ladies first, and other conventional and unconventional gender wisdom

So, how to continue the theme in yesterday’s The Swiss sage Dora Kalff told her students, in order for any real change to happen on this world, the women will have to go first post:

When I was a boy, “Ladies first” was drilled into me.

After I became a man, I met a guy in Birmingham, who’d had his ups and down with women, and from that he had developed three rules about women.

Rule 1.

All women are crazy.

Rule 2.

Nothing can be done about Rule 1.

Rule 3:

Never forget Rules 1 and 2.

I imagine many women feel the same about men, and I can’t say I blame them.

However, a long time ago, I got tired of women talking about male chauvinist pigs, which led me to develop my own rule:

For every male chauvinistic pig, there is a female chauvinistic pig.

That Preamble out of the way …

The other day, my homeless girlfriend Kari, about whom I have written many times, told me of a dream she’d had the night before. She was at the horse farm where she grew up and where her mother and father still live, but now there are no horses on the farm. However, in Kari’s dream there were horses in the barn, and a tornado came and ripped off the roof of the barn and the horses were staring up with terrified eyes at the tornado.

Around 9 p.m. following the morning Kari told me about that dream, I received a telephone call showing Kari’s telephone number, but the person on the other end was a homeless man I have written about often, who goes by the nickname, Raccoon. He said Kari was going to sue me for slander. I said, “Fuck you. Tell Kari to call me.” Kari called me, said she was going to sue me for slander.

Then ensued several short telephone conversations, during which Kari hung up and I called back, until Raccoon answered and reamed me out, screaming he was suing me for slander, too. He had lawyers in Texas, who were coming to Key West to sue me for slander, like the woman in Birmingham was doing. Raccoon said I had slandered him and Kari far worse than I had slandered the woman in Birmingham.

I wanted to speak, but Raccoon would not stop screaming at me. So, I hung up and called Kari and got her voicemail and said I was glad to get her voicemail: FYI, slander is for saying something bad about someone, which you know is not true, and libel is for writing something bad about someone, which you know is not true, and what I published about you and Raccoon was true.

Kari’s tornado dream had come true. For that was the second time, lately, she and Raccoon had ganged up on me about goodmorningkeywest.com. Once shame on you, twice shame on me. I viewed Kari and Raccoon as having gotten hitched.

According to Kari for some time, Raccoon had been trying to get her to be with him, instead of with me, and, lately, Raccoon has been trying to get Kari to move to Texas with him.

Whenever I dream of Texas, that dream is about the Devil. “Hook ’em horns,” the University of Texas’ fight chant. And perhaps “Thelma and Louise”, who went clear around Texas, trying to get away from doing what any sane woman would have done to the male chauvinistic pig who was trying to rape her drunk girlfriend.

I don’t recall Raccoon ever visited Kari when she was in jail all of those months I was visiting her.

I recall Raccoon writing to me that Kari should have been put into prison.

I recall Raccoon ranting to me that the State Attorney should not have dropped 2 different trespass charges against Kari, because the Key West police did not have the property owners’ permission to make those trespass charges.

I recall Raccoon belittling me for working my butt off to persuade Kari’s Probation Officer, whom Raccoon was harassing, and Kari’s court-appointed Regional Counsel, and the Assistant State Attorney to persuade Judge Luis Garcia on Plantation Key to terminate Kari’s probation and set her free of the Monroe County and Florida criminal justice systems, which Judge Garcia did.

I recall twice resurrecting Kari’s long, lost daughter from the dead.

I recall many times urging Kari not to go back to her old habits, and to stay away from addicts, and to head toward God.

Kari is a grown woman. She can be with whomever she wants to be with, except me. I told her when she called me yesterday morning, that I am getting a new cell phone and a new phone number. If I have the energy, I will do that later today.

The croup I have been enduring has lessened, but still has a pretty good hold on me.

Between Kari and the Birmingham, Alabama area woman suing me for cyberstalking and libel, I thinking being a cloistered monk makes heap good sense. But would that be a bit boring? And a bit chicken?

generic photo from the Internet, I don’t know her

This morning, I e-filed this below with the Monroe County Clerk of the Court. For this post, I redacted (XXXXX) what might get me in dutch with the company hosting my websites:

STATE OF FLORIDA

THE SIXTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT COURT

IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF MONROE

CIVIL DIVISION

XXXXX HANEY, Petitioner Vs

                                                               CASE NO: 17-CA-000001-K

SLOAN Y BASHINSKY JR, as an individual and in his capacity as owner, operator of “Good Morning Key West”, a website, and “Good Morning Birmingham”, a website, and “Good Morning Florida Keys”, a website, Respondent

Defendant Sloan Y. Bashinsky, Jr.’s AMENDED ANSWER to Plaintiff XXXXX Haney’s PETITIONER’S MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONDENT’S ANSWER TO MOTION IN LIMINE:

Bashinsky’s Summary of Petitioner Haney’s Motion to Strike

COMES NOW, the Petitioner pursuant to Fla. R. Civ. P. Rule 1.140 (g) and moves the court to immediately strike certain false and inflammatory allegations from the Respondent’s Answer and remove them from the court’s record as immaterial, impertinent, and scandalous, and as grounds therefore would show:

  1. On January 11, 2017, the Respondent filed in this court “Defendant Bashinsky Answers Haney’s Motion in Limine” (“Answer”).

  2. The Answer includes defamatory language intended to inflame and serves no purpose in enlightening the court.

  3. The Petitioner has filed multiple exhibits in support of her Petition for a Temporary Restraining Order, Temporary Injunction and Permanent Injunction.

  4. The multiple exhibits filed of record in this case include the Respondent’s writings, utterings, and publishing’s concerning the Petitioner.

  5. The pending Motion in Limine seeks a narrow examination of the Respondent’s specific publishing’s on the Internet that consist of defamatory statements about the Petitioner.

  6. The Petitioner anticipates that the Respondent will, in defense of the pending Petition, supply testimony that is impertinent, immaterial, inflammatory, and defamatory. The pending Motion in Limine seeks to exclude the Respondent’s nonrelevant testimony in advance of a hearing of the issues.

  7. Premises considered the Petitioner requests the court strike the Respondent’s Answer in its entirety since it fails to address the issues raised in the pending Motion in Limine and contains defamatory content that offers no assistance in informing the court.

Bashinsky’s Rejoinder:

It is on the Court, not Haney, to decide what is defamatory and what is not.

That aside, Haney keeps e-filing in this lawsuit what Bashinsky has published about her, which she says is defamatory. This lawsuit is a public record. Anyone can go to the Monroe County Clerk of the Court office in Key West and see what is in that public record. Including any journalist, busybody, etc.

That is partly why, in a separate pleading, Haney requested the Court seal the entire case file and conduct all proceedings in this case in private. The other why is Haney knows her and Bashinsky’s online correspondence, which led up to her suing Bashinsky, is not in her favor.

Bashinsky further says:

Haney sued Bashinsky for cyberstalking and libeling her, and asked for a Temporary Restraining Order, a Permanent Injunction, and attorney fees, even though Haney is prosecuting this case pro se. Bashinsky once practiced law in Birmingham, Alabama. He does not recall ever hearing of a pro se litigant being awarded attorney fees.

Haney repeatedly alleges in her pleadings that Bashinsky’s online writings and publishings damaged, and are damaging, her reputation as an appraiser, thus are damaging her ability to make a living. Haney doesn’t want anything she ever wrote online to Bashinsky to be part of this case’s record, because what Haney wrote to Bashinsky online proves she cyberstalked and ran a bait and switch on Bashinsky, and what Haney wrote to Bashinsky demonstrated multi-personalities in Haney.

One of Haney’s libel allegations is Bashinsky published Haney has multiple personalities. Bashinsky published that, if Haney read her own Facebook messages and emails to Bashinsky, she would see she has multiple personalities.

Bashinsky is an interactive journalist. Haney has known that since 2009, when she first started interacting with Bashinsky online, at Haney’s own initiative. All of their interactions since then online were at Haney’s initiative.

Haney all along has been well aware, as part of Bashinsky’s brand of journalism, that Bashinsky publishes what people write to him online and he writes back to them online.

Bashinsky is a public figure due to his extensive publishing online, and due to his having run for public office nine times in the Florida Keys.

Haney’s lawsuit against Bashinsky is news. Bashinsky is reporting that news on his websites, and commenting on that news, even as he defends the charges Haney has filed against him in this Court.

Haney knows she is free to write to Bashinsky online and criticize him, debate him, and he will publish her writings verbatim under the “fairness doctrine” seldom practiced by news media and news journalists today.

In defamation lawsuits, the defendant is entitled to put on evidence that proves there was no libel, that what the defendant wrote about the plaintiff was true, that the plaintiff’s reputation is different from what the plaintiff is alleging her reputation is.

In cyberstalking lawsuits, the defendant is entitled to put on evidence that he was cyberstalked by the plaintiff and that led into a bait and switch by the plaintiff, which bears not only on the cyberstalking issue, but on the actual reputation of the plaintiff.

Recently, Bashinsky was called by the city attorney of the City of Leeds, Alabama, where Haney lives. That call stemmed from Bashinsky having called that city’s chief of police the day before and left his telephone number for the city attorney to call Bashinsky.

The city attorney told Bashinsky that Haney is known by judges, court staff and lawyers in Leeds, and St. Claire County, in which Leeds lies, as an aggressive pro se litigant. And, Haney has a similar reputation in neighboring Birmingham, which lies in Jefferson County.

The city attorney said, as far as he knew, Haney is the only non-lawyer in Alabama, who has her own State of Alabama e-filing portal.

The city attorney said, as far as he knows, Haney does not use lawyers to advise her, but she stays up all night working on her lawsuits.

The city attorney said he already had received several emails from Haney that very day he returned Bashinsky’s call, in which Haney had told him not to do anything that would hurt her lawsuit against Bashinsky in Key West.

The city attorney read to Bashinsky parts of some of those emails.

The city attorney described Haney’s past threats to sue him and a former mayor of Leeds, and the city.

The city attorney described Haney legally harassing four different owners of the home across the street from where Haney lives in Leeds, until three of those owners, one an 80-year-old woman, a church-goer, sold their home and moved away. The city attorney said Haney is now doing that to the current owner of that home. And, Haney is legally harassing a neighbor, who is a local, respected attorney, who is not rolling over and playing dead.

Bashinsky told the Leeds city attorney that he, Bashinsky, had published at goodmorningkeywest.com that he recently had spoken to the Leeds chief of police. The city attorney told Bashinsky that is what had caused Haney to email him, the city attorney. Bashinsky read to the Leeds city attorney, verbatim, what he had published about his conversation with the police chief:

“I called the chief of police in Leeds, Alabama, where Judith lives. When I told him I was in Key West and was having a go with Judith Haney, he grunted a laugh, or maybe it was just a grunt. We talked maybe 15 minutes. I imagine anyone from Key West, or from anywhere, who talked with that police chief would come away with a really different view of Judith Haney, than she is painting herself in the court documents she is filing against me. Her reputation in her hometown is not that of Snow White, to put it kindly. Snow White’s stepmother, to put it another way. My metaphors, not the police chief’s. The chief turned out to be an Alabama Crimson Tide fan in deep mourning. However, he said, it could have been worse. It could have been a team he did not like, instead of Clemson, whose head coach, Dabo Sweeney, had played for Alabama when he was in college.”

While all of that is hearsay evidence in this injunction lawsuit, it does indicate what any person could learn about Haney’s reputation where she lives, by calling the Leeds city attorney and/or the Leeds chief of police.

Bashinsky has heard ample evidence from two Leeds city officials, and from Haney’s former husband, to know Bashinsky needs to depose Haney regarding her reputation in Leeds and Birmingham, as a cyberstalker and vexatious litigator, and regarding her having actually been diagnosed with multiple personality disorder by her own psychiatrist, according to her former husband.

Bashinsky intends to depose Haney in Key West, where Haney e-filed her injunction lawsuit against Bashinsky. Key West is where Bashinsky lives. He is a pauper and cannot depose Haney in Leeds. Bashinsky has every right to depose Haney face to face, in the venue where she filed the lawsuit: Key West, Monroe County, Florida.

Under no stretch of reason or the law or equity, should Bashinsky be denied deposing Haney in Key West, at Haney’s expense, since Bashinsky is a pauper and Haney e-filed this lawsuit, pro se, which is her custom, based on what her former husband and the Leeds city attorney told Bashinsky.

Under no stretch of reason, law or equity, should Bashinsky be denied the right to defend himself in the cyberstalking and libel lawsuit Haney filed against him.

Under no stretch of reason, law or equity, should Haney be allowed to run an online bait and switch on Bashinsky, and then complain about Bashinsky writing about that on line, on his own websites, both as the victim and as a well-known interactive journalist in Key West and the Florida Keys, where he has plenty of critics, and perhaps as many fans. Haney started this fracas all by her lonesome.

Bashinsky has every right, under reason, law and equity, and the 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, and the due process clause of the 14th Amendment, to prove in Court that Haney started it, using her own Facebook messages and emails to lure Bashinsky. And that Haney then ran a bait and switch on Bashinsky. And that Haney does have multiple personalities. And that Haney is a vexatious litigator and her lawsuit against Bashinsky is vexatious litigation.

An injunction is equitable relief. To seek equitable relief, a litigant must first offer to do equity. To seek equitable relief, a litigant must have clean hands. Haney’s reputation where she lives is devoid of her doing equity, having clean hands.

Haney’s attempts in her pleadings in this lawsuit to keep her own dirty hands and lack of doing equity out of the case are egregious.

Haney knows her and Bashinsky’s Facebook and emails will show the Court that Haney is not who, or what, she has told the Court she is.

Haney knows her and Bashinsky’s Facebook and emails will show the Court that Haney cyberstalked Bashinsky, then she ran a bait and switch on him.

A PROPOSED EXHIBIT 1 to this pleading, subject to the Court’s approval, would contain copies of Haney’s and Bashinsky’s Facebook and emails, which show the inducement by Haney, the contract between Haney and Bashinsky, the bait and switch, and what Bashinsky told Haney would happen if she went through with breaching their contract: he would publish their online correspondence. That would be a really long Exhibit, for which Bashinsky apologizes in advance to the Court for proposed e-filing. Yet Bashinsky sees no other way to do it, since Haney is trying to win this case on pleadings, instead of at trial, with actual evidence being introduced.

Said PROPOSED EXHIBIT 1 would contain potential confidential information: Haney’s email address, telephone number, home address, business transactions with Western Union and Delta Airlines, in Bashinsky’s behalf.

Bashinsky intends to ask the Court to appoint a Key West area psychiatrist the Court trusts, to read all of Haney and Bashinsky’s Facebook and emails, and to speak with the city attorney and chief of police of Leeds, Alabama, and report to the Court the psychiatrist’s opinion on Haney’s psychiatric condition.

Bashinsky intends to ask the Court to tax the cost of the psychiatrist to Haney, who e-filed this lawsuit, pro se, as is her vexatious litigator custom.

Bashinsky advises the Court that on January 13, 2017, his website helper/expert, who helps Bashinsky pro bono, was told by Blue Host, which hosts Bashinsky’s three websites, that Haney had filed a complaint with Blue Host re what Bashinsky had published about Haney. Bashinsky’s helper/expert said Blue Host said it did not see anything illegal in what Bashinsky had posted at his websites, but it was against Blue Host’s policy, and for Bashinsky to publish Haney’s first and last names, her email address, her telephone number, and her home address. Blue Host required Bashinsky take that information out of his posts about Haney. Blue Host said Bashinsky could refer to Haney as either XXXXX or Haney, but he had to pick which one.

Instead, Bashinsky took down everything he had published, which had XXXXX Haney in it. That was far easier, than trying to locale every mention of her name and change it to just Haney, as Bashinsky refers to her in his pleadings in this lawsuit.

Bashinsky did that on January 14, 2017. Entering “XXXXX Haney” into the Search space on the Bashinsky website homepages should come up with nothing. If Haney finds Bashinsky missed something with her name in it and lets him, or the Court, know, Bashinsky will take it down.

Respectfully submitted via e-filing portal,

/Sloan Y. Bashinsky, Jr

Sloan Y. Bashinsky, Jr., Defendant

P.O. Box 2681

Key West, Florida 33045

sloanbashinsky@outlook.com

This the 16th day of January, 2017

Service of this pleading on Plaintiff Haney made same day through e-filing portal

/Sloan Y. Bashinsky, Jr.

Post-script for today’s post, which is not part of what I e-filed with the Clerk of the Court:

Readers at my websites had a window of time during which to read all of Haney’s and my Facebook and email correspondence. Based on what the man who helps me with my websites told me, the company hosting my websites would be okay with my republishing that online correspondence, if I redact Haney’s first name, her email address, telephone number, street address. That will take a lot of time and work. Maybe I will get around to doing it. Maybe the angels will make me get around to it.

For sure, my time with Haney has shown me in spades that nothing in me wants to practice law again, like lawyers do that. Practicing law in God’s Court suits me heap better.

sloanbashinsky@outlook.com

Posted in Today's Cock-A-Doodle-Doo | Leave a comment