Fortunately, or not, I have NO PHOTOS of Mr. Faulk, but the last several months, I have published his REAL name (rather than just Testosteroni or Testo), and he has NOT ONCE asked me to go back and change that -- PROVING he has become more "adult" and less fearful.
This morning, I am at something of a loss over how to proceed in Court, but it will clarify soon. Obviously, I must mail Dewain to warn him that I might be incarcerated when he is released from Brunswick County jail, so he might have to fend for himself until I get sprung, myself.
After searching, I do NOT have photos of my car with its flats. And in fact, I have remembered that when I first found the car in this condition, I called the Wilmington DEA office of Mike Franklin, (910) 815-4513, and spoke with an unnamed agent who claimed to be familiar with my situation -- I had recently been in close contact with them, the office in Raleigh, and Rudy Renfer in the US Justice Department in Raleigh.
I asked the agent if I should file a Police report as I was certain it had to be by Jennifer McCracken. The agent said it was a waste of taxpayer money because the Police were not about to investigate such a small-dollar problem. And I asked if they recorded that specific call, he said they had STOPPED doing that because President Obama had authorized the recording of virtually ANY electronic communication and they could simply request the recording from the NSA, and be provided with it.
Wilmington Police, later, said they could do this too. Since then the rules have changed, and I have no idea how that might affect the retrieval of that call if it is necessary.
>>> MY COMMUNICATION WITH MR. FAULK, SO FAR, THIS MORNING:
-----Original Message-----
From: Joseph Faulk
To: Scott Kenan
Sent: Tue, Jan 5, 2016 9:28 pm
Subject: the charge against you
My understanding has been that the primary charge is your violating the restraining order "in contempt of court," and only secondary is the content of that voicemail which she peceives as threatening and extortionate. I just can't see thrashing out "extortion" at this time, and such requires implementation of a second case.
Does your summons clarify this? (Just email me, ok?)
-J-
From: Scott Kenan
To: jfaulk
Cc: mfmoye ; rcarroll ; scott
Sent: Wednesday, January 06, 2016 9:16 AM
Subject: Re: the charge against you
I published the EXACT wording of the claim on summons on my blog -- about 12/29, or the day I got it. Nothing more on the summons about the "violation". You are "retired" and have time to find it -- since you have NO MEMORY of it, apparently.
There is no primary or secondary.
Your creative speculations about a legal system that is less than ideal -- and of which you demonstrate little understanding, does not qualify you to advise me. That said, I always find a few things of value in your "advice" -- mostly it reveals how far "in the weeds" you are in your understanding of "real world" issues.
If you recall, you FOUGHT my return to the USA, which despite some troubles here, is FAR better than if I had remained in Mexico. EVERYTHING I've spent money on has worked out well, and only the TV was a problem for you. I chose a smaller UHD screen with the best picture to save money (my schooling being in Art, I especially am sensitive to color reproduction), and I bought one on HUGE sale for less than HALF what the bigger one I'd bought in Mexico cost.
Currently, sleeping on things has FAILED me and I'm not sure what to do. So if you want to entertain me with suggestions, I am open to them.
GOOD NEWS is that despite all the recent tension, my warts have gone down and nearly disappeared, so I must be handling it all better.
For his own reason (which I would guess is that he knows so little about my history and situation -- or my experience with local Courts), Mike Moye let me know he agreed with your earlier comments. I didn't take it badly, because he is living a "charmed life" that I don't know a thing about how he is supported, etc., so I couldn't comment on that either. However, you have been intimately aware of my doings and dealings for more than four years, now, so I think it is REASONABLE for you to be more logical and fact-based.
And to take this just a little further, like me, Robert Carroll is in opposition to the "public record" of the end of Tennessee Williams's life. Like me he has suffered for that to some extent that I can now only guess at. People who somehow by the fruits of their labor, inheritance, or trust funds, live "normal" lives have shallow understanding of the underworld that I've had to deal with and I suspect Robert has too.
I am copying both Robert and Michael on this, and hope that ALL of us have a day of CLEAR THINKING!!!
Scott
From: Joseph Faulk
To: Scott Kenan
Sent: Wed, Jan 6, 2016 10:26 am
Subject: Re: the charge against you
WHAT are you SMOKING???
To: Scott Kenan
Sent: Wed, Jan 6, 2016 10:26 am
Subject: Re: the charge against you
I DID turn back in your blog to check on the complaint before writing you: [Violation of] Restraining Order is not mentioned, and the lowbrow complaint is "Calling me on the phone two times rambling and threatening me, as well as an attempt at extortion."
I presume you showed the summons to all three lawyers, all indicating your having a lawyer is a plus.
However, the judge's purpose may be to interrogate McCracken and you to decide whether the case should move ahead at a later date or be thrown out. (So your lawyer-money would be needed then, not now.)
Perhaps you can contact the courthouse to verify the aim of this hearing, in as much the complaint is not even in legal terms.
-J-
Re: the charge against you 
| From | Scott Kenan hide details |
| To | jfaulk |
| Cc | rcarroll, mfmoye, scott |
WHAT are you SMOKING???
Your suggestion of calling the Court to clarify the purpose of the hearing, would ONLY be evidence that I am MENTALLY INCOMPETENT -- since there was never any question about the purpose of the hearing -- at least not in my or anyone else's mind, who has seen the paper.
With friends like you -- WHO needs enemies???
LOL!!!
S
SHOCKING!!! This from the daughter of Skye Wyatt, with whom I tangled for Tennessee Williams's approval -- LOL!!!
My Kenan relatives have controlled Standard Oil/ExxonMobil since 1913 -- when Henry Flagler left the LARGEST block of stock to his last wife, Mary Lily (Kenan) Flagler, later Bingham.
A late portrait of Mary Lily
.
No comments:
Post a Comment