you, if you see what I mean, here. Now I
sort of know a tiny bit about who at least two of those women are, a jury
person and a doctor of some kind. That's about it. From what I can see,
these people are all strangers. Or - at least they WERE. Who knows now.
They probably are instructed not to talk to each other by lawyers. I'm
guessing.
Well, here is the thing, or perhaps a shortened version of it. The original
was about 500 pages long with "evidence" (mostly jokes, flames, usenet
stuff) being another 500 pages or so. No, I did not read it. Vision
problem. I did scan thru portions where my name came up - and I'm very
peripheral to all of this. The person that served me with it had to swear
it was serious because he was laughing too much, i.e, I have to at least
answer it. The lawyers I talked to (not my lawyer) had to try hard to keep
straight faces and stop laughing and apologize repeatedly because they knew
it wasn't funny. And so. Here:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/4981526/Diana-Napolis-vs-Michael-Aquino-law...
Hmm, if that doesn't work or freezes up the puter, try this:
http://www.geocities.com/go_darkness/NapolisvAquino.pdf
I just uploaded it so you can see it. Do I hear a "thank you?" You're
welcome.
Here is her account of stuff - her description of defendants (her victims)
is extremely biased or conspiratorial (legally malicious).http://diananapolis.wordpress.com/
Here is some from the first trial where she was arrested:http://youtube.com/watch?v=9_lMyMi3UdQ
Also see this pertaining to the lawsuit - the pertinent documents are up on
PACER, but it's easier to access here (and it's free) if you get to the
pertinent portions, which I'll point out below:
http://www.xeper.org/maquino/nm/Napolis.pdf
Item 4. is Aquino's critique of her wordpress webpage. Not pertinent, imo.
Pertinent history of the plaintiff starts under the heading "Napolis Space
Alien Adventures" items 6. through 8. These are her own words, mind you.
She claims this. She insists it's true.
These documents keep informing up until the incident where she stalked the
actress Jennifer Love-Hewett and made death threats - and something with
Spielberg too, I forgot. It's in there if you want to really know about
this. Items 9. through 14. is about what happened, she was committed to a
hospital for the criminally insane instead of going to jail, as it all
explains. Items 15 and 16 are not pertinent to the case. She was diagnosed
as paranoid schizophrenic, I think, or delusional.
Next, the San Diego Probation Department section, items 17. through 20.
That's part of the case, and imo quite revealing as to what is happening to
these victims; since she is being given leave to amend - she was given these
documents. That's it. Very interesting reading, imo. I didn't write to
anyone.
Those two women are terrified - and I can't really imagine what it's like
for them to live in fear, wondering if the next person around the corner on
their jobs might be her with a gun, or a bump in the night is her trying to
break in. These two very white-bread women are not used to leaving their
homes, walking to a bus, and having to be on orange alert and ready to fight
to the death lest they get killed, and perhaps finding 4 severed heads on
the way to the bus, or someone ripped out of the bus seat and beaten half to
death by thugs. They are really NOT used to that. I am. Ah, the WONDERS
of diversity!
I do not feel sorry for them. They dropped the ball thinking that the ball
would roll away, that the ball was "nobody." Oh? The ball terrorized one
of them so much that she had to leave the country - and then was
cyberstalked to the new country and terrorized there via "free speech" that
literally incited violence and threats against her. That's nobody? Heh.
The ball terrorized one of them and incited violence against one of them so
bad that a riot ensued where she could have been killed by an angry mob, a
mob set against her by the plaintiff (her cyberstalker) exercising more
"free speech." That's nobody? And these women, once they found out WHO
their stalker was, dropped the ball? They let it go. So, I don't feel
sorry for them.
I can't really imagine these women beating the living shit out of, or
defending with lethal force, anyone confronting them with intent to do them
harm. Lucky them, they are not used to that HELL. Oh, but I am. I never
lost a night's sleep in Newark NJ when a riot was blasting outside, when,
for years after all that hell and the destruction of my beautiful city, it
was really easy for anyone to break into the house (and a few times, that
did happen) and where anyone in the house could have been murdered. So..
For almost 20 years I had to LIVE and/or WORK in that environment. As I
said, those women are lucky. Privileged, ahem.
If you read all of that, the links, then you might wonder how all of these
people, self included, violated her 1st amend. rights (free speech). Well,
it's really rather simple (not). She is accusing all her victims of being
responsible for her "mistaking" Love-Hewett and Spielberg as her attackers.
The attacks, she alleges, were done via alien/CIA or whatever kind of
technology, and, in the mental institution, she admitted that she may have
been mistaken about Spielberg and Love-Hewett possessing her or mind-talking
to her, or whatever she claimed was done (read her own words for the
details). Instead, her new victims are responsible for it. How is that 1st
Amendment? Hold on....
Due to her being confined for stalking and threatening (and assaulting too,
I think) the actress or her mother or whoever, she was confined to a mental
institution. Thus she was unable to get to the internet and type more of her
"free speech." The lady seriously does mistake slander, incitement to
murder and hate-speech for "free speech." Also, on probation she was not
allowed to get on the internet and continue where she left off until she got
a judge to OK her actions once again. I have not seen it, but her probation
officer might be subject of some suit and some other new people might be on
a suit, too. I'm not sure. I have not been paying attention!
Now - If you want to know what this is about - go read. For more, you'd
have to get on PACER if you want to bog yourself down with super legalese..
And oh yes, all of them, Jones, Curio, Harwer, Filan and whoever else, were
spewing the same identical bilge on here, blah blah blah - and no, I never
really read it all and only saw some of it (but enough) in hard copy - but
it went like this: Aquino or Aqueeno, Nazi mother, pedophile, Book of
Cuming Out, eyebrows, spooky face scares kids, army, Mr. Spock, blah blah
blah. Nuff said. Aquino states that himself in the Item 1 Cover letter:
"During 1995-2000 my wife Lilith and I were aggressively defamed and
cyberstalked on the internet by an unidentified source using a VARIETY OF
FICTITIOUS NAMES...." I knew who the ONE person was and he was using a
kazillion fictitious names. I saw some of it in hard copy BACK THEN, all of
it has a pseudonym on it. I was told by quite a few people that Kevin was
writing all of that. Then I saw some later on and it was Kevin out in the
open doing it. You saw that yourself. He was saying the same, identical
stuff.
Now, you know that Wanda is Harry. Yet you are calling HER - Wanda. You do
not refer to HER as "him." You speak to "her" as if it is a "she." Yet you
know who HE is. Same thing. That's usenet. You even called him "Dr.
Wanda," or so I was told.
From my POV, dear - it's just like YOU and your buddies on here (current
ones) are One Person, you all repeat and say the same bilge and pretty much
nothing much else. That is, this is what I seem to see when you are not in
my killfile. I can go not seeing any of it for months - and then see it in
another account or place and - and it's the same old shit, the same tune,
another variation of it. Tani Tani Tani. Obsession. A cop insists you are
Eve Kochel. Walter thinks Kevin is a gov plant and he won't believe
otherwise. Whatever. Who the fuck knows - OR CARES. BUT......
It sort of goes like this because HEY - I think that maybe I have a new
heroine already:
What were YOU doing in my head the other night, aiming psychic rays at me -
no, not psychic rays (lemme go look up all that information on those super
secret weapons that my new heroine insists are out there), YOU USED THEM ON
ME and you were giving me a whopping headache. Now my vision is worse. I
used to have 20/5 vision. Now I'm legally blind. YOU DID IT, YOU AND YOUR
PALS. And was that your buddy's voice I heard making threats to burn my
house down and do (just think up some awful shit)? He was using that other
super secret technology (lemme go look that one up too, that voice to brain
thing). Yes, it was HIM, HIM. And it was YOU, YOU. I'm gonna sue. You
guys were using that technology on ME and torturing me. And.....
I can sue. You'd be legally served, too. You'd HAVE to respond to it, too.
Funny how this dumbfuck country is when it comes to wasting the taxpayer's
money. I wouldn't get anything for it because the suit would be frivolous
and malicious - but that wouldn't be judged that way the first or even
second time around, especially if I did it pro se. OK? AND Barak Obama is
being sued by an attorney or something, sued because the Democrat Berg (the
plaintiff) insists that Barak Obama is not Barak Obama and not a citizen of
the USA. And the suit, as far as I know, was dismissed without merit. But
he might try again.
And I notice that the only ONE REALLY SATANIC ORGANIZATION in the whole wide
world that is NOT on this lawsuit is - the One and Only, drum roll - Church
of Satan. They themselves admit that they are the One True Satanism, right?
They had so far THREE, not two, pedophiles as Priests in that organization -
they got caught and ended up in jail. Is she perhaps working FOR the REAL
SATANISTS? Who is the friendly alien that sent her a fax? Harry? You?
Peter? Peggy? If there is a fax, it can be traced! Members and fans
of that One True Satanic Organization persecuted her a lot - according to
her own words - and she named them all. And they are not on the lawsuit?
VERY SUSPICIOUS so would say any paranoid person finding that out.
Why was I included in that suit? I'm not sure, perhaps because I called her
a "nut" in 2001 and voiced my free speech opinion of what should be done to
people that stalk? I think so. I did not threaten her in any way shape or
form. Then again, I think I'm on there because her - HANDLERS in the
Church of Satan persuaded her to add me on there. I think so, Kori. I
REALLY think so. Where is the fax. I want that fax TRACED, along with the
anon harassers on here going after me. Or is that YOU and YOUR PALS? Ah
ha! And so forth.
Ah, but I too have freedom of speech. I have the freedom of speech to say
that I hope Bush DIES before he gets us into WW3. I have the free speech to
say that I HATE John McCain, can't stand his god damned voice and whatever
else. He may look like a senior, but he's 100% ANTI senior and out to screw
seniors.
On a very serious note, however, it is very curious that she is not going
after the One True Satanic Organization out there that self-proclaims to be
the One True. The only Satanic Organization that has to its name THREE
pedophiles in jail because they got caught. Meanwhile, she is committing
hate-crime by slandering the shit out of Satanism, a religion protected by
law - and the Church of Satan knows it.
I am not a Satanist. I can't even relate to the stupid shit because it IS
stupid shit. It's not spooky or scary. It's STUPID. These days, "Satan"
conjures up "the USA and Israel - Big and Little Satan" - you know Islamic
Jihad talk, and before it used to conjure up stupid BORING Hollywood movies
about Fundie Christian bullshit - stuff so fucking stupid that Catholic
friends don't even know what the hell the movies are talking about - and
they went to Catholic schools and don't know. STUPID shit.
Asat, Sat and Tan is Vedantic - and making a PUN to make "satan" out of it
does not make it into Satanism. Both Phil and I have stated for ages that
Set is NOT Satan and that the ToSet is not Satanic. "Evolution Christians
and Setians" should suffice - on Vad's website for anyone to read. Good
essay "Neter" is another essay, up there to read. Our website, with
very positive information for anyone that wants to know about Darkness/Light
Theology - comes up in web searches when anyone types "satanism" into
google. HENCE, the name. The FAQ is up front. It's there to be read. I
could care less WHO thinks "any Darkness" is satanism. They are all
Christian background people that hate their own backgrounds that think this.
(Sorry Comrades, anyone reading this). We have ALL KINDS of people in the
org - INCLUDING 3, so far, Christian Minister/Pastor/Priest. They like the
politics and the Darkness/Light Theology explanations. The only time an
almost quarrel broke out was due to Vad (Danish) versus an Islamic Comrade
in Indonesia getting into it. It was about the cartoons of Mohammed.
According to the Setian or Sethian Heresy (early form of Christianity) -
Jesus was an incarnation of Set.
Now you don't have to ask what it's all about. I just gave you the links to
all the information you need to see what it's about. Why is she suing me
(or trying to?) Why is she suing ANYONE on there is the better question.
There is no case. It is utterly and completely without merit. Free speech
is not being violated, but there is a point when free speech becomes
bonafide "incitement to violence hate-speech." She's completely free to
spew this and anyone can see that.
Now, you and your buddies STOP using that secret voice to mind and other
technology on me - or I'll SUE YOU . (Sure, but I won't get a cent......)
|
like you'll ever pull off a rutherford! ha, but keep trying. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Kori Houghton
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2008 7:18 am Post subject: Re: Ping Kori Houghton |
|
|
On Sep 23, 10:18 pm, "Comm" <N...@spam.com> wrote:
| Quote: | To Kori (and anyone else who wants to know):
You asked a legit question that deserves a legit answer. No flames.
|
Kewl with me, no flames. Thanks for the info links, and especially
the commentary. Makes more sense now.
Luv,
Kori
| Quote: |
You asked why we (I and quite a few other people that I can assume you don't
know and never heard of) are being sued? It's a first amendment thing. Why
is anyone on there being sued? Good question! I had NO freaking idea who
these people were - and sure, I kinda know who Aquino is - just like I kinda
know who YOU are. Eg. I don't know you OR him at all. He's more well
known than you are, military, on TV, all that. I know way more about Barak
Obama than I know about either of you, if you see what I mean, here. Now I
sort of know a tiny bit about who at least two of those women are, a jury
person and a doctor of some kind. That's about it. From what I can see,
these people are all strangers. Or - at least they WERE. Who knows now.
They probably are instructed not to talk to each other by lawyers. I'm
guessing.
Well, here is the thing, or perhaps a shortened version of it. The original
was about 500 pages long with "evidence" (mostly jokes, flames, usenet
stuff) being another 500 pages or so. No, I did not read it. Vision
problem. I did scan thru portions where my name came up - and I'm very
peripheral to all of this. The person that served me with it had to swear
it was serious because he was laughing too much, i.e, I have to at least
answer it. The lawyers I talked to (not my lawyer) had to try hard to keep
straight faces and stop laughing and apologize repeatedly because they knew
it wasn't funny. And so. Here:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/4981526/Diana-Napolis-vs-Michael-Aquino-law...
Hmm, if that doesn't work or freezes up the puter, try this:
http://www.geocities.com/go_darkness/NapolisvAquino.pdf
I just uploaded it so you can see it. Do I hear a "thank you?" You're
welcome.
Here is her account of stuff - her description of defendants (her victims)
is extremely biased or conspiratorial (legally malicious).http://diananapolis.wordpress.com/
Here is some from the first trial where she was arrested:http://youtube.com/watch?v=9_lMyMi3UdQ
Also see this pertaining to the lawsuit - the pertinent documents are up on
PACER, but it's easier to access here (and it's free) if you get to the
pertinent portions, which I'll point out below:
http://www.xeper.org/maquino/nm/Napolis.pdf
Item 4. is Aquino's critique of her wordpress webpage. Not pertinent, imo.
Pertinent history of the plaintiff starts under the heading "Napolis Space
Alien Adventures" items 6. through 8. These are her own words, mind you.
She claims this. She insists it's true.
These documents keep informing up until the incident where she stalked the
actress Jennifer Love-Hewett and made death threats - and something with
Spielberg too, I forgot. It's in there if you want to really know about
this. Items 9. through 14. is about what happened, she was committed to a
hospital for the criminally insane instead of going to jail, as it all
explains. Items 15 and 16 are not pertinent to the case. She was diagnosed
as paranoid schizophrenic, I think, or delusional.
Next, the San Diego Probation Department section, items 17. through 20.
That's part of the case, and imo quite revealing as to what is happening to
these victims; since she is being given leave to amend - she was given these
documents. That's it. Very interesting reading, imo. I didn't write to
anyone.
Those two women are terrified - and I can't really imagine what it's like
for them to live in fear, wondering if the next person around the corner on
their jobs might be her with a gun, or a bump in the night is her trying to
break in. These two very white-bread women are not used to leaving their
homes, walking to a bus, and having to be on orange alert and ready to fight
to the death lest they get killed, and perhaps finding 4 severed heads on
the way to the bus, or someone ripped out of the bus seat and beaten half to
death by thugs. They are really NOT used to that. I am. Ah, the WONDERS
of diversity!
I do not feel sorry for them. They dropped the ball thinking that the ball
would roll away, that the ball was "nobody." Oh? The ball terrorized one
of them so much that she had to leave the country - and then was
cyberstalked to the new country and terrorized there via "free speech" that
literally incited violence and threats against her. That's nobody? Heh.
The ball terrorized one of them and incited violence against one of them so
bad that a riot ensued where she could have been killed by an angry mob, a
mob set against her by the plaintiff (her cyberstalker) exercising more
"free speech." That's nobody? And these women, once they found out WHO
their stalker was, dropped the ball? They let it go. So, I don't feel
sorry for them.
I can't really imagine these women beating the living shit out of, or
defending with lethal force, anyone confronting them with intent to do them
harm. Lucky them, they are not used to that HELL. Oh, but I am. I never
lost a night's sleep in Newark NJ when a riot was blasting outside, when,
for years after all that hell and the destruction of my beautiful city, it
was really easy for anyone to break into the house (and a few times, that
did happen) and where anyone in the house could have been murdered. So..
For almost 20 years I had to LIVE and/or WORK in that environment. As I
said, those women are lucky. Privileged, ahem.
If you read all of that, the links, then you might wonder how all of these
people, self included, violated her 1st amend. rights (free speech). Well,
it's really rather simple (not). She is accusing all her victims of being
responsible for her "mistaking" Love-Hewett and Spielberg as her attackers.
The attacks, she alleges, were done via alien/CIA or whatever kind of
technology, and, in the mental institution, she admitted that she may have
been mistaken about Spielberg and Love-Hewett possessing her or mind-talking
to her, or whatever she claimed was done (read her own words for the
details). Instead, her new victims are responsible for it. How is that 1st
Amendment? Hold on....
Due to her being confined for stalking and threatening (and assaulting too,
I think) the actress or her mother or whoever, she was confined to a mental
institution. Thus she was unable to get to the internet and type more of her
"free speech." The lady seriously does mistake slander, incitement to
murder and hate-speech for "free speech." Also, on probation she was not
allowed to get on the internet and continue where she left off until she got
a judge to OK her actions once again. I have not seen it, but her probation
officer might be subject of some suit and some other new people might be on
a suit, too. I'm not sure. I have not been paying attention!
Now - If you want to know what this is about - go read. For more, you'd
have to get on PACER if you want to bog yourself down with super legalese..
And oh yes, all of them, Jones, Curio, Harwer, Filan and whoever else, were
spewing the same identical bilge on here, blah blah blah - and no, I never
really read it all and only saw some of it (but enough) in hard copy - but
it went like this: Aquino or Aqueeno, Nazi mother, pedophile, Book of
Cuming Out, eyebrows, spooky face scares kids, army, Mr. Spock, blah blah
blah. Nuff said. Aquino states that himself in the Item 1 Cover letter:
"During 1995-2000 my wife Lilith and I were aggressively defamed and
cyberstalked on the internet by an unidentified source using a VARIETY OF
FICTITIOUS NAMES...." I knew who the ONE person was and he was using a
kazillion fictitious names. I saw some of it in hard copy BACK THEN, all of
it has a pseudonym on it. I was told by quite a few people that Kevin was
writing all of that. Then I saw some later on and it was Kevin out in the
open doing it. You saw that yourself. He was saying the same, identical
stuff.
Now, you know that Wanda is Harry. Yet you are calling HER - Wanda. You do
not refer to HER as "him." You speak to "her" as if it is a "she." Yet you
know who HE is. Same thing. That's usenet. You even called him "Dr.
Wanda," or so I was told.
From my POV, dear - it's just like YOU and your buddies on here (current
ones) are One Person, you all repeat and say the same bilge and pretty much
nothing much else. That is, this is what I seem to see when you are not in
my killfile. I can go not seeing any of it for months - and then see it in
another account or place and - and it's the same old shit, the same tune,
another variation of it. Tani Tani Tani. Obsession. A cop insists you are
Eve Kochel. Walter thinks Kevin is a gov plant and he won't believe
otherwise. Whatever. Who the fuck knows - OR CARES. BUT......
It sort of goes like this because HEY - I think that maybe I have a new
heroine already:
What were YOU doing in my head the other night, aiming psychic rays at me -
no, not psychic rays (lemme go look up all that information on those super
secret weapons that my new heroine insists are out there), YOU USED THEM ON
ME and you were giving me a whopping headache. Now my vision is worse. I
used to have 20/5 vision. Now I'm legally blind. YOU DID IT, YOU AND YOUR
PALS. And was that your buddy's voice I heard making threats to burn my
house down and do (just think up some awful shit)? He was using that other
super secret technology (lemme go look that one up too, that voice to brain
thing). Yes, it was HIM, HIM. And it was YOU, YOU. I'm gonna sue. You
guys were using that technology on ME and torturing me. And.....
I can sue. You'd be legally served, too. You'd HAVE to respond to it, too.
Funny how this dumbfuck country is when it comes to wasting the taxpayer's
money. I wouldn't get anything for it because the suit would be frivolous
and malicious - but that wouldn't be judged that way ...
read more » |
|
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
|
