The Granby Telephone Company Cut Off My Internet 'Service'

-- Oct. 9, 2001

Date: Tue, Oct. 9, 2001 11:04 pm
Subject: ZOG's local ISP deleted my account

Greetings Fellow Imperial Lemmings:

At approximately 1:10 p.m. the Granby Telephone Company decided to shut off my ISP, and had a Granby Police Officer deliver the notice of shutoff.

Of course there shall be litigation over this matter. But for now my e-mail has been shut off and I simply cannot get e-mail from the e-mail address, which is why any e-mail has doubtless bounced. I shall proceed to modify my account on the servers to yahoo e-mail only.

I am presently working around this inconvenience, however, it would appear that the day in which the Internet shall be officially cut off to Resistance activists has arrived in my case. Also, the day has arrived in which I can openly and honestly chastise criminal-regimeist moral degenerates and social offal in my own name, face-to-face, using an ISP address, this honest policy seems to have ended today. All it takes is one evil moral degenerate such as this Meggie female to tattle about how she has been responded to in like kind, and on the word of just one single moral degenerate any White Christian Patriot can be silenced.

I shall be working, as the below initial draft of Sept. 11, 2001 shows to engage in litigation against the Granby Telephone Company. I hope that litigation shall result in them being sold to another corporation at auction, and them using the money to pay off their fines. However, it is far more likely that stifling dissent is far more important to 'our' Evil Empire' in fighting its imperial war of aggression against the entire world, and I may well lose in their imperial criminal regimeist korts.

What is happening is that none of us can live together in anything other than a slave/master setting, and thus a rising tide of violence shall bring about CivilWar2. We simply can no longer live together as anything other than hidden and open enemies, and there is no realistic mechanism for the just settlement of grievances other than civil warfare.

The next couple of days means for me a forced 'vacation' from the Internet as I work out litigation policy. Please bear with me while I manage my personal listservers and WWW page.

Thank you for your time and attention.

--Martin Lindstedt
Resistance Political Front


To: deleted
From: Martin Lindstedt (
Subject: Corporate Warning Issued! Re: Customer Warning Issued!

Initial draft: (Draft to have been sent to media, Public Service Commission, Attorney Generalís Consumer Fraud Division and other interested parties Sept. 11, 2001, but set aside due to events outside this matter on that date. However, this initial draft was sent to three or four friends.)

>From: "Stouffer Communications" (
>To: "Martin Lindstedt" (
>Subject: Customer Warning Issued!
>Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2001 09:43:18 -0500
>X-MSMail-Priority: High
>X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200
>X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200

>Dear Jscomm Customer:

>Please be informed. A complaint has been issued against you. Refer to
>the below listed rules in your service agreement. We assume this warning
>will be sufficient, but if we receive more such complaints further action
>will be mandatory. This company is intolerant of any such abuse. Your
>Internet access will be terminated effective immediately if more
>complaints are issued after this date.

>Complaint Issued: (Do Not Send This
>Person E-Mail)


The particular person who made this complaint has herself initiated threats against myself and my family. She knows my name and address and pretended that she wanted to come from where-ever she lives (she has kept herself deliberately anonymous) and "do something" about the criticism I gave her in return.

She infests religious listservers and has a problem with men interpreting the Apostle Paul's admonition in I Cor. 14:34-35 that women, especially females such as herself, were to keep silent in church. Last year I got a bunch of screetching over this from her and the moderator shut down that particular listserver. After lurking for about a year, this particular female, calling herself Meggie Butts, but suspected to be [censored], got on listservers on which I was present and decided to continue the abuse after I notified other listserver members concerning her past and present behavior. This Meggie female has the trick of provoking a response, then editing out the provocation she incited, and then complaining to all and sundry about how awful the person she incited to anger is "unChristian, evil, etc., etc." I have seen the way she operates and have no doubt that she has sent this complaint on to you after some editing.

For my part, I allow that I have ridiculed her pretty heavily, but unlike her all that I have done (which couldn't be rightfully construed as a threat) is to tell her that she could fly on another idiot's dust-buster with the vibrating attachments to Granby Missouri and threaten me in my driveway until I had time to arrange a justifiable homocide. She screetched about how I had "threatened to shoot a woman" and how I had posted everywhere her previous threats and demands for my home address and telephone number that she claimed was a "private e-mail."

This weekend she decided that she was not winning this abuse contest, so she demanded that I stop e-mailing her. I responded that since she had started the problem, perhaps she should leave the listservers dedicated to the Christian Israelite religion and take her sort with her. You see, I am not allowed on the two listservers she infests, but she doesn't like me talking about her behavior to 10-15 listservers which I either moderate or am a member of. And, unlike herself, I am not a sneaking insinuating coward hiding behind a false name or an anonymous Internet e-mail account.

However, since receiving this self-righteous threat from you, I shall take care to not post to this evil smarmy female from my e-mail account again. However, I reserve the right to notify her particular ISP concerning her behavior and that they truncate her account.


Now let's talk a little bit about your corporate misbehavior:

I've looked at your little rules, and I think that you should be forced to live by them as well.

So how would you like it if an anonymous complaint were made about you, in which you had had no chance to face the complaintant, and any complaint made or manufactured by that cowardly sneaking complaintant was to be construed as accurate, and furthermore;

"We assume this warning will be sufficient, but if we receive more such complaints further action will be mandatory. This social order is intolerant of any such corporate abuse. Your Corporate status will be terminated effective immediately if any more complaints, justified or not, are issued after this date."

Then, having received one more complaint, your local telephone company, having received a monopoly status, was immediately confiscated.

Would you think that you had been fairly and justly treated?

Let's get a few matters straight. You run a corporation which is deemed an "artificial person." This "artificial person" has made a number of rules, and in my case, I feel that they were arbitrarily and corruptly applied. You also have a monopoly granted to you by the State of Missouri or the City of Granby, also corporations of some sort, in which you are supposed to operate.

Now if it was up to me, I'd have nothing to do with your telephone service or Internet access. I have talked to a number of ISPs asking them if they couldn't come to Granby and run things right. They have told me that the Granby Telephone Company has a captive audience, and some ISP providers have told me that you are in violation of state and federal law in your activities to keep them out as competing ISPs out of your captive market in Granby and Diamond. In Neosho, where there are no less than four or five ISPs is actually cheaper than it is in your monopoly captive markets of Granby and Diamond.

As it is, I use calling cards rather than use your long- distance access. If it wasn't for Internet long-distance calling, I'd probably use a wireless phone, like so many people in Granby use because they despise and detest the Granby Telephone Company, aka Stoufer Communications. I've listened to the smarmy way in which you treat your customers in which you try to jiggle every single dollar out of them you can squeeze and how you proclaim that you are always right. I wonder how long you would last with a Newton County jury comprised of people who really loathe you guys but are scared that if they complain you will cut off or deny their telephone service?

Remember the Vananatu scam in which somehow some long- distance rascals claimed that they had somehow disabled my modem speaker and routed my call to the South Pacific for 10 minutes and you charged me (rather my mother) $66.66 last September? Well, I ended up paying that scam and decided to just install a firewall program rather than go to the Public Service Commission and the Attorney General's Office. However, we both know that those Micronesians couldn't have run their scam if it wasn't for both you and AT&T enforcing paying this obvious fraud on threat of telephone service disconnect. "The Fraud Choice" -- AT&T and Stouffer Communications. I still got the bills in which you charged me interest and late-payment fees, so you are still liable if I wish to take civil and criminal action against you and your corporation.

If you terminate my Internet service as threatened above, I suppose that I shall have to do something about it.

Since you are a 'state actor' as a Public Service Utility regulated and overseen by the State of Missouri, I shall have a right to sue you under Federal law for running a monopoly and ask, at the minimum, that you be enjoined from running an Internet Service Provider in the areas in which you have monopoly access to local lines, namely Granby and Diamond. I shall maintain a record of my expenses so as to get treble damages. It might be even better that the aspects of a monopoly which you could claim are necessary, as maintaining a local exchange, be taken from your corporation and sold at public auction to the highest bidder and your former corporation be given what is left after fines, court costs, legal expenses, and damages.

You only got interested in the Internet back in 1996, when you charged both a high signup fee and 16 cents per minute to some place in St. Louis. Since even AOL charged less per month and only a dime a minute for those without local access, it was better for me to not use the scam service you set up so as to get kickbacks from that ISP for access to your local lines. Then from 1997-1999 you used, the Joplin And Neosho Internet Connection Service, which, since it was funded partially by a grant from the General Assembly, only charged $100 per year, which comes to $8 a month, and you charged $25 per month -- all of it going as gravy into your personal pocket as it was which operated the equipment in the back office of your telephone company building. For all I know, you probably charged rent. And then in May 1999, without warning, you switched to another company. What happened? tell you that you couldn't scam $25-$8=$17 profit as a monopolist from an organization which had been initially set up as a public service using public funds to get SouthWest Missouri connected and on the Internet?

Or wasn't a full $17 a month profit on about about 600- 800 captive households each enough for a greedy double- dealing corporate monopolist like yourself?

Can you imagine a class-action lawsuit and RICO action in which each and every single household which could have had Internet access for only $8-$10 dollars per month is able to sue you both corporately and personally for treble damages for what you charged them above that figure that you were able to enforce as a monopoly? Do you know why Granby is the most backward, economically depressed community in Newton County when there are plenty of other communities around Granby's size which have several grocery stores, car lots, fast-food restaurants, and factories? Well it is because of parasites like yourself, Barry Flint, Tony Grantham and other sundry civic hogs who decided a long time ago that keeping everything local meant only benefitting them and their own personal pockets.

Remember when Ramey's wanted to enact a little TIF, Taxpayer Incremental Funding, a scheme by which they would have the taxpayers pay over 20% of the construction and maintainence costs over the next 20 years? Well I was against that for both personal, political, and principle reasons because I certainly wouldn't trust a corporation that lived off of the People's taxes upon them for their very survival. But I suppose the remark which counted, out of all the sarcastic and cutting remarks I made, was me telling the Rameys' people that any new store that they put in would be barely productive because I am not the only one in Granby who hates you thieving parasites so very much that I almost never ever buy anything which will generate sales tax if I can buy it in Neosho, Monett, or Joplin. Well, the remark must have hit home, and maybe Rameys did a survey as to how many people in Granby feel the same way, but the end result is that there never was a new Rameys store built in Granby, was there? The only people who have used the TIF were a few minor hucksters like the Styrons and city- council-kritters probably cheating the State of Missouri out of tax revenues. And they used it to set up a police force in which the enemies of this parasitic and thieving status quo were set up, railroaded, and possibly murdered.


Let me just tell you what I think needs to be done:

1) You are not going to interfere with my e-mail and Internet local account. The way I shall deal with Meggie or [censored] and her pals is to paste to one of my WWW pages or listservers the threats and 'private e-mail' that she sent me that I thought was unsuitable for posting without editing the worst of this by what is obviously a sociopathic female finding that she is a pariah amongst the Christian Israelite and Nationalist listserver community. I didn't post it previously because even the milder posts such as her calling me "Rabbi Limpstick" and saying that I had homosexual relations with a "Rabbi Kike" every few days or so who lives in either Arizona or maybe Ohio, was suitable enough to show that this evil female didn't belong in any Christian community, maybe not even your judeo-churchianity baal- priest church. She will be ostracised and have to come up with a new e-mail account, but the listserver community of which I am part will simply block or ban her transmissions after the first one or two.

But I shall not contact this 'Meggie Butts' or [censored] person using my address, and shall endeavor to winnow it out of any cc: lines in response to further e-mail.

Further, I ask that any e-mail bearing the
e-mail address be blocked, and sent back to this wretch. However, I shall ask that it be counted and archived by yourself in case there is further litigation into this matter, and available for subpoena. If whatever complaint that this 'Meggie' person generated to you comes up missing, I shall file a charge of obstruction of justice. You have issued a threat to deprive me of Internet access based upon a supposed complaint by somebody you should have checked up on, and in any litigation they had better be showing up in court to testify as to this matter.

This is the way you should have handled it, rather than let your antipathy against myself lead you on into recklessness.

2) I am going to post this message to the Missouri Attorney General's Office, the Public Utilities Commission, and various media outlets and ask that there be an investigation of this matter. After all, your public monopoly extends only to local telephone call-up, not to long distance nor to being an Internet Service Provider. Abuse as detailed above of your monopoly corporate status has not only resulted in your unjust, illegal, and treasonous personal enrichment, but the poverty of the overall community and your notion that you can make up and enforce any petty rules vindictively against those like myself who have no other economic choice but to use your monopoly service due to your rapacity, sloth, greed, and misconduct.

I really think that John Stouffer Communications, aka Granby Telephone Company has a lot to answer for, not only for this high-handed treatment of myself, but also for decades of abuse and rapacity of the Granby and Diamond communities. It is people like you burrowing in like a tick and maintaining a public monopoly in which you gouge by means of that monoply which makes a mockery of Mammon- seeking, i.e., 'capitalism' at the expense of the entire social order.

If I were you, I wouldn't do anything more stupid than what you have already done. If you cut off my Internet service after having this matter explained to you, then I shall assume criminal intent on your part, and act accordingly in drawing up criminal, as well as civil, charges.

--Martin Lindstedt,


>9.1 The Service is a telecommunications service for personal use. You
>agree not to resell or redistribute access to the Service in any manner.
>Provider reserves the right to disconnect or reclassify the Service to a
>commercial grade for failure to comply with any portion of this provision.

>9.2 You agree to abide by the policies of the Service as they are
>electronically posted and modified from time to time. You agree
>not to use the Service or any equipment or software provided by

>a) for any illegal purpose,

>b) to achieve unauthorized access to any computer systems,

>c) to achieve unauthorized access or distribution with regard to
>any software, data, or material protected by copyright, patent,
>trademark, or trade secret law,

>d) to copy, distribute or sublicense any software provided by
>Provider, except that you may make one copy of each software
>program for back-up or archival purposes only,

>e) for excessive data transfer which interferes with the experience
>of other users,

>f) to interfere with access to the Internet by other parties or
>disrupt the network used by Provider,

None of the above even remotely applies to me.

>g) to harass, threaten, embarrass or cause distress, unwanted
>attention or discomfort upon another user,

I noticed that you highlighted this.

In the case of this 'Meggie Butts' or [censored] person, it was herself who caused such to myself first. She could have simply stuck to lurking on sundry listservers like she did for around a year or so and never tried to cause any mischief. She chose for a while to send me sundry threats against myself and my family, and then whined that such was supposed to be private e-mail when I posted it on various listservers. After having made fun of her assumptions and general criminal insanity, posting such only to herself and her kind publicly and to about 20 listservers privately via bcc: this person, whoever she is, decided to no longer publicly confront me directly, but rather to post her own self-serving lies about myself to others. Of course in the small listserver communities in which I am a leader and she but just a scruffy obviously disturbed mental case, these sundry libels and defamations reached my ears and so I would comment on them publicly right to her face, so that the general public would make the obvious inference that she was a lying coward who dared not tell her lies directly to my face whereas I would set things right and make sure that she was informed of the matter.

You see, if I was a powerful ruling moral degenerate like the past five or six politicians calling themselves Presidents of the United States, then I have no doubt that a complete sociopath like "Meggie Butts" or "[censored]" would be tracked down by the Secret Service at public expense and put in a nuthouse where she belongs. Or even if I was a lesser politician who could get a gang of armed thugs with badges to trace down 'Meggie,' kick her door down, beat the crap out of that psycho 'female,' maybe even wacoize her a little or a lot.

But I am a Resistance politician who speaks a politically incorrect message against rascals and corporate greedsters like yourself and I am the one who gets beaten up by the police that your kind set up to preserve your rule as long as possible. I am the only one who can put the lie to Meggie's cowardly anonymous efforts. You would use this chance to shut me up from responding in like kind to such as Meggie. This is what your little "customer warning" is all about. And so, in dealing with this, your choice of preferred accessory to defamation, i.e. 'Meggie,' now I must get a hotmail or Internet e-mailing address whenever I would respond in like kind to your preferential defamation candidate.

As a public figure Meggie can defame me as much as she pleases, and even if she decided to stop hiding behind a bellsouth e-mail address and shed her anonyminity, she has nothing except my response in like kind to fear. I wonder though, in depriving me of my only weapon against cowardly defamation from probable agents provacateur and sociopaths in favor of letting such run wild against your critics who have no real economic choice of using your monopolistic services, are you not as guilty, or even guiltier, in violating your own sanctimonious sometimes-enforced Rule 9.2 (g) of proceeding to "harass, threaten, embarrass or cause distress, unwanted attention or discomfort upon" an unwilling user of your monopolistic service?

I imagine that if this matter comes to civil or criminal litigation your corporation shall not have a proper defense for favoring this "Meggie Butts" or "[censored]" over myself.

>h) to post or transmit any unsolicited advertising, promotional
>materials or other forms of solicitation to other customers,
>except in those areas that are designated for such a purpose, or

>i) to post or transmit any sexually explicit, hateful, vulgar,
>threatening, abusive, harassing, defamatory, or racially, ethnically
>or otherwise objectionable material.

This does not apply because 'Meggie Butts' or '[censored]' has been pretending that they are both White and/or Christian. If they had pretended to be non-White then I wouldn't have had anything to do with them, any more than I wish anything to do with other non-Whites.

As said before, this 'Meggie' person, whoever she is, hasn't received from myself one-half of anything which can be inferred as "hateful, vulgar, threatening, abusive, harassing, defamatory, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable material" that she hasn't posted first. If your monopolistic corporation, which I find "hateful, vulgar, threatening, abusive, harassing, defamatory, or (anti-white) racially, ethically or otherwise objectionable" wishes to patrol the Internet, then perhaps it should set its own house in order first.

>In the event of your violation of any of the above, Provider reserves
>the right, in its sole discretion, to take any one or more of the
>following actions:

>a) remove those materials that violate these policies,

>b) hold you liable for any damages resulting from the violation of
>these policies,

>c) terminate this Agreement and your continued purchase of the Service.

>Most Sincerely,

>Stouffer Communications

I welcome the chance for any litigation you feel is necessary.

I would like to open my 3 megs of personal WWW space on so that I can instruct the good people of Granby and Diamond that you have cheated over the years for your monopolistic practices in how to file a Public Service Commission complaint, and an administrative appeal if that doesn't work, and how to file a class-action lawsuit for treble damages and the breakup of your corporate monopolistic criminal enterprise.

Until this message from yourself, I had wanted as little to do with as possible, other than using the e- mail and local dial-up access that I had to pay for to get on the Internet, but now that I think about it, it would be a blast to have on your corporate server a history of your past and present corporate criminal and unethical practices.

--Martin Lindstedt

P.S. I really think that Granby and Diamond would be better off if one or two other Internet Service Providers were to serve Granby and Diamond at a cost of $10-$15 per month like they have at Neosho and Monett and that John Stouffer Communications is broken up and made to pay treble damages for abusing its public service monopoly on talking local telephone service to set up an illegal and immoral monopoly. And I think that I am just the man to see that it is done.