Something Cloudy, Something Clear (part 2 -- or 3, if you count Mr. Williams' use)

Sorry this is so large that you need to click it to see it clearly. This is NOT necessarily a comment on Judge Jeffrey E. Noecker, as the evidence is at the moment partially conflicted.

>>> HEAVILY EDITED 12/24/11, 10:39 AM: Much added material to clarify this blog post and the proceedings -- and also because I had no time to proof it when originally written.

>>> FIRST: THE VERDICT: I believe I am NOT gag-ordered on that part -- since it is ALSO part of the public record:

Judge Noecker took his time reviewing evidence and I THINK he was trying to be fair, but something happened of significance that I will tell you about as this post unfolds that brings that into question -- but WITHOUT (so far) enough thought or additional evidence, I believe this question will have to be resolved later, in Federal Court.

>>> FIRST I will tell you a little about the "hearing", which I believe is the correct term for proceedings today -- and I want to make clear that everything done under the judge's control seemed quite fair -- if, still being not yet experienced enough to understand the format, I could have presented a little more information.

>>> TIME OUT: Today, Ron Paul, the remaining Republican candidate for President who SEEMED to be a man of integrity has been shown to expect a "Race War." Shades of ol' William R. Kenan, SENIOR, who single-handedly (apparently while hiding behind his high office at First Presbyterian Church) fomented the 1898 Wilmington Race Riot that changed Wilmington from 2/3 black and a mecca for educated, professional blacks who owned many of the top businesses and had been elected to top political positions in the town, to majority WHITE (no clear statistics on how many blacks were murdered, and how many simply fled.) 

The spit of land separating the Cape Fear River and the Northeast branch of the same BRISTLED with severed black heads impaled on sticks until they rotted. For some years thereafter, it was called "Niggerhead Point." Buck (as he was called -- or sometimes "Bill" -- his son, the junior, was addressed as "Will") was the Black Sheep of the Kenan Family!!!

The then-Pastor of First Presbyterian Church either was complicit in the planning of this action which INSPIRED all the "Jim Crow" Laws which right thereafter swept the South, or allowed Buck to hide behind his position as Elder (or Deacon.)

THIS IS WHY I STRENUOUSLY CONFRONT THE LEADERSHIP OF FIRST PRESBYTERIAN TODAY: THEY HAVE ALLOWED BEN DAVID TO HIDE HIS NARCO-TRAFFICKING BEHIND HIS "DEVOUT" PRESBYTERIAN FAITH -- AND NOW HE IS A DEACON-ELECT. ERNIE AND PETE, ESPECIALLY, HAVE REFUSED TO EVEN HAVE A CURSORY INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION INTO BEN DAVID'S DOINGS. ERNIE THOMPSON PROBABLY BENEFITS FINANCIALLY AS WELL-- ALTHOUGH I DOUBT PETE DOES -- AND PETE MIGHT BE MORE A VICTIM OF HIS OWN ENDEMIC "WHITE SICKNESS" OF CARING ABOUT APPEARANCES INSTEAD OF REALITY.

REALITY = GOD.

THE PHYSICAL UNIVERSE IS IN FACT THE MANIFEST BODY OF GOD -- IN THE LITERAL SENSE. 

Judge Noecker found:

1. That I had never harassed or threatened the plaintiff (I'm not allowed to mention his name in this blog -- NOT EVEN REPORTING IT HERE. District Court Judges STILL do not believe a blog is a form of journalism -- although I  believe they will soon discover they are in error. And ACTUALLY, Judge Hogston (a REAL Republican of the HIGHEST order) said in his verdict in my Cyber-Stalking case (appeal to be decided in jury trial in January) that he RESPECTED my attorney's argument on Constitutional grounds, but (I'm assuming because I had been held in "refrigerated" holding tank for eight hours and was shaking from hypothermia uncontrollably -- and the Assistant D.A. kept talking about my not taking "my medications" (which I had NOT been prescribed for two years at the time, so questionable claim), AND they kept calling my "Nolo"-plead conviction of simple trespass in Georgia in 1990, see: http://scottkenan.blogspot.com/2011/05/my-reply-to-cnns-request-for-info.html , "STALKING"!!! (Emily Zvejniecks did NOT object to ANY of these outrages -- as she should have. She's on my list . . .

>>> BACK TO MY POINT: Judge Hogston, despite nodding clearly to the Constitutional issue, bent the law out of compassion because I was made to appear to be completely crazy. His compassionate verdict included mandated psycho-therapy.

Well, not today.

I wish I had asked The Plaintiff: "Since you agree that we've had only a couple of contacts in the last year and none of them were threatening or uncivil, WHY DID YOU NOT ASK ME PERSONALLY TO REMOVE YOUR NAME FROM MY BLOG -- INSTEAD OF HAULING ME INTO COURT???

The answer would have to be that he is working with Ben David to continue to BLACKEN my name with petty charges that in aggregate look DAMNING. But lately, more have been not sticking (his "Stalking" charge that he told me he filed at the same time as this Restraining Order WAS NEVER SERVED -- and just today replaced by a Cyber-Stalking charge. The NET result of THIS Restraining Order is ONLY that my name has again been unfairly BLACKENED and I am ordered to remove The Plaintiff's name from this blog -- which I would have done if he had simply requested it.

THAT'S ALL!!!

>>> TODAY'S ORDER is basically a standard one of no-contact for a year, with the following things noted by writing in additional by Judge Noecker:

1. "Defendant shall not mention plaintiff by name on any online blog or other electronic medium." In my opinion, "other electronic medium" is too vague, but since The Plaintiff mentioned "Social Networking Sites" several times, I'll take that to mean on Facebook. If anyone knows of additional meaning, please contact me via my email address located on this blog, upper right.

2. "Defendant continues to post blog comments about the Plaintiff, including his photo, and in its entirety (the Judge was not shown anywhere NEAR the entirety of my blog posts documenting The Plaintiff's activities. The Plaintiff had apparently been COACHED what to bring to court -- AND IN FACT TESTIFIED UNDER OATH THAT HE DID NOT READ MY BLOG -- which given his lack of knowledge about its contents, I fully accept as true.) the Defendant's blogging amounts to harassment which rises to such a level as to inflict substantial emotional distress on Plaintiff." I didn't think about it when I was allowed to view which selected posts The plaintiff brought as evidence, but he did NOT include those that document HIS OWN PREVIOUS CLAIMS TO ME of working with Ben David or his participation in the harassing actions against me brought on by his former girlfriend, Cindy Beatty and others.

The Judge also failed to take into consideration The Plaintiff's NOT taking the Lithium prescribed by Dr. Hueholt of North Carolina Solutions -- 1200 mg./day according to the stuffed-full prescription bottle that Cindy Beatty showed me time and time again while they lived with me. Cindy claimed The Plaintiff was OK when he took Lithium -- and she was upset that he was NOT taking it then -- AND LYING TO HER ABOUT THAT. (I DID get this information into the court record during my testimony -- NOT THAT JUDGE NOECKER FOUND IT IMPORTANT!!! )

3. "Defendant testified under oath that he agreed that he should not have contact with the Plaintiff and he was not opposed to removing Plaintiff's name from his blog. Plaintiff credibly testified that Defendant had several recent involuntary commitments for M/H (mental health) issues." FIRST sentence is TRUE!!! (although what I didn't think to say it would be "as a favor." I still believe I have all rights to publish the truth with names in my journalistic blog. I do NOT want to cause The Plaintiff undue distress or difficulty -- although I do NOT believe he is actually looking for a job, and Cindy said he's "mouthed-off" and been fired so many times he's all but unemployable.) And the evidence has ALREADY gone to appropriate people, etc.

How Judge Noecker can claim The Plaintiff "CREDIBLY testified" that I had had "several" recent mental health commitments when The Plaintiff offered no proof of that whatsoever -- or even specifics about his claim. In truth, a doctor in the waiting room at NHC Memorial hospital committed me WHILE I WAS AWAITING ADMISSION ON A VOLUNTARY COMMITMENT.

Dr. Martin IMMEDIATELY undid the "involuntary" part -- reversing it to "voluntary" when he met me the first time. This was during the stay arranged by Zvejniecks/Harjo after I had confronted Ben David at Mixto restaurant and Cindy Beatty and her friends got aggressive with me FIVE times within 24 hours and I DEMANDED protection. The idea was to stay safely at a "Dry-Out" tank -- which I didn't need -- but they transferred me from there to the Oaks Mental Health ward after a few days -- and it was GOOD to get a mental health evaluation while I was there as well.

The SECOND "involuntary commitment" was based ENTIRELY on lies by Brenda McKnight and her drug dealer Gerald Austin-Wynn -- WHO EVEN SAID HE WAS WORKING WITH THE 8TH STREET PADEZANIN DRUG GANG AND BEN DAVID!!! Dr. Martin saw it was all lies and released me after three days -- holding me ONLY because a judge had signed the order and he was FORCED to hold me that minimum.

Two does NOT constitute "several."

I will go ahead and say right now that it is clear to me that Judge Noecker is A CONSCIOUS CO-CONSPIRATOR WITH BEN DAVID, JUDGE CRINER, ET AL and I will see that he is investigated my the US Attorney as well. --But the ZINGER about his court is coming up soon . . .

4. "Defendant shall within one week remove all references to Plaintiff from his online blog and for the period this order remains in effect, refrain from referring to plaintiff in his blog in the future." Again, there is a lack of specificity that makes this not entirely clear. Does referring mean "naming"? I'll take it to mean "clearly identifying" which seems to be his intent.

>>> NOW HERE'S THE REAL KICKER!!!:

Although The Plaintiff and I both represented ourselves and did NOT have other witnesses, I saw The Plaintiff speaking in hushed tones with a tall, distinguished gentleman before the hearing (this was definitely NOT the one I referred to as getting info about The Plaintiff's NEW charge I received summons on today as mentioned in my earlier post today). This gentleman stayed through the hearing in the audience and gave no indication of his reason for being there while the Judge was in court. (No other case was to be tried, so ALL in the courtroom were there regarding MY case.)

When Judge Noecker went into chambers, this man came up ON OUR INSIDE SIDE OF THE BAR AS IF HE WERE THE PLAINTIFF'S ATTORNEY, and sat at the table with The plaintiff, discussing what had happening and coaching The Plaintiff (although I could not hear the whole conversation distinctly). He returned to his seat in the audience as or right before the Judge returned and took HIS seat.

After Judge Noecker left, this man returned to sit next to The Plaintiff. The Judge had said I should wait to get a copy of the decision, but that The Plaintiff was free to go. Judge Noecker did NOT mention anyone else getting a copy of the decision. I demanded to know who this "gentleman" was who had the right to sit INSIDE THE BAR with The Plaintiff-- and WHY!!!

He turned and gave me his card: Larry Egerton, Detective, Wilmington Police Department Family Violence Unit. He said "I guess you'll be blogging about me."

>>> YOUR WISH IS MY COMMAND!!!

Now: it is NOT clear to me that the Judge knew about any of Det. Egerton's involvement, his sitting on the inside of the bar while the Judge was out of the room, etc.

>>> BUT DIG THIS: The bailiff gave me, The Plaintiff, and Det. Egerton ALL copies of the decision -- and Egerton QUICKLY folded and pocketed his copy. I asked the bailiff why he gave the Detective a copy, and he said "The Clerk told me to." PLEASE NOTE: THAT WAS THE CLERK -- AND NOT THE JUDGE.

I asked Det. Egerton why he got a copy and he BOLD-FACED LIED: "I didn't get a copy," he said to me with a smug smile. "Oh yes you did!!!" I exclaimed. "You just pocketed it."

Detective Egerton then took The Plaintiff by the arm and they walked out of the courtroom together. I thanked the court employees for their service.

THE END???????????

.