JOHN CUSACK AND MR. FLIPFLOP

Hey John and Bill,

Very busy today and did not have time for your flipflopping. Am nice/am mean, am basically whatever John Cusack tells me to be in order to threaten you once again regarding MY TAPE (in a very safe place, by the way - just confirmed it has landed safely and is secure and restful - unless you annoy me enough with your lies where I may have to use it). You must love me very much since you call me so often and after I have not spoken to you for days. Last call July 31, 2006. Am very flattered, but disgusted at the same time.

WHY ARE YOU BOTH SO CONCERNED WITH MY LITTLE TAPE - JUST A TALK, A CHAT, RIGHT? IF NOTHING DAMAGING ON IT, WHY DO YOU CARE SO MUCH? IF THERE ARE NO THREATS ON IT, WHY DO YOU CARE SO MUCH? WHY THREATEN ME AGAIN, BILL, WHEN I CALL YOU ON YOUR LIES REGARDING THE LEGALITY OF MY TAPE? MY TAPE, MY TAPE, MY TAPE, MY TAPE, NAH Na NAH Na NAH Na.

YOU ARE ALL SO OBVIOUS, IT IS REALLY HYSTERICAL, NO REALLY, I AM ACTUALLY, LAUGHING AT THIS VERY MOMENT - but then again, I tend to crack myself up all the time, so could be that. And Bill, you can stop with the nice-guy routine - not buying it anymore. At least be true to yourself and speak as you did on your last message to me. The "Hey Shera", like we're buddies or something just doesn't cut it. More lies, you're a bad actor - hope you don't do that as well. Never heard of you in that arena, so if you do, must be as bad as I imagine.

You said my blog was very funny and emphasized that it must have taken a long time to write. No, actually wrote it quite fast - am very smart, clever and talented is all. Rest of time on internet was replies to emails that I had to answer even though it interrupted my blog.

Loved your last message about the attorney. God, you are the one who is really, really funny. Will not respond to any of your calls, by the way. Feel it is wiser to remain on the internet at this point in time as is public domain, which we both know.

Will share some knowledge with you, Mr. Flipflop, just don't go flipfloppin' away since is very long and not sure 1) if your attention span is adequate enough to read it all and 2) am not sure you are smart enough to comprehend it.

Regardless, here it is:

1) http://www.pimall.com/nais/n.recordlaw.html

Now pay very close attention to the part where it says, and I quote, "In the state of California, one party consent can be applied only under circumstances in which one party is involved in criminal activity which would include extortion or blackmail".
Believe "possible" threats to other's well-being would be included under "criminal". Am still investigating possible "blackmail" by Cusack.

2) http://www.spyman.com/laws.htm

Again, try and stay with me here - this one is fairly simple. "The federal Wiretap laws have been expanded to include cellulars and cordless phone conversations. Cellular and cordless conversations can be recorded with the consent of one party." Easy to understand, eh?

3) http://www.rcfp.org/taping/consent.html

Criminal purpose. Federal law requires only one-party consent to the recording and disclosure of a telephone conversation, but explicitly does not protect the taping if it is done for a criminal or tortious purpose. Many states have similar exceptions. Employees of a "psychic hotline" who were secretly recorded by an undercover reporter working for "Primetime Live" sued ABC for violation of the federal wiretapping statute, arguing that the taping was done for the illegal purposes of invading the employees privacy. The federal appellate court in Pasadena (9th Cir.) affirmed the dismissal of the employees claim in September 1999. According to the court, an otherwise legal taping that is done to achieve a "further impropriety, such as blackmail," becomes a violation of the law. But even if ABC s means of taping were illegal because the act violated the employees privacy, that does not make the taping illegal under the wiretap act, the court held. Because the employees "produced no probative evidence that ABC had an illegal or tortious purpose" when it made the tape, the reporter did not violate the federal statute. (Sussman v. American Broadcasting Co.)
YOU BOTH KNOW BY NOW THAT I HAVE NO ILLEGAL OR TORTIOUS PURPOSE HERE. 'NUFF SAID.

4) http://www.rcfp.org/taping/consent.html

Am breaking it up into sections to make it easier for you to understand. There is much more on this site, but am only quoting what I feel pertains to our situation.
Trespass. A party whose conversation is surreptitiously recorded, whether with a tape recorder or a hidden camera, may also raise such newsgathering claims as trespass and intrusion, examining the issue of the scope of a party s consent. For example, in Desnick, the doctor sued the network for trespass because he did not know of the taping. But the court stated that consent to an entry is "often given legal effect" even though the entrant "has intentions that if known to the owner of the property would cause him . . . to revoke his consent." Desnick refers to Desnick v. ABC and is cited earlier on website.
To bypass the legalese for you guys, basically doesn't matter if you do not consent to taping after the fact. Too bad for you! My conversation with Mr. Flipflop was neither a trespass or intrusion - in fact, I was returning his call per HIS REQUEST.

5) http://www.rcfp.org/taping/consent.html

Expectations of privacy. The other issue that courts address in evaluating these cases is whether or not the plaintiffs had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the area where the filming took place. In Desnick, the court held that the doctor did not have such an expectation of privacy in an area where he brought his patients.
NOW CONSIDERING THE NATURE OF OUR TOPIC AND THIS PHONE CONVERSATION, THERE WAS ABSOLUTELY NO REASON FOR ANY EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY FROM EITHER ONE OF US - FOR ALL I KNEW, YOU COULD HAVE BEEN TAPING THE CALL, AS WELL.

6) http://www.rcfp.org/taping/

In light of the differing state laws governing electronic recording of conversations between private parties, journalists are advised to err on the side of caution when recording or disclosing an interstate telephone call. The safest strategy is to assume that the stricter state law will apply.

For example, a reporter located in the District of Columbia who records a telephone conversation without the consent of a party located in Maryland would not violate District of Columbia law, but could be liable under Maryland law. A court located in the District of Columbia may apply Maryland law, depending on its "conflict of laws" rules. Therefore, an aggrieved party may choose to file suit in either jurisdiction, depending on which law is more favorable to the party s claim.

In one case, a New York trial court was asked to apply the Pennsylvania wiretap law — which requires consent of all parties — to a call placed by a prostitute in Pennsylvania to a man in New York. Unlike the Pennsylvania wiretap statute, the New York and federal statutes require the consent of only one party. The call was recorded with the woman s consent by reporters for The Globe, a national tabloid newspaper. The court ruled that the law of the state where the injury occurred, New York, should apply. (Krauss v. Globe International)
MY "INJURY" OCCURRED IN NEW YORK!

7) http://www.rcfp.org/taping/

Journalists should be aware that wiretap laws raise issues beyond just whether they have met consent requirements. The federal law and many state laws explicitly make it illegal to possess — and particularly to publish — the contents of an illegal wiretap, even if it is made by someone else. Some states that allow recordings make the distribution or publication of those otherwise legal recordings a crime.

The 1986 Electronic Communications Privacy Act (amending the federal wiretap law) makes it illegal to possess or divulge the contents of any illegally intercepted communication.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in May 2001 that several media defendants could not be held liable for damages under the federal statute for publishing and broadcasting information obtained through an illegal interception of a private conversation.

The case arose from a cell-phone conversation in Pennsylvania about contract negotiations for local school teachers. During the conversation, Anthony Kane Jr., president of the local teachers union, told Gloria Bartnicki, a union negotiator, that if teachers demands were not met, "we re gonna have to go to their, their homes . . . to blow off their front porches, we ll have to do some work on some of those guys." While Bartnicki and Kane spoke, an unknown person illegally intercepted the call, and a tape recording was left in the mailbox of a local association leader. The association leader gave a copy of the tape to two radio talk show hosts, who broadcast the tape as a part of a news show. Local television stations also aired the tape, and newspapers published transcripts of the conversation.

Bartnicki and Kane sued some of the stations and newspapers that had disclosed the contents of the tape. The case made its way to the Supreme Court, which found that First Amendment principles trumped the privacy concerns of the union leaders.

In ruling that disclosure of a matter in the public interest outweighed claims of privacy, the majority of the Court supported "a profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust and wide-open." The majority explained that those who participate in public affairs have a diminished expectation of privacy, especially when they propose to carry out wrongful conduct.

PAY CLOSE ATTENTION TO THAT LAST SENTENCE, GUYS. AND THIS WAS ABOUT AN ILLEGAL TAPING - MINE WAS LEGAL!

8) http://www.rcfp.org/taping/intro.html

The federal wiretap law was amended in 1986 and 1994 to expand the definition of electronic communications to include cellular and cordless phone conversations. Under the statute, cellular and cordless phone conversations can be recorded with the consent of one party.

The federal law was changed to accommodate the differences between the cordless telephone system and the traditional telephone system, which transmits communications by wire or cable.
JUST SOME MORE ON CELLULAR LAW IN CASE YOU DIDN'T COMPREHEND IT THE FIRST TIME 'ROUND.

9) http://www.pimall.com/nais/n.recordlaw.html

Calls Crossing State Lines
Calls that cross state lines become complicated legal issues especially when one state is a one party consent state and the other state is an all party consent state. What has happened is that you didn't violate the law in the one party consent state and violated the law in the all party consent state. Moreover, since the call went across a state line, the federal laws would certainly apply. The most famous case involving this type of issue is the Linda Trip case. You will recall that Linda Trip recorded the telephone conversations of Monica Lewinski concerning her relationship with President Clinton. Trip was in Maryland and Lewinski was in DC. Note that Maryland is an all party consent state while DC is a one party consent state. The law is actually quite fuzzy on these issues. The recorder is advised to assume that the sticker law would apply.
JUST SOME MORE OF WHAT YOU THREATENED ME ABOUT.

10) There should always be ten.

Cal. Penal Code §§ 631, 632: It is a crime in California to intercept or eavesdrop upon any confidential communication, including a telephone call or wire communication, without the consent of all parties.

It is also a crime to disclose information obtained from such an interception.
NOW YOU MIGHT BE GOING "HA" AT THIS POINT, BUT STOP! I NEITHER INTERCEPTED NOR EAVESDROPPED ON ANY CONFIDENTIAL COMMUNICATION. I WAS A PARTY IN THE COMMUNICATION.


O.K., so we have our ten, some obvious, but really feel I need to be that way with you. And if thinking of certain California case (which probably aren't), doesn't apply. Read it and weep.

So, have to tell both you, Bill and John, that I am very much a "behind the scenes" type of person. Don't crave attention, like to observe - learn so much more that way and LEARNING IS FUNDAMENTAL!

Would be great hardship for me if I were somehow forced to enter the limelight, so to speak. If pursue what you say, (which we both know you can't, well actually, can do whatever you like, but you don't have a leg to stand on) - I might have to go in front of the cameras, answering questions and all. Would make me so uncomfortable. And might have to tell them all I know about Cusack since that was the basis of our conversation. And the interviews, oh my God, I don't know how I could handle something like that. You know how prying those TV reporters are. I might not perform so well under pressure and they might make me reveal things that perhaps I wouldn't if they weren't so relentless. And the magazines, perhaps a little more comfortable if I had to talk to them, but same thing, would probably drill me endlessly to try and make me tell all I know about John Cusack - may feel so pressured that it would all come out. All those reporters who would find out about unfounded charges brought against me, clamoring for my story on this mystery celebrity who has also been so silent. Would pursue their own investigations and could possibly turn into a crazy media frenzy. Would be such a shame and such a discomfort for me - would hate to have to do that and might really hurt Cusack's reputation and freedom as well as your own and that would be so sad for me.

And, unfortunately, know the media will be there - many are contacts of people on "Team Shera" - and will put moral obligation speech to me, probably make me feel guilty and feel I must do this out of responsibility to the public blah, blah, blah. Might have no choice - am easily coerced when people give me moral lectures.

And so despite the fact that what you threatened me with today, you claimed would involve only you, I think that is not going to be the case. Could be pure conjecture here, but I know these moral do-gooders and they're going to want the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth and that completely involves Cusack and his actions - he might have to be brought into this to testify, give statements to press, etc. Can't see how that couldn't be the case, but who knows? The media loves exposing the truth, especially about celebrities who so defiantly deny their endless requests for personal information; and they love to watch these people fall from grace. There is nothing, unfortunately, that I can do to stop that machine. It is way too strong for me. Am only 5'2".

Hope you enjoyed this blog as much as my previous one. Always here to entertain!

Shera

JOHN CUSACK - CRIMES AND MR. MEANY

hey y'all, I've got a great story to tell. Shhh. Just don't let the big man hear it, 'kay?
No, on second thought, let the big man hear it ALL! Really loud - got to break on through that golden bubble. My story has all the makings of a great classic: drama, emotion, sex, lust, secrets and lies. Wanna hear? Of course you do! But first, a la Ryan Seacrest, after you read my previous post:
John Cusack - Strummer Calling - Update. Essential that you read this first.

Brilliant, no? Found it to be quite clever myself, but I'm a bit biased.
O.K., so we're all up to speed now and I can tell you my tale. BUT, only after I add some new information sent to me by a very reliable source which is essential to get the full picture. John Cusack, who I prefer to call Johnny PC, since such an oxymoron tends to give me the giggles, has done some bad, bad things, it appears. Aside from all exposed by bankrobber's masterpiece ;), there seems to be even more. Just when you thought it was over.......BOOM!

According to my source, I have been told that Cusack had a crew member of the film "The Contract" threatened. That's right, our lost co-dependent Lloyd Dobler, our man, Rob Gordon, whose soul is tortured, seems to be somewhat of a torturer himself. Luckily for this person, her parents were big-whig Washington lawyers who were able to fight the threats and harassment by informing Cusack's "people" (and, from my own experience, which will get to later, are not exactly the brightest bulbs, so to speak) that if they didn't stop, they would send nasty, nasty photos of Johnny Johnson (another one that gives me a bit of a laugh) to every magazine out there which of course would intrigue every reporter and lead to investigation of said crimes to "legal speak". Even the dimmest of bulbs knows that's no fun and left situation alone - defeated, scratching their heads (lice? Parasites do like to stick together), wondering why, oh why, did it not work this time. Bankrobber told of Cusack's womanizing, the disrespect of human rights shown to his fellow man/woman, the depravity and drunkenness displayed in his everyday life. Now, I will take you, my gracious reader on a journey into the experiences others have been so generous as to share with yours truly. First, let's read about some of what has already been mentioned by Bankrobber.
Bulgaria seems to have been quite a ride for Cusack.

"John Cusack a Womanizer: John Cusack got married about a year ago to Jodi Lynn O'Keefe in St. Barts. At least he TOLD everyone that. Then they spent this year Telling everyone she was his wife. Whether it was real or not they admitted it to friends. He married her because he felt it was time to grow up and she allowed him to sleep with any other woman he wanted to. She got to live in a Malibu beach house and drive the new Mercedes he bought her.....Sad really.Therefore, there were TONS of sightings of him cruising the bars....picking up the ladies and leading his usual single life. In Chicago, making the "Ice Harvest" he picked up girls with Jodi standing right beside him? Very strange!John went to Bulgaria (filming "The Contract" with Morgan Freeman, Last fall) and it was quite a scandal. There was a bad report on a web site from one of the crew members about his wild womanizing. It was all true. There are photos we have all seen of a bad bar brawl. John was arrested there and Bulgaria asked him NEVER to return. Morgan was said to be furious at him.This is not even reporting to you what happened in New Orleans while filming "The Runaway Jury." I saw him there myself. He was a real tramp there as well. ............ A terrible thing had happened and Jodi got tired of John's ways. She now sees the man can never be monogamous and has since left him."

(Same guy basically said "terrible thing" was that Jodi had become pregnant and Cusack coerced her, threatened her, pressured her to abort).

"Here's what I know about Bulgaria... I took it straight from the email I received a few months ago so sorry for the typos. My buddy developed a relationship with Jodi and the rest of Jodi's part comes directly from Jodi's mouth.....Jodi had become pregnant and Cusack told her not to be. After all this came out on that web site and at Page six Ithink.......John's people tried to cover it up......the "crew member's"parents are extremely big lawyers in Washington and when John's people called and threatened "her", ...her Dad told them to back off or some of these photos would be on the cover of the ENQUIRER...."

NEXT: "Cusack is a slimeball when it comes to the way he treats women. He views sex with them as some sort of sport. If you ever have the chance to run into Morgan Freeman or Mr. Freeman's assistant, please ask them what they think of John and the way he behaved on the set of "The Contract" last summer in Bulgaria. If you ever happen to meet film director Bruce Beresford, you can ask him the same question.If that still won't convince you, go ask the parents of actress Jodi Lyn O'keefe what they think about John. I promise you will get an earful. If you even knew the half of it, you'd never look at him the same way again."

NEXT: (Paraphrased) It appears John Cusack had a "LIST" of who he should marry which he was overheard discussing with PR people. One lady mentioned was Neve Campbell (who, in my opinion is way too good for that pig - have heard only wonderful things about her and most importantly, she was smart enough to dump his sorry ass supposedly for his roving eye and for being basically a big asshole). The other woman was Jodi-Lynn O'Keefe. And there are many who say others where considered on this "NOT SO LIST OF LOVE." Such calculation, even in his "no love" life. Everything planned for image control. Need that money. $24 million a picture, he claims. Always about the Benjamins.

Crimes against humanity. Not Mr. Liberal. No, say it's not so. "Say Anything", but not this, you plead. SORRY, ALL EVIDENCE POINTS TO THE CONTRARY. My question is how many others whose human rights he has trampled on were, in fact, not blessed with lawyer parents and forced to succumb to Cusack's supposed "terrorist tactics". Could it possibly be an Anthony Pellicano matter? I wonder. Well, definitely makes perfect sense now that Cusack's production company is called New Crime.

NOW IT IS TIME FOR MY TALE. Involves Publicist, Spokesman for Cusack, very wise and much more experienced friend (see links) and me. Well, got me all this info; people emailing me left and right with stories, stories, stories - not nice stories, stories, stories. Me going Hmmm? What to think, what to think? So figure, fuck it, let me call Cusack's publicist, Ame Van Iden from Wolf-Kasteler, and see what she has to say. Is after work hours so I leave a brief message and say I will call her back. The next day, I call and this woman, who I completely expected to dismiss my call, takes it immediately. Hmmm. Honestly, expecting very calm "no comment" or the standard "we don't comment on John's personal life". Instead, lady got very taken aback, seemed somewhat out of sorts, doesn't know what to say like - and finally tells me she has heard absolutely nothing about anything I am talking about. Found this very interesting since she had given a "no comment" comment on "dog catcher" situation to Page Six of the New York Post months before. Please read:

"REPS for John Cusack have shot down Internet gossip that the "High Fidelity" star is secretly married to former "Nash Bridges" actress Jodi Lyn OKeefe. However, one rep declined to comment on the rest of a lengthy posting on a Cusack fan site which, in addition to claiming Cusack was married, also denounced him as a philandering womanizer. The fan site contributor claimed to be an "insider" on the Bulgarian set of Cusacks latest movie, "The Contract." ..... "John is not married," said a rep for Cusack. She declined to comment on the rest of the online posting, which claimed that Cusack has an assistant nicknamed "the dog catcher" because, "It was his job to go out and get girls for Johnny - as many as he could and as often as he was commanded." The rep said, "We just dont comment on Johns personal life." I don't know about you, but I think she might have lied. Nah? Yeah? Of course! Not very bright or completely underestimated my intelligence and observation skills.

Now the biggie - Mr. Friendly - Mr. Bill Wilshire, spokesman for Cusack. Bill (like Dollar Bill) calls me up. Says Ame really can't help me, but he would very much like to assist me in any way possible. Explain situation to him. Am writing article about how sad the state of our government is today when we actually rely on celebrities to come forward with social/political issues, bring them to light and put pressure on Senators and the like to bring about change. If you remember, celebs often given big thumbs down when dabbled in such matters - just act and shut up. Well, not the case anymore. We are blessed with the lovely Angelina Jolie, Brad Pitt, George Clooney, Bono and others to help us in our plight. Was considering adding Cusack to this list since he toured somewhat with 2004 DNC convention, wrote blog in Huffington Post and well, just very vocal liberal - but then the bad word about him came out and felt conflicted. Denied everything in friendliest fashion possible but told him I was still on fence regarding matter and he told he to feel free to call him if I needed any assistance at all. Said our friendly goodbyes and that was that.

Well actually not. Had asked him during this first conversation why people would email me such information. His reply, "They have nothing better to do". Hmmm. Don't know about you, but that's a really weak answer, especially considering many of my sources work in the film industry and have worked personally with Cusack - we're talking busy people here. His sister Joan, from all I have heard a truly beautiful person, has supposedly admitted to film insiders that John is an asshole who mistreats those he works with. Still loves him because he is her brother but is objective enough to see him as he is.

Well, now it gets ugly. Decide to call back Mr. Bill Friendly and pose this question to him, how these people are not bored individuals with nothing better to do. Tells me is boarding a plane and to call him back. Still very friendly. I leave him a message posing my question and leaves me, once again, friendly message back saying at family funeral for weekend and to call him Monday.

MONDAY - JULY 31, 2006 - THE DAY THE TRUTH CAME A KNOCKIN'. Call Mr. Bill Wilshire (can't say friendly, no more) and the first thing I say is so sorry for your loss, wish you had told me last week and would not have called you over weekend. Says, a little too collected for someone who just lost a family member, "Oh, no problem". Now I must fill you in on something. I had referred Bill to a website also investigating this same issue - my wise, experienced friend, Mario G. Nitrini (O.J. Simpson case)(again, see links below - very important). We share info and he has my trust and my back. Well, Mr. Friendly turned into MR. MEANY! But, nothing I couldn't handle since man is, well, stupid, to say the least, and caught him in soooooooooooo many lies, if he were Pinnochio, would throw my nine inch dildo out the window - who needs such a thing with him around. "Has Cusack ever violated anyone's human rights?" Four inches. "So, you're saying these people just made everything up" Four more inches and it keeps on growing - kind of like a Chia pet. "No, we deny everything, all lies, we deny everything, we deny everything". Thought he was doing a mantra there for awhile.

NOTE TO CUSACK - SHOULD REALLY REQUIRE YOUR SPOKESMAN TO HAVE AT LEAST A HIGH SCHOOL EDUCATION. STUPIDITY AND ARROGANCE - BAD FOR YOU - BUT GOOD FOR ME!

When I asked him how such an outspoken liberal could possibly do such things and mentioned his association with Arianna Huffington and possible political aspirations, he actually said (and this is where the true stupidity begins, my friends) "He doesn't even know her". (Bill Wilshire's responses will be in bold text to reflect on the fact that he is a bold-faced liar) I said, "really, because I saw a picture of them together to celebrate the winner of her Contagious Festival". "That doesn't mean he spoke to her." "O.k., but there's the blog she wrote about how she and John went to Bill Gates' Techi Festival together and joked around with eachother". "He doesn't know her, he's never visited her website." "Huh, I say to myself, anyone can go on Google, type in John Cusack and see the blogs he wrote in 2005 on the Huffington Post - how is this possible? - ghostwriter? - And the photo? Can Cusack astral-project a hologram of himself when needed or is he following in Hitler's footsteps and using body doubles? Must think, must think, - No, completely kidding, didn't have to do much thinking at all on this one. LIAR, LIAR, - GOTCHA SUCKA! - WHAT YOU HIDING? - GOT TO BE SOMETHING. Billy boy yelling pretty much whole time - same mantra, we deny everything, that's it, we deny everything, we deny everything.

Now, boys and girls, let me guide you to some very pretty pictures. thanks Arianna! http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/festival-winner-dinner_b_17639.html Doesn't it look like he knows her? Not many people there, very intimate, but Mr. Meany says he's never spoken to her. Told him there were photos and all and still said same thing, just got MEANER - GOTCHA! Second picture, notice Cusack's hand resting on Huff n' Puff's shoulder (another giggle thing). I think Bill Wilshire is right - he's never met her or talked to her at all. But wait, is he, then calling The HUFF a liar, a delusional - this much admired and trusted liberal figure. Let's have Arianna have her say: "I'm here in Carlsbad at the Wall Street Journal's fourth annual "D: All Things Digital" conference (aka D4). John Cusack, my D4 guest, compares it to an annual show biz ritual: "Basically, these are the upfronts for Techies." ..... Gates completely grabbed my attention when he started talking about his "Reality Acquisition Device". Before he could elaborate on what that meant, Cusack scribbled a note on my steno pad: "Send a box to the White House!".... Another note from Cusack: "If you download the right software, will your R.A.D. tell you how you're feeling at that moment? You know, like, "do I love my wife"?My note back: "With the box we're sending to the White House, they'll probably rewire it so it blocks out what they're really feeling."Cusack: "Right. Only those who deal in reality will want to acquire it." For entire blog, go to Huffington Post, The Blog, Arianna Huffington D Conference "The Upfronts for Techies" or just do Cusack google search and you'll find it right away. Didn't want to bore you with whole blog but best comment by a fellow reader had to be "...did you write this article for any other reason besides letting us know that your date was Cusack?If your date to this techie shindig was a non-celebrity would this have even been a story?" See, now I am truly convinced he does not know her at all! I am truly ashamed. Have heard it's a use-use situation - possible sex-involved - but ultimately, he gives her celebrity cred and she gets him into Democrat events.

Bill, why you lie, lie, lie especially when I tell you there is internet evidence out there - just go, oh you mean ARIANNA Huffington, I thought you said ANNA Huffington. So many ways to get around lies when you're caught, but you just not very clever, poor man. Oh, and don't believe your family funeral story either - only death experienced is that of your soul if you've ever had one to begin with. And last with Huff n' Puff, "He's never visited her site". So dumb, man. It was all over the place. "John Cusack blogs - wow! " He wrote three blogs on her site not to mention once again, is considered member/friend of Huff family as judge of Contagious Festival. Nah, he doesn't know her, never spoke to her - got to be that astral projection thing - I know it - He probably doesn't even remember his spirit leaving his body to be with her or even better, could he have a doppelganger? - now that would explain everything. First one on Bush, the Dems, Jon Stewart, etc. Here it is, know is long and don't expect you to read it except if you truly want to see what a fraud this man is with absolutely no understanding of human rights - they begin with showing respect to the person profusely sweating on the subway next to you - but he wouldn't get that one, celeb and all - let's say it begins with showing respect to the waiter/waitresses who serve your food, etc. He believes he is above it all and above Joe/Joan Public. Help me prove him wrong.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-cusack/on-bush-the-dems-jon-st_b_10485.html

Blah, Blah,Blah - all bunch of bullshit coming from his mouth (and God only knows where that's been). Two more posts, one about Hunter S. Thompson who actually gave him the boot in favor of lovely Johnny Depp for "Fear and Loathing..." Little hint there, Johnny? Other one about Joe Strummer and must now confess and probably not suprisingly so, am Bankrobber, so you all know how I feel about him and Strummer - feel a bit sick to my stomach having to include them in same sentence, so that is that.

So, Bill Wilshire has proved me wrong, dammit. There is absolutely no way Cusack is affiliated with Arianna Huffington.

Question: Why go to such lengths to deny this affiliation? Protecting political ambitions, cash flow? Gotta give that one some thought. Can understand denying Anthony Pellicano-type tactics to keep their wallets fat and their employer seen as he wants the world to see him. Sickening, really and disheartening. He is an abuser of the worst kind in my opinion, one who's a great liar, himself. Guess the acting comes in handy on that count. Speaking of acting, can't wait until his film "Grace is Gone" to hit theaters - Cusack's golden moment - opportunist that he is - to misrepresent himself once again as "concerned Liberal". Find it interesting that New Crime was involved in this production. Once again, every move calculated to serve his agenda. Well, Johnny, when that comes out and your talking head makes it's rounds, They'll Be A Whole Lotta Bloggin' Goin' On! If not more.

Have to put in a word here to Huff n' Puff. Banned from the Huff!!! You had Bankrobber banned from posting ANY type of comment on Huffpo, even if it has nothing to do with Cusack. There was a great British Punk song called "Banned from the Pub". Must find those lyrics and do send up for you with MY lyrics. Not very liberal of you, Arianna. Thought liberals didn't believe in censorship, but then again, true liberals don't believe in elite groups, either. Think you should become a conservative - your actions prove you to be one in the worst sense of the word. Protecting guilty friend/possibly fuck-buddy. Have actually felt embarrassed for the HUFF when she would shamelessly namedrop and show everyone how starstruck she is. Those stars are blinding you, huffy. Get real, drop your not very admirable desire for fame, because I believe you're being used.

AND NOW, THE GRAND FINALE - THE THREAT! -MY PROOF - GOTCHA SUCKA! Now this is the part, the best part, the part I love. At the closing of our most lovely conversation, Mr. Meany (now I have remained quite cool throughout this conversation partly out of the fact that the man made me laugh, especially with the Huff n' Puff stuff. Oh, but need to backtrack a lot. Beginning of conversation, Bill Wilshire told me couldn't help me, didn't know what I wanted - like expected me to say cash - don't give a fuck about money, just truth - and then he said was going to refer it to legal and that Cusack's "people" have an excellent investigator who really knows his stuff and knows everything going on regarding Cusack on the internet, all the bloggers, etc. Told him, "hey, I'm one of them and you can't do anything, you can't sue me" to which he meagerly replied, "Well, no the internet is public domain". So what exactly was this man saying. Big, big Hmmmm. Let's go back to the end, shall we? Now, another confession to my much appreciated readers. I used a pseudonym when contacted Ame Van Iden and decided, yeah, they know who I am but let's have some fun with it. Mr. Meany asks me if this is my first name or my middle name - unfortunately, I messed up - thought I had changed my cell phone message months ago so my daughter's voice would be on it - how cute, right? But must have done something wrong and original message with real name was on it - Me - Busted. No Big deal. So he asks me this question, most menacingly I must add, and decide to mess with him a bit and tell him that is my business and for my protection - which was since had no idea what or who I was dealing with at first. Then, and this is the kicker, my friends, Mr. Bill Wilshire asks (again in very menacing tone), "Do you still live in "blank, blank". I told him that this absolutely confirmed that he was lying, that Cusack was lying, all had something very damaging that they needed to remain hidden - all corrupt as hell. This was a threat - same as telling someone you're fighting with "I know where you live".

Now the interesting thing is that I originally called to asked for verification regarding whether Cusack and "his people" threaten others who, perhaps, knew too much. And if I have to repeat that dumb-ass mantra again, they won't have to harass me, beat me up or rape me, I'll jump out the window now. You all know what his stock answer was by now.

SO THE IRONY OF IT ALL IS THAT I CALL TO SIMPLY HAVE THEM CONFIRM OR DENY STORIES OF THREATS MADE TO SILENCE THOSE CUSACK IS NOT HAPPY WITH AND WHAT DO THEY DO? BILL WILSHIRE DENIES IT TO NO END AND THEN THREATENS ME - TWICE. FIRST ONE, NOTHING, KNOW IS NOT IN CUSACK'S BEST INTEREST TO SUE, ALL THE DIRTY SECRETS COME OUT THEN FOR THE WORLD TO SEE, BUT THE SECOND IMPLIES, WE'VE GOT OUR EYE ON YOU, WE KNOW WHERE YOU LIVE, WHO YOU ARE (TO SOME DEGREE, NOT ALL) AND IF YOU CONTINUE TO PUSH THIS MATTER, SOMETHING EVIL YOUR WAY COMES. HE THEN SUGGESTED I PURSUE A DIFFERENT PROJECT SINCE I TOLD HIM I HAD ONE ON BACKBURNER, WELL TWO ON BACKBURNER ACTUALLY. BASICALLY TOLD ME I BEST BE QUIET AND PURSUE OTHER CREATIVE ACTIVITY - OR ELSE. HE THEN DENIED ALL AGAIN AND SAID NASTY THANK YOU TO WHICH I REPLIED "AND THANK YOU - FOR YOUR HONESTY".

Don't need to be a genius to figure this one out. Pure admission of guilt. Bill Wilshire provided me with my own story of being threatened at Cusack's beckoning. No longer need to confirm or deny anything with them. They gave me my answer. Am I afraid. Hell, no! I'm from New York, born and bred. Come after me and you're in for a real surprise. Have no qualms about seriously harming others in self-defense so unless one of his boys wants to lose an eye or a testicle, best they stay out of MY WAY! You never need to threaten if there is nothing to hide. Secrets and Lies, secrets and lies. Time to tell those secrets.

Let's compare last names, just for fun.

WILSHIRE = "sticky black tarmac" - name of Blvd. in LA not even as long as his lies.

KNIGHT = noble, fighter and defender.
I WIN!

Am actually wondering if Wilshire is pseudonym, as well. Did detective search and one William Wilshire does exist in California. So, possible. Also possible is brother Bill Cusack. Also possible, just stupid person who works for Cusack.



AND.....BRACE YOURSELF CUSACK AND "YOUR PEOPLE"...

I GOT THE WHOLE DAMN THING ON TAPE!
GOTCHA SUCKAS!

MUST GIVE A SHOUT OUT HERE - ANYONE WITH ANY INFORMATION ON ANYTHING RELATED TO WHAT I HAVE WRITTEN - BE IT YOU HAVE BEEN THREATENED OR ABUSED BY THIS MAN AND "HIS PEOPLE" OR SOMEONE YOU KNOW, PLEASE COME FORWARD AND TELL ME YOUR STORY. YOU ARE SAFE AND YOUR ANONYMITY WILL BE COMPLETELY PROTECTED. I GIVE YOU MY WORD AND MY WORD IS GOOD. IT IS ALL ANY OF US HAVE IN THE END, REALLY. Just write me at: Sherak68@aol.com


PLEASE CHECK OUT THESE LINKS:

http://www.myspace.com/mariognitrini111

http://blog.myspace.com/mariognitrini111

http://tinseltowncoldcase.blogspot.com

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/festival-winner-dinner b 17639.html

JOHN CUSACK - STRUMMER CALLING - Update

JOHN CUSACK - STRUMMER CALLING - Update
Stop Quoting Me Ya C*nt

"Get away, get away, get away, get away"
-Joe Strummer
Bankrobber

Or in this case, imagerobber.

NO MORE STRUMMERING! I am so so tired of John Cusack quoting Joe Strummer as if he were somehow continuing to pass on his message. I had the honor of working with Joe, a beautiful, humble, sincere man who vehemently believed in what he wrote and lived accordingly. If Cusack wants to get on a public platform, quoting Joe, then he needs to practice what he preaches. The sad thing is, I am convinced that he believes he does.

Although I have to admit that Cusack is an intelligent man, he is unable to grasp the full meaning of Joe's message. Human rights are not just a global issue, they are a very personal, individual one, as well, and Joe's message reflected that. Anything on a global scale can be reduced to an individual level. Two countries at war=two friends engaged in a bitter battle; treaties between countries= compromise and agreement between adversaries.

Cusack seems to have no problem when referring to Global issues. It's the individual ones he seems to have a problem with - they seem to fly out the window along with his stained underwear and other assorted undergarments sometimes quite difficult to decipher. He goes on and on about Injustice! Equality! Human Rights! Well, I'm just going to have to quote someone myself on that one:

"BLAH, BLAH, BLAH"
-Iggy Pop

Wake up, Johnny!

I actually agree with his political stance, although I take it to a bit more of an extreme level. All politicians are corrupt. The higher they are on the food chain, the more ass they had to kiss and the more shady deals they had to make. Cusack seems very comfortable in this dishonest forum (wonder why?) and has already jumpstarted a possible political career by kissing the ass of a candidate's daughter (literally). Very Classy! This from 2004 magazine, "Pals of John Cusack think he's suddenly gone wacko! Sources say the star's acting like the cocky con man in his landmark film "The Grifters," whispering that he's "targeted" John Kerry's daughter Alex -- and wooed her at the Democratic Convention so he can marry her, infiltrate the White House and enter politics!" Cusack, you will never, ever have a political career! And to think that these college students set up webs to elect him President - poor misguided youth - compared to Clinton's cigar, they'd be hit with a real shocker. I firmly believe that our society knows about 1% of what goes on in our government. Any scandal exposed is merely a shred of metal from a cog in the machine.

"Power to the People"
-John Lennon

Nice thought, but will never happen.

Going off on a bit of a tangent here. Sorry. Point is: Human rights are for humans, right? Women are human the last time I checked (although with all the plastic surgery in Hollywood, it is sometimes hard to tell). So, I'll give Cusack a little room on that one. When you disrespect women, you are indeed trampling on their human rights. "Dog catcher" eh? Feel truly sorry for your assistant having to have that as part of his job description. "Need assistant who can type, schedule meetings, and cruise skanky bars picking up as many women with low self-esteem as possible so I can feel good about myself especially now that I am middle-aged."

"like a dinosaur"
- lyrics from the Rutles

Perhaps Cusack should remind himself of his own words some six years ago. "Nobody wants to be that guy, aged 45, in a bar, picking up the 21-year-old girl. Then you're moving into the most-pathetic-man-in-the-world scenario." Hmmm. He's Forty - same difference - he is then, in fact living the most-pathetic-man-in-the-world scenario. Sure Ma is very proud of her boy.

There is absolutely no way a woman with any self-respect would allow herself to be rounded up like cattle to be used at anyone's disposal. Cusack is merely preying on women with low self-esteem who need the affirmation that they are worthy. In the process, he is further damaging them. He is hurting people, by objectifying them, he is in fact dehumanizing them - isn't that the main factor in all atrocities on this planet. One group feeling they are better than another and therefore, dehumanizing them in order to carry out their agenda.

Found an interesting blog from a woman who worked in a Walmart type store in the early '90s. Cusack came in with his assistant and had him ask for her help. He refused to speak to her directly and instead whispered into his assistant's ear what he wanted. The assistant would then relay it to her. "John would like such and such". She got so fed up with his arrogant behavior that she eventually looked straight at Cusack and said "Tell John such and such". Then she ended her blog by calling him an asshole. He completely belittled her, acted as if he were better than her and she was not even worthy enough to speak to him. He dehumanized her. And he talks about human rights - it really just makes me ill. If I ever saw him in person, I would spit in his face!

Have a feeling Joe's opinion of Cusack would probably have changed drastically if he knew of those little doggie runs.

"Fido, Fido"
-Zappa

Jimmy Swaggart, anyone? Different words, same hypocrisy.

What is it that he said in that Huffington post thing. Arab lives are equal to American lives or something to that effect. So scale it down. Men's lives are equal to women's. When you objectify women and mistreat them, your Global argument is meaningless. Cusack's Global argument is meaningless, but only because it comes from him. So often described by others as a nasty, mean-spirited person (although for some reason, he always talks about how nice he is - think he might have a wee bit of a problem in the self-perception department), he obviously doesn't seem to be very concerned with the rights of others to be treated with respect on an individual basis. And aside from all that, he has those little black

"Devil Eyes"
-Tim Buckley

Oh, the things I know. Perhaps I tell you sometime. Been feeling very pissy lately, lot on my mind and a very low tolerance for bullshit - thus the rant. Next time I'm in a bad mood and feel like my brain will implode if I hear another word from another

"LIAR"
- Henry Rollins

or if I happen to miss my

"Supersonic Rocket Ship where there's equality and no supression of minorities"
-The Kinks

will probably rant on and on until I feel some bit of

"Satisfaction"
-really bad movie
-Stones

Bottom line is choose. Cusack needs to make up his mind as to whether he wants to continue to misrepresent himself and in doing so, dishonor others, or just be an actor, behave atrociously and not get on the pulpit. Cusack, just

"Leaving It Up To You"
- John Cale

Oh, and Ladies,

"Please,Please,Please"
-James Brown

stop posting webs saying, "I loooove John Cusack soooo muuch. I waaana maaarrry him."
No offense intended to any of you,(you are all mere victims of a very brilliant PR machine) but there are far better choices out there. Practically every other actor in Hollywood is a better choice except maybe Charlie Sheen and the late Fatty Arbuckle (although he was acquitted and died sad and broke, so he really doesn't apply - scratch that) Would say Charlie Chaplin - bit of a pedophile but the scene in "The Great Dictator" where he dances with the balloon of the globe and takes the piss out of Hitler - priceless - he's forgiven - and well he's also dead. Although I used to have a major crush on Spencer Tracy when I was 12 or so and he was dead, so to each their own.

"I Got A Thing, You Got A Thing, EveryBody's Got A Thing"
- Funkadelic

Seriously now, living actors with even worse behavior. Have to think about that one. Cusack kind of takes the cake. Not only for his lack of moral fiber in:

"The Real World"
- really bad show

but on the mere fact that he is a fraud blowing

"Smoke"
-CAN

up people's asses and actually even his own.

If you are looking to admire a truly brilliant actor - check out David Thewlis (looks nothing like Cusack, so if he's your type forget it)but great actor, great person, faithful, sweet, sweet beautiful man "I loooove him" and Joaquin Phoenix seems to be a truly kind sensitive soul but that's just a hunch. And there's always the very cool, very adorable Mark Ruffalo.
Basically, even actors working the street

"In The City"
-The Jam

to make ends meet during hard times are a better choice.

Or there is always the possibility that Cusack's PR machine are portraying him as a womanizer to hide the fact that he is gay or bisexual. Know a little story about that one firsthand, but won't write it. Either way, he still treats people miserably and should be ashamed of his behavior. But I am sure he is not.

God, all these quotes are giving me a headache

"Ouch"
-Rutles (again)
(sorry for the repeat)

But now I'll truly be serious because I'm very tired 3am here in New York (won't do Lou Reed - made my point already). Joe Strummer was a brilliant man who deserves someone worthy to carry on his message and his work - not a hypocrite whose fraudulence undermines its value.

Found beautiful quote from interview with Joe, "Life’s about your friendships, the way you love your partner, the way you care for your children. That is what life is about". That about says it all.