~ by FLDS TEXAS on July 9, 2010.
Posted in The Evidence
Moreover, a few days after the Cooke’s yard was dug up, they received an invoice charging them several hundred dollars for the excavation on letterhead from “South Side Irrigation Co., Inc.” (See Exhibit “17”). A check of the current corporate records in both Arizona and Utah confirms that there is no such corporation registered in either state. (See Exhibit “18” hereto). Thus, the evidence now indicates that officer Barlow may have commanded that Trust property be dug up to pursue criminal charges being sought by a non-existent company.
Oops, Officer Barlow is digging up stuff for a non existent company. Seems to me like maybe he should go back to police school.
ProudTexan said this on July 9, 2010 at 4:02 PM
Let me help Mr. Fred Jessop Barlow answer why he signed his name Fred J Barlow Jeffs on his letter to Warren Jeffs. His biological father, Joseph Israel Barlow was kicked out by Warren. Fred’s mother, Alice Stokes Zitting was then married off to Warren’s older brother, Leroy Steed Jeffs, who was subsequently kicked out by Warren. At that time Alice was married off for a 3rd time, this time to Wendell Nielsen. Not sure what will happen to poor Alice when Wendell gets to go to jail for bigamy, but someone needs to let Fred know that his last name is currently Nielsen.
ProudTexan said this on July 9, 2010 at 4:35 PM
Ron Cooke is the brother-out-law of jethro barlow.
Anonymous said this on July 9, 2010 at 4:47 PM
Also apparently a brother to Seth Cooke.
ProudTexan said this on July 9, 2010 at 4:55 PM
So Jinger is a daughter of Joseph Isreal? That makes Jethro and Fred BBDMs (Brothers by different mothers).
ProudTexan said this on July 9, 2010 at 4:57 PM
Can anyone say “Conflict of Interest?” Both seth and jethro were brown-nosing wisan when they allowed ron to squat on UEP property. I don’t believe jinger is related to Joe Barlow.
Anonymous said this on July 9, 2010 at 5:04 PM
Then how is Jethro related as a brother-in-law to ron?
ProudTexan said this on July 9, 2010 at 5:09 PM
Anon – if Ron had a lease from the trust then he wasn’t squatting, he was legally residing on leased property.
ProudTexan said this on July 9, 2010 at 5:10 PM
jethro’s second wife is full sister to ron. (Hence, brother-out-law).
Anonymous said this on July 9, 2010 at 5:30 PM
He may be there legally, but not necessarily by right (morally).
Anonymous said this on July 9, 2010 at 5:40 PM
So when the heck are they going to bring in the state or fed law enforcement and end this farce?
Anonymous said this on July 9, 2010 at 5:55 PM
To which farce do you refer? There are two depending on which side your on.
Anonymous said this on July 9, 2010 at 5:57 PM
anon @ 5:40, in this case, legally triumphs morally as you see it. as i see it, it’s just a bunch of criminals trying to hide their crimes behind religion.
ProudTexan said this on July 9, 2010 at 6:02 PM
Not all of the residents are “criminals” as you state. The religion predominant in the community is indeed a true belief system whom most residents hold dear.
Your non-belief doesn’t give you the right to call them names in an effort to desensitize your readers making them think like you and your friends. In fact, some of the statements I’ve read here are highly inflamatory if not hate crimes.
Anonymous said this on July 9, 2010 at 6:26 PM
Anonymous @ 6:26 PM
If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.
Anonymous said this on July 9, 2010 at 6:43 PM
the fact that the religion condones and convinces people it is ok to break laws is what makes it a cult and not a religion. if you believe that it’s ok to have more than one wife even though the law says you can’t it’s one thing, if you act upon it and take more than one wife you then become a criminal. if your religion said it was ok to rob a bank, just believing it doesn’t make you a criminal, but if you act upon it and rob a bank you become a criminal.
and like anon @6?43 said, if you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen – translated, if you don’t want to be referred to as a criminal, don’t condone criminal acts.
ProudTexan said this on July 9, 2010 at 7:03 PM
It IS pitful to watch them flail, PT, but they’re demanding the right to be criminals or some such pitiful claim.
Uncle Thread said this on July 9, 2010 at 7:34 PM
FYI: Not all residents are polygamists.
I took an AZ. Constitution class and to my amazement, the pamphlet listed the laws and way down the list it stated that there could no be laws made against religion. Imagine my shock to find THE VERY NEXT ONE outlawed polygamy. I haven’t looked to see in which order the laws were made but…
Who is breaking the law; the state or the polygamist???
Anonymous said this on July 9, 2010 at 7:35 PM
They cannot demand that normal, stable, law-abiding Americans give them a pass because they want to make illogical rules for no reason but that it suits.
Uncle Thread said this on July 9, 2010 at 7:37 PM
Polygamists or bigamists either one, have broken US and State laws. Sexual abusers of children have also broken laws, as have those who don’t pay their taxes.
Someone above exlained to you that, bottom line, you can believe anything you want but not step over the line to criminality.
There is no religion called bigamy or polygamy and you well know it. You could as well choose to call cannibalism or human sacrifice your religion but you cannot legally do those criminal acts.
Uncle Thread said this on July 9, 2010 at 7:41 PM
anon@7:35, the religion can’t make rules that break the law and not expect some form of punishment. your group’s biggest mistake was probably moving to texas. here in texas, we don’t believe in sexually abusing children and if it happens in texas you will be punished. oops sorry your “prophet” is a wackjob who gets his jollies by raping young girls, that doesn’t fly down here.
the fact that there are some who aren’t polygamist means that not all are criminals, yet, but if warren jeffs told you tomorrow to take another wife, or if you are a woman, to join with a man who already had one or more wives, would you do it?
ProudTexan said this on July 9, 2010 at 7:42 PM
shoot uncle thread, ask those who claim smoking marijuana is part of their religion if they got a get out of jail free card? the answer is no they didn’t. your religion can’t tell you to break the law, and if it does and you choose to follow your religion and not the law, there will be consequences.
jim jones had a cult similar to the flds and he convinced his followers to drink the koolaid. i hope the flds are smart enough not to follow warren jeffs down the koolaid path.
ProudTexan said this on July 9, 2010 at 7:45 PM
anon@7:35, the polygamist.
ProudTexan said this on July 9, 2010 at 7:46 PM
“Both seth and jethro were brown-nosing wisan when they allowed ron to squat on UEP property.”
According to the AG report, the man has a valid occupancy permit and has paid his fees.
I believe that the constitutionality of polygamy laws was put to rest over 100 years ago, and this argument has been beaten to death here over and over. I believe that if the Supreme Court overturned polygamy laws, that there would be a new amendment to the constitution defining marriage toot sweet. But polygamy aside, the FLDS have broken the law in the name of the prophet in many ways and many times, according to court documents and the writings of Warren Jeffs. They have had sexual relations with girls to young to consent, have made fraudulent transfers of money, driven under aged girls across state lines for sex, tax evasion, violated child labor laws, failed to pay child support, claiming support as a single mother while living with the father of the children, transfered property to others to avoid paying a debt, violated minimum wage laws, removed property seized by the state from the trust….and on and on and on. There is no religious right to child abuse or tax evasion.
Also, if the law is in effect and you break it, then you are still a criminal. If the FLDS really wanted to change the law, they would put their money behind a challenge to polygamy. They would carry signs and stand outside the city hall with their families demanding to be arrested so that they could force a case. But the truth is far from that; the last thing the priesthood wants is a legal status for all of his wives!
Actually, the Supremes did rule that Rastafarians had a legal right to smoke marijuana during a religious ritual; they just did not have the right to import large amounts of it from Jamaica and sell it. Ditto the American Indians and peyote. OK for Indians on the reservation during a ceremony. Not OK to sell it to the tourists.
Betty said this on July 9, 2010 at 8:21 PM
You can’t break the law just because you think the law is unfair. Well, you can, but your argument is not going to get you far.
Betty said this on July 9, 2010 at 8:22 PM
Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard ROCKS!
Where the hell has Utah AG Mark Shurtleff been for the past year? How can he just stand by and let Goddard do all the work for him? Oh yeah, his ancestry has polygamy in it and he has the college BCS football to worry about.
And a special note to the obnoxious Anon (I have nothing against Anons except when they are ignorant and obnoxious)
Bigamy is NOT a religion!
Polygamy is NOT a religion!
Pedophilia is NOT a religion!
I stole that last line from a Texas legislator – Mr. Darby? – who said that to Willie Jessop (another obnoxious person). I think it is a classic line that deserves repeating.
Pedophilia is NOT a religion!
Anonymous said this on July 9, 2010 at 8:38 PM
toot sweet? HA HA Betty, don’t let catwhisperer see you spell it that way.
Anonymous said this on July 9, 2010 at 8:41 PM
yes anon@8:38, that classic line was from drew darby.
ProudTexan said this on July 9, 2010 at 8:45 PM
caught that ! it is tout de suite
catwhisperer said this on July 9, 2010 at 9:41 PM
I’d like to add to that list
Adultery is NOT a religion
Crashing your semi ’cause you fell asleep is NOT a religion
Wearing goofy clothes is NOT a religion
Lying and fraud is NOT a religion
Murdering and incinerating innocent victims is NOT a religion
Snorting meth and hiring male prostitutes is NOT a religion (this applies pastors of mega churches)
anonymous said this on July 9, 2010 at 11:18 PM
Oh boy! It looks like we are on to an updated list of excuses.
The anon above has added some really current and accurate items for the list.
Can the “keeper of the list” scribe please add these pertinent points to the Most Holy Priesthoodess of the Holy Order of the WTF Ranch Ward Priesthoodess Record?
Thanks in advance. And PLEASE be kind to Willie; he knows not of the evil he exudes.
Anonymous said this on July 9, 2010 at 11:32 PM
“He may be there legally, but not necessarily by right (morally).”
This is America where we have rule of law, not a theocracy. If you wish to live by your “morals” (which definitely seem pretty nasty to me) rather than the law then you need to find someplace else to live. I hear Somalia is unburdened with a government and “laws” so perhaps that will suit you. In the meantime, you don’t get to claim that God told you to break the law, and then break the law with impunity. Oh, did I mention your “morals” are pretty pathetic? It’s okay, apparently, to lie, cheat and even steal but following the law of the government that provides medical care for your women and children, food and financial assistence and more is “wrong”? Maybe it’s time the so-called “men” and “women” of this group grew up and accepted some accountability for their exceptionally poor choices.
Rebeckah said this on July 10, 2010 at 1:13 AM
Anonymous, you missed one:
Driving a semi on a suspended license isn’t a religion either.
Gee Duane, you really are obsessed with this blog.
Every night you magically appear at about 11 pm – 12 am to leave us your “pearls of wisdom” using different handles and different proxy servers.
Next time you visit, why don’t you review your “statistics” regarding the Bountiful School.
You said there were only about 40 children enrolled, and that there was only a 10% dropout rate.
Now we know that is not true, so why were you lying ?
catwhisperer said this on July 10, 2010 at 5:36 AM
Anon at 8:41PM. I think Cat Whisperer knows me well enough to recognize the misspelling as a joke.
Betty said this on July 10, 2010 at 7:13 AM
I don’t think it’s duane. The “murdering and incinerating innocent victims” part makes me think of 40andnotmarried who is also Mary Kay, I believe. The whole post does not make any sense. Wearing funny clothes is not illegal or immoral; a bad judgement call maybe but some religions DO indeed make proscriptions about dress. And although Ted Haggard did confess to using drugs and taking part in homosexual acts, he did not blame it on God nor did he say that any spiritual leader instructed him to do that, nor has anyone here suggested that he be spared from legal consequences because of his religion. In fact, I don’t recall anyone here discussing Ted Haggard at all. You know why? His “victim” was himself and an adult professional who was not under his sphere of religious influence.
Betty said this on July 10, 2010 at 7:24 AM
Not duane, but its funny the late night posts often sound like him.
Call it “Dude Humor”
At least some of these havent gotten nasty so I guess Admin allows them as long as they behave.
Kinda sounds like “FLDS Truth didnt quite prevail” think too.
Stamp said this on July 10, 2010 at 7:46 AM
Here’s the thing I don’t understand. One of the 10 Commandments is “Though Shalt Not Commit Adultery”. How is it not committing adultery by have 1 legal wife and unlimited “spiritual” wives? Do the FLDS believe they can pick and choose the laws of God to follow?
ProudTexan said this on July 10, 2010 at 8:26 AM
All these posters keep saying that we “don’t like them because they dress funny”
First of all, the statement that “we don’t like them” is not accurate.
We just don’t like their leadership and what their leadership has done to them.
Secondly, I don’t think anyone here really cares how they dress.
What is troublesome is that the dress code is compulsory, especially in a climate where summer temperatures soar over 100 degrees.
catwhisperer said this on July 10, 2010 at 8:27 AM
I consider the funny dress to be two fold. Self induced torture, and a red flag there is a nutcase wearing it.
Stamp said this on July 10, 2010 at 8:48 AM
Might be a nice nutcase just following the rules mom and dad gave them, but they arent forced to wear that stuff after they turn 18.
Typically they are forced to wear that stuff while still in diapers.
Stamp said this on July 10, 2010 at 8:49 AM
The problem with the clothing to me, is that it is a sign of Musserism. It is much more restrictive for the women than for the men. The men wear modest clothing, but it’s main stream clothing that can be bought anywhere. They honestly do not look that different from other farmers and construction workers. The higher ranking males wear nicer clothes than the lower ranking males; I’ve even seen Merrill in a suit in photos. The women are wearing a garment that is a throwback to another era, has restrictions on color, has very similar cut and construction and has the tendency to make them all look alike. It’s a uniform that says “Property of the Prophet”, much more loudly than the dress of the men.
I don’t dislike them because of their clothes, but I do see the clothes as a symptom of a sick culture.
Betty said this on July 10, 2010 at 9:55 AM
Could this be Leroy Michael Emack who is 21?
Not wearing a life vest, but likely wearing long sleeved shirt, with long underwear, long pants and hiking boots.
FYI polygamists drown at an alarming rate when entering waters dressed like this.
Stamp said this on July 10, 2010 at 10:09 AM
You’ll notice that the rescuers are wearing long pants and light jackets. It also says the water was 40 degrees. I’m thinking anyone out there in a canoe would have been wearing long sleeves and long pants. No, whether it’s a good idea to be canoeing in high water that has debris in it and a strong current, is a whole other question, but people die pretty much one or two a year in the river near me by trying to take a canoe or kayak over a 12 foot fall and it usually happens when the water is high, because that deceives those who are not familiar with the area about what is under the water (a concrete wall and big rocks).
Betty said this on July 10, 2010 at 10:26 AM
This should not be called an “Open Discussion” as it is clearly not. GOOD-Bye!
Anonymous said this on July 10, 2010 at 10:55 AM
Is it only an open discussion if folks agree with you????
Betty said this on July 10, 2010 at 10:58 AM
I don’t remember that Anonymous said anything worthy of discussion. There were simply some declarative statements which were hyperbole.
That was the last that we heard from this Anon.
catwhisperer said this on July 10, 2010 at 11:45 AM
Anon 7:35 (yesterday)
On making laws against religion. If a religion is doing something that a law needs to be made against it, I though the law had to apply to everyone; not just the religion, but I though that was legal for a legislature to do so and not prohibited under “making no laws against a religion”. For example, if animal sacrifices are made illegal, the same laws would need to apply to slaughterhouses in how they would butcher an animal. Maybe Ron or someone else could clarify this. And there are X-FLDS that becamd polygamists after leaving (and I don’t think it is out of religious conviction), and if the state attacks the FDLS for this, they also need to attack the X’s.
cement said this on July 10, 2010 at 11:45 AM
Actually you did a good job and your animal sacrifice example was spot on. The case dealing with animal sacrifice was a law targeted at a specific religion. Laws have to be directed generally toward a valid governmental interest. For instance there are public health issues in the killing and disposal of animals. Laws directed to the public health issues are valid while laws directed to religious issues are not.
Polygamy laws are general laws. The apply to everybody. One of the debates between supporters and opponents of polygamy clearly is whether there is a compelling governmental interest to support those laws.
Ron in Houston said this on July 10, 2010 at 11:59 AM
I agree that laws need to apply to everyone. I don’t know that the cases brought in Texas are so much anti-polygamy cases as they are anti-sexual abuse of a child. Wendell Nielsen is the only one charged with only bigamy charges. The others who have bigamy charges are due to the underage marriage of the person who was charged. If the FLDS weren’t marrying off girls underage and having sex with them, I doubt they would be coming to light now. They lived for years without such scrutiny on them, only when Warren came to power and decided to try to make his prophecies come true did scrutiny come.
In reading Warren’s dictations, it appears that he was doing everything in his power to get “noticed” and have the government intervene so he could tell his followers “see, I told you they’re out to get us”.
ProudTexan said this on July 10, 2010 at 12:39 PM
The State of Texas could have had hundreds of bigamy prosecutions if they’d have wanted so, yes, the prosecutions where much more about child abuse than about polygamy.
Ron in Houston said this on July 10, 2010 at 12:44 PM
That’s my point Ron, most of the adults on the ranch could have been arrested for bigamy/polygamy, but they weren’t, they went after those who were sexually abusing children.
ProudTexan said this on July 10, 2010 at 1:00 PM
If the anonymous twit doesn’t “believe” in national or state laws, wouldn’t know a logical fallacy if it bit him or her on the teat, that’s hyperbole enough for me.
Uncle Thread said this on July 10, 2010 at 1:01 PM
And, it always seems that those who don’t “believe” in national or state laws, are usually the loudest to cry out when their “rights” get trampled on.
mc1199 said this on July 11, 2010 at 1:26 AM
Brooke posted the redacted version of the altercation of a non-FLDS with police officer Barlow without the context of the emergency order so it looks only as if you have a lunatic threatening violence – any one who posts over there still? might want to put the context in…
hellohellogoodbye said this on July 11, 2010 at 8:03 AM
Aw damn. Same slimy attitude as Bill eh.
Huesos said this on July 11, 2010 at 8:54 AM
i tried hello, it was in moderation last time i checked.
Do any of our anon posters know if Sarah Hammon Emack is still in the FLDS?
ProudTexan said this on July 11, 2010 at 9:49 AM
Not all of the residents are “criminals” as you state. The religion predominant in the community is indeed a true belief system whom most residents hold dear.
It bears repeating: pedophilia is not a religion.
And yes, not all the residents are criminals. The fathers who have been torn from their families are victims. The women who have been passed around to multiple “husbands” are victims. The underage girls handed over to middle aged men are victims.
Oh, and a reminder. They are not being prosecuted for polygamy, they are being prosecuted for having sex with children. Further reminder: Warren Jeffs decided to deliberately use underage marriages to force a showdown with the government.
So pro-FLDS should stop complaining. It is all going according to Uncle Warren’s plan and the entire United States is soon going to be punished by God. All non-FLDS are going to be burnt to a crisp or drowned by tidal waves, game over.
Anon E Mouse said this on July 13, 2010 at 10:39 AM
Here’s an article written by Brooke at the Trib on subject of Arizona’s emergency hearing request. Brooke blames Cooke in article IMO. Hope that Judge Lindberg orders disbanding of local LE in Hildale/Colorado City.
A Texan said this on July 14, 2010 at 9:50 AM
Brooke has also just posted on her blah asking “how did this blog get a copy of this court filing?” She has her knickers all in a twist because she can’t track down the source.
Anonymous said this on July 14, 2010 at 2:10 PM
I agree, Brooke comes down strongly against Cooke, without considering what might drive someone to be that angry. I’m not saying that threatening people is a good response to a crisis, it’s just that I can understand how he might feel and I think many other people might react the same way.
Betty said this on July 14, 2010 at 2:24 PM
And if it annoys Hamilton, it MUST be illegal.
Betty said this on July 14, 2010 at 2:51 PM
She has her knickers all in a twist because she can’t track down the source.
I think it’s funny that she refers to this place as an “Anti FLDS” website and refuses to name the actual site.
I like to think I’m more “Pro-FLDS-Being-Upstanding-Lawabiding-Citizens”.
Hey Brooke, maybe if you were a better journalist you wouldn’t have to whine about getting scooped.
ellie said this on July 14, 2010 at 7:17 PM
I was thinking that if she labels this as an Anti FLDS website she really should label hers as a pro-FLDS if the criteria is who is feeding whom information fastest – Willie shovels it out to her and she puts in articles
hellohellogoodbye said this on July 14, 2010 at 7:19 PM
Apparently posting court documents and other documentable facts makes you ANTI-FLDS. It’s also interesting that she is critical of this site, but then steals scoops from it unashamedly.
Betty said this on July 14, 2010 at 7:24 PM
Brooke knows where to go to get the truth, and it aint Willie!
Stamp said this on July 14, 2010 at 8:50 PM
Now, now, let’s not avoid reality. She called this site an “anti-FLDS” site. Clearly, it is.
Ron in Houston said this on July 14, 2010 at 9:26 PM
I dunno Ron, the way I feel, its more of a “Anti child molester /racism / abuser – under color of religion site”
I dont have any problem with FLDS who follow the law.
I may make fun of their ideals, and the predicaments they get in, but from what I have seen, many times, is a good word extended to many in the FLDS. Of course that might mostly include the victims and not the abusers. Its recognized there are good people there. Its also recognized there are some horrible abusers who have in the past, gotten off scot free.
Just because the free ride of some who had been abusing others in their own sect is now coming to an end doesnt mean they are all bad.
Stamp said this on July 14, 2010 at 10:09 PM
Stamp, Brooke is just willynilly reporting “facts” from Thug Willie.
Anonymous said this on July 14, 2010 at 10:54 PM
Hi Duane – looks like you were up late again last night.
(Admin Edit – that post deleted)
Anon the Younger said this on July 15, 2010 at 6:10 AM
The truth is anti-FLDS. And we have the documents to prove it.
Betty said this on July 15, 2010 at 7:02 AM
i am anti-lawbreakers be it FLDS or otherwise.
ProudTexan said this on July 15, 2010 at 9:20 AM
I think Betty said it best – the truth is anti-FLDS. So, yeah, acknowledging the truth means you SHOULD be anti-FLDS.
Ron in Houston said this on July 15, 2010 at 9:57 AM
I don’t think being “anti-FLDS” means that you dislike or would abuse an individual who is FLDS. Their group stands for things that people oppose. To me, opposing a group does not have anything to do with how you view individuals.
Ron in Houston said this on July 15, 2010 at 10:20 AM
or…pro women and children
SwissieMom said this on July 15, 2010 at 10:32 AM
I think I buy that. I am not so much “Anti FLDS persons” (except the abusers) as much as ANTI FLDS practices, which seem to include polygamy, child molestation, forced marriage, kicking children out, abandoning them, welfare abuse, avoiding IRS taxes and assorted legal licenses, and the general disregard for the law and common decency.
Oh did I say racism and as shown lately a strong streak of bigotry toward non-FLDS.
Funny though, there are wonderful people who were raised in that environment who came through as great people. Many are still in the Church too.
I just want it recognized that I am not a hater of the people in general. I cant speak for others here but I think that sentiment is pretty much the same.
Stamp said this on July 15, 2010 at 11:50 AM
Here’s a link to Brooke’s rant about the AZ court filing, she should know that court filings are available to the public as soon as they are filed with the court clerk for that county, at least here in Texas. Since the filings aren’t sealed they are public record.
A Texan said this on July 15, 2010 at 12:35 PM
As a child growing up we attended service at many different Churches. Catholic, Lutheran,LDS, Baptist, Native American ceremonies etc. We were always welcomed to any Church we attended.
I’ve never attended a service by the FLDS. I am not anti-FLDS just haven’t found an FLDS Church listed.
Where is the FLDS Church in the Hildale/Colorado city area? I see on google that the Temple site is listed and the Ranch is listed but I see no Churches.
Walton said this on July 15, 2010 at 1:29 PM
Mr Walton, it is my understanding that the FLDS dosen’t accept converts and dosen’t welcome visitors, they had a meeting house in Hildale/Colorado City, but Warren stopped services at time he went into hiding, heard rumors that some sort of services were held at YFZ perhaps at “temple” or building with round shape on one end. If any ex FLDS out there you could educate us Texans on this.
A Texan said this on July 15, 2010 at 3:25 PM
So Wendall is a President of no Church and Warren is a Prophet to a Church that doesn’t exist? And yet tax exmpetions are being seeked?
The Menonites even have a listing. And they announce their services. Are there any other Churches out there that are by invitation only?
Walton said this on July 15, 2010 at 4:31 PM
I think they still have some sort of meetings in the crik but not sure where they are held. Remember the members outside of the crick are given a code to tune in. As for it being by invitation only, that’s because someone from the outside will see the truth behind the emperors new clothes
Anonymous said this on July 16, 2010 at 9:38 AM
What do you mean by “given a code to tune in?”
How is it transmitted, Anon 9:38 am?
catwhisperer said this on July 16, 2010 at 10:02 AM
Maybe the 4:00 a.m. calls I am getting from a restricted number talking gibberish is actually a coded message. If anyone is trying to call me – I don’t understand gibberish. Your going to have to speak Walton language. Thanks in advance.
Walton said this on July 16, 2010 at 10:17 AM
Walton made me smile.
Betty said this on July 16, 2010 at 10:21 AM
Speakin’ of Walton, I still want to know more about that sleep-driving cheeser, whose cheese it was and where the cheese was headed. And why.
GrannyToad said this on July 16, 2010 at 12:23 PM
Grannytoad- I Can’t prove anything. I have a couple of tinfoil theories going on but nothing that I can say outloud with getting into trouble.
Walton said this on July 16, 2010 at 1:11 PM
You sound like a Cheezit commercial, Granny.
Betty said this on July 16, 2010 at 1:15 PM
Well then we’ll make up our own tinfoil theory. Mayhaps the cheese was stolen from Keebler elves, and sortalike Betty referred to, it was going to be made into Cheezits but was headed to uh oh where was it headed, to be made into a fake California happy cow commercial somewhere near Upwind, Wisconsin.
GrannyToad said this on July 16, 2010 at 1:44 PM
I like it.
Betty said this on July 16, 2010 at 2:04 PM
i’m not exactly sure, but those working on the outside, like at malstrom afb in montana can tune in to the meetings. maybe by calling in or something. i’m sure of all the particulars, but i know it happens.
ProudTexan said this on July 16, 2010 at 3:34 PM
Keebler elves don’t steal. They are magical.
I don’t think those are fake happy cow commericals.I did cow therapy once for a gang of troubled cows. Most were followers. Once a person could get rid of the ones that caused all the trouble the others actually did become happy cows. Well for awhile anyway.
Walton said this on July 16, 2010 at 6:07 PM
See what happened before this
me said this on August 19, 2010 at 11:49 AM
Comments are closed.
Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.