Went-Daddy

This is not a comment on the recent kerfuffle about GoDaddy and legislation concerning the internet -- something I don't know enough about to make comment. This is what I look like when I catch myself in reflective windows walking down the street with my new clip-ons -- except my smile is not as big.

>>> But "Went Daddy" is what I might be if I don't do something about Judge Noecker's GAG ORDER regarding this blog: that I must remove The Plaintiff's name -- something I wouldn't have minded doing except that now that I'm ORDERED to do it (he never bothered to ask me first -- just hauled me into court when Detective Larry Egerton had compiled all the evidence HIMSELF and leveraged The Plaintiff to press charges.

>>> YOU WILL REMEMBER THAT THE PLAINTIFF TESTIFIED UNDER OATH THAT HE DOES NOT READ MY BLOG (he said it annoys him -- or something similar -- so he doesn't look at it).

It is ALSO true that The Plaintiff had NO IDEA the other things I had written about him or his former girlfriend Cindy Beatty -- EXCEPT WHAT DETECTIVE LARRY EGERTON brought to his attention and HIGHLIGHTED (in yellow) for him to concentrate on. In fact, the WHOLE TIME leading up to the hearing, The Plaintiff had his nose in the print-outs reading and studying.

>>> THE PLAINTIFF MIGHT NOT HAVE EVEN SEEN IT BEFORE GOING TO COURT THAT DAY!!!

Anyway, I was unable to contact my Public Defender who is out of town, and I forgot to ask the one time I actually had a Federal Agent on the line -- and they are too busy to deal with things until after the holidays, so I'm going to just change it to "PERSON JUDGE NOECKER GAG-ORDERED ME NOT TO MENTION IN MY BLOG."

I know who it is -- and so do YOU, if you're on my email list of about 160. And I don't want to "Go-Daddy" myself to jail -- unnecessarily . . . .

>>> OTHER NEWS OF THIS LAST DAY OF 2011:

1. My sisters Jane and Julie both showed up in Wilmington for lunch and completely surprised me by calling just as I completed the last posting.

2. We ate at the now somewhat infamous Mixto restaurant and Julie picked up the tab. She also handed me a little cash, and my parents had sent a little too.

3. When I write "a little cash" I mean compared to what they helped be taken from me by their lies (which they might or might not have believed when they told them). The amounts they gave were decent for casual walking money for a person in my situation -- nothing they will miss too much in their own lifestyles.

4. But it was something -- and more than enough to buy the clip-ons. A good deal more.

5. All was quite friendly, although Julie mentioned that I had "attacked" people quite strongly and what did I think about that. I said that I had merely reported what others did and not attacked anyone at all. If people don't like having the truth reported about what they say and do, they should say and do things they like to have reported.

6. Jane said that I might have to have another psychological test for Disability determination. I said I'm fine with that (although I, this week, left word with my Public Defender that I would NOT accept having another one for court (since I've had about eight so far in the last year) unless legally ordered to do so.

7. That's about all -- and now I have to go remove The Plaintiff's name. I hope I find all of them and ask any reader who sees any after midnight tonight, to please email me with info where it is so I can remove it ASAP.

>>> NOTE: Although all mentions of The Plaintiff's name have now been removed, it takes a few days before they stop popping up when searched with Google. If you go to the Googled result, you will find the names removed already from the postings. IF NOT -- PLEASE LET ME KNOW IMMEDIATELY!!! Thank you.

HAPPY NEW YEAR, Y'ALL!!!

Scott

.