Discussion:
Churchill stooge to pay BIG TIME!
(too old to reply)
sawzabilly
2005-04-29 19:35:37 UTC
Permalink
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_3737714,00.html
Radio talk show host Dan Caplis on Wednesday filed a defamation lawsuit
against a Longmont city employee who has emerged as a vocal supporter of
embattled University of Colorado professor Ward Churchill.

Caplis, who co-hosts an afternoon program on KHOW-AM with fellow
attorney Craig Silverman, sued Glenn Spagnuolo, 34, in Arapahoe District
Court.

...according to the excerpts played by Boyles, Spagnuolo accused Caplis
of assaulting a "pregnant woman of color" during a 1977 melee at CU
while Caplis was a student there.

Spagnuolo claimed that Caplis - who had just resigned as one of the
student government's tri-executives - suffered a concussion in the
melee, which was related to a bill to limit the use of student fees.

http://www.khow.com/hosts/caplis-silverman.html

Brand New Churchill Documents

Ward Churchill accused of abusing another woman.
Faculty Support for Caplis and Silverman suspension suggestion.

http://www.pirateballerina.com/index.php

Have a Yearn to Learn?

CU's Ethnic Studies department recently announced the summer schedule.
These classes are open to continuing education students (the general
community) as well as to registered CU students. We've heard that if you
are 55 or older, you can even audit the class. If you have a yearn to
learn, or perhaps just want to hear the great Ward Churchill holding
forth, check these classes out (those classes in red are taught by
Churchill):

AIST 2015 .........3 ........TOPICAL ISS/NATIVE N.A.
....................
M........001.......40028 .........1215PM-0330PM
...........MTWRF.....KTCH235 ...........W CHURCHILL...................25

A.........100.......40029 .........0230PM-0405PM ...........MTWRF .....F
A N185............W CHURCHILL...................25
Kurt Lochner (Weasel Remember!)
2005-04-29 20:27:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by sawzabilly
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_3737714,00.html
Hey, isn't this one of the two LIARS, I mean "lawyers" that were
playing excerpts of Professor Churchill's speaking engagements
to suit their libelous, actionable comments regarding his tenure?

Damn, these two little wannabe's are heading for trouble again..
Post by sawzabilly
Radio talk show host Dan Caplis on Wednesday filed a defamation
lawsuit against a Longmont city employee who has emerged as a
vocal supporter of embattled University of Colorado professor
Ward Churchill.
[..]

..according to the excerpts played by Boyles, Spagnuolo accused
Caplis of assaulting a "pregnant woman of color" during a 1977
melee at CU while Caplis was a student there.

Spagnuolo claimed that Caplis - who had just resigned as one of
the student government's tri-executives - suffered a concussion
in the melee, which was related to a bill to limit the use of
student fees.

Boyles repeatedly played the excerpts Wednesday morning of Spagnuolo's
Tuesday night speech, which were recorded by a reporter for KOA radio.

"It's a frivolous lawsuit and Dan knows that," Spagnuolo said. "It's
just one more attempt to try to silence truth in this country."

--Sounds like Capless knows he's been outted.. *>LOL!<*
Sawzabone
2005-04-29 22:31:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kurt Lochner (Weasel Remember!)
--Sounds like Capless knows he's
...got this creep by the balls!
Kurt Lochner (Weasel Remember!)
2005-04-30 04:51:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kurt Lochner (Weasel Remember!)
Post by sawzabilly
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_3737714,00.html
Hey, isn't this one of the two LIARS, I mean "lawyers" that were
playing excerpts of Professor Churchill's speaking engagements
to suit their libelous, actionable comments regarding his tenure?
Damn, these two little wannabe's are heading for trouble again..
Post by sawzabilly
Radio talk show host Dan Caplis on Wednesday filed a defamation
lawsuit against a Longmont city employee who has emerged as a
vocal supporter of embattled University of Colorado professor
Ward Churchill.
[..]
..according to the excerpts played by Boyles, Spagnuolo accused
Caplis of assaulting a "pregnant woman of color" during a 1977
melee at CU while Caplis was a student there.
Spagnuolo claimed that Caplis - who had just resigned as one of
the student government's tri-executives - suffered a concussion
in the melee, which was related to a bill to limit the use of
student fees.
Boyles repeatedly played the excerpts Wednesday morning of Spagnuolo's
Tuesday night speech, which were recorded by a reporter for KOA radio.
"It's a frivolous lawsuit and Dan knows that," Spagnuolo said. "It's
just one more attempt to try to silence truth in this country."
--Sounds like Capless knows he's been outted.. *>LOL!<*
...got this creep[..]
Quit drinking the bong water, dude, I mean, seriously..

--See subject header for details..
Phil Earnhardt
2005-05-01 01:42:06 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 15:27:30 -0500, "Kurt Lochner (Weasel Remember!)"
Post by Kurt Lochner (Weasel Remember!)
Post by sawzabilly
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_3737714,00.html
Hey, isn't this one of the two LIARS, I mean "lawyers" that were
playing excerpts of Professor Churchill's speaking engagements
to suit their libelous, actionable comments regarding his tenure?
If they have made libelous and actionable comments, the way we'd know
that is that someone would take action against them. Since nobody has,
I'll conclude that yours is an unfounded conclusion.
Post by Kurt Lochner (Weasel Remember!)
Damn, these two little wannabe's are heading for trouble again..
What in heaven's name does "again" mean? What trouble do you think
they're already in? References?
Post by Kurt Lochner (Weasel Remember!)
Boyles repeatedly played the excerpts Wednesday morning of Spagnuolo's
Tuesday night speech, which were recorded by a reporter for KOA radio.
"It's a frivolous lawsuit and Dan knows that," Spagnuolo said. "It's
just one more attempt to try to silence truth in this country."
--Sounds like Capless knows he's been outted.. *>LOL!<*
What does that mean? Why do you presume that Spagnuolo is a
definitive spokesman on legal issues?

--phil
Sawzabone
2005-05-01 04:02:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Phil Earnhardt
Why do you presume that Spagnuolo is a
definitive spokesman on legal issues?
My, isn't that a question for one city worker to ponder...

He'd better hope he can produce credible evidentiary testimony...
Kurt Lochner (Weasel Remember!)
2005-05-01 16:37:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Phil Earnhardt
Post by Kurt Lochner (Weasel Remember!)
Post by sawzabilly
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_3737714,00.html
Hey, isn't this one of the two LIARS, I mean "lawyers" that were
playing excerpts of Professor Churchill's speaking engagements
to suit their libelous, actionable comments regarding his tenure?
If they have made libelous and actionable comments, the way we'd know
that is that someone would take action against them. Since nobody has,
I'll conclude that yours is an unfounded conclusion.
Post by Kurt Lochner (Weasel Remember!)
Damn, these two little wannabe's are heading for trouble again..
What in heaven's name does "again" mean? What trouble do you think
they're already in? References?
Post by Kurt Lochner (Weasel Remember!)
Boyles repeatedly played the excerpts Wednesday morning of Spagnuolo's
Tuesday night speech, which were recorded by a reporter for KOA radio.
"It's a frivolous lawsuit and Dan knows that," Spagnuolo said. "It's
just one more attempt to try to silence truth in this country."
--Sounds like Capless knows he's been outted.. *>LOL!<*
What does that mean? Why do you presume that Spagnuolo is a
definitive spokesman on legal issues?
My, isn't that a question[..]
One which you will never answer, despite your cheap rhetoric, spazz..

--See subject header for details, moron..
ripsaw
2005-05-01 22:59:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kurt Lochner (Weasel Remember!)
Post by Phil Earnhardt
What does that mean? Why do you presume that Spagnuolo is a
definitive spokesman on legal issues?
My, isn't that a question[..]
One which you will never answer,
Sure i will, he's a recreation director, not a legal eagle.
Kurt Lochner (Weasel Remember!)
2005-05-02 12:22:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kurt Lochner (Weasel Remember!)
Post by Phil Earnhardt
Post by Kurt Lochner (Weasel Remember!)
Post by sawzabilly
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_3737714,00.html
Hey, isn't this one of the two LIARS, I mean "lawyers" that were
playing excerpts of Professor Churchill's speaking engagements
to suit their libelous, actionable comments regarding his tenure?
If they have made libelous and actionable comments, the way we'd know
that is that someone would take action against them. Since nobody has,
I'll conclude that yours is an unfounded conclusion.
Post by Kurt Lochner (Weasel Remember!)
Damn, these two little wannabe's are heading for trouble again..
What in heaven's name does "again" mean? What trouble do you think
they're already in? References?
Post by Kurt Lochner (Weasel Remember!)
Boyles repeatedly played the excerpts Wednesday morning of Spagnuolo's
Tuesday night speech, which were recorded by a reporter for KOA radio.
"It's a frivolous lawsuit and Dan knows that," Spagnuolo said. "It's
just one more attempt to try to silence truth in this country."
--Sounds like Capless knows he's been outted.. *>LOL!<*
What does that mean? Why do you presume that Spagnuolo is a
definitive spokesman on legal issues?
My, isn't that a question[..]
One which you will never answer, despite your cheap rhetoric, spazz..
Sure i will,[..]
Evasion/deletion noted..

--See subject header for details, moron..
ripsaw
2005-05-02 16:06:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kurt Lochner (Weasel Remember!)
Evasion/deletion noted..
Kurt you're just a fucking liar. I answered the question, and you
deleted it, fuck you, buh bye.
Kurt Lochner (Weasel Remember!)
2005-05-03 02:08:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kurt Lochner (Weasel Remember!)
Post by Kurt Lochner (Weasel Remember!)
Post by Phil Earnhardt
Post by Kurt Lochner (Weasel Remember!)
Post by sawzabilly
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_3737714,00.html
Hey, isn't this one of the two LIARS, I mean "lawyers" that were
playing excerpts of Professor Churchill's speaking engagements
to suit their libelous, actionable comments regarding his tenure?
If they have made libelous and actionable comments, the way we'd know
that is that someone would take action against them. Since nobody has,
I'll conclude that yours is an unfounded conclusion.
Post by Kurt Lochner (Weasel Remember!)
Damn, these two little wannabe's are heading for trouble again..
What in heaven's name does "again" mean? What trouble do you think
they're already in? References?
Post by Kurt Lochner (Weasel Remember!)
Boyles repeatedly played the excerpts Wednesday morning of Spagnuolo's
Tuesday night speech, which were recorded by a reporter for KOA radio.
"It's a frivolous lawsuit and Dan knows that," Spagnuolo said. "It's
just one more attempt to try to silence truth in this country."
--Sounds like Capless knows he's been outted.. *>LOL!<*
What does that mean? Why do you presume that Spagnuolo is a
definitive spokesman on legal issues?
My, isn't that a question[..]
One which you will never answer, despite your cheap rhetoric, spazz..
Sure i will,[..]
Evasion/deletion noted..
Kurt you're just a fucking liar. I answered the question[..]
No, and nope..

--See subject header for details, whipped_raw..
Cirque
2005-05-03 04:53:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kurt Lochner (Weasel Remember!)
Post by Kurt Lochner (Weasel Remember!)
Post by Kurt Lochner (Weasel Remember!)
Post by Phil Earnhardt
Post by Kurt Lochner (Weasel Remember!)
Post by sawzabilly
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_3737714,00.html
Hey, isn't this one of the two LIARS, I mean "lawyers" that were
playing excerpts of Professor Churchill's speaking engagements
to suit their libelous, actionable comments regarding his tenure?
If they have made libelous and actionable comments, the way we'd know
that is that someone would take action against them. Since nobody has,
I'll conclude that yours is an unfounded conclusion.
Post by Kurt Lochner (Weasel Remember!)
Damn, these two little wannabe's are heading for trouble again..
What in heaven's name does "again" mean? What trouble do you think
they're already in? References?
Post by Kurt Lochner (Weasel Remember!)
Boyles repeatedly played the excerpts Wednesday morning of Spagnuolo's
Tuesday night speech, which were recorded by a reporter for KOA radio.
"It's a frivolous lawsuit and Dan knows that," Spagnuolo said. "It's
just one more attempt to try to silence truth in this country."
--Sounds like Capless knows he's been outted.. *>LOL!<*
What does that mean? Why do you presume that Spagnuolo is a
definitive spokesman on legal issues?
My, isn't that a question[..]
One which you will never answer, despite your cheap rhetoric, spazz..
Sure i will,[..]
Evasion/deletion noted..
Kurt you're just a fucking liar. I answered the question[..]
No, and nope..
Damn, do you get some sick thrill from humiliating yourself?
Post by Kurt Lochner (Weasel Remember!)
My, isn't that a question[..]
One which you will never answer,
Sure i will, he's a recreation director, not a legal eagle.
Kurt Lochner (Weasel Remember!)
2005-05-03 12:19:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kurt Lochner (Weasel Remember!)
Post by Kurt Lochner (Weasel Remember!)
Post by Kurt Lochner (Weasel Remember!)
Post by Phil Earnhardt
Post by Kurt Lochner (Weasel Remember!)
Post by sawzabilly
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_3737714,00.html
Hey, isn't this one of the two LIARS, I mean "lawyers" that were
playing excerpts of Professor Churchill's speaking engagements
to suit their libelous, actionable comments regarding his tenure?
If they have made libelous and actionable comments, the way we'd know
that is that someone would take action against them. Since nobody has,
I'll conclude that yours is an unfounded conclusion.
Post by Kurt Lochner (Weasel Remember!)
Damn, these two little wannabe's are heading for trouble again..
What in heaven's name does "again" mean? What trouble do you think
they're already in? References?
Post by Kurt Lochner (Weasel Remember!)
Boyles repeatedly played the excerpts Wednesday morning of Spagnuolo's
Tuesday night speech, which were recorded by a reporter for KOA radio.
"It's a frivolous lawsuit and Dan knows that," Spagnuolo said. "It's
just one more attempt to try to silence truth in this country."
--Sounds like Capless knows he's been outted.. *>LOL!<*
What does that mean? Why do you presume that Spagnuolo is a
definitive spokesman on legal issues?
My, isn't that a question[..]
One which you will never answer, despite your cheap rhetoric, spazz..
Sure i will,[..]
Evasion/deletion noted..
Kurt you're just a fucking liar. I answered the question[..]
No, and nope..
Sure i will[..]
So he filed a frivolous lawsuit..
he's a recreation director, not a legal eagle.
So he filed a frivolous lawsuit..

--See subject header for details, jerque..
Cirque
2005-05-03 19:16:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kurt Lochner (Weasel Remember!)
Post by Kurt Lochner (Weasel Remember!)
Post by Kurt Lochner (Weasel Remember!)
Evasion/deletion noted..
Kurt you're just a fucking liar. I answered the question[..]
No, and nope..
Sure i will[..]
So he filed a frivolous lawsuit..
he's a recreation director, not a legal eagle.
So he filed a frivolous lawsuit..
I'll take that as the closest you'll *ever* come to publicly admitting
you were caught red-handed in a LIE!

What a fucking childish piece of shit you are kurtie.
Kurt Lochner (Weasel Remember!)
2005-05-03 22:21:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cirque
Post by Kurt Lochner (Weasel Remember!)
Post by Kurt Lochner (Weasel Remember!)
Post by Kurt Lochner (Weasel Remember!)
Post by Kurt Lochner (Weasel Remember!)
Post by Phil Earnhardt
Post by Kurt Lochner (Weasel Remember!)
Post by sawzabilly
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_3737714,00.html
Hey, isn't this one of the two LIARS, I mean "lawyers" that were
playing excerpts of Professor Churchill's speaking engagements
to suit their libelous, actionable comments regarding his tenure?
If they have made libelous and actionable comments, the way we'd know
that is that someone would take action against them. Since nobody has,
I'll conclude that yours is an unfounded conclusion.
Post by Kurt Lochner (Weasel Remember!)
Damn, these two little wannabe's are heading for trouble again..
What in heaven's name does "again" mean? What trouble do you think
they're already in? References?
Post by Kurt Lochner (Weasel Remember!)
Boyles repeatedly played the excerpts Wednesday morning of Spagnuolo's
Tuesday night speech, which were recorded by a reporter for KOA radio.
"It's a frivolous lawsuit and Dan knows that," Spagnuolo said. "It's
just one more attempt to try to silence truth in this country."
--Sounds like Capless knows he's been outted.. *>LOL!<*
What does that mean? Why do you presume that Spagnuolo is a
definitive spokesman on legal issues?
My, isn't that a question[..]
One which you will never answer, despite your cheap rhetoric, spazz..
Sure i will,[..]
Evasion/deletion noted..
Kurt you're just a fucking liar. I answered the question[..]
No, and nope..
Sure i will[..]
So he filed a frivolous lawsuit..
*>LOL!<* What a poorly constructed LIE you're using today..

Phil: "Why do you presume that Spagnuolo is a
definitive spokesman on legal issues?"

you: "My, isn't that a question for one city worker to ponder."

And..

Me:"Hey, isn't this one of the two LIARS, I mean "lawyers" that were
playing excerpts of Professor Churchill's speaking engagements
to suit their libelous, actionable comments regarding his tenure?"

you: "Kurt you're just a fucking liar. I answered the question[..]"

you: "My, isn't that a question for one city worker to ponder."

you: "Damn, do you get some sick thrill from humiliating yourself?"

Finally,

you: "he's a recreation director, not a legal eagle."

Okay, so you're admitting that his case won't go..

Thanks for playing.. *>guffaw!<*
Post by Cirque
I'll take that as the closest you'll *ever* come to
publicly admitting you were caught red-handed in a LIE!
*>LOL!<* You've got three fingers pointing at yourself..
Post by Cirque
What a fucking childish piece of shit you are kurtie.
Please, by all means, keep telling on yourself, jerque..

--See subject header for details, jerque..
Cirque
2005-05-03 22:25:48 UTC
Permalink
Kurt Lochner (Weasel Remember!) wrote:

Go backfill your bullshit on someone else's time kurtie, you've been
summarily revealed as a liar.
Kurt Lochner (Weasel Remember!)
2005-05-03 22:41:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kurt Lochner (Weasel Remember!)
Post by Cirque
Post by Kurt Lochner (Weasel Remember!)
Post by Kurt Lochner (Weasel Remember!)
Post by Kurt Lochner (Weasel Remember!)
Post by Kurt Lochner (Weasel Remember!)
Post by Phil Earnhardt
Post by Kurt Lochner (Weasel Remember!)
Post by sawzabilly
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_3737714,00.html
Hey, isn't this one of the two LIARS, I mean "lawyers" that were
playing excerpts of Professor Churchill's speaking engagements
to suit their libelous, actionable comments regarding his tenure?
If they have made libelous and actionable comments, the way we'd know
that is that someone would take action against them. Since nobody has,
I'll conclude that yours is an unfounded conclusion.
Post by Kurt Lochner (Weasel Remember!)
Damn, these two little wannabe's are heading for trouble again..
What in heaven's name does "again" mean? What trouble do you think
they're already in? References?
Post by Kurt Lochner (Weasel Remember!)
Boyles repeatedly played the excerpts Wednesday morning of Spagnuolo's
Tuesday night speech, which were recorded by a reporter for KOA radio.
"It's a frivolous lawsuit and Dan knows that," Spagnuolo said. "It's
just one more attempt to try to silence truth in this country."
--Sounds like Capless knows he's been outted.. *>LOL!<*
What does that mean? Why do you presume that Spagnuolo is a
definitive spokesman on legal issues?
My, isn't that a question[..]
One which you will never answer, despite your cheap rhetoric, spazz..
Sure i will,[..]
Evasion/deletion noted..
Kurt you're just a fucking liar. I answered the question[..]
No, and nope..
Sure i will[..]
So he filed a frivolous lawsuit..
*>LOL!<* What a poorly constructed LIE you're using today..
Phil: "Why do you presume that Spagnuolo is a
definitive spokesman on legal issues?"
you: "My, isn't that a question for one city worker to ponder."
And..
Me:"Hey, isn't this one of the two LIARS, I mean "lawyers" that were
playing excerpts of Professor Churchill's speaking engagements
to suit their libelous, actionable comments regarding his tenure?"
you: "Kurt you're just a fucking liar. I answered the question[..]"
you: "My, isn't that a question for one city worker to ponder."
you: "Damn, do you get some sick thrill from humiliating yourself?"
Finally,
you: "he's a recreation director, not a legal eagle."
Okay, so you're admitting that his case won't go..
Thanks for playing.. *>guffaw!<*
Post by Cirque
I'll take that as the closest you'll *ever* come to
publicly admitting you were caught red-handed in a LIE!
*>LOL!<* You've got three fingers pointing at yourself..
Post by Cirque
What a fucking childish piece of shit you are kurtie.
Please, by all means, keep telling on yourself, jerque..
Go backfill your bullshit on someone else's time kurt[..]
Nope, I'll leave that to you, I've gotta go fix someone's
office computer system again. Seems you don't like having
it pointed out what a jucking ferque you are..

Guess I must've touched a nerve again, judging by your whimpers..

--See subject header for details, jerque..
Cirque
2005-05-03 22:44:27 UTC
Permalink
Go backfill your bullshit on someone else's time kurt[..]
Nope,
Lying idiot, basta.
Kurt Lochner (Weasel Remember!)
2005-05-04 01:58:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cirque
Post by Kurt Lochner (Weasel Remember!)
Post by Kurt Lochner (Weasel Remember!)
Post by Cirque
Post by Kurt Lochner (Weasel Remember!)
Post by Kurt Lochner (Weasel Remember!)
Post by Kurt Lochner (Weasel Remember!)
Post by Kurt Lochner (Weasel Remember!)
Post by sawzabilly
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_3737714,00.html
Post by Phil Earnhardt
Post by Kurt Lochner (Weasel Remember!)
Hey, isn't this one of the two LIARS, I mean "lawyers" that were
playing excerpts of Professor Churchill's speaking engagements
to suit their libelous, actionable comments regarding his tenure?
If they have made libelous and actionable comments, the way we'd know
that is that someone would take action against them. Since nobody has,
I'll conclude that yours is an unfounded conclusion.
Post by Kurt Lochner (Weasel Remember!)
Damn, these two little wannabe's are heading for trouble again..
What in heaven's name does "again" mean? What trouble do you think
they're already in? References?
Post by Kurt Lochner (Weasel Remember!)
Boyles repeatedly played the excerpts Wednesday morning of Spagnuolo's
Tuesday night speech, which were recorded by a reporter for KOA radio.
"It's a frivolous lawsuit and Dan knows that," Spagnuolo said. "It's
just one more attempt to try to silence truth in this country."
--Sounds like Capless knows he's been outted.. *>LOL!<*
What does that mean? Why do you presume that Spagnuolo is a
definitive spokesman on legal issues?
My, isn't that a question[..]
One which you will never answer, despite your cheap rhetoric, spazz..
Sure i will,[..]
Evasion/deletion noted..
Kurt you're just a fucking liar. I answered the question[..]
No, and nope..
Sure i will[..]
So he filed a frivolous lawsuit..
*>LOL!<* What a poorly constructed LIE you're using today..
Phil: "Why do you presume that Spagnuolo is a
definitive spokesman on legal issues?"
you: "My, isn't that a question for one city worker to ponder."
And..
Me:"Hey, isn't this one of the two LIARS, I mean "lawyers" that were
playing excerpts of Professor Churchill's speaking engagements
to suit their libelous, actionable comments regarding his tenure?"
you: "Kurt you're just a fucking liar. I answered the question[..]"
you: "My, isn't that a question for one city worker to ponder."
you: "Damn, do you get some sick thrill from humiliating yourself?"
Finally,
you: "he's a recreation director, not a legal eagle."
Okay, so you're admitting that his case won't go..
Thanks for playing.. *>guffaw!<*
Post by Cirque
I'll take that as the closest you'll *ever* come to
publicly admitting you were caught red-handed in a LIE!
*>LOL!<* You've got three fingers pointing at yourself..
Post by Cirque
What a fucking childish piece of shit you are kurtie.
Please, by all means, keep telling on yourself, jerque..
Go backfill your bullshit on someone else's time kurt[..]
Nope, I'll leave that to you, I've gotta go fix someone's
office computer system again. Seems you don't like having
it pointed out what a jucking ferque you are..
Guess I must've touched a nerve again, judging by your whimpers..
Lying idiot, basta.
Flattery will get you nowhere, <l>user-boi.. *>LOL!<*

--See subject header for details, jerque..
Cirque
2005-05-04 02:04:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kurt Lochner (Weasel Remember!)
Post by Cirque
Lying idiot, basta.
Flattery
To you it must seem so.
Kurt Lochner (Weasel Remember!)
2005-05-04 02:15:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cirque
Post by Kurt Lochner (Weasel Remember!)
Post by Cirque
Post by Kurt Lochner (Weasel Remember!)
Post by Kurt Lochner (Weasel Remember!)
Post by Cirque
Post by Kurt Lochner (Weasel Remember!)
Post by Kurt Lochner (Weasel Remember!)
Post by Kurt Lochner (Weasel Remember!)
Post by Kurt Lochner (Weasel Remember!)
Post by sawzabilly
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_3737714,00.html
Post by Phil Earnhardt
Post by Kurt Lochner (Weasel Remember!)
Hey, isn't this one of the two LIARS, I mean "lawyers" that were
playing excerpts of Professor Churchill's speaking engagements
to suit their libelous, actionable comments regarding his tenure?
If they have made libelous and actionable comments, the way we'd know
that is that someone would take action against them. Since nobody has,
I'll conclude that yours is an unfounded conclusion.
Post by Kurt Lochner (Weasel Remember!)
Damn, these two little wannabe's are heading for trouble again..
What in heaven's name does "again" mean? What trouble do you think
they're already in? References?
Post by Kurt Lochner (Weasel Remember!)
Boyles repeatedly played the excerpts Wednesday morning of Spagnuolo's
Tuesday night speech, which were recorded by a reporter for KOA radio.
"It's a frivolous lawsuit and Dan knows that," Spagnuolo said. "It's
just one more attempt to try to silence truth in this country."
--Sounds like Capless knows he's been outted.. *>LOL!<*
What does that mean? Why do you presume that Spagnuolo is a
definitive spokesman on legal issues?
My, isn't that a question[..]
One which you will never answer, despite your cheap rhetoric, spazz..
Sure i will,[..]
Evasion/deletion noted..
Kurt you're just a fucking liar. I answered the question[..]
No, and nope..
Sure i will[..]
So he filed a frivolous lawsuit..
*>LOL!<* What a poorly constructed LIE you're using today..
Phil: "Why do you presume that Spagnuolo is a
definitive spokesman on legal issues?"
you: "My, isn't that a question for one city worker to ponder."
And..
Me:"Hey, isn't this one of the two LIARS, I mean "lawyers" that were
playing excerpts of Professor Churchill's speaking engagements
to suit their libelous, actionable comments regarding his tenure?"
you: "Kurt you're just a fucking liar. I answered the question[..]"
you: "My, isn't that a question for one city worker to ponder."
you: "Damn, do you get some sick thrill from humiliating yourself?"
Finally,
you: "he's a recreation director, not a legal eagle."
Okay, so you're admitting that his case won't go..
Thanks for playing.. *>guffaw!<*
Post by Cirque
I'll take that as the closest you'll *ever* come to
publicly admitting you were caught red-handed in a LIE!
*>LOL!<* You've got three fingers pointing at yourself..
Post by Cirque
What a fucking childish piece of shit you are kurt[..]
Please, by all means, keep telling on yourself, circle_jerque..
Go backfill your bullshit on someone else's time kurt[..]
Nope, I'll leave that to you, I've gotta go fix someone's
office computer system again. Seems you don't like having
it pointed out what a jucking ferque you are..
Guess I must've touched a nerve again, judging by your whimpers..
Lying idiot, basta.
Flattery will get you nowhere, <l>user-boi.. *>LOL!<*
To you it must seem so.
*>LOL!<* Nope, just stating the facts, <l>user-boi..

--See subject header for details, circle_jerque..

Ken Smith
2005-05-02 23:01:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sawzabone
Post by Phil Earnhardt
Why do you presume that Spagnuolo is a
definitive spokesman on legal issues?
My, isn't that a question for one city worker to ponder...
He'd better hope he can produce credible evidentiary testimony...
Dan's a public figure, so he has to be able to show actual damages
AND prove Sullivan malice (in essence, that Spagnuolo didn't believe
what he said). Simple assault is not a felony, so there is no real per
se libel question. And how is a "youthful indiscretion" during a melee
going to affect Caplis' *current* reputation?

On the face of it, this smells an awful lot like pure harassment by
an out-of-control slimebucket attorney who has a hard-on because he
doesn't like someone else's speech.

Caplis should be disbarred for this one.
Cirque
2005-05-02 23:17:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sawzabone
Post by Phil Earnhardt
Why do you presume that Spagnuolo is a
definitive spokesman on legal issues?
My, isn't that a question for one city worker to ponder...
He'd better hope he can produce credible evidentiary testimony...
Dan's a public figure, so he has to be able to show actual damages AND
prove Sullivan malice (in essence, that Spagnuolo didn't believe what he
said). Simple assault is not a felony, so there is no real per se libel
question. And how is a "youthful indiscretion" during a melee going to
affect Caplis' *current* reputation?
On the face of it, this smells an awful lot like pure harassment by an
out-of-control slimebucket attorney who has a hard-on because he doesn't
like someone else's speech.
Caplis should be disbarred for this one.
You'd best earn yours before you fancy removing another man's.
Ken Smith
2005-05-02 23:35:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cirque
Post by Ken Smith
Post by Sawzabone
Post by Phil Earnhardt
Why do you presume that Spagnuolo is a
definitive spokesman on legal issues?
My, isn't that a question for one city worker to ponder...
He'd better hope he can produce credible evidentiary testimony...
Dan's a public figure, so he has to be able to show actual damages
AND prove Sullivan malice (in essence, that Spagnuolo didn't believe
what he said). Simple assault is not a felony, so there is no real
per se libel question. And how is a "youthful indiscretion" during a
melee going to affect Caplis' *current* reputation?
On the face of it, this smells an awful lot like pure harassment by
an out-of-control slimebucket attorney who has a hard-on because he
doesn't like someone else's speech.
Caplis should be disbarred for this one.
You'd best earn yours before you fancy removing another man's.
Why? Proving that our state Bar is political and hopelessly corrupt
is part of what I'm doing here. :)

Simply on the face of it, Caplis has filed a frivolous and baseless
lawsuit, because he won't be able to prove damages. Why shouldn't he be
disbarred for it? Protect Our Mountain Environment v. District Court.
Cirque
2005-05-02 23:51:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ken Smith
Post by Cirque
Post by Ken Smith
Post by Sawzabone
Post by Phil Earnhardt
Why do you presume that Spagnuolo is a
definitive spokesman on legal issues?
My, isn't that a question for one city worker to ponder...
He'd better hope he can produce credible evidentiary testimony...
Dan's a public figure, so he has to be able to show actual damages
AND prove Sullivan malice (in essence, that Spagnuolo didn't believe
what he said). Simple assault is not a felony, so there is no real
per se libel question. And how is a "youthful indiscretion" during a
melee going to affect Caplis' *current* reputation?
On the face of it, this smells an awful lot like pure harassment by
an out-of-control slimebucket attorney who has a hard-on because he
doesn't like someone else's speech.
Caplis should be disbarred for this one.
You'd best earn yours before you fancy removing another man's.
Why? Proving that our state Bar is political and hopelessly corrupt
is part of what I'm doing here. :)
Geeting to practice apparently isn't...
Ken Smith
2005-05-03 00:48:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cirque
Post by Ken Smith
Post by Cirque
Post by Ken Smith
Post by Sawzabone
Post by Phil Earnhardt
Why do you presume that Spagnuolo is a
definitive spokesman on legal issues?
My, isn't that a question for one city worker to ponder...
He'd better hope he can produce credible evidentiary testimony...
Dan's a public figure, so he has to be able to show actual damages
AND prove Sullivan malice (in essence, that Spagnuolo didn't believe
what he said). Simple assault is not a felony, so there is no real
per se libel question. And how is a "youthful indiscretion" during
a melee going to affect Caplis' *current* reputation?
On the face of it, this smells an awful lot like pure harassment
by an out-of-control slimebucket attorney who has a hard-on because
he doesn't like someone else's speech.
Caplis should be disbarred for this one.
You'd best earn yours before you fancy removing another man's.
Why? Proving that our state Bar is political and hopelessly corrupt
is part of what I'm doing here. :)
Geeting to practice apparently isn't...
Can't deal with the issues, can you?

Again, simply on the face of it, Caplis' suit appears frivolous and
baseless, as he would have an insurmountable task in showing that any
youthful indiscretion he might have engaged in would harm his current
reputation.
Cirque
2005-05-03 04:50:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ken Smith
Post by Cirque
Post by Ken Smith
Post by Cirque
Post by Ken Smith
Post by Sawzabone
Post by Phil Earnhardt
Why do you presume that Spagnuolo is a
definitive spokesman on legal issues?
My, isn't that a question for one city worker to ponder...
He'd better hope he can produce credible evidentiary testimony...
Dan's a public figure, so he has to be able to show actual
damages AND prove Sullivan malice (in essence, that Spagnuolo
didn't believe what he said). Simple assault is not a felony, so
there is no real per se libel question. And how is a "youthful
indiscretion" during a melee going to affect Caplis' *current*
reputation?
On the face of it, this smells an awful lot like pure harassment
by an out-of-control slimebucket attorney who has a hard-on because
he doesn't like someone else's speech.
Caplis should be disbarred for this one.
You'd best earn yours before you fancy removing another man's.
Why? Proving that our state Bar is political and hopelessly
corrupt is part of what I'm doing here. :)
Geeting to practice apparently isn't...
Can't deal with the issues, can you?
The issue is a non-lawyer critiquing a real one, and for purely personal
partisan reasons...
Ken Smith
2005-05-03 14:10:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cirque
Post by Ken Smith
Post by Cirque
Post by Ken Smith
Post by Cirque
Post by Ken Smith
Post by Sawzabone
Post by Phil Earnhardt
Why do you presume that Spagnuolo is a
definitive spokesman on legal issues?
My, isn't that a question for one city worker to ponder...
He'd better hope he can produce credible evidentiary testimony...
Dan's a public figure, so he has to be able to show actual
damages AND prove Sullivan malice (in essence, that Spagnuolo
didn't believe what he said). Simple assault is not a felony, so
there is no real per se libel question. And how is a "youthful
indiscretion" during a melee going to affect Caplis' *current*
reputation?
On the face of it, this smells an awful lot like pure harassment
by an out-of-control slimebucket attorney who has a hard-on
because he doesn't like someone else's speech.
Caplis should be disbarred for this one.
You'd best earn yours before you fancy removing another man's.
Why? Proving that our state Bar is political and hopelessly
corrupt is part of what I'm doing here. :)
Geeting to practice apparently isn't...
Can't deal with the issues, can you?
The issue is a non-lawyer critiquing a real one,
Ad hominem. It's not like *I* didn't pass the same bar examination
Caplis did. If it was wrong for me to file a libel suit for what the
Bar deemed (in spite of rulings by two courts to the contrary!) to be
questionable purposes, then Caplis should be disbarred for this one.
Different weights and measures -- doesn't your god detest them both?
Post by Cirque
and for purely personal partisan reasons...
I suppose that our out-of-control judiciary is a Republican issue,
and as a Republican, I have a horse in that race. Still, that is beside
the point.

Caplis is way out-of-bounds here. As a public figure, he *HAS* to be
able to show damages, and a 'youthful indiscretion' almost thirty years
ago would have no bearing upon his current reputation. He is obviously
filing it to harass and intimidate Spagnuolo -- and if anything, he has
given Spagnuolo more power than he otherwise would have had.

On the face of it, it is a groundless (and frivolous) lawsuit brought
purely for purposes of harassment, and Dan should be expected to answer
for it with his license. Even Sam (or whatever his moniker is today!)
can't argue with me on that. :)
Cirque
2005-05-03 19:16:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ken Smith
Post by Cirque
The issue is a non-lawyer critiquing a real one,
Ad hominem. It's not like *I* didn't pass the same bar examination
Caplis did. If it was wrong for me to file a libel suit for what the
Bar deemed (in spite of rulings by two courts to the contrary!) to be
questionable purposes, then Caplis should be disbarred for this one.
The old, "if" logic meanders back into view.

Sorry "counselor", you may have passed the test, but he's been in active
practice for over 20 years.

And pointing to one perceived misdeed does not immediately raise all
lawsuits you disagree with to the same metric of frivolity.

Frankly, I can't see many relevant comparators between these incidents.
Post by Ken Smith
Different weights and measures -- doesn't your god detest them both?
Why not ask Him, if you dare...
Post by Ken Smith
Post by Cirque
and for purely personal partisan reasons...
I suppose that our out-of-control judiciary is a Republican issue, and
as a Republican
Yawn - go ply your idiot rants elsewhere, fake republican, you bore me
to tears with your victim mentality and inability to slam the people you
believe wronged you.

You're as old as bad pop song, and equally as hard to get out of
circulation.
Ken Smith
2005-05-03 20:14:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cirque
Post by Ken Smith
Post by Cirque
The issue is a non-lawyer critiquing a real one,
Ad hominem. It's not like *I* didn't pass the same bar examination
Caplis did. If it was wrong for me to file a libel suit for what the
Bar deemed (in spite of rulings by two courts to the contrary!) to be
questionable purposes, then Caplis should be disbarred for this one.
The old, "if" logic meanders back into view.
Sorry "counselor", you may have passed the test, but he's been in active
practice for over 20 years.
That doesn't mean that he isn't abusing process, or isn't confident
that he can abuse process with impunity. It all depends on how well you
have plugged yourself into the 'power structure.' Don't forget cocaine
dealer and convicted felon Cynthia Ciancio, Son of Sam.
Post by Cirque
And pointing to one perceived misdeed does not immediately raise all
lawsuits you disagree with to the same metric of frivolity.
Caplis' lawsuit is frivolous and groundless -- he can't even begin to
show damages. And as a public figure, he HAS to do that.
Post by Cirque
Frankly, I can't see many relevant comparators between these incidents.
My lawsuit had merit. Caplis' is completely without merit.

I might just file a motion to intervene in Arapahoe District Court,
asking the Court to unseal the file. I've done it before, and this is
certainly a matter attracting special public interest.
Post by Cirque
Post by Ken Smith
Different weights and measures -- doesn't your god detest them both?
Why not ask Him, if you dare...
When he gets done sodomizing young boys on the golf course, Son of
Sam, have him give me a call. It's not like he shouldn't know the
number, right?
Post by Cirque
Post by Ken Smith
Post by Cirque
and for purely personal partisan reasons...
I suppose that our out-of-control judiciary is a Republican issue,
and as a Republican
Yawn - go ply your idiot rants elsewhere, fake republican,
Neocon-artists like *you* are the real fake republicans.
Post by Cirque
you bore me
to tears with your victim mentality and inability to slam the people you
believe wronged you.
You're as old as bad pop song, and equally as hard to get out of
circulation.
Life's tough, isn't it, Son of Sam?
Cirque
2005-05-03 20:36:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ken Smith
Post by Cirque
The old, "if" logic meanders back into view.
Sorry "counselor", you may have passed the test, but he's been in
active practice for over 20 years.
That doesn't mean that he isn't abusing process,
I find no consistent historical record of him having done so, do you?
Post by Ken Smith
Post by Cirque
And pointing to one perceived misdeed does not immediately raise all
lawsuits you disagree with to the same metric of frivolity.
he can't even begin to
show damages.
How the Fuck do you know?
Post by Ken Smith
Post by Cirque
Frankly, I can't see many relevant comparators between these incidents.
My lawsuit had merit. Caplis' is completely without merit.
Guess that neatly proves my assettion.
Post by Ken Smith
I might just file a motion to intervene in Arapahoe District Court,
asking the Court to unseal the file.
Yawn...wait'll he gets a load of your background...chuckle...
Post by Ken Smith
Post by Cirque
Post by Ken Smith
Different weights and measures -- doesn't your god detest them both?
Why not ask Him, if you dare...
When he gets done sodomizing
Profane asshole.
Post by Ken Smith
Post by Cirque
Yawn - go ply your idiot rants elsewhere, fake republican,
Neocon
I'm more of a libertari-con.
Post by Ken Smith
Post by Cirque
you bore me to tears with your victim mentality and inability to slam
the people you believe wronged you.
You're as old as bad pop song, and equally as hard to get out of
circulation.
Life's tough, isn't it, Son of Sam?
Nah, life's sweet, but bad pop music is as indelible as the good stuff.

Ob La Di La Da!
"- Prof. Jonez©"
2005-05-03 23:30:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ken Smith
Post by Cirque
Post by Ken Smith
Post by Cirque
The issue is a non-lawyer critiquing a real one,
Ad hominem. It's not like *I* didn't pass the same bar
examination Caplis did. If it was wrong for me to file a libel
suit for what the Bar deemed (in spite of rulings by two courts
to the contrary!) to be questionable purposes, then Caplis should
be disbarred for this one.
The old, "if" logic meanders back into view.
Sorry "counselor", you may have passed the test, but he's been in
active practice for over 20 years.
That doesn't mean that he isn't abusing process, or isn't confident
that he can abuse process with impunity. It all depends on how well
you have plugged yourself into the 'power structure.' Don't forget
cocaine dealer and convicted felon Cynthia Ciancio, Son of Sam.
That's not all. I know personally more than a few cocaine dealers cum
lawyers in/from Boulder who were never caught and/or convicted,
yet are happily practicing law.

In fact I've personally seen a Boulder district judge getting high at
another lawyer's party.
Post by Ken Smith
Post by Cirque
And pointing to one perceived misdeed does not immediately raise all
lawsuits you disagree with to the same metric of frivolity.
Caplis' lawsuit is frivolous and groundless -- he can't even begin
to show damages. And as a public figure, he HAS to do that.
Let's hope Glenn Spagnuolo lawyer's up big time, running huge defense
costs ... which Hapless Caplis will be forced to pay when the judge
reams him a new asshole for his frivolity.
Post by Ken Smith
Post by Cirque
Frankly, I can't see many relevant comparators between these
incidents.
My lawsuit had merit. Caplis' is completely without merit.
I might just file a motion to intervene in Arapahoe District Court,
asking the Court to unseal the file. I've done it before, and this is
certainly a matter attracting special public interest.
Please do.
Post by Ken Smith
Post by Cirque
Post by Ken Smith
Different weights and measures -- doesn't your god detest them both?
Why not ask Him, if you dare...
When he gets done sodomizing young boys on the golf course, Son of
Sam, have him give me a call. It's not like he shouldn't know the
number, right?
Post by Cirque
Post by Ken Smith
Post by Cirque
and for purely personal partisan reasons...
I suppose that our out-of-control judiciary is a Republican
issue, and as a Republican
Yawn - go ply your idiot rants elsewhere, fake republican,
Neocon-artists like *you* are the real fake republicans.
Exterminable fascist swine.
Post by Ken Smith
Post by Cirque
you bore me
to tears with your victim mentality and inability to slam the
people you believe wronged you.
You're as old as bad pop song, and equally as hard to get out of
circulation.
Life's tough, isn't it, Son of Sam?
Gonna get a lot tougher for Spammy real soon.
"- Prof. Jonez©"
2005-05-03 15:01:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ken Smith
Post by Sawzabone
Post by Phil Earnhardt
Why do you presume that Spagnuolo is a
definitive spokesman on legal issues?
My, isn't that a question for one city worker to ponder...
He'd better hope he can produce credible evidentiary testimony...
Dan's a public figure, so he has to be able to show actual damages
AND prove Sullivan malice (in essence, that Spagnuolo didn't believe
what he said). Simple assault is not a felony, so there is no real
per se libel question. And how is a "youthful indiscretion" during a
melee going to affect Caplis' *current* reputation?
We KNOW that Dan Hapless Caplis IS a lowlife scofflaw, to wit:

Case Number: Z330795


CASE INFORMATION
Status:OPEN
Trial Courtroom:
Case Type:INFRACTION
Violation Date:04/02/2000
Location:LARIMER/SPEER S/B
Date Filed:4/2/2000


PARTY INFORMATION
Party TypeLast Name First Name MI Suffix DOB Party Status


DEFENDANT


CAPLIS
DANIEL
J
05/20/1957
OJW


Race Hair Weight Height Eyes Eyeglasses


WHITE
BROWN
180
603
HAZEL


VIOLATION(S)
ViolationDescriptionPointsDisp­osition
54-62 LICENSE PLATES VIOLATIONS 0


SENTENCE INFORMATION
DateDescriptionValueUnitsDue Date


COSTS
DescriptionImposedSuspendedCCW­P/CTSPaidDue
OJW STATE FEE (TRAFFIC)$15.00$0.00$0.00$15.0­0
OJW CITY FEE$15.00$0.00$0.00$15.00


Total:$30.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$30­.00


ACTION INFORMATION
DateCrtrmJudicial OfficerActionDispo
05/15/2000 16:30105 ANFEDDEARRAIGNMENTOJ/W ONLY
05/15/2000 16:30105 ANOJW IMPOSED
04/14/2000 22:00109 CASE ENTERED
04/14/2000 22:00109 DMV HISTORY REQUEST
Post by Ken Smith
On the face of it, this smells an awful lot like pure harassment by
an out-of-control slimebucket attorney who has a hard-on because he
doesn't like someone else's speech.
Caplis should be disbarred for this one.
-
2005-04-30 09:52:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by sawzabilly
..according to the excerpts played by Boyles, Spagnuolo accused
Caplis of assaulting a "pregnant woman of color" during a 1977
melee at CU while Caplis was a student there.
Hmmmm no surprise there.

WOW, I wonder if the ummm liberalls can come up with a tape(s), of
shithead, being a unethical lawyer, hmmm.

That's what he is isn't it? A unethical laywer, straight up and down,
left and right?


What was this crap anyway, sams first solo cross-post?
Sawzabone
2005-04-30 14:45:50 UTC
Permalink
- wrote:


Pox Vomitus playing dizum, BORING.
"- Prof. Jonez©"
2005-05-02 16:40:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by sawzabilly
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_3737714,00.html
Radio talk show host Dan Caplis on Wednesday filed a defamation
lawsuit against a Longmont city employee who has emerged as a vocal supporter
of embattled University of Colorado professor Ward Churchill.
Caplis, who co-hosts an afternoon program on KHOW-AM with fellow
attorney Craig Silverman, sued Glenn Spagnuolo, 34, in Arapahoe
District Court.
...according to the excerpts played by Boyles, Spagnuolo accused
Caplis of assaulting a "pregnant woman of color" during a 1977 melee at CU
while Caplis was a student there.
No doubt true, Caplis is a RepuigniKKKunt scumbag coward, always was,
always will be. People who working with him at his old Boulder Office
had him pegged for a closeted homosexual too, Amy Spooger being just
a beard.

Do you think Dan had ever fucked Amy in the ass, pretending her tiny
titties are really boytits?
Post by sawzabilly
Spagnuolo claimed that Caplis - who had just resigned as one of the
student government's tri-executives - suffered a concussion in the
melee, which was related to a bill to limit the use of student fees.
http://www.khow.com/hosts/caplis-silverman.html
PS: Ward Churchill still collecting $96,000.00 in salary -- Spamuela still
unemployed !
Cirque
2005-05-02 17:02:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by "- Prof. Jonez©"
No doubt true, Caplis is a RepuigniKKKunt scumbag coward, always was,
always will be. People who working with him at his old Boulder Office
had him pegged for a closeted homosexual too, Amy Spooger being just
a beard.
Do you think Dan had ever fucked Amy in the ass, pretending her tiny
titties are really boytits?
FWD: ***@clearchannel.com
"- Prof. Jonez©"
2005-05-02 17:23:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by "- Prof. Jonez©"
No doubt true, Caplis is a RepuigniKKKunt scumbag coward, always
was, always will be. People who working with him at his old Boulder
Office had him pegged for a closeted homosexual too, Amy Spooger
being just a beard.
Do you think Dan had ever fucked Amy in the ass, pretending her tiny
titties are really boytits?
Bwahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!
Cirque
2005-05-02 17:51:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by "- Prof. Jonez©"
Post by "- Prof. Jonez©"
No doubt true, Caplis is a RepuigniKKKunt scumbag coward, always
was, always will be. People who working with him at his old Boulder
Office had him pegged for a closeted homosexual too, Amy Spooger
being just a beard.
Do you think Dan had ever fucked Amy in the ass, pretending her tiny
titties are really boytits?
Bwahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!
Who knows, maybe he'll sue you too eric!
"- Prof. Jonez©"
2005-05-03 14:38:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cirque
Post by "- Prof. Jonez©"
Post by "- Prof. Jonez©"
No doubt true, Caplis is a RepuigniKKKunt scumbag coward, always
was, always will be. People who working with him at his old
Boulder Office had him pegged for a closeted homosexual too,
Amy Spooger being just a beard.
Do you think Dan had ever fucked Amy in the ass, pretending her
tiny titties are really boytits?
Bwahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!
Who knows, maybe he'll sue you too eric!
Why would he sue eric and not me?
Loading...