For some reason, my recent blog about the State Senate District 38 race hit quite a few nerves.
Not so surprising were the responses by people who disagreed with my “opinion.”
The irony is that this was not an “opinion piece,” per se, but merely an offering up of facts based on public records I dug up regarding the candidates and, as always, I provided links to those records.
Here’s the thing.
People are entitled to their opinions.
Heck, my cats have opinions, too.
But neither people nor cats are entitled to their own facts.
(Although, cats would probably disagree.)
When I wrote that last post about the District 38 election, my only intention was to provide as many facts about all the candidates that I could find. I think I did a pretty good job researching and posting each and every document that I was able to find among the public records and media accounts.
The public records, such as Florida Elections and Ethics Commissions’ final orders, foreclosure proceedings, lawsuits, Florida Bar complaints, etc., all speak for themselves. I did not make them up.
While I also provided links to articles published in the Miami Herald, Miami New Times and other media outlets, I was also very careful to point out that the individuals interviewed in those articles were making allegations and stating their opinions.
In no way did I state, assume, or even infer that their allegations and opinions were actual facts.
Obviously opinions and facts are not the same thing.
Interestingly, one individual by the name of John Rosen, who apparently is a supporter of Michael Góngora, was not happy with the actual facts that I dug up, or the opinion of a man who accused Góngora of extorting him.
Although I never expressed my personal opinion about the facts I presented, Mr. Rosen felt it necessary to personally attack me by calling me a “shill hack blogger,” and accusing me of “carrying water for Pizzo.”
As my regular readers already know, I don’t “shill” or “carry water” for anyone, but Mr. Rosen is entitled to his opinion of me.
But, I thanked him for sharing.
Philip J. Brutus, on the other hand, went completely bat shit crazy, falsely accusing me of all kinds of things.
He called me racist and anti-Haitian, accused me of being paid for my opinion, and stated that my support is “for sale to the highest bidder.”
And, despite the fact that I’ve never even met Jason Pizzo, Brutus accused me of kissing “Pizzo’s ring.”
In an extreme burst of irony, after making all those false and unsubstantiated accusations against me, Philip Brutus then wrote, “I hope you never find yourself at the receiving end of false and unsubstantiated accusations…”
Alrighty then.
Again, regular readers of this blog already know that none of those are even remotely true, but I also don’t have to prove it to Mr. Brutus. He’s certainly entitled to whatever opinion he has of me, which is none of my business.
I do, however, take issue with Mr. Brutus’ accusation that I attack him “every chance” I get.
“Every chance” I get? WTF?
I searched through every one of the blogs I’ve posted in the last six years, and – this is so weird – prior to my most recent blog, I had only mentioned the name Philip Brutus three times, and they were all in passing (here, here, and here). In addition, and as an aside, I mentioned him in a post about politicians violating elections laws with no consequences.
In my recent blog about State Senate District 38, I merely pointed out again that Brutus had “been fined eighteen times by the Florida Elections Commission between 1999 and 2014,” as well as “this year by the Florida Commission on Ethics.”
Facts aside, Mr. Brutus is apparently not too happy that I pulled his skeletons out of the closet and put them on display.
Oh, well. Public officials are subject to public scrutiny, and that’s all there is too it.
Instead of accepting that fact, however, it sure seems that Philip J. Brutus tries to shut down public opinion by threatening to sue anyone who says mean things about him.
In fact, Brutus did file a dafamation lawsuit last year against a woman who claims that he ripped her off (a/k/a the dreaded “cement deal”), and two media personalities (Rotschill Anderson, Jr. and Ernst Jean-Louis).
The “cement deal” issue aside, the two media defendants are disputing Brutus’ allegations of defamation. They assert that their reports were based on opinion and, therefore, protected by the First Amendment. They also claim that since Brutus is a public figure, “he is required to plead a heightened standard to maintain any alleged defamatory or libel action and prove actual malice.”
As you can imagine, the case is still dragging on ad nauseam, and the outcome remains to be seen.
In the meantime, however, I expended a grand total of 60 words out of a 2,567-word blog pointing out that Brutus “has already been fined eighteen times by the Florida Elections Commission between 1999 and 2014, and in January of this year by the Florida Commission on Ethics.”
I followed that factoid with my opinion that he “should be easily beatable in the general election” because of those violations.
And, yet, for daring to even mention the name Philip J. Brutus, I was hit with a barrage of insults, as well as a threatened lawsuit, from someone who is apparently used to bullying and suing people to get what he wants.
Fortunately, he can’t bully people into voting for him.
Hopefully, no one will.
Brutus also seems to think it’s no big deal that he was repeatedly fined for repeatedly not filing his campaign reports on a timely basis.
While it’s true that being a slacker is not a criminal or even an unethical violation, it is an indication of a candidate who doesn’t take Florida Statutes all that seriously.
Unless those Statutes can be cited in lawsuits.
I fully expect Mr. Brutus to go ballistic over this blog and immediately try to figure out a way to accuse me of libel and/or defamation of character, even though I am guilty of neither.
In turn, because he will have absolutely no rational argument against any of the things I’ve written, he will again falsely accuse me of racism, being anti-Haitian and hating “strong, successful Black men.” (Yeah, that must be it!)
Yawn.
More importantly, despite the fact that I have never run for political office, Brutus attacked me with, “Then again, the voters of North Miami Beach rejected you so many times, you finally got the point.”
OMG! He accused me of being a POLITICIAN!
Now THAT’S an INSULT!
Since Philip J. Brutus made it a very public point to falsely accuse me of attacking him “every chance” I get, I figured I might as well fulfill that fantasy by dedicating an entire blog to him.
So, yeah. This time it really is all about him.
See? I told you my cats have opinions, too.
Stephanie
See how uninteresting this guy is, no one is even interested in writing anything about him. He could be “The Most Uninteresting Guy In The World”. And of course, he won’t respond to this because he NEVER reads your blog, except for the 26 comments he made in your previous one.
You are right Stephanie Kienzle, I don’t read your blog, nor do I care about your opinion.
But you are being dishonest when you state that all you did was point to public records and that you are not a racist. Firstly, in addition to pointing out the fines, you added that I am ethically challenged and even did some somersaults to define the failure to timely file reports as some sort of corruption. That is why I sent you the definition of corruption. And to conclude that one is ethically challenged for filing late campaign finance reports without investigating the circumstances of these filings clearly shows your penchant for shooting first and asking questions later.
Secondly, to say that I may face a candidate with more “BLACK” stains than I have is as racist as it gets. People of my hue have fought for decades against the cliches “Black cat”, “Black Monday” and other negative connotations that other people attach to the word “BLACK” . That you used it in a negative fashion in your attack is proof positive of your sentiments about Black people and your saying that one of your sons is either Black or of color is akin to the old tired excuse usually uttered by racists caught red handed that ” But my best friend is Black”.
But Stephanie Kienzle, you cannot affect the outcome of my race because, again, my voters don’t know who you are, nor do they care about your opinion.
Lastly, I notice that you read the court file of the lawsuit I filed against these three defendants and prominently wrote that I was accused of ripping a lady off and the defendants denied my allegations. I will advise you again, you are bordering on committing defamation, when you republish the lies uttered by these defendants although you have been forewarned that these statements are false. Hiding behind the excuse, “according to” will not shield as you are clearly spinning the facts to create the impression in your readers’ mind that there is some truth to the false accusations. You must have seen the bank statements that $185,000.00 was wired to a company called FMI Trading, which company was provided to me by the very lady who said I took her money. You must have read the plethora of emails between myself as attorney for PBA consultants, the company that stole the money, the lady who lost the money, her brother in law and others. You must have read the letters I sent to Abdoul Diallo and Julien St-Felix threatening to sue them if they did not reimburse the lady’s money. You must have read also read the lady made a separate deal without my knowledge with the company and the latter shipped some $60,000.00 worth of cement to her in Haiti and the bill of lading only shows that company and the lady’s name. You must have read that she threatened the father of one of the thieves, Mr. Julien St-Felix with death and threats to burn his gas station down. I hope you also read the myriad of documents clearly showing that the accusations were most libelous.
You can choose to pay cute and skirt the rules of defamation and libel. But, the more you engage and opine on that matter, the closer you are getting to becoming a co-defendant for publishing this rubbish in your blog. This is the second warning I am giving you.
Phillip Brutus
You really do have a problem with reading comprehension, don’t you? I stated that your lawsuit was against a woman who CLAIMED you ripped her off. What about that isn’t true? I did NOT say you ripped her off. I read the lawsuit, and I gave no opinion as to whether or not your lawsuit has any merit. You can try to twist my words to suit your agenda, but I know exactly what I said.
I also take issue with your connotations of my use of the word “black,” i.e. “black mark” (not “stain” as you put it), “black Friday,” or “black cat.” Those are legitimate idioms and I refuse to address your “politically correct” stupidity that any of those are even remotely referring to black people. It’s all bullshit and you know it. You’re just trying to make something out of complete nothingness.
As for your “race,” as you put it (OMG! Isn’t THAT a racist comment LOL?), I have no intention of affecting the outcome. I stand to neither lose nor gain by whomever wins State Senate District 38. My only concern is to arm the voters with enough information so that they can make an informed decision. It’s my hope that they see through your nastiness and, frankly, boorish behavior.
I did not commit libel, make any false accusations against you, or insult you in any discriminatory manner. I know better than to do that.
Before you waste your time and money suing me, I suggest you consult with an attorney who will advise you that under the First Amendment, reporters, journalists and, yes, even bloggers, have a right to publish an opinion whether you like those opinions or not.
“You are right Stephanie Kienzle, I don’t read your blog, nor do I care about your opinion.”
Yeah Stephanie, I don’t read your stupid blog but I can just “FEEL” the words written about me, even though I didn’t read them, so i just can’t help myself and have to respond.
And you using the word “black” in any form or context IS RACIST. You should be prohibited from ever using it again now that I called you out on it. In fact, I think the first amendement to the US Constitution should be amended so that white people such as you, can never use the word black, EVER. In fact, you should not even THINK black either.
And your opinions will not affect my voters as they don’t know you or care about your opinions, because they have already made up their OWN minds that my opponent is more qualified than me and will vote for him anyway. So you see you have no effect on them.
Finally, I caution you on saying anything more bad about me because if you were in the country where I came from, you would be picked up and never seen again. We have “peoples” laws there that protect nefarius people like me from truth-tellers like you.
You made me so mad that I made a special doll in your image and as I write this, I am sticking needles in every part of it so you better “GOVERN YOURSELF ACCORDINGLY”
P.J. Broofus
Ouch! I feel those needles!
And, just to show my “solidarity” with BLM, I hereby declare that the following terms are OFF-LIMITS by white people:
BLACK tie affair
BLACK coffee
BLACKboard
BLACKbird
BLACKsmith
BLACKmail
BLACKlist
BLACKball
BLACKjack
BLACKout
BLACKhead
BLACK and blue
BLACK hole
BLACK magic
BLACK Russian
In the BLACK
BLACK sheep
The new BLACK
BLACK out
As clear as BLACK and white
Little BLACK dress
Pot calling the kettle BLACK
From now on, we are just going to erase the word “black” from our RAAACIST vernacular.
Unless, of course, we are referring to:
BLACK Miss America Contest
BLACK Entertainment Television
BLACK History Month
BLACK Congressional Caucus
National Organization of BLACK Law Enforcement Executives
BLACK Culinarians Alliance (BCA)
BLACKS In Government (BIC)
National Association of BLACK Accountants (NABA)
National Association of BLACKS In Criminal Justice (NABCJ)
BLACK Women In Sisterhood For Action (BISA)
National Society of BLACK Engineers (NSBE)
But, do not DARE substitute the word “WHITE” FOR “BLACK” in any of those organizations, ‘cuz that would be RAAACIST!
Seriously, I’m not making this up.
And, oh yeah, give me a fucking break.
Dude, what myriad of documents?
You have not been able to prove shit. All you have done is try to overwhelm people with useless and irrelevant demands for discovery without even having a case.
You admit YOURSELF that you, or your firm, entered into a contract to sell a large amount of cement and you never delivered. Any person with a minimum of common sense would be asking YOU “Where is my cement?!”
Now you are hiding your sorry ass behind an LLC, and unfairly dragging the victims of your incompetence into a lengthy legal process that they probably cannot afford, just for daring to call you on it. You probably know that your chances of winning are slim, but you are doing it anyways only to punish them for challenging you.
And in following what seems to be a very bad habit, you come here, to a blog that you “don’t read” to make threats of doing the same to others. And to make it ironic, you lie and make slanderous and unsubstantiated accusations yourself.
I am sorry, dude.
Consistently breaking election rules could make you “ethically challenged” but the rest of your behavior makes you a crook, unfit to hold office or to represent people.
Where I come from, we call people like you POS.
I hope the judge can see through your bullshit and makes you liable for that cement deal.
Do I know you? Keep your pointless, inept and puerile diatribe to yourself. But, as I said before, if you are so right in your ridiculous belief, cone out of the shadow and face me. As far as entertaining any discourse with you and the other idiot who reads this blog, you can go fly a kite. At least you know who I am. I don’t know who you are. Be a man and come out to face me. I will show you, that is, if you have any sense of decency or if you can even understand what’s written in the documents, by clear and convincing proof that what you and your idol the mighty Stephanie Kienzle is doing by allowing you to repeat that crap about that so called lady, is drive by blogging, akin to journalistic terrorism. But bring it on. The moment Stephanie Kienzle crosses the line, she will get sued along with all you hacks that continue to hammer at my reputation, while clinging to a spin you have been told time and again is a lie.
“Be a man” ?
You mean, like you ?
You’re funny, funny man!
Do you think people are afraid of you?
What are you going to do, face-to-face, that you cannot do right here?
Scream like a little girl?
Punch me like the bully that you seem to be?
Is that how you plan to make me keep my opinions to myself?
Do you really think that’s what a public official wannabe should be saying to potential voters?
Do you really think people are afraid of you?
I am facing you right here, right now, on the issues that matter: You are a POS bully who wants to bring his POS bully tactics into public office.
Those are the issues that matter.
If you are not man enough, or decent enough; if you lack the decorum, or you are not smart enough to openly discuss a public issue out in the open, out in a public forum, then shut up, punk.
These are facts, in your own words, facts that YOU stated to the court:
1- Your firm, and you, entered into a contract to buy and sell cement
2- The money was wired to you (your firm)
3- The buyer never received the cement
4- You make a thousands excuses as to why you should not be liable for your foolishness and why nobody should criticize you for it, or else.
And these are opinions I can draw from your facts:
1- You cannot be trusted
2- You’re a crook
3- You’re a bully
4- You are a POS
5- You don’t deserve our votes
Deal with that or try to have a civilized discussion without threats. Then maybe I can change my mind. Then maybe we can have a face to face. Then maybe you’ll have your opportunity to punch me. Word of advice though, I believe the law allows me to defend myself, should you dare do that.
Ball on your court. Demonstrate that are intellectually worthy.
Otherwise, can you see the finger?
No?
Oh well!
To that Guy Joseph character. You either can’t read or do not understand the English Language. As I said, come out of the shadows to face me with your cockammy crap you keep publishing in this blog and we’ll duke it out in court. I am advising Stephanie Kienzle again thst these posts are slandering my name. And to Kienzle, the lawyer who wrote that legal opinion for you should read the Miami Herald and New York Times v. Sullivan libel cases. Perhaps he/she will understand the concept of bad faith. Again,any media outlet that knowingly and wilfully republishes the libelous statements of others, although being warned tine and again cannot escape liability by staying that they are merely republishing someone else’s opinions. A word to the wise.
In the same way I have never posted a single racist or anti-Haitians word, there has been no libel committed. Do you think that because I am a woman, you can intimidate me? If so, you are sadly mistaken. Your bully tactics will never work with me.
In fact, what you are doing now is starting to look like harassment. I suggest you back off before you make matters worse for yourself.
Well, here is the thing about libel and defamation lawsuits….you have to be very thick skinned to prosecute them. Everything about you is suddenly discoverable and it makes for a miserable existence. And, as will most certainly be the case here…if Mr. Brutus did choose to sue Ms. Keinzle…he would wind up getting countersued for his derogatory remarks. Both would wind up claiming some qualified privilege and the suit would be nothing more than a total waste of time and money. So, rather than threaten lawsuits over and over, and since this is a very public forum, you might as well use this forum to be transparent and set the record straight. After all, the only people that might have a lesser opinion of you because of this blog, Mr. Brutus, are the people reading it. Since at least some of them independently question your character, this is a great place to use as a podium to make your case….just like Ms. Keinzle put out the facts against her being the racist that you alleged.
And, before you proceed to attack me, calmly consider that I have neither attacked or defended you.
Wishing all a pleasant Sunday.
Thank you, David. Of course, he will most likely now accuse you of shilling for the “shill.” Oh, make that the “racist, hack shill.”
I certainly hope he doesn’t do something stupid like file a frivolous lawsuit against me. His time and resources would be better well spent on running his campaign, like all his opponents are doing, instead of lobbing false accusations at a blogger.
If Brutus thinks I’m going to back down, he’s sadly mistaken. I’ve come up against bullies before, especially one in particular who unsuccessfully tried to teach the “little woman” her place. That didn’t work out so well for him, either.
In the meantime, I will continue to voice my opinion and allow my readers to do the same. There’s a reason this website is called Voters OPINION. Duh!
Mr. Temple
It is truly refreshing to read your post. At least, we can have an adult conversation. Firstly, it was never intention to attack you. If I did, please accept my apologies. I would limit my comments only to your post and ignore the drive atorneytacks thar have been perfected in this blog. Now, think about it for a moment. Put yourself in my shoes for a minute. One person writes a political piece addressing fines levied by the Florida Elections Commission against you and concludes you are ethically challenged. You respond and, assuming for the sake of argument, you overeacted. Then suddenly some folks with obvious hidden agendas begin to slander your name by accusing you of stealing, destroying families and being a crook.
I don”t think you would just sit back and ignore it. Well, that is what happened here. There is litigation pending about these false allegations. The court file is rife with documentary evidence to refute the accusations. I provided the blog owner with the case number so that she can see fir herself what the documents state. Yet she ridicules it and allows a hack to continue stirring up the pot by repeating the wild and unsubstatiated accusations ad nauseum. Now you tell me what your reaction would be on the face of these ad hominem attacks.
On the issue of libel, you know that when you utter or republish a false and defamatory statement with reckless disregard to its truth and veracity, you will be liable as though you uttered the initial statement. And when you do so notwithstanding verigiable facts refuting thr false statements, you are actung eirh malice. And even public officials can reciver damages if they prove malicious intent. You don’t have to agree with me. But I would assume you will, at least, agree that it is reckless for this blogger to allow an individual to relentlessly slander one’s name. And I invite them, again, to go to the Police, the Florida Bar and the State Attorney if any of their accusation is true. Rather than doing that, the individual continues to fire the same Salvo and the blogger continues to allow it. It is easy to make wild accusations in a blog, but it is quite another to prove your case in court. Lastly, I am looking for the alleged victim to serve her with process in the defamation action. Would it not make sense for her to countersue me for her alleged loss, if there was any truth to the defamatory allegations bandied about in this forum? I will leave it there.
Peace Profound
That’s all I will say on this issue right now. And you have a great Sunday as well.
Wow.
Brutus is back.
And I thought he promised to never again read this blog.
There has to be something wrong with him, trying so hard to make a fool of himself. You’d think that somebody who calls himself a lawyer would be very careful not to make such a display of absolute ignorance.
He got N.Y.Times vs. Sullivan backwards!!
“New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case that established the actual malice standard, which has to be met before press reports about public officials can be considered to be defamation and libel; and hence allowed free reporting of the civil rights campaigns in the southern United States. It is one of the key decisions supporting the freedom of the press. The actual malice standard requires that the plaintiff in a defamation or libel case, if he is a “public figure”, prove that the publisher of the statement in question knew that the statement was false or acted in reckless disregard of its truth or falsity. Because of the extremely high burden of proof on the plaintiff, and the difficulty of proving the defendant’s knowledge and intentions, such claims by public figures rarely prevail.
Before this decision, there were nearly US $300 million in libel actions from the Southern states outstanding against news organizations, as part of a focused effort by Southern officials to use defamation lawsuits as a means of preventing critical coverage of civil rights issues in out-of-state publications. The Supreme Court’s decision, and its adoption of the actual malice standard, reduced the financial hazard from potential defamation claims, and thus countered the efforts by public officials to use these claims to suppress political criticism.”
Hmmm, Ricardo. It appears, as usual, that you are correct!
…and one more thing, THIS is ABSOLUTELY, POSITIVELY, the LAST time I will comment in your rag blog. And you can take that to the bank Ms. Stephanie Kienzle. You will miss me too. If it wasn’t for me, your viewership would not have the 423% increase in activity I got you. Now your rag will shrivel into oblivion once I’m not writing in your blog ANYMORE, got that!
Peace Profound
(I like sayng that over and over too)
Noooooo! Please don’t go. If you do, I’ll have no one to argue with!
Guy Joseph.
Stephanie, this guy phillipe brutus is a power hungry he destroyed many families in the Haitian Community his reaction right now is the same scared tactics he used for years to intimidate the Poor Haitian in the community his a disgrace for the community we are ashame just the fact he was born in Haiti. Stephanie again we know you are not racist nor anti Haitian, don’t let this little man power hungry phillipe brutus intimidate you, beside this little guy phillipe brutus he is clearly anti Haitian by destroying their lives. I know this guy phillipe brutus Stephanie HIS A BAD PERSON… HIS A CANCER FOR THE HAITIAN COMMUNITY. Is not for no reason all his wives left him, he doesn’t even payed child support in one of the Miami Herald post his x-wife Yolly Robenson mention when he was running against Fredrica Wilson. Is not for no reason his last wife that married him ever changed her last name to brutus but kept her x- husband last name. As you see I don’t even Capitalize this guy name. This man is a crook, he is the pure black version of Donald Trump. Liar; Bully, Conniving; intimidating; arrogant; unethical; thieves; corrupt; subhuman. This man have a dark heart…. Stephanie keep serving the Haitian community. Thank you for exposing the hugly beast( phillipe brutus)…….
Stephanie Kienzle
You do know do you not that your republishing posts that attack my reputation make you liable for libel? This Guy Joseph person just accused me of ruining many Haitian families; that I am “anti Haitian destroying lives”, “bully”, “liar” “conniving”, “thieves” corrupt”.
I have warned you on three different occasions now. I remind you again of my notice to you pursuant to Fla. Stat. 770.02.
Again, to be forewarned is to be forearmed. Don’t say I did not warn you.
You are making your bed; be ready to lie in it.
I am not sure that the anonymous posters comments to the blog constitute libel of the blog owner. The comment was posted by an anonymous individual and they are clearly said persons opinion only. Without substantiation they remain mere opinion. Whether there is a qualified privilege to make such comments when someone voluntarily becomes a candidate for public office is an entirely separate issue. Finally, many of the remarks I read in Mr. Brutus’ posts, about people who have NOT voluntarily put themselves out for public office (read “scrutiny”) may well be libelous and slanderous on their own. Since Mr. Brutus has an equal stage here, to set the record straight, I very much doubt that anyone involved in these pages has a viable cause of action for libel or slander.
Unlike Brutus, I don’t sue (or threaten to sue) people who hurt my feelings. It’s truly funny to see someone who was once an elected official behave so childishly. No other politician that I’ve rightfully criticized has ever commented in this blog. They know that opinions can’t hurt them. This dude is just cray cray.
I will no longer read the rubbish written in this blog, as I have enough to sue this Blog, Stephanie Kienzle and the other idiots who clearly have an ax to grind with me, but cannot bring their gripes in a court of law, but choose to use this blog to do their dirty deeds.
Carry on.
Brutus
“I will no longer read the rubbish written in this blog, as I have enough to sue this Blog, Stephanie Kienzle and THIS is the very last, last, last, last, last, last. last. last time I will say I won’t read your blog ever, ever, ever, ever again, except of course, to reply to anyone who DARES to write back to me in which case I will be forced to reply back you again.” GOT THAT Stephanie Kienzle!!!
Phillipe Brutus:Vole,thieves,
According to Brutus, you’re not entitled to your own opinion, only his.
The editor of the blog has no information to substantiate the accusations of the original poster, and that they should be read as mere opinions of only the original poster.
You hit the jackpot, Stephanie.
This Brutus guy is the gift that keeps on giving.
I hadn’t seen this level of proud moron in a long time.
Looks like you’ll have plenty to keep on blogging about, or maybe not.
I don’t intend to give him any more attention than I’ve already inadvertently given him. In fact, if he hadn’t started out with his insane attacks here, none of y’all would probably know who he was. You do, now. And I’m fairly confident that he’s made a good case of why no one should vote for him. Ever.
In all the years I’ve been doing this, and of all the politicians I’ve called out for corruption and general asshattery, not a single one of them have ever made such a complete fool of themselves as Philip Brutus. Ironically, it was all much ado about NOTHING!
I can’t even imagine how this dude’s head would explode if I had criticized him the way I’ve done with Andre Pierre and Kevin Burns, who both still talk to me, Phyllis, Frantz and Myron, none of whom I will talk to, or any number of other politicians I’ve trashed on this blog over the years.
I’ve never seen such a bigger, or more thin-skinned, bully in my life. Still, I don’t intimidate easily. In fact, I don’t get intimidated at all.
I’m pretty sure there was a rat’s ass lying around here somewhere once, but for the life of me, I don’t remember where I put it.
I have never seen a more bizarre rant in my life from anyone, much less a public official. Mr. Stompy Foot is absolutely apoplectic that anyone dares to have a negative opinion of him. Or worse, hold him accountable for his actions. Now he’s threatened to sue me and everyone who has posted a comment about his erratic behavior. Do the voters of District 38 really want to be represented by such a seemingly unstable person? He’s even bat shit crazier than Daphne! And that’s hard to accomplish! Just WOW!
Well, now you know what the Haitian community been dealing with,,,,,, this guy is an idiot. I can not wait for Pizzo to win the election, the lady that he robe by using his tittle as State Representative to convince her that he could be trusted, will take all the documents to Pizzo to open a full investigation on this guy phillipe brutus and his firm also the fake trading company he created. Stephanie wait and see.
To be clear, you are stating an OPINION, right? Apparently, you gotta be real clear on that or he’ll threaten another lawsuit.
Last time I checked this blog is fully base on opinion. Right?
Yep. It’s called VotersOpinion for a reason. Opinion based on verifiable facts. Unlike what Mr. Brutus seems to think, opinions and facts are two different things. Just saying.
Dear Ms. Kienzle,
As an employee of a local advertizing rating agency, we have been monitoring your blog for the past year noting the steady rise in viewership of your blog. This week there has been a meteoric rise in your readership due to the recent comments posted on your blog site. The key word seems to be “Brutus”. This person has exploded the viewers viewing your site by more than 432%.
If you can keep him going, we would be very interested in signing a contract with you to sponsor our advertizing clients on your website. So far, three major cement companies have indicated interest, along with more than a dozen law firms specializing in slander liability. We also have a public service request from a women’s shelter to advertize on your site along with three public relations firms. Please contact me at your earliest convenience.
Arnold Rosecrans
Careful there, Arnold. You might find yourself on the receiving end of a lawsuit accusing you of having a sense of humor. That’s dangerous territory, ya know! 😉
Mr. Brutus I have been reading all the nasty things you have been writing and I told my husband Popeye what you said. He said if you continue to slander Ms. Kienzle, he will eat a can of spinich and come over and give you that face-to-face meeting you want to have and you won’t be so mouthy after he gets done with you.
I’m just letting you know that for the second day in a row I have NOT READ your rag blog and don’t intend to ever again. However, if you apologize to me profusely and swear never, ever to write something bad about me again, I might reconsider.
This P.J sh***** his a character.