2016 · film

“That was the guy from the movie!”


I’ve just returned from Sundance Film Festival and whilst I have a thousand snippets of stories to tell, there is one I need to put into words right now, before time makes me forget just how surreal and absurd the whole evening was. Surreal and absurd – two words that may be repeated a lot in the following text.

On Thursday 28 January, I headed out to Park City Library to catch a screening of New Zealand documentary, Tickled. When I first read the synopsis for the film, it didn’t immediately catch my attention. But then a few days later, it kept popping into my brain. It sounded odd, and I liked that.

After stumbling upon a bizarre “competitive endurance tickling” video online, wherein young men are paid to be tied up and tickled, reporter David Farrier reaches out to request a story from the company. But the reply he receives is shocking—the sender mocks Farrier’s sexual orientation and threatens extreme legal action should he dig any deeper. So, like any good journalist confronted by a bully, he does just the opposite: he travels to the hidden tickling facilities in Los Angeles and uncovers a vast empire, known for harassing and harming the lives of those who protest their involvement in these films. The more he investigates, the stranger it gets, discovering secret identities and criminal activity.

Discovering the truth becomes Farrier’s obsession, despite increasingly sinister threats and warnings. With humor and determination, Farrier and co-director Dylan Reeve summon up every resource available to get to the bottom of this tickling worm hole.” – Sundance

By that point in the festival, I had lost my voice, I was halfway through a pharyngitis and a sinusitis and I had a fever. I was possibly high on exhaustion and medication but I figured it might just help reach the level of bonkers that this film was promising. I got into the theatre, and took a seat by an aisle – in case I needed an emergency coughing fit exit strategy. A few minutes later, a man asked for the seat next to mine. I didn’t pay much attention. He sat down. I asked if he could watch my things whilst I went to the bathroom. He said: “oh yes, I’ll watch those for you.” I was next in line in the restrooms. A cubicle door opened. Clea DuVall came out. I went in and took a second to acknowledge that fact. That evening was already ridiculous.

As I went back to my seat, I found my neighbour rather agitated. He was chatting to various people around us. I didn’t really want to eavesdrop but he was being quite loud. He was obviously quite upset about something. He had a clipboard and an A4 notebook. He was talking about a film and how the filmmaker wouldn’t let him watch it. I assumed he was some kind of journalist. As David Courier came on stage to introduce the film and co-director David Farrier, someone in the seat in front of us asked my neighbour if he could ever watch the film without being angry. “No. I don’t think so”, he responded.

David Farrier introduced the film. The lights went out. The film started. What followed on screen was a completely absurd tale of things getting abnormally grim, dark and sleazy for something that was “only meant to be about tickling”. What was happening in the seat next to mine during the film was an endless amount of furious note taking. Every single comment, every single witness appearing on screen, even some time stamps. Some huffing and puffing. Some cursing too. The pages kept turning and turning and turning, making an excruciating noise each time. He pushed my elbow from the armrest a bunch of times because his furious writing needed more space. I assumed he was hating the movie and I couldn’t understand why he was insisting on staying until the end. And more importantly, I couldn’t understand how he could hate that movie. That movie was BRILLIANT. What was wrong with him?! Eventually the film came to an end and as the credits started rolling, my neighbour packed his things and, standing up to leave, said to us all: “Tell him I said ‘hi’.” I had no idea what that meant. Everyone around me started going crazy. “This is the story of the festival!” said one person. I had no clue. “Do you know who he works for?”, I asked. Six pairs of eyes looked at me in disbelief: “THAT WAS THE GUY FROM THE MOVIE!”

Suddenly, my brain was starting to pick up the pace. Credits were still rolling. “That was one of the guys who turn up at the airport in the movie. I thought you guys were together!” Oh my god! It was. At some point in the film, after the director has been threatened with court, three guys turn up in New Zealand to have a chat with him. They are not pleasant people. One of them in particular. And that guy, was THE guy. The very same one that was sat next to me. Now, I don’t want to spoil the film for anyone because genuinely, you have to see it to believe it, but by the time you’ve finished watching it, you know those guys aren’t really the joking kind. They are terrifying. So here I was, coming to the realisation that I was sat next to this guy the whole time and my neighbours kept going. “You didn’t know?! I went to tell the staff!”. “Me too!” said another “They said they knew and he was being watched.” The girl behind me said: “I didn’t dare clap or laugh during this movie.” Wait, what? I had no idea who this guy was. I hysterically laughed throughout this movie at how pathetic and absurd all those idiots were, him included. What the actual hell? “Yeah we thought you knew him but then you started laughing. I was quite worried about you – that’s why I went to tell the staff.” Wow! Wait a second. That guy reached for his pocket a bunch of times. They have guns here! I totally could have died. (I probably couldn’t totally have died but by that point the combination of fever, adrenaline and medication made it a near death experience.)

Eventually, the lights went up. I turned around and saw police officers and dogs at the back of the venue. The whole film office had also somehow turned up. In the words of that kid in other wonderful NZ film Hunt for the Wilderpeople: “Shit got real!”

The Q&A started. The entire group around me had their hands in the air. But it wasn’t their time to shine. Finally, someone on the other side of the cinema asked if the director had shown the movie to anyone within it. “YES!” shouted everybody. “HE WAS RIGHT HERE.” I couldn’t quite read David Farrier at this stage. I think he was probably a little in shock. “HE SAYS HI!” To be honest, I’m not sure what I would do with this information myself. That guy lives to destroy others. I wouldn’t want him to officially say hi to me either, probably. The Q&A carried on, until David Farrier came back to the group. “How many notes did he take?” Someone said 12 pages. I was sat right there. He went through 3 quarters of that notebook. He wrote down everything. “Well, at least I’m glad you met someone from the film.” That was the only possible way that Q&A could end.

On the way out, I couldn’t help look over my shoulder. Once outside, I could see police cars. Someone said the guy had stayed in the parking lot after the film. I didn’t know whether that was true. I was hoping it wasn’t. I still looked behind me all the way to the bus stop. By the time I got home, I was wide-eyed. My housemates asked what was going on. I told the tale for the first time. Hundreds more would follow the next day. To this day I can’t help but think that amongst films about abortions, gun control, child brides in Iran and Afghanistan, and dictatorship, the one film that required the cops throughout the festival was the one that was “only meant to be about tickling” – how much more absurd can this get?


Tickled ended up being my favourite film of Sundance. It is excellent. Always believe in the stranger than fiction.


202 thoughts on ““That was the guy from the movie!”

  1. oh and be on the lookout for retoddblog, where a lawyer catalogues the first lawsuit to come out of tickled. i wont even get started on the pervert right wingers lurking in the background.


  2. Looks like I’ll be seeing “Tickled” on Friday at the Alamo Drafthouse on South Lamar in Austin, Tx. for the 2:05 p.m. showing. I’ll write a review of it on my own blog here over the weekend.


  3. I’m a little confused. Maybe someone can clear this up for me. Stumbed onto this comments thread after watching “Tickled” last night and something seems strange.

    1) Who, exactly, if not a sockpuppet of either David D’Amato or Kevin Clarke is “Louis Peluso”?
    a) Why didn’t ABC insist on a personal interview with this person (or at least Skype given that he would likely have dodged any in-person interview requests) or provide any more detail on who he was. From what I recall, Nightline said that they made contact with “him”.
    b) Why didn’t ABC dig any deeper on the so-called competitive/athletic nature of Jane O’Brien’s website? This is clearly just a titiliating soft-core adult entertainment site and ABC threw Clarke softballs and allowed him to shift the nature of the controversy falsely to whether or not the film producers portrayed it as “porn” like they did the other, more pornographic tickle site, which at least doesn’t exist under the pretense of being a sanctioned competition.
    c) Why is “Louis Peluso” so vaguely litigious – just like D’Amato and just like Clarke, threatening lawsuits for ridiculous assertions of defamation and other nonsense?
    d) What is the likelihood that either David D’Amato or Kevin Clarke don’t know the guy “Louis Pelus” who manages Jane O’Brien? ABC let Clarke off really easy on that one.

    2) Much of the commentary in the thread above – and on other sites I’ve seen – smacks of D’Amato’s communication style. Does anyone else notice this?

    3) I wasn’t clear on exactly how the filmmakers stumbled onto the FTP server which contained the treasure trove of documents clearly and indisputably linking David D’Amato to the media holdings company behind several hundred registered Tickle domain names INCLUDING Jane O’Brien.

    4) What is the status of the litigation which D’Amato claims has been moved from Utah to New York’s Southern District under the “Long Arm” statute?

    5) Is D’Amato a NY Bar member or a member of any other state’s bar, and is he actually licensed to practice law?

    6) Have any of the victims, including the football player, taken any legal action after the harrassment and intimidation and defamation against the D’Amato holdings now that it is clear he is not only tied to them, but that he manages them and funds them? If not, why not?

    Thanks. Hopefully someone knows the answers to these questions.


    1. I can answer some of your questions anyway.

      1. For a while after I began to post comments here I thought it was likely that the Louis Peluso identity used here was really David D’Amato, but more recently some fairly solid evidence was posted here that they are indeed separate people. Mr. Peluso claims to be the owner of Jane O’Brien Media, but it is fairly obvious that he is not the person who created the Jane O’Brien Media Facebook page, and thus is not the “Jane O’Brien” who posts on Facebook through that account.

      a) I’ve watched that ABC Nightline clip several times, and although Mr. Peluso is mentioned, I do not recall it being said that ABC made any attempt to contact him. As far as ABC “insisting” on an interview with Mr. Peluso, I’m not sure what you mean by that. A media organization can ask for an interview with a person, but that person can decline, or not respond, as they please.

      b) As to why ABC “didn’t dig any deeper,” I have no idea, except to say that the segment is only 11.5 minutes long, so time would not permit too much detail.

      c) As to why Mr. Peluso is “vaguely litigious” I can only offer my own opinion on that, hehehe. Several months ago he claimed that there was a possibility that a judge would subpoena IP addresses of the people posting comments here, but when I challenged that idea as being patently ridiculous, he produced only one example of a judge issuing such a subpoena for comments on a blog, and the example was not even a remotely similar analogy to anything posted here. Since then he has become, shall we say, quite evasive about his original claim, hehehe.

      d) Kevin Clarke, at least, quite clearly knows who Mr. Peluso is, though whether they have actually met each other face to face in real life I have no idea. As for Mr. D’Amato and Mr. Peluso, they apparently go *way* back, hehehe. I saw articles claiming an association between them as early as 2006. I doubt they’ve met face to face in real life though.

      2. Actually, even when I was thinking Peluso was actually D’Amato, the verbal style did not seem right to me. Mr. D’Amato’s verbal style during the five years he pretended to be Terri DiSisto, and his verbal style when he sent two emails to me after his original sentencing on July 16, 2001, the only two communications he has ever sent me openly under his true name, is not especially similar to the verbal style I have yet seen anyone use here.

      3. I know nothing about how the filmmakers found that directory.

      4. Although it was publicly announced at least two months ago (I think) that the lawsuits filed in state courts in Missouri and Utah were dropped, and that there was an agreement to refile in federal court in NYC, as late as June 17, Mr. D’Amato himself, appearing at a screening of the film in Los Angeles, seemed to indicate that he had not yet refiled the lawsuit, but would be doing so soon, unless I misunderstood him. If he has indeed refiled against the filmmakers I am not aware of it.

      5. Back in April, I think, I looked on the official New York state website which lists all licensed attorneys in the state, and Mr. D’Amato definitely wasn’t listed there. If he has become licensed in New York since then, or is licensed in another state, I am not aware of it. In 2014 I did see a webpage with his name in which he supposedly claimed to already be an attorney licensed to practice law specifically in New York, but if he was the one who put up that webpage, he was telling yet another bold-faced lie, hehehe.

      6. The problem with legal action of that sort is the burden of proof that it was Mr. D’Amato who put up those webpages defaming the football player. Connecting him to the company, Jane O’Brien Media, is one thing, but proving he is the person who put up those webpages is quite another.


      1. Thanks for the answers.

        At 7:37 of the Nightline clip, here: http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/video/bizarre-controversy-surrounding-tickled-documentary-40270213

        ABC’s narrator says that Clarke put them in touch with “his boss”, Louis Peluso – at which time they showed a Facebook picture of “Louis Peluso” and say that they contacted him and he also said that David D’Amato has no connection to Jane O’Brien.

        As far as the harrassment and intimidation and retaliation (for having done nothing), Mr. D’Amato has a known criminal history in that regard. As he and his cohorts threaten others all the time, their IP information is obtainable via subpoena – and that is even more likely given the nature of the threats and bullying they committed. Of course they’re going through proxy servers in other countries, but I think that once D’Amato is tied to Jane O’Brien (and that should be easy), it would be relatively short work to demonstrate that he is the one carrying out all the ridiculous behavior.

        Also, I did do some more research on the trove of documents the filmmakers uncovered. What happened was, after performing a WhoIs lookup on the Nederdietsen BV company, they found “hundreds” of registered domain names – one of which, was an FTP server or something and they tried a few times before finding an unsecured folder with all the documents which outed D’Amato as the LIKELY owner of the organization. At the very least he was in chest-deep at every level of operations.


      2. Oh yes, you are correct, Paco, it is indeed said in the segment that Mr. Peluso was contacted, and that he did reply. Sorry, I had forgotten about that part; just went back and watched it again, and sure enough, you are entirely correct.

        In your present comment, though, you say, “their IP information is obtainable via subpoena – and that is even more likely given the nature of the threats and bullying they committed.”

        Convincing a judge to issue a subpoena to an ISP for the personal information of an ISP account used in which the originating IP address is displayed, however, is a very difficult process. Unless one can produce credible evidence of significant monetary damages due directly to communications displaying that IP address as the origination, it is quite rare for such a subpoena to be issued.


    1. The documentary seems to solidly connect Mr. D’Amato to Nederdietsen. As far as why Mr. Peluso claims to be the owner of Jane O’Brien Media at the same time is…well…these people don’t seem quite right, if you know what I mean. There is such a thing as a “smokescreen,” however, and that could be what this is, but for the time being I’ll leave any further explanation to those two bedfellows, hehehe.


      1. Well put JRK, “Smoke and Mirrors” or also known as the “Shell Game”. It’s easy to see who the REAL owner is and who is just claiming to be. The movie and the evidence makes it quite obvious. As time goes on, it will become even clearer.


      2. Yes Thomas, and the more I learn about this whole business, the more suspicious I become. What has most especially become increasingly apparent in the six months since the premiere of the documentary is that in no statement I have yet seen or heard from Mr. Clarke or Mr. Peluso have they addressed, even indirectly, the issue of where all this money is coming from to pay for these videos. It has already been openly admitted that each individual video made by Jane O’Brien Media can cost several thousand dollars, when one counts what the participants are paid, their hotel accommodations, and their round-trip airfare. Also I very much doubt Mr. Clarke is working for free, so that adds even more money. If this money is not coming from David D’Amato, irrefutably proven to be a millionaire, then who is it coming from? Mr. Peluso’s personal finances? I find that to be highly doubtful.


      3. A good question Paco. Why create a hate site from your own company, about yourself. It just does not make sense. Unless…..I think you got it figured out.


      4. I think I might have got it figured out, and I’m now going to bluntly state my opinion for the first time. But notice carefully that I am *not* stating this as fact, because I do not know for certain. Only if I were to state it as fact could I even maybe be sued for defamation, but if I plainly state it only as a possibility, a lawsuit for defamation against me will almost certainly be dismissed long before it goes to court, and long before I have to spend even one cent on legal fees.

        I think it is more likely than not that Louis Peluso is being paid a substantial amount of money to *pretend* that he is the owner of Jane O’Brien media, rather obviously to deflect attention away from the *true* owner of the company. To add to this subterfuge, I believe that Mr. Peluso, more likely than not, privately *agreed* to louispeluso.com being put up, to give the false impression that he and the true owner of the company are on bad terms, when in fact the real truth is precisely the opposite.


    2. Its all a game to confuse the topic and people involved.

      1. David Tomato is the Tickle Ghost with a bad case of a lot of money and a fetish.

      2. Louis peluso is a first-rate internet bully with no talents, long-term memory or ability to strategize.

      3. Kevin Clarke is a master manipulator who’s really good at using people’s desires to get what he wants and hides in fake victimization and goodness to hide his covert tactics.

      4. Kevin Clark and Lewis police are lovers.

      5. Jane O’Brien media (as well as 2 other companies) is owned by two people Kevin Clark and Lewis peluso.

      6. David Amato is just a guy that’s insecure, lots of money, and prey to a couple of manipulators without brains.


  4. Once again JRK, I could not agree more. As hard as they have appeared to shuffle ownership and had 2 years to rearrainge things, I think when it all comes to a head, all the mis-direction will not hold up to true scrutiny and through investigation.


  5. JRK – Have to say hypothetically, “You have a possible Bingo” on that point. Not sure if you noticed during this blog, that one person directs much of his legal threats toward me. I wonder why that is ? Why little old me ? Hypothetically speaking and also not stating any of this as fact, its almost like he feels I know too much and/or can disprove too much and I have some kind of insight into this whole situation. I can only imagine why he may feel that way ?!?!?


    1. Oh, you mean this?

      “they were in starrs home town and left him out of it. farrier was waiting for kevin in ny and taunting him on twitter and todd has exhausted my final nerve. or should i call you thomas? expect contact from my actual lawyer, todd.”

      Louis Peluso on 6-20-16

      Two days earlier he said:

      “And Todd please keep the legal advice.”

      He seemed to be thinking I was you, or some such nonsense, hehehe.


      1. Yup. That was just a couple remarks direct at me. And I think you were right JRK, he had us confused. If you look hard there are more comments aimed at me. But the others are like, “you spent a month of real life with me a long time ago”…or something to that affect. Actually it was 2 months and the things I experienced were hard to forget and eventful. He “CLAIMS” to be the owner of the company (His words from this blog – not mine) If that’s true (????), then I spent 2 months in the belly of all this.


      2. Oh yes, that was in a comment that he posted on May 26, in which he was quite obviously addressing me, because at that point my posts were still displaying only “jrk2016” since I had not yet figured out how to get the posts to display my full name, and it was because I was challenging him over and over and over to admit he was wrong in his original IP address claim from April 7. In the May 26 comment he said, obviously referring to me:

        “try using a real name if u want a more detailed response as i have done, and maybe i will take u more seriously. the irony of a person hiding behind a fake name while riding a high horse about false identities is not missed. but you wont. because its obvious who you are and your one month living a real life ended long ago.”

        Hahaha, what a hoot. As far as I know to this day I have never at any time in my life been anywhere near Mr. Peluso in physical proximity. And there is no possible way that Mr. Peluso didn’t know perfectly well on April 26 that he was not in possession of any solid evidence of my identity. So, he blatantly just “assumed” that he “knew” who I really was.

        Then I finally figured out how to make my name appear on these posts and his claim was instantly blown out of the water and blasted into smithereens. And notice that still to this day Mr. Peluso still refuses to admit that he made a mistake, which is something only a dishonest person does. I have done exactly the opposite because, unlike Mr. Peluso I am a *genuinely* honest person, not someone like him who is merely *pretending* to be honest. For a brief time here I did believe that Mr. Peluso was really David D’Amato, and as soon as I found out my mistake I openly admitted it and retracted what I said earlier, even *before* anyone else suggested that I do so. Mr. Peluso absolutely *refuses* to admit he’s wrong even *after* he’s irrefutably *proven* to be wrong.


  6. I know you are an honest person…..as am I, in sharp contrast to whom we are dealing with. This movie is about many things, but the the major point is about bullying/control and the psychological damage it causes to people. It sounds like you had some rough things happen to you by these people years ago (which does not negate or subtract from the overall toll it takes). The damage to me was of a more recent nature. The bottom line is we both have knowledge related to the movie (past and present). I think our experiences and insightful information combined may be a powerful way to shed more light on this situation. As I have said before, I think we should compare notes. I have had my fill of being threatened both legally and otherwise on blogs like this one, as well as by emails and text. If you are at all interested in communicating, let me know. There are many of us out here and the numbers are continueing to grow. I have a feeling your and my experiences might be a little more directly related to the players involved than most others, therfore are bit more potent. Either way, its something to consider.


      1. Hey Mikey, I was told you and I should talk. I will contact you through your Facebook. It appears we have some mutual enemies and should compare notes. Talk to you soon.


  7. David Farrier and his Attorney will be doing an event in New York City where they show the movie as him and his Lawyer will take questions after. Also going to be additional footage not in the original “Tickled” movie. The theme is all the Legal issues they were threatened with and that were implemented during the making and release of the movie and how they were able to overcome and win to ultimately have the movie shown across the country (and world). This event is to promote the premier release for HBO. With Mr. Farriers Lawyer taking part in the Q & A….I wonder if anyone will dare show (again) to try and give their opposing opinion like what happen in California…..but I would not hold your breathe. So if interested in seeing the “Tickled” Movie with additional footage and being present for a Q&A with David Farrier and Attorney, go to NYC to the “Stranger Than Fiction” event at the IFC Center February 21, 2017.


  8. Anyone think the person who CLAIMS to be the owner of Jane Obrien Media (from this blog) OR the actual owner (according to “Tickled”), will show up at the “Stranger Than Fiction” Event in NYC, to give their opinion on the Documentaries Legal issues ? I am betting NO for obvious reasons. But I guess we will have to wait and see. If I knew either were going….I would have to consider attending. The California event with Dylan last time turned out to be quite the show.


    1. They are too busy sniveling like little girls, all three of them, Clarke & Peluso mostly. David D’Amato not so much, he is a closeted transgender from what I understand. Yes, that show in Los Angeles was spectacular….. spectacularly funny. I think Clarke lost his Tampex in the lobby. They knew I was on the East Coast for the last one, it would have been so fun to have spoken to them but they ran to California instead. I guess I will see if they show up in New York this time around. Are you guys coming to the movie on the 21st, or are you just cumming all over each other?


      1. After all the comments, insults and legal threats…..Look who gets the last word. David wait till you see the question and paperwork I have for Mr. Farriers Attorney. Although not in “Tickled”, I think they and the audience will certainly enjoy it,


      2. Pigletisaliar,

        We should enjoy a beer over stories of their misfortune. We can play a drinking game about how much cocaine went up their asses…. or their noses. I think I might have confused myself in the movie because when I was talking about that, it would be difficult to figure out where their asses stopped and the next person’s nose started. Especially the one with the body odor. (you should have heard the stories from the guys at the …… (big huge house (evicted again?) in New York or the studio in California)….. If I say the answer to that, I would be spoiling the story! HA HA — for the love of God, take a shower!!!)

        I still wonder if they have the guts to come, or will they just play in their circle jerk that night and cum that way. Is it still a circle jerk when there are only three? Do you think all three will participate, or will it just be the two biggest asses and leaving the unloved one to take care of himself?

        I really enjoyed myself in New York City last time I was there for the premiere of TIckled. Now I wonder how the HBO one will go. I will find out, I hope they come by to say hi – and buy a ticket. Imagine, them having to buy a ticket for a movie they are in! LOL! At least two of them are in it anyway….. we IGNORED the piglet! Oops….. not sorry! See you L, D, or K, one or all of you, in your very own private little hell, a theater seat……watching TICKLED!


    2. “Lawsuites” (intentional misspelling) against the documentary will, for blindingly obvious reasons, never, ever, ever go anywhere; only a woefully incompetent judge (or a judge in their first day on office) would fail to dismiss something so obviously frivolous. And Mr. Peluso *never* shows up; has anyone besides me snapped to that? 😉


  9. Speaking of “Old Times”, you seemed to have pissed off even Matt G. and John S. (Seth), One about something with cigarettes and the other you being a dick and telling him he is “penalized to be in the corner” until you get back to him, which you never did. Not only loosing allies quick Dexxy old boy….in fact turning them around completely. Seth was very helpful in emails’ and in an “Open Chat” about reminiscing over late 2013 events. Specially “Cut & Paste” tricks.


  10. What now LP…. ???? Without those 6 figure amounts coming in from PayPal every Spring and $8K to $12K every other month or so. Oh yes Dexxy,, you worked so hard for the money. Sitting and scaring DD on AIM from your “Home Business” for MORE money OR ELSE was such hard work. So you want to claim ownership of JOM, lets see how that’s going to work out for you.


      1. I’m really looking forward to that. I’m sure there are more things to uncover that was not in the documentary. I really doubt that the tickle king’s obsession for power was only manifested in tickling his victims on camera.


  11. I have just now learned that David Paul D’Amato passed away more than six months ago, on March 13. Naturally Mr. Peluso refused to admit publicly that the source of funding for Jane O’Brien Media “abruptly” dried up in March. I will now publicly accuse both Mr. Peluso and Kevin Clarke of knowing all along that Mr. D’Amato was paying the bills for Jane O’Brien Media. Both of them lied to ABC when they said they didn’t know this. It is a 99% certainty that neither of them will file a lawsuit against me, but in the extremely unlikely event that either or both of them do so, it is also a 99% certainty that I will, with childish simplicity, be able to convince the judge here, before I even have to pay one penny in court costs, to dismiss such an obviously frivolous and unjustified lawsuit.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s