Thursday, May 11, 2017

a picture is worth a thousand words and sometimes words are pictures: aborigine art and criminal and mental health law symposium, Key Way West of Weird Ward

Yesterday at Sippin' Internet Cafe, I told a customer that the cook also had painted all the wall murals, including the murals in the bathroom. Which, the bathroom, I said, used to be my own personal art gallery. The only gallery daring to show my art, which tended to stir certain feelings. What kind of art did I do? I showed her on my laptop. Oh, what lovely colors, she kept saying. You must have to think really hard about the colors. Actually, I don't think at all, the paintings drew themselves. Oh, you have a gift. I suppose, I said I'd done hundreds of them. How'd they sell? They didn't. Did you use a gallery? No gallery wanted my paintings. I did not say that I'd lost many of the photos of the drawings when Judith Haney had Blue Host take down 

Where photos of maybe 30 of the drawings were stored. The actual drawings themselves, a few remain, most went by the wayside. I also lost a passel of photos of the drawings when my old Hewlett-Packard laptop went kaflooey and a new operating system was put in after I was moved in 2002 to start doing that I then called "soul" or "shaman" drawings. Sometimes I called it "aborigine" art. Probably 98 percent of the subjects were ladies living and in spirit, who drew themselves through me. They brought messages. They were like spirit visions or dreams. Things happened after they drew themselves. They were alive. They might still be alive. One batch of maybe 50 in the spring of 2003 caused grown men and women to go into heat. A fellow told me to send those drawings to Playboy. I later wished I had. Maybe I would be rich and famous now, instead of homeless. Those drawings were something else. Here are photos I still have of the "tame" drawings.

Mustang Sally
Devil or Angel
Higgs Beach
Welcome home, Kali - I hope!
Dragon Woman
Feather Talk
Cross Pollination

A different kind of drawing, more like a lotto, sprung out of me yesterday, egged on by a mainland amiga, whose soul drawing is

Call me evil, but I can't help but hope that nature takes its oft course and this viciousness inside her [Judith Haney] plays out in her physical body.  (Remembering how ironic it was thinking about Cheney requiring a heart transplant - he certainly did need that on all levels).   So does this lady.   

By the way, don't forget she has demanded you pull everything you posted about her on   don't leave any of that dangling.... but do copy/paste the comments to save somewhere safe.
From: Sloan Bashinsky
Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2017 7:59 PM
Subject: Coconut Telegraph take down request

Dear Ed,

Judith Haney demanded I take down from the Coconut Telegraph whatever is there, which I wrote about her, which she deems libelous, cyberstalking, invasion of her privacy.  She did not identify what that was, in particular, so I cannot tell you, in particular, what she wants taken down from the CT. Nor can I make you take down anything off the CT, since it's your website.

But to lend what little assistance I can, Haney seems to have about the same definition of libel, cyberstalking and invasion as Donald Trump has, so, to be safe, please ask your ever faithful From The Right (FTR) to help you decide what to take down anything on the CT, which I wrote about Haney and meets Haney, Donald Trump and FTR's collective definition of libel, cyberstalking and invasion of privacy. 

I apologize for making this request, since I don't think anything I wrote about Haney is actionable in a court of law. Nor, apparently did Judge Bonnie Helms, who struck all of Haney's pleadings, and all of my pleadings, in Haney's lawsuit against me.

I see on the Clerk of the Court's website that Haney is still going strong against you and your nice innocent wife. I doubt Haney has any clue how many thousands of Coconut Telegraph readers, including atheists CT readers, would sings praises to God if Hanney dropped dead from a fatal heart attack. Oh, how is that possible? Haney has to be in great health, right? To be doing all of that suing in the Florida Keys and up in Alabama. 

Far as I know, only in Haney's lawsuit against me did Haney claim she had a heart attack on January 4 of this year, after suing me on December 30 of last year. Far as I know, Haney and her doctor's office are the only people who don't think maybe there is a link between Haney's suing me and whatever medical problems Haney actually has. Of course, that cannot be proven or disproven, whichever side you take.

However, Haney made it pretty clear, when I cross examined her under oath on March 31 of this year, before Judge Helms, that one of the reasons she sued you was because she published something on the CT in 2010, and then you refused to take it down. It had her email address on it, and her email address included her name, Judith Haney. She told you to expect litigation. You wrote to me and asked me what that was about? I wrote back, "Hell hath no greater fury... " You replied to say no more. What you did not  take down was a slam of me, which she had written, after I had told her I wasn't interested in her romantically. 

Your policy back then was to publish the email address of people who slammed people on the CT. As you can see, no good deed goes unpublished, er, unpunished.

I hope Judge Koenig soon orders Haney's lawsuit against you and your wife dismissed with prejudice. Haney might want that outcome, too if she knew how many people who read the Coconut Telegraph would like nothing more for her to have a fatal heart attack. I'm not one of them. I think that would be too kind. A paralyzing stroke would send a louder message, I think. 

Cheer up, Haney loves me too. From her May 7 email to me:

"Mr. Bashinsky, you need to fully comprehend this fact: As long as I live - for however many days I have left on this Earth - no matter how much it costs and no matter how long it takes - I will pursue my claims against you to ensure that you are held fully accountable in appropriate courts of jurisdiction for your unlawful acts that you are committing against me on a daily basis. I will NEVER settle my claims against you because I want a full vetting of your criminal acts to be established for the record."

You have my permission to publish this email verbatim on the CT, with my name on it. You have many readers who might still hate me worse than they hate Haney. Give them all something to cheer for, even though, as far as I know, Sheriff Rick Ramsay, Key West Police Department and State Attorney Dennis Ward have declined Haney's demands they prosecute me. Perhaps the Feds will prosecute me. The angels prosecute me all the time.

I told someone today, if people had had the terror of God put into them the way the angels put the terror of God into me, this would be a very different world. The person said she wanted nothing to do with a terrorist God. I said, God is not a terrorist. God tries all sorts of ways to get people's attention, and when none of them work, what's left is to terrify them. right now, I'm the only person I know God did that to. I used to know a few people Got did it to.

Well, it does say in the Bible that the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom. Even though, there is no need for the Bible, if God is on your case personally - or God's angels. The Bible is for people that's not happening to, I told the same person today. 

Another person and I chuckled today over a Texas fellow of some notoriety, he was black, saying, going to church has as much chance of making you a Christian as sitting in your automobile in your garage has of making you an automobile. You are what you do, not what you call yourself. 

I told him he could never say that in public. It could go very bad for him, if he did.

There, that ought to get the Sloan haters on the CT back into their hate Sloan comfy zone, which Haney threatened to wrest them out of.

Talked a good while last night with Young Prophet, so named by me because he approached me out of the blue after Haney sued me, describing a dreams he was having about Haney and me and Judge Bonnie Helms, one dream predicted what Judge Helms would do with the case: turn everything into sand; and because he is less than half my age.

One interesting morsel of Young Prophet's and my conversation last night had to do with my email address being suspended by MicroSoft the other day, for unspecified "policy violation", with instruction to contact customer support, which I did by email, in which I asked what I had done wrong? The next morning brought an email from customer support saying the suspension had been lifted, my account was back in service. I wrote back, what did I do wrong? No answer, so far. 

Young Prophet said the Feds have an agreement with internet providers, which allows the Feds to get the providers to suspend email accounts, so the Feds can go into an account it is looking at and lift emails, as much as 6 months of emails, out of the account, to examine. I had wondered when the account was suspended, if Judith Haney had anything to do with it? I had wondered, because Haney had gotten my three websites shut down by Blue Host.,,

I figured Haney had threatened to sue Blue Host.

The IT pro, who was looking after my websites, told me Blue Host legal department had told him that i had not done anything illegal, but Blue Host had a policy that websites it hosts cannot publish unauthorized private information about people, nor both a person's first and last name, without that person's authorization. I could use Haney's first or last name, but not both. I fixed that on all of my websites, by taking down posts to make sure I got it all. Then, because of something Haney did, and because she was publishing her full name, telephone number, mailing address and email addresses in everything she e-filed in her lawsuit against me, I published her first and last names in two posts, I think. Bam! All three of my websites went down, for good.

I wrote to the IT pro and advised him. He already knew. Blue Host had shut down his account with them, too, He was carrying my websites in his Blue Host account. He was carrying quite a few of his clients' websites in his Blue Host account. Those clients' websites went down. I emailed the IT pro to tell Blue Host he needed to take care of himself and his other clients, and it was okay with me that Blue Host segregate me from him and his other clients, and get him and them back online. I also told him maybe he needed to find another webhost than Blue Host. He said he was already thinking the same thing. Blue Host did what I had suggested, and he and his other clients were back online -down only a few hours.

I told Young Prophet, as far as I know, there is nothing in, or in my other email accounts, which I worry about the Feds seeing. In fact, I hope the Feds, if they did get into, are reading everything there. They will not find that I ever threatened to kill or harm Haney, or anyone. I want the Feds to see that. I want them to speak with State Attorney Dennis Ward, who knows me, who reads my daily posts, and has read them for years, who knows I have never threatened to kill or physically harm anyone. Egos, I mash plenty, Ward knows. Sheriff Rick Ramsay and Key West Police Chief Donie Lee know that about me, too. I want the Feds to speak with them, as well. I want the Feds to read what I published at my 3 shut down websites, and at this new replacement website, which I started after Haney got the other three websites taken down. I want the Feds to read what I publish and get to know Haney as well as they get to know me, by reading my websites and my emails and my Facebook. I don't do other social media. I seldom text, because I have a flip phone on which texting is difficult.

I did not destroy anything I took down off this website: It's all saved. The Feds are welcome to read all of it. And all of Haney's and my Facebook chat and emails starting last December, when she swooped in saying she wanted to rescue me from being homeless. I really do look forward to the Feds reading all about that, and what Haney's 4th husband wrote about her to me on Facebook, including what the Little Rock U.S. Marshall Office called Haney, and what Haney's shrink told Fureigh about Haney, and what the Little Rock judges thought about Haney. And what the Leeds, Alabama chief of police and city attorney told me on the telephone about Haney. And what Haney's neighbor across the street in Leeds told me about Haney. And what Key West Circuit Judge Bonnie Helms wrote in Orders about Haney. And that three of my friends Haney sued in Key West say about Haney. And what the Alabama Court records say about Haney's extensive civil Alabama litigation, which looks to me like both an addiction and legal and cyber terrorism, as Haney is doing it mostly via e-filings. 

I hope the Feds become so concerned with Haney, that they prosecute her and put her in a federal prison where she cannot use a computer and has to do her litigation by hand-writing it, if she is allowed something to write with.

This former Alabama practicing attorney supposes, though, the best place for the Feds, local, county or state law enforcement, or a court to begin investigating Judith Eloise Haney is her bankruptcy case, which anyone can find online by googling "Judith Eloise Haney". 

IN RE HANEY | 238 B.R. 432 (1999) |

In re Judith Eloise HANEY. Robert Fureigh, Plaintiff, v. Judith Eloise Haney, Defendant. United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Arkansas, Western Division.

I highlighted in bold U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Mary D. Scott's assessment of Haney's mental issues:


Bankruptcy No. 98-41169 S. Adversary No. 98-4059.

238 B.R. 432 (1999)
In re Judith Eloise HANEY. Robert Fureigh, Plaintiff, v. Judith Eloise Haney, Defendant.
United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Arkansas, Western Division.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

James Dendy, Little Rock, AR, for plaintiff.
Judith Eloise Haney, Hot Springs Village, AR, debtor pro se.
M. Randy Rice, Chapter 7 trustee.


MARY D. SCOTT, Bankruptcy Judge.

This Cause came before the Court for trial of the complaint to determine dischargeability of debt. This adversary proceeding has a lengthy history and it appears that the dispute between the parties is of long and acrimonious standing. This action was filed on May 7, 1998, in which the debtor's former husband alleges that debts the debtor was required to pay to him as a result of their divorce may not be discharged in this bankruptcy case pursuant
[238 B.R. 434]
to section 523(a)(4), (15). In the pre-trial submissions, the plaintiff indicated that he would not pursue the section 523(a)(4) action and thus the matter proceeded on the section 523(a)(15) action. The Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 157(a), 1334. This is a "core proceeding" within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 157(b) as exemplified by 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(I).
In the course of the litigation, the debtor filed her answer pro se, subsequently hired two attorneys and at trial was again pro se. The Court file also reveals that the parties have been conducting discovery since the early stages of the litigation, at least since the beginning of May 1998, and that it continued nearly to the eve of trial, still on a rather acrimonious basis. On August 5, 1998, the Court issued an order setting the matter for trial to be heard on November 6, 1998. Since that setting, trial was twice continued. Trial was scheduled to begin at 1:30 p.m. on August 4, 1999, and, despite motions by the debtor to stay the proceeding,1 trial began on that date, concluding on August 5, 1999. The parties were directed to submit their closing statements in writing on or before August 16, 199, with replies to be filed by August 20, 1999. The plaintiff timely submitted his argument and brief, but the debtor failed to submit any brief or argument.2


The parties married in 1988 and divorced in January 1994. Under the terms of the divorce decree the debtor was to pay the plaintiff the sum of approximately $52,000.00 plus interest and attorneys fees in the amount of $5,045.00.3 There is no dispute that these debts are in the nature of property and debt settlement; no spousal support was awarded to either party. In 1994, Congress amended the Bankruptcy Code to add a new section 523(a)(15):
(a) A discharge under section 727, 1141, 1228(a), 1228(b), or 1328(b) of this title does not discharge an individual debtor from any debt—(15) not of the kind described in paragraph (5) that is incurred by the debtor in the course of a divorce or separation or in connection with a separation agreement, divorce decree or other order of a court of record, a determination made in accordance with State or territorial law by a governmental unit unless—(A) the debtor does not have the ability to pay such debt from income or property of the debtor not reasonably necessary to be expended for the maintenance or support of the debtor or a dependent of the debtor and, if the debtor is engaged in a business, for the payment of expenditures necessary for the continuation, preservation, and operation of such business; or(B) discharging such debt would result in a benefit to the debtor that outweighs the detrimental consequences to a spouse, former spouse, or child of the debtor.
11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(15). Under this provision, the marital debt is presumptively
[238 B.R. 435]
nondischargeable unless the debtor can demonstrate that she does not have the ability to pay the debt or the benefit to her is greater than the detriment to her former spouse. See generally In re Crosswhite, 148 F.3d 879, 40 C.B.C.2d 519 (7th Cir.1998); Moeder v. Moeder (In re Moeder), 220 B.R. 52 (8th Cir. BAP 1998). That is, the nondebtor plaintiff must first demonstrate only that the debt was incurred in the course of divorce or later order, whereupon the burden shifts to the debtor to demonstrate either that the debtor does not have the ability to pay the debt or that discharging the debt would result in a benefit to the debtor that outweighs the detrimental consequences to the former spouse. See In re Morris, 193 B.R. 949 (Bankr.S.D.Cal.1996). Under the first prong of the statute, the analysis is based solely upon the finances of the debtor; the finances of the nondebtor are not relevant until the second prong of the statute is analyzed. See In re Gantz, 192 B.R. 932 (Bankr.N.D.Ill.1996). Further, the appropriate analysis includes a view of the debtor's future financial situation, including an ability to make minimal monthly payments on the debt, rather than a static view of the debtor's current ability to pay the debt. Cf. In re Straub, 192 B.R. 522 (Bankr.D.N.D.1996); In re Florio, 187 B.R. 654 (Bankr.W.D.Mo.1995). Finally, the Court views the parties' circumstances as of the time of trial, rather than any earlier date, in order to fully examine the benefits of the "fresh start" to the debtor, any change in circumstances in employment, and other good or bad fortune which may have befallen or will predictably befall the parties.


The debtor must demonstrate that she is either unable to pay the debt or that under equitable considerations, it should be discharged. The debtor has failed to meet her burden that she is unable to pay the debt because she failed to provide any specific information regarding her resources and debts and, to the extent there is information before the Court, she can pay the debt. First, the debtor failed to provide the Court with sufficient information to carry her burden. The debtor's schedules are riddled with admitted inaccuracies, inconsistencies and omissions and she could not, even on the date of trial, state her income. Indeed, some figures seem to have been conjured out of thin air. She apparently owes income taxes, does not know whether these are dischargeable, and, since it appears that the debtor has failed to file income tax returns for the past few years, she cannot ascertain what her tax liability may be. When questioned regarding particular expenses, she could only guess. For example, when questioned regarding a particular $300 expense, she indicated it was "probably" for groceries. Further inquiry revealed that this expense was not in fact for groceries. Her incredibly vague statements regarding income and expenses, combined with the inaccuracies on her schedules constitutes a failure to carry her burden of proof under section 523(a)(15)(A).
In any event, from the evidence before the Court, the debtor is capable of paying the obligation. The debtor is a fully licensed self-employed real estate broker, is generally in good health, and fully capable of working full time and is in fact actively soliciting work. Very soon after filing her chapter 7 petition in bankruptcy she moved from a location where she paid $500 per month in rent to a location on lake property in a resort town, and began paying $1,000 per month in rent. Virtually until the eve of trial, she leased a vehicle for a very high monthly rate. Since she recently purchased a vehicle and provided no evidence that she was unable to obtain financing, her statement that she was required to pay the high rental rate is not credible or justifiable. Her bank records, submitted by the plaintiff, indicate that she has had a substantial income for the past two years. During examination, she admitted that she has the potential to meet her obligations and stated that "arguably
[238 B.R. 436]
my life style should change." The Court agrees. Plaintiffs evidence indicates that debtor's income is not only sufficient to meet her needs, it is also sufficient to pay the marital debt albeit over some period of time. Accordingly, the debtor fails to meet her burden of demonstrating that she is unable to pay the debt under section 523(a)(15)(A).


If the debtor is able to pay the debt, then, under the second paragraph of the statute, the debtor must demonstrate that "discharging such debt would result in a benefit to the debtor that outweighs the detrimental consequences to a spouse, former spouse, or child of the debtor." The terms of this statute require a Court weigh the benefit against the detriment—an odd balancing and an impossibly amorphous standard.4 Numerous factors regarding the finances, needs, and general merits of each party's position, are considered in generally trying to determine who will suffer more under this analysis. See, e.g., In re Smither, 194 B.R. 102 (Bankr.W.D.Ky. 1996).
The debtor testified that she has mental health problems. The Court file in the case, this adversary proceeding, and the conduct of this trial, reveal the credibility of this statement. She testified that she needs therapy and that she has been urged by various doctors to seek such assistance. While she previously had customers, she testified that she had effectively "driven" them away. She even believes that she may have suffered some sort of brain damage a decade ago. While the debtor introduced no supporting documentation or other evidence of her disabilities, the Court can readily believe she has been repeatedly urged to seek professional mental care.
The plaintiff is a engineer and a full time employee with the City of Little Rock. Although he recently accepted a cut in pay due to the lack of a position meeting his qualifications, he earns a decent living commensurate with the debtor's income. He asserts that his expenses exceed his income, yet he has managed to pay most of the joint marital debt and he lives modestly, clearly within his means, and will soon have no debt. Although he claims that he has been embarrassed due to his negative financial situation, it was clear from his testimony that much, if not all, of the embarrassment is derived from his pursuit of the debt owed to him by the debtor rather than from his financial circumstances. While it is true that a creditor is entitled to collect a debt and to pursue all legal remedies, it is apparent from plaintiff's actions, demeanor and testimony that he has done so at the expense of his own self-respect, the respect of others, and possibly even his own mental health. He testified that his friends have repeatedly urged him to drop his pursuit of this debt, urging that he will be "better off."5 His overzealousness even prompted him on more than one occasion to accompany a process server who was to serve papers upon the debtor. Not surprisingly, in one incident, the police were called and the plaintiff was briefly detained. Nevertheless,
[238 B.R. 437]
the Court must determine whether the benefit to the debtor outweighs the detrimental consequences to the plaintiff. This is an unusual and unpleasant task which Congress assigned to the bankruptcy court,6 and, in this instance, it is particularly unsavory because the extreme acrimony between the parties has rendered this more than a financial dispute.
In In re Smither, 194 B.R. 102 (Bankr. W.D.Ky.1996), the court articulated a test and a lengthy list of factors which may be utilized in making the balancing determination of section 523(a)(15)(B), which primarily balanced the financial effect of the discharge of the debt. In Smither, the court compared the relative standards of living to determine the true benefit or detriment of the discharge, looking particularly to whether the spouse, former spouse or children would suffer as a result of the discharge and whether the standards of living would change. Smither, 194 B.R. at 111.
In the instant case, the standards of living of either party will not materially change if the debt is discharged. The debtor has, despite voracious collection attempts, avoided payment of this debt for over five years and, given her instabilities—or in spite of them, will continue to do so. Although she can acquire clients, her instabilities preclude her from maintaining such contacts. Her income and expenses are uncertain, and, should the Internal Revenue Service begin to inquire into her finances, she may be subject to problems from her inattentiveness. In contrast, the plaintiff enjoys a steady income which is about to increase. He is better educated, has fewer expenses, and is capable of maintaining a stable financial, physical and emotional situation.
The evidence clearly established is that both parties would benefit by discharge of this obligation. While it is true that the parties are virtually equivalent in their ability to pay, and the plaintiff has in fact been the one to pay the debt, both parties have been mentally and financially drained not merely by the debt but also by the extreme bitterness between them. The benefit to the debtor is her discharge in bankruptcy, including the discharge of her marital debt. Essentially, the detriment to the plaintiff is that he will not be reimbursed for the substantial marital debt that he has had to pay and will be estopped from further pursuing what has evolved into a vendetta against the debtor. While this may seem an unfair result to plaintiff, Congress has indicated that the fresh start in bankruptcy may be preserved in these situations. Both parties, in fact, may be able to obtain a fresh start by this discharge, and, on balance, the benefit to the debtor outweighs the detriment to the plaintiff such that the debt is dischargeable under section 523(a)(15)(B).


Based upon the foregoing, the Court will enter judgment finding the debt owed by debtor Judith Eloise Haney to Robert Fureigh be dischargeable in this bankruptcy proceeding.


1. On the eve of trial, the debtor sought to dismiss her chapter 7 bankruptcy case, but also appeared to indicate that she would file another bankruptcy case.

2. Although this failure may appear to be inexplicable in light of her actions in pursuing her defenses as well as the plethora of motions she has filed, refiled, amended, and argued, the Court believes it is further evidence of her instabilities, discussed below.
3. Although she failed to appear at the trial of the divorce action, the debtor has continuously and contumaciously reiterated her dissatisfaction with those proceedings by attempting to collaterally attack the findings and orders of the state court in this adversary proceeding. The state court has also ruled that her repeated attempts to attack the judgment are barred. Fureigh v. Haney, No. 92-3110, slip op. (Chancery Ct. Pulaski County, Arkansas Sept. 12, 1996).
4. The problems resulting from the amorphous standards in the statute are exacerbated by the legislative history and comments which are inconsistent with the statutory language. For example, although paragraph (B) refers to a balancing of the "benefit to the debtor" against the "detriment to the spouse," the comments state that the bankruptcy discharge should be "sacrificed" only if there is a substantial detriment to the nondebtor spouse. Moreover, the history seems to indicate that Congress meant primarily to rectify situations in which the parties were nominally referring to support as property settlement. See Proceedings and Debates, 103d Cong., 2d Sess., 140 Cong.Rec. H10,770 (Oct. 4, 1994).
5. The Court does not take into account his assertion that he has had to postpone the possibility of marriage and starting a family inasmuch as he does have a child and there is no evidence that he is actually contemplating matrimony or child rearing. The fact that he does not believe he has sufficient income to support a family does not make the factor relevant if the family is merely a supposition.
6. Although apparently enacted with good intentions, this statute is misguided. The statute, like section 523(a)(5) recognizes that the transactions between persons formerly married to each other are not normal debtor creditor transactions and that the Bankruptcy Code addresses these special issues differently from commercial transactions or other general financial situations. However, a review of the case authority reveals that section 523(a)(15) has created burdens upon the Courts and the parties that were clearly not intended. The statute has been referred to as "sausage," In re Butler, 186 B.R. 371, 373-75 (Bankr.D.Vt.1995), transformed into "hash," In re Dressler, 194 B.R. 290 (Bankr.D.R.I. 1996), and as a "paving stone on the road to the region of Hades reserved for litigation nightmares," In re Smither, 194 B.R. 102 (Bankr.W.D.Ky.1996).
Looks to this former Alabama practicing attorney (gone around the bend according to many but not all), that U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Mary D. Scott felt it was in her, the court's and Robert Fureigh's best interests to be finished with Judith Eloise Haney. Fureigh told me Haney had gotten the first bankruptcy judge to disqualify himself, and Haney earlier had gotten several Little Rock area judges in their 5+ year divorce case to disqualify themselves. Fureigh said he felt the judges had done nothing wrong and simply wanted nothing further to do with Haney. Fureigh is pronounced fury. He flew a helicopter gunship in Vietnam. He still flies helicopters. He is an elected city alderman. He lives in the Little Rock area. He told me interesting things about Hillary Rodham and Bill Clinton, before they went off to Washington, D.C., According to Fureigh, it was widely known in Little Rock that Hillary was having at it with Vince Foster while she was married to Governor Bill Clinton, and Hillary only reluctantly changed her last name to Clinton, because the Arkansas Baptists did not like a politician whose wife did not have his last name. The Arkansas Baptists were okay with Hillary and Vince having at it?

No comments:

Post a Comment