David Merrill Van Pelt

[Nikki]

David:

Rather than spending your time posting here and at SonOfSooey, you really should dedicate yourself to addressing the outstanding criminal charges facing you.

You have been accused of assaulting your mother. If convicted, that means you will spend a minimum of one year in state prison. No matter how many assorted documents you load into your misc. folder or claims you make against the court, you are eventually going to have to deal with the legal system on our planet.

If you fail to do so, you are going to spend time in prison.

If you fail abysmally, you are going to spend significantly more time in a mental health care facility.

David, you are an interesting antagonist. I am genuinely interested in you. I would be truly saddened if you let your voices lead you away from a rational approach to your current situation. You are looking at the possibility of a year in prison.

You really should get assistance from someone who can help you.

[Judge Roy Bean]

As one approaching the age of having children and even potentially grandchildren involved in decisions about Mrs. Bean and our lives as we get older, I have to interject here that ANYTHING that arises to the involvement of local law enforcement agencies is more than garden-variety family bickering. 'Round here, my guess is less than way less than 5% of people have ever been served, let alone arrested, so deputies coming up your road is something you don't want everyone at church to talk about, especially when it's about you and your kin folk.

Then again, if you've gone off into the weeds and made a fool of yourself the local constabulary can be faced with a quandary, especially if you have a history of goof-ball encounters. I've been called on to ride along in a couple of such circumstances in years past, mostly because I knew the families involved or went along with an MD just in case.

There are thousands of Van Pelts out there in less delusional but nevertheless odd forms. Filtering out those who are dangerous from the benign crackpots is impossible without first-hand evaluation.

Again, David seems to need professional evaluation and we can hope Colorado is equipped to handle it.

[David Merrill]

It appears from the docket that you began this one by not appearing in 2004. If that is in fact what happened, your speedy trial protestations will likely be unavailing, since you were the one who failed to appear. Should Colorado have tried you in absentia? You were fortunate to receive another chance to appear voluntarily.

At least Wserra is too busy to keep up on things. - But you Nikki; I best just ignore you if you are going to try acting like you care. That is just so disingenuous.

Elsewhere in the Echo Chamber another attorney said:

Domestic abuse cases have an evanescent quality; since they are intra-family, it sometimes seems (or is hoped) that things will smooth out WITHOUT the permanent ugliness of a court action. Presumably, four years ago, DVP promised his mama he'd be a good boy and the police or courts were willing to hold fire on the case in the hopes that things would heal. But it turns out...

And that is like the arraignment issue. Attorneys believe that SAMELSON can plea on my behalf - but when called on it, "That is practicing law from the bench." He immediately withdrew his plea on my behalf. The point being he honored the abatement and did so in two entries. Maybe he was wording that in a manner that agrees more with what you two are saying - and along those lines of thought. I don't know. I don't know because the entry on the Register of Action was in two parts of which only one entry was obfuscated to hide him denying me a speedy trial. He left the second part which was a Review for five years and three days. Great except that is practicing law from the bench, which he has sworn not to do and I have a certified copy of that oath from the secretary of state - so when I mentioned it - he (or somebody on his behalf) falsified the Register of Action and combined the Vacate entry.

Well that just wouldn't happen if what you two are saying were true. He would just leave his entries right there for me to read and understand that he has the right to deny me a speedy trial. Maybe Wserra just missed that my cell phone # is on the front of the abatement with an invitation that I would report to the jail within 4 hours if notified of any arrest warrant. Ergo, indefinitely deferred arrest warrant.

Ergo also, an evidence repository in federal court for things like that original Register of Action and the subsequent one, proving falsification of court records.

And Nikki; I think you are severely unstable emotionally judging by the last two posts alone. I have gotten way too far into your head. Do not expect I will be reading any more of your posts.



Regards,

David Merrill.

[David Merrill]

Without going too much deeper in to the matter, it is quite true that this has passed out of the usual garden variety silliness into the realm of big bad mess.

Without commenting on what VP may or may not have done, having no personal knowledge there being no point, what I do know is that Colorado judges take several things VERY seriously, any kind of contempt-at least that they can’t ignore, bench warrant jumping, and anything having to do with “at-risk adults or juveniles” is a hot button item any time. Spousal abuse, so so depending on the judge and the district. The kicker here is that the “at-risk adults” rider tied to the charges ups the jail time, seriously. The only thing that would add further to it would be as “a person of trust or authority”.

What I can tell from what has been presented, is that VP apparently ignored a trial date back in ‘04, earned himself a bench warrant for failure to appear, finally managed to get himself arrested in ‘08 who knows why or how, got hauled in front of a judge where he was neither cooperative nor coherent, got a needed PD assigned to keep him from digging his dungeon any deeper, fired the PD, proceeded to argue with the judge, and then later filed a collection of his “magic” documents, which got the attention of the appropriate parties and earned him a psych evaluation, which will not help in any way at all. The next act will be determined by whether he actually shows up for the eval in the first place, and what the examiner determines from the evaluation and then forwards to the court. The following act will go one of two ways, he is either scheduled for a competency hearing and an extended stay at the Pueblo resort, or he will be scheduled for trial, where, all things considered, he is looking at some possibly serious jail time.

No, this is not even remotely funny, but is tragic and will not end well unless VP shuts up, lets his PD do the best he can to bail out the nearly sunken canoe, and finally gets the medical help he needs. No, not funny at all.

That is a funny post, considering this is only coming up because Nikki thinks it is all quite hilarious. All Nikki's seriousness aside though; Notorial Dissent is quite eloquent that he was not there and there is nothing to bring out at trial but competent witness testimony and of course evidence. Of which there is neither.

Judge Roy Bean seems to be distancing himself at the spectre of what a huge emberrassment this must be to my Mom who should register and get her licks in too.

At least Nikki seems to be defending herself, which was to throw gasoline on a little fire as far as you Quatlosers go - all flamed up and even calling me a mother-pucker - just get a load of you saints!

It would seem the fun is over there on SuijurisClub though. And like Nikki says I shouldn't be spending too much time on an Echo Chamber that she has managed to create all by herself to be reverberating at maximum volume. I will remember to backlink you though.

http://www.suijurisclub.net/banks-colle ... -cash.html


Regards,

David Merrill.


P.S. Get a load of how I introduce myself at the beginning and ends of these videos:

[Edited to remove gratuitous self-promotional drivel. JRB]

[David Merrill]

Was this plea withdrawn??

Yes it was. The moment I said, "That is practicing law from the bench." - SAMELSON withdrew the plea he had entered on my alleged behalf.

You'll notice that, in all of his postings, here and elsewhere, SFB doesn't deny that he is being tried for assaulting his mother, or that his mother successfully got a restraining order against him. It's a very revealing felony and it will have a very special punishment...

And why would that be denied? I think what is revealing is the inherent presumption that because I am being charged with something, that makes me guilty of it. And of course your threat is already exposed as a tactic to drive me into a plea bargain - instead of allowing the trial to emberrass the local chief judge into calling it off. He has already falsified the Register of Action to cover his breach of trust - his violation of oath.

http://www.box.net/shared/static/ji0di35mj5.pdf

Placing the case under Review for five years and three days was a presumption that if I was ever arrested, I would be guilty enough to plead that way. And I would be frightened enough of prison to accept a plea bargain. I added Information, a two page email from the prosecutor as evidence of felony witness tampering that works along those lines. It shows how strongly the judge and prosecutor were both presuming my guilt and fear would produce a different outcome than a trial that cannot legally happen.

When confronted with the five year review, SAMELSON said that police can arrest on a warrant or not; it is up to their discretion. That is untrue as they have sworn to uphold the constitutions too. But that glance at the Register of Action must have scared SAMELSON pretty badly - to see he had not completely Vacated the evidence of his breach of fidelity bond (oath of office). Falsifying the Record is a pretty serious offense and fraud upon his own court.

http://michie.lexisnexis.com/colorado/l ... me.htm&2.0

ANNOTATION


Am. Jur.2d. See 20 Am. Jur.2d, Courts, § 10.


C.J.S. See 21 C.J.S., Courts, § 4.


The acts of a court of record are known by its records. Judicial records are not only necessary but indispensable to the administration of justice. The court judgments can be evidenced only by its records. The acts of a court of record are known by its records alone and cannot be established by parol testimony. The court speaks only through its records, and the judge speaks only through the court. Herren v. People, 147 Colo. 442, 363 P.2d 1044 (1961).

Regards,

David Merrill.

[Nikki]

David is mistaken in his opinion that the judge was practicing law from the bench.

When a person accused of a crime is first brought before the court, a plea must be entered to, among many other things, protect the rights of the accused.

The accused has, effectively, three main choices: enter a plea of guilty, enter a plea of not guilty, or to stand mute. There are a few other options, but they are variations on the first two.

If the accused chooses to stand mute or make any other statements which to not constitute a recognizable plea, the judge is legally required to enter a plea of not guilty on the behalf of the accused.

Since our legal system is based on the presumption of innocence, the court formalizes that presumption by entering the not guilty plea.

That is not practicing law from the bench. That is following the law.

[Judge Roy Bean]

If you guys were onto something then chief judge SAMELSON wouldn't be falsifying the Register of Action now, would he?

David, an accusation coming from someone who routinely makes things up will make the alleged falsification more than difficult to offer as a defense, especially if the court takes into consideration the delusional filings you've submitted.

[David Merrill]

Wow!! JRB - You really make me wish that I had documented the falsification of the Register of Action we are talking about. I wish that I had kept that Register of Action and the cash register receipt from before the falsification and the falsified Register of Action and its cash register receipt so that I could maybe send them to another court like federal court and keep that documentation safe like an evidence vault or repository. I really wish I had thought of that!

http://www.box.net/shared/static/ji0di35mj5.pdf



Regards,

David Merrill.

P.S. I think some of you fond of calling me Van Pelt should listen to me introducing myself at the beginning and ends of these videos:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?
http://video.google.com/videoplay?

Part of the purpose in originally banning Van Pelt was to preclude broader distribution of his nonsense. Hence, I've disabled the links. JRB.

[The Observer]

Perhaps there was a method to David's madness in refusing to appear. Given the fact that his mother is a senior citizen, that she may be a important witness in this case, the alleged victim, and the beneficiary of the restraining order, it could have been a tactic on his part hoping that his mother might pass away before the court could hold a hearing or trial on this matter. How much farther would this have gone on if Mom had not lived long enough to testify?

[Doktor Avalanche]

At least Nikki seems to be defending herself, which was to throw gasoline on a little fire as far as you Quatlosers go - all flamed up and even calling me a mother-pucker - just get a load of you saints!

Oh I have a whole slough of choice words besides that one to call you, David.

[fortinbras]

I think this also explains why the case has dragged on for years. With domestic violence cases -- and I would assume especially with parent-child cases, since those aren't so easily solved and dissolved by divorce -- the system hopes for a peaceful reconciliation without the necessity of a trial and permanent public record. The court system was hoping for things to heal up, but I suppose the recent request by the mother for a permanent injunction against DMVP demonstrates that he hasn't mended his ways. So the case which had been put on the bench is now front and center again.

It's a really bitter thought that DMVP was hoping for his mother to die, and I'd rather suppose that the system and DMVP both hoped (although perhaps with somewhat different images in mind) that the mother-son relationship would heal by now.

[David Merrill]

At least Nikki seems to be defending herself, which was to throw gasoline on a little fire as far as you Quatlosers go - all flamed up and even calling me a mother-pucker - just get a load of you saints!

Oh I have a whole slough of choice words besides that one to call you, David.

See how ya are? As it turns out it was your bad, huh?

It's a really bitter thought that DMVP was hoping for his mother to die, and I'd rather suppose that the system and DMVP both hoped (although perhaps with somewhat different images in mind) that the mother-son relationship would heal by now.

You guys are in such denial - a really sick disassociation from reality you know. My cell phone was right there in front of everybody with an invitation that I would take myself off to jail. They did not even need to pick me up. Additionally my ID was run several times over the years including just a few weeks later:

http://Friends-n-Family-Research.info/F ... ion_ER.jpg

The Doktor's sick humor though - that has put off a few of you I hope. Meanwhile I will just notice you all that I migrate where I please and this site is functioning fine in the Echo Chamber. Thanks again Nikki and especially Wserra. Keep an eye on that case jacket in Denver and I may be back to get the new links to your file bucket.

In summary though, you could feel the dismay when I was there on trial day and did not move for a dismissal. Instead I asked, "You are the man who Ordered up the Trial today, aren't you?"

He confirmed he had made the order as the bill made its way up from the clerk's office.



Regards,

David Merrill.

[Doktor Avalanche]

Oh I have a whole slough of choice words besides that one to call you, David.

See how ya are? As it turns out it was your bad, huh?

How was your assaulting your mother "my" bad? You really need to take some goddamn responsibility for your actions, David.

The Doktor's sick humor though - that has put off a few of you I hope.

That's weird...because I really wasn't trying to be funny seeing how I don't think the subject of assaulting the elderly is any laughing matter.

[aksis]

This thread was kind of scarry!!! You guys (and gals) had me going at first!!!

But then it dawned upon me, If David Merrill really did all these things you people are making up, the police wouldn't have waited 4 years to make the arrest!!!

Shit... some cops wouldn't even wait for a trial if someone was really beating up on their 79 year old mother!


Anyways...

In summary though, you could feel the dismay when I was there on trial day and did not move for a dismissal. Instead I asked, "You are the man who Ordered up the Trial today, aren't you?"

He confirmed he had made the order as the bill made its way up from the clerk's office.



Regards,

David Merrill.

After hearing the the Order was confirmed, how could I fail to take David Merrill up on his $350 offer for an investment of $3.50 + cost of stamps.

So I ordered up my copy of the waiver of tort bill (Just like Wes did - Hi ya Wes. *nod*)!!!

waiver of tort bill.pdf

I figure that after David gets paid, I am going to go down and file my Libel of Review - it's becoming quite the class action from what I hear.


What are you going to do with you $350 Wes?


Magnanimously,

Christopher Theodore: Rhodes


P.S.

Also, seeing as how some people are still having an issue with their logic, I wrote a small Perl program for the errant Quatlosers running amuck over at:

www.SuiJurisClub.net <----SHAMELESS SPAMING

I figure I would give it to all of you as well.

Code: Select all

#!/usr/bin/perl -wT
use strict;

# Initialize some variables 
my ($name, $input_name);

# Note: You can use this to test other names by changing the value of $name
$name = "David Merrill";

if (@ARGV) {
        # If a name was supplied, asign it to $input_name
        $input_name = "@ARGV"; chomp($input_name);
} else {
        # Prompt the for a name
        print STDOUT "Enter a name:";
        $input_name = <STDIN>; chomp($input_name);
}

# Test the STanDard INput
if ($input_name eq $name) {
        print "\$input_name is $name\n";
        print "*** Valid match ***\n";
} else {
       print "\$input_name is not $name\n";
       print "*** Not a valid match ***\n";
}
 
exit(0);

__END__

=head1 NAME

chk_name - A simple perl script to test if a 
particular name is, in fact, "David Merrill."

=head1 SYNOPSIS

=over 8

=item chk_name <name to check>

=back

=head1 DESCRIPTION

chk_name is a simple perl script written for some 
people having a hard time making clear logical 
distinction between two different different names.

Anyone can use this simple perl program to test and
see if the names are the same names.

=head1 BUGS

=over 2

=item None that I know of.

=back

=head1 AUTHOR

Written by Christopher Theodore of the family of Rhodes.

=head1 COPYRIGHT

Copyright (C) 2008 Christopher Theodore: Rhodes

All rights reserved. 

Redistribution and use in source and binary forms,
with or without modification, are permitted 
provided that the following conditions are met:

  * Redistributions of source code must retain the 
    above copyright notice, this list of conditions 
    and the following disclaimer.
  * Redistributions in binary form must reproduce 
    the above copyrightnotice, this list of 
    conditions and the following disclaimer in the 
    documentation and/or other materials provided 
    with the distribution.
   * Neither the name of the copyright holder nor 
    the names of contributors may be used to 
    endorse or promote products derived from this 
    software without specific prior written 
    permission.

THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY COPYRIGHT HOLDER 
''AS IS'' AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, 
INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED 
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A 
PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT 
SHALL COPYRIGHT HOLDER BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, 
INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR 
CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED 
TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; 
LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS 
INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF 
LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, 
OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) 
ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE,
EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE. 

While I way be casting my 'Perl before swine,' perhaps if you ask WebHick really nice, [s]he might help you with you Perl skills.

P.P.S.

BTW, This is what I get running that program on the name of this thread:

[aksis@Idea-Anvil.net:~]:$ chk_name David Merrill Van Pelt
$input_name is not David Merrill
*** Not a valid match ***
[aksis@Idea-Anvil.net:~]:$

[Demosthenes]

David, you've taken a relatively small issue (probation if you cut a deal) and you're pushing it into a major disaster for yourself (threatening a judge with arrest, filing a false lien against the judge).

Is there any part of you that wants to stop your self-destructive trend?

[wserra]

At least Wserra is too busy to keep up on things.

You're right, David, I am. But I try. If I miss something, you can correct me.

And that is like the arraignment issue. Attorneys believe that SAMELSON can plea on my behalf -

I don't know Colorado law, and thus am not qualified to advise on it. Still, I would be quite surprised if it is different in this regard from everywhere else. Every jurisdiction of which I am aware follows the practice of Rule 11(a)(4), FRCrP, "Failure to Enter a Plea": "If a defendant refuses to enter a plea or if a defendant organization fails to appear, the court must enter a plea of not guilty." Please note, David, if in fact you refused to plead, not only can the judge enter a not guilty plea for you, the judge must do so.

but when called on it, "That is practicing law from the bench."

It is certainly not. It is following the requirements of the law.

He immediately withdrew his plea on my behalf.

Maybe I missed it, but I don't see that in the docket. I only see the "not guilty" plea.

The point being he honored the abatement and did so in two entries.

The only time the word "abatement" is mentioned, the court refused to consider it. Please point out where it was "honored".

one entry was obfuscated to hide him denying me a speedy trial.

When you did not show up, you waived the issue of a speedy trial for the time you were absent. If that is not the case under some provision of Colorado law, please cite it.

Maybe Wserra just missed that my cell phone # is on the front of the abatement with an invitation that I would report to the jail within 4 hours if notified of any arrest warrant.

So what? If you are directed to appear in court, are you under the impression that providing your cell number somehow suffices to satisfy your obligation? Please cite the provision of Colorado law that supports this bizarre notion.

Ergo, indefinitely deferred arrest warrant.

I have a feeling that you made that phrase up, David. Please cite the provision of Colorado law that defines it.

But that glance at the Register of Action must have scared SAMELSON pretty badly - to see he had not completely Vacated the evidence of his breach of fidelity bond (oath of office).

David, the docket makes it clear that what was vacated was the jury trial which at one point had been set down for November 18. After vacating the jury trial marking, the court then set a status conference for January 5. Far from being suspicious, this is routine.

A note to my fellow Quatloosians: David is obviously not stupid. Abuse does not help, and would not if he were stupid. And I strongly doubt that many "suitors" are being fooled.

[notorial dissent]

Wes, what Merrill is doing is taking incidents, and then making up meanings for them of his own choosing to suit his particular delusion du jour, in this case that his “magic documents” have and will prevent the court from locking him up, which of course they won’t, since they are worth the equivalent of his legal advice, which is nothing.

What has happened is that he has been arrested on an old failure to appear warrant, arraigned where a not guilty verdict was entered due to his refusal to speak, he has been bonded out, and I truly do pity him if he crosses the local bounty agent by skipping his evaluation and/or hearing, since they will then immediately revoke the bail, and really lock him up. So, in spite of all of his “magic documents”, the court has not vacated the charges against him, is not in fact running in terror of his “magic documents”, but have in fact consigned them to the proper round file to which they belong, and has in fact ordered him to a psych evaluation, which as I recall he is required to comply with on Jan 15th, after which his fate will be decided at the Feb 23rd hearing where it will all be reviewed. To put not too fine a point on this, Merrill is too old, the original charges were too serious, and his past track record is such, that even given good behavior, the court would not have taken this lightly, and with his latest round of antics, they will go the other direction.

I do not know if Merrill’s view of his present predicament is based on situational convenience, or is simply delusional, and in fact don’t care. The plain and simple fact is that his view of the universe counts for exactly zip in this situation. What is going to count is the evaluator’s report, and how much he has annoyed the local ADA and judge, I think we can pretty safely assume that he has talked himself out of a slap on the wrist at this point, and will be in the very near future either a guest of the county or a ward of the state, I think the later rather than the former would be in his best interests, but not my call.

Plus, the little factor that seems to be slipping to the side, is that the original warrant was for elder abuse, and that is something they take VERY seriously and it will weigh in sentencing if it comes to that, or equally if it comes to commitment.

On a positive note, Merrill will finally find out just how effective his "refused for cause" and "abatement" nonsense isn't.

[Judge Roy Bean]

This thread was kind of scarry!!! You guys (and gals) had me going at first!!!

But then it dawned upon me, If David Merrill really did all these things you people are making up, the police wouldn't have waited 4 years to make the arrest!!!

You obviously don't know what the workload is for serving arrest warrants.

[webhick]

While I way be casting my 'Perl before swine,' perhaps if you ask WebHick really nice, he might help you with you Perl skills.

And if you call her swine, she won't even bother to point out the six or so errors, one of which is the reason why the code you posted doesn't even compile.

EDIT: Just realized that aksis was probably making a biblical reference...for crying out loud. I'm still not helping. While the three virtues of a good perl programmer are laziness, impatience, and hubris that doesn't give you permission to look down your nose at non-programmers and pretend that a simple command-line comparison script (that doesn't even compile) which demonstrates that David Merrill only wants to be called "David Merrill" is supposed to espouse some greater wisdom.

[aksis]

This thread was kind of scarry!!! You guys (and gals) had me going at first!!!

But then it dawned upon me, If David Merrill really did all these things you people are making up, the police wouldn't have waited 4 years to make the arrest!!!

You obviously don't know what the workload is for serving arrest warrants.

You obviously didn't bother to get all the facts Roy Boy... But I guess, what with Ms. Bean being in a frenzy over the squirrels (funny thread by the way, truly) and contemplations of children and grandchildren (and who knows what else - reading the next batch of tripe that the Legislature concocted???), you probably didn't have the time to get the facts.


Seems to be a trend in this thread... people not bothering to get all the facts.


I think it might even be contagious... as even I made a mistake in my facts by calling Webhick "he," *but* I got that corrected (You're just so masculine Webhick - "woman in a mans" world? Don't be afraid to be a woman!!! Boston Legal had a really good episode featuring that as a sub-plot...)

And if you call her swine, she won't even bother to point out the six or so errors, one of which is the reason why the code you posted doesn't even compile.

EDIT:Just realized that aksis was probably making a biblical reference...for crying out loud.

Bingo! I was just being punny. If I was going to call people names, I wouldn't start with you... you don't really have it coming.

I'm still not helping.

Sure you are... you can't help but be helpful. You explained to them what that code does:

... demonstrates that David Merrill only wants to be called "David Merrill"

Well, truth be told, it demonstrates that people pretending that the name "David Merrill," and "David Merrill Van Pelt," are the same.. have a flaw in their thinking. The script also deals with "CaSe SeNsiTiVe" errors as well. But you were close enough to still be helpful.

If it's not "David Merrill," the script will let you know.

BTW, perhaps you made an error when you cut-n-pasted the code... It runs fine for me, *but* I did find that it didn't paste well (must be more problems with the forum code). Or is your Perl kit broken? Maybe the #!/path/to/perl is some other location?


Magnanimously,

Christopher Theodore: Rhodes


P.S.

Notarial Dissent;

Do you really think Wessra is going to waste what little time he has to do his fact finding reading your imaginative hearsay when he can get the facts first hand from David Merrill?

And as far as the other side of the story... well, it looks like even that prosecutor is waiting for his witnesses and evidence to show up. Good thing David is sooo entertaining that Kirk Stewart SAMELSON and John W. SUTHERS were willing to spend the $20,000,000.00 on the performance while everyone waited or it would have been a really boring Trial Day!

Even the cop didn't show up... must have been too busy with that stack of warrants huh Roy Boy?