Skip navigation

Monthly Archives: June 2017

Today, the almost two years of suffering ended for Judy Malinowski died today. Her ex-boyfriend Michael Slager was sentenced to 11 years in prison in December 2016 on charges including felonious assault and aggravated arson. Because of Judy’s death today, Mr Slager will now be facing charges of aggrivated murder and could receive the death penalty if convicted.

“Following Malinowski’s death on Tuesday however, Franklin County Prosecutor Ron O’Brien said his office is now pursuing murder charges against him.

‘It would be our intention, and it has been all along, that should she pass away it was our intention to pursue a homicide charge,’ O’Brien said. ‘This day was not unexpected for probably a long time, but it’s sad that it finally arrived.’

In what has to be a sad legacy, her death comes when the Ohio house voted on Judy’s Law unaminously passing it in her honor. This law would:

amend sections 2903.11, 2929.01, 2929.13, and 2929.14 and to enact section 2941.1425 of the Revised Code to require an additional prison term of 6 years for felonious assault if the offender also is convicted of a specification that charges that the offender used an accelerant in committing the offense and that the harm caused by the violation resulted in a permanent, serious disfigurement or permanent, substantial incapacity”



The proposed law is due to be presented to the state senate tomorrow June 28th for a final vote. If the legislature passes, as expencted and signed into law, it would add an additional 6 years to anyone convicted of a crime of this nature.

In anticipation of this sad day, prosecutors obtained permission for Judy to give a videotaped deposition to be used in any future trial against her ex-boyfriend in the event she was unavailable to testify in person.

Sadly, that day came today.

Stay tuned


I heard through the Twitter grapevine that @Astro__x has stated that it is time for a meeting with my friends. This apparently appeared in the Keeper of the Name bio on her Twitter (or is it her FORMER twitter account) account.

Now, what is NOT clear is if this meeting is supposed to be just between me and my “friends” or if this meeting includes Astro or Susan Earman or the executor of her estate in the unlikely event she is dead. I am going to offer what is in legal terms a hypothetical argument and assume what the above riddle implies.

I am suggesting that @Astro__x or Keeper of the Name is threatening or contemplating some kind of litigation. This could take on several options one of which would be a lawsuit. There are other options out there but this seems to be the more logical choice.

The problem for @Astro__X or Keeper of the Name is that this action is wrought with peril.

Why? you might ask.

Now, since it is my name that appears in this latest rant and the implied threat is implied to be against me as well as my “friends” I feel that I must warn whomever is behind that account that I do not take these sort of threats lightly.

Anyone who has been following my history on line knows that I am a bit of a fighter and when I get sufficentally riled up, I tend to fight hard.

I am also quite prepared for any legal action that this Keeper of the Name account may have up it’s virtual sleeve.

Continuing along the lines of a legal action being brought against me by the Keeper of The Name account, let me spell out my likely course of action should this occur.

The first thing I would do is file a number of Motions with whatever court this action is filed with.

I would include in my filings with the court, detailed evidence contained within my archives that would consist of Twitter postings that would include Profile “rants.” Email exchanges between me and the individual identifying herself as @Astro__x along with a vast amount of supporting evidence in which to advance my defense against whatever action may be undertaken.

One of the motions I would file is for whomever originated such legal action ( if this is done in the name of Susan Earman or another party) to identify themselves to the court along with evidence beyond a doubt as to who they are.

The reason for this particular motion is quite simple. I received several written notices (which I would provide the court) that Susan Earman aka @Astro__x is dead and that one of the theories of her death was that of suicide.

I have published several articles on this very blog addressing the issue of weather @Astro__x is alive or dead and I offered my opinion based on several pieces of evidence that she is still alive and may vary well have pulled off a rather odd hoax by faking her own death.

For that reason I would demand that the court order whomever brings this action to prove if Susan Earman is dead and also if she is alive. The latter being necessary in the event that the action is brought forth under the name of Susan Earman.

I would also file a motion demanding the action be dismissed due to the fact that is downright silly to begin with.

Keeper of the Name’s main contention is that people are stalking her simply for reading the profile that appears on her closed Twitter account.

Unfortunately for Keeper of the Name, this is not stalking since the names of her alleged talkers appear as a hyperlink on the posting. For example, my twitter handle appears as @murtwitnessone. When it is written in that manner on a Twitter posting, it appears as a hyperlink and the text is bluish in color. If someone were to put their curser on the hyperlink and left click their mouse, they would be instantly taken to my twitter account.

By posting in this manner, Keeper of the Name is initating contact with any twitter account that appears with the @username format within the posting. In addition by even mentioning the name in a way that does not cause a hyperlink to appear, this is also considered a manner of contact since I or whoever else appears in the posting is mentioned by a known name or identification.

This reverses the role of the individual doing the stalking to Keeper of the Name and those being mentioned being the ones who are being stalked and harassed by the Keeper of the Name account. 

Next, I would suspect that, in my case, Keeper of the Name (or whoever might bring this legal action) might argue that my blog and twitter postings may violate some civil tort or torts and supply these items as evidence or discovery.

The problem is that I prepared for such a likely event. First I chose my words and actions quite carefully. I studied the civil and criminal laws when researching how I could engage in such actions and cover my ass in the process.

I have not engaged in any attack against Astro or Keeper of the Name either directly or indirectly. I wrote in my blog and posted on my twitter account specific alleged actions by Keeper of the Name or @Astro__x or anyone else that account might be interacting with.

I posted evidence of each act that I either blogged about or posted on Twitter. I did so with minimal personal imput. In those instances I made it clear that these were my OPINIONS and not proven fact, or at least not yet, anyway.

There are times I did engage in a bit of sarcasm or even parody to some extent. These actions do not rise to the level of stalking since only general terms were used and also that sarcasm and parody are protected forms of free speech.

I would also point out to the court that I am protected by the fact that Astro is a public person. She is closely tied to the Haleigh Cummings case in that she has posted about the case of the missing child case for years and is also closely associated with Timothy C Holmseth, a self described on line journalist from the state of Minn. Mrs. Earman has also made a large number of postings in support of Deric Lostutter aka Kyanonymous, a public figure as well.

Because of this public figure status, the general public is allowed a lot more latitude when it comes to the right to criticize a public figure or comment on their actions in a manner that comes to the attention of the public at large. In this case, that protection includes any social media postings that are made either through the use of her legal name or a username identified as her on Twitter or any other social media account.

To sum up, Astro or whoever is behind the Keeper of the Name accont is strongly advised to study the laws regarding this subject before pursuing any legal action that may have unintended consequences. Such a consequence might be a counter lawsuit seeking damages for defamation of character and engaging in Vexatious litigation.

For those who may not be familar with this term, it is a legal action which is brought, regardless of its merits, solely to harass or subdue an adversary. It may take the form of a primary frivolous lawsuit or may be the repetitive, burdensome, and unwarranted filing of meritless motions in a matter which is otherwise a meritorious cause of action.

My countersuit would incude demands for reimbursement for any expense incurred in defending myself against these actions as well as punitive damages which would include loss of any revenue I may incur as a result of having to take the time to counter whatever legal actions against me that take place. I would also seek expense reimbursement along these lines in the event I am called as a witness in any legal action taken against any defendant that Keeper of the Name or whomever may take regarding this situation.

There is one final piece of advise I would offer to Keeper of the Name or anyone else who might wish to get under my skin:

Govern yourself accordingly.

Stay tuned



As expected, the ultimatum posted by Alexandra Goddard has gone unanswered. The bio post  remans on Twitter. Susan Earman, Aka @Astro__x was ordered to remove Ms. Goddard’s username from a bio post that accused her and two other individuals of stalking.

As I reported in my earlier blog article, Mrs. Earman was given 24 hours to comply “or else.”

As of this writing, I do not know what the “or else” would consist of. The first and most obvious course of action would be for Ms. goddard and the other two individuals named on the post is to issue a cease and desist. This order would be applied to Mrs. Earman or any individual or individuals who operate the twitter accout. This is important to note since it was reported that Mrs. Earman is deceased. No proof of her death has been put forward and someone is sending out direct messages in her name.

The next option for Ms. Goddard and the others is to file lawsuits individually or as a class action to seek punitive damages against the Earman estate.

Why the Earman estate and not Susan Earman directly? Quite simple, actually. Remember that there is a presumtion that Susan Earman is deceased. This would mean that since the Twitter account was originally her property, it would go to whomever was entitled to the account as either a next of kin or someone who had been designated to operate it. The liability for the contents also transfers to whomever inherated it. If Susan Earman is still alive, the Twitter account remains as part of her estate. 

Another way for Ms. Goddard and the others to cover their legal bases is to sue BOTH Susan and her estate. This assures that Mrs. Earman would remain a defendant dead or alive.

One final note. All of these individuals could engage in this action pro se. Deric Lostutter has shown how far and how much of a nuisance someone can be by filing one of these actions without the costs of hiring legal council. If anything, requests for discovery from the defendant could go a long way to answer questions that have been asked for years.

Stay tuned


As a news hound I have had the growing protests against Sharia law that have been cropping up around the United States recently. Apparently there are a lot of people who think that there is an effort to impose this law on the citizens of this country and these people also think that if there is no protest against the efforts to impose Sharia law on us would succeed. 

A short debate I got into with one of my followers has caused me to look more thoroughly into this issue. She linked an article about a man who walked into the home of his daughter and shot her in the head. As it turns out this was because he felt she became too “westernized” and that the shooting is what is commonly referred to as an honor killing.

It is not the first time this kind of criminal act has been in the news. There have been ficitional episodes that dealt with this subject. What this man did was clearly against US law and he has been charged with murder.

Since the majority of people in this country would clearly be against imposing Sharia law on them and our constitution would clearly probhibit the imposition of what is obviously a religous belief system upon us, that people who were protesting against Sharia law were either wasting their time or engaging in Islamphobia. 

My follower seems to believe otherwise. It is her strong opinion that there is an intense effort to impost Sharia law upon the citizens of the United States and has urged me to at least look at both sides of the issue.

I have decided to do just that as a start, I am listing just exactly what Sharia law is, according to one article:

Sharia Law

Shariah law

Sharia law is the law of Islam. The Sharia (also spelled Shari’a or Shariah) law is cast from Muhammad‘s words, called “Hadith,” and actions, called “Sunnah,” and the Quran. Sharia law itself cannot be altered, but the interpretation of Sharia law, called “Fiqh,” by imams is given some latitude.

As a legal system, Sharia law is exceptionally broad. While other legal codes regulate public behavior, Sharia law regulates public behavior, private behavior, and even private beliefs. Of all legal systems in the world today, Sharia law is the most intrusive and restrictive, especially against women. According to Sharia law:

As a legal system, Sharia law is exceptionally broad. While other legal codes regulate public behavior, Sharia law regulates public behavior, private behavior, and even private beliefs. Of all legal systems in the world today, Sharia law is the most intrusive and restrictive, especially against women. According to Sharia law:

• Theft is punishable by amputation of the right hand (evidence: graphic).
• Criticizing or denying any part of the Quran is punishable by dea†h.
• Criticizing Muhammad or denying that he is a prophet is punishable by dea†h.
• Criticizing or denying Allah is punishable by dea†h (see Allah moon god).
• A Muslim who becomes a non-Muslim is punishable by dea†h (Compulsion in religion).
• A non-Muslim who leads a Muslim away from Islam is punishable by dea†h.
• A non-Muslim man who marries a Muslim woman is punishable by dea†h.
• A man can marry an infant girl and consummate the marriage when she is 9 years old.
• Girls’ clitoris should be cut (Muhammad‘s words, Book 41, Kitab Al-Adab, Hadith 5251).
• A girl or woman who has been raрed cannot testify in court against her raрist(s).
• Testimonies of 4 male witnesses are required to prove the raрe of a girl or woman.
• A girl or woman who alleges raрe without producing 4 male witnesses is guilty of adultery.
• A girl or woman found guilty of adultery is punishable by dea†h (see “Islamophobia“).
• A man convicted of raрe can have his conviction dismissed by marrying his victim.
• A woman can have 1 husband, who can have up to 4 wives; Muhammad can have more.
• A man can beat his wife for insubordination (see Religion of Peace).
• A man can unilaterally divorce his wife; a wife needs her husband’s consent to divorce.
• A divorced wife loses custody of all children over 6 years of age or when they exceed it.
• A woman’s testimony in court, allowed in property cases, carries ½ the weight of a man’s.
• A female heir inherits half of what a male heir inherits (see Mathematics in Quran).
• A woman cannot drive a car, as it leads to fitnah (see Errors in Quran).
• A woman cannot speak alone to a man who is not her husband or relative.
• Meat to eat must come from animals that have been sacrificed to Allah – i.e., be “Halal.”

Now this last one got my attention because there is another religon that does close to the same thing. The representatives are usually those with white shirts and black ties that come banging on my front door when I am trying to take a nap.
• Muslims should engage in Taqiyya and lie to non-Muslims to advance Islam.

Now as I said before, I  believe these laws would not make it into our legal system simply because of the severity of them. They also go against the beliefs of the majority of us in this country.

Again, however, there are those out there who think it is possible for this to happen and for that reason I have decided to look into this in depth and make my impressions known here.

Stay tuned



The rift between Susan Earman and Alexandra has taken an interesting turn today when this tweet appeared. For quite a long time, Susan Earman aka @astro__X and now “Keeper of the Name”  has been posting accusitory bio rants targeting Ms Goddard and other individuals that she has accused of stalking for several years.

There is a slight problem with the ultimatium. A short time back there were a number of reports that Susan Earman was dead. The first indication of this appeared in a twitter post by someone who had been following my twitter account.

Within hours, I was notified by several followers that she had died. One contact had claimed she committed suicide. Shortly afterword the username of the account was changed to “Keeper of the Name.” That is the latest username as of this posting.

As if by magic, the bio rant changed once again AFTER the reports Mrs. Earman was dead and AFTER the new username appeared:

It turns out, however, that Mrs. Earman is not dead. It also seems that Mrs. Earman may have faked her own death. 

As of yet there has been no reason given for her doing so nor has anyone come forward to dispute the fact that she is alive and to offer proof of her death. No obituary, no listing in public records, no funeral, nothing.

In fact, it has been reported that someone actually went to the store she manages and saw that she is alive, well and “kicking.” Additional proof has been provided by those who claims she is sending them private messages and then blocking them so that no reply can be sent to her.

This rather odd pattern of alleged behavior can only lead those who know her or have experienced her actions first hand to conlclude that she is an extremely troubled woman who seriously needs help.

As for how Ms. Goddard will handle things if the 24 hour ultimatum is not met, this  has not been dissclosed. The countdown to find out begins.

Stay tuned


Today was interesting in that a convicted sex offender, of all people,  by the name of Lester Packingham might have caused Deric Lostutter to have a win that might strip away the bulk of the restrictions imposed against him regarding his use of the internet after he is released two years (or less) from now. 

As reported in this article:

The sex offender was prohibited to use the internet for any reason, period  as cited under North Carolina statutes:

Quoting from the article:  “In an opinion that was joined in full by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, Justice Anthony Kennedy began by outlining what he described as a “fundamental principle of the First Amendment”: that everyone should “have access to places where they can speak and listen, and then, after reflection, speak and listen once more.” And even if once it may have been hard to determine which places are “the most important” “for the exchange of views,” Kennedy concluded, it isn’t hard now. Instead, he reasoned, it is “clear” that the Internet and, in particular, social media provide such opportunities, with “three times the population of North America” now using Facebook. Emphasizing that Packingham’s case “is one of the first this Court has taken to address the relationship between the First Amendment and the modern Internet,”

Now I have to admit that I am not an expert in constitutional law, but it is my OPINION that this ruling might have some effect on Lostutter’s restrictions and we might see him attempt to reduce his restrictions to the internet by citing this decision in his appeal.

I find it ironic that a sex offender who was convicted of raping a minor might just help a self proclaimed anti rape advocate who mounted a campaign against the defendants convicted of the rape of a minor and who were themselves listed as sex offenders.

Amy Howe, Opinion analysis: Court invalidates ban on social media for sex offenders, SCOTUSblog (Jun. 19, 2017, 1:52 PM),

Packingham v. North Carolina

All is not rosy for Mr. Lostutter as another decision by the high court may invalidate his civil lawsuit. 

The second high court decision had to do with, of all things, “offensive trademarks” being denied by the US Trademark office. 

There was this Asian ( I find this one a bit ironic) who was the leader of a band named The Slants. He decided to file a Trademark application. The application was denied because it was deemed “hate or offensive speech” in the same manner as the Detroit Redskins have been criticized for choosing that name for their Football team.

In the decision that was handed down today, the high court ruled that the Trademark office violated the band’s right of free speech.

Symposium: The Constitution prohibits government’s “happy-talk” requirement for trademark registration

The article starts out outlining why this case found it’s way to the high court:

“Simon Shiao Tam is the leader and bass player of the Portland, Oregon-based dance rock band, The Slants. Tam, an Asian-American, formed his band in 2006 and recruited other Asian-Americans to join in order to provide an interesting and entertaining platform for discussing discrimination against Asian-Americans. In 2011, Tam sought to register The Slants as a trademark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office. But the government refused to register the mark, on the ground that The Slants disparages “persons of Asian descent.”

Section 2(a) of the Lanham Act states that trademarks that “disparage” persons, living or dead, may be denied registration with the federal government. After the government rejected registration of The Slants, Tam appealed to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. The appeal board acknowledged that Tam was not attempting to disparage persons of Asian descent, and was wresting “ownership” of the term from those with negative intentions. But because many Asian-Americans find the band’s name objectionable regardless of intent, the board affirmed the government’s denial of registration. Tam then sought judicial review of the denial as a violation of the First Amendment”

Further on in the article concentration of Judge Alito: “Today, in an opinion written by Justice Samuel Alito, the Supreme Court held that the disparagement clause violates the First Amendment. All eight participating justices agreed that trademarks are private, not government, speech, and that the disparagement clause discriminates based on viewpoint. Because Justices Anthony Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan agreed that the disparagement clause constitutes viewpoint discrimination that cannot withstand rigorous constitutional scrutiny, they found it unnecessary to consider additional constitutional arguments by the parties”

Now how is this a loss for Deric Lostutter and a win for the defendants in his civil lawsuit?

The answer lies in a website known as 

which is a blog that has been taken Deric to task for the conduct he has engaged in for the past several years.

Deric has filed a civil lawsuit against three defendants, one who has subsequently been dropped from the lawsuit, for several reasons one of which was the use of his name to create the website and the blog.

To some, the blog and other alleged actions by the defendants, could be considered hate speech. Correct or not, however, the ruling by the high court cites that such hate speech is considered freedom speech and therefore Deric’s civil case would be weakened considerably.

It is the opinion of a number of people and a few legal experts that Deric’s case has no merit and this ruling could enforce that opinion and be another reason for the Federal court to throw it out.

The coming months should prove interesting as everyone starts to cite these rulings to defend their arguments for both their right to free speech and to Trademark or Copyright what was up until restricted because of being hate or offensive speech.

Stay tuned




Stay tuned


I once wrote an article on this blog explaining that there is now a cottege industry of sorts that engages in the business of spreading false narratives for clients who wish public opinion to be steered in a certain direction.

Trolls and others have used and still use similar methods to conduct smear campaigns against their victims often using fake posts and other counterfeit materials to create false evidence. Now, it has been brought to light in the mainstream media as an extreme example of this practice has been made public.

It is becoming clearer everyday that there is a vast amount of fraud going on over the internet and the public is left wondering just what is true and what is not.

Stay tuned



Stay tuned