Well, it's still all much of a muchness in BarrusWorld, but his usual loops are closing in again. He's spent much time of late playing with his sad little homunculi, dragging the imagined imps through various hoops and to his fanciful lairs, most recently in a highly suspect "Amsterdam" that - as with his writings on Greece, Paris, Rome, and elsewhere - suggests strongly that he's never traveled much further from Lansing, Michigan than Hendersonville, North Carolina.
What's interesting, though, to the real aficionado, is that he's circling back in on the things that really interest him, returning to the screeds against publishing that did so much to endear him to that world back in the days when he actually did have a publisher; the horrible injustices done to him when Tim Barrus was exposed as Nasdijj (or is that vice versa?); and returning to his old themes of all the Great and the Good he once graced with his presence. It's a familiar gallery of faces: Mapplethorpe, Capote, etc., and undoubtedly just a matter of time before Tennessee makes his obligatory appearance. NasTim stands outside what despite himself he still sees as a charmed world and looks in, and it's really rather airless and sad.
But - in the past, the re-cropping up of these themes has heralded a change. Perhaps he's getting tired of this particular pretense - the maverick leader of this group of underage junkie hooker artists that he's been toying with for some months now; the "co-writer" with the equable Prairie Mary on what must indeed be a very odd book; the occasional vlogger. What could come next?
If I had to bet, I'd say: yet another coterie, in some mildly changed way, of glitteringly tragic boychiks, all agog at the greatness of Tim - followed by tirades against publishing, narcissistically autobiographical bits about great days with Robert and Truman - and then yet another hemi-semi-demi-metamorphosis.
At least, from I can see, he's had no success (and, in fairness, doesn't really seem to have tried) in actually scamming people to believe this latest saga. The next one?
I'll keep an eye out and let you know...
19 comments:
Give up picking on Tim Barrus and try your teeth on me, smart boy.
Mary Scriver
Ooh, he's on to German now. Reeeally giving the ol' Babelfish translator a workout.
Isn't it depressing to think about all the good he could have done if he actually were working w/ actual youth in his actual community rather than spending hours upon hours cranking out his "art?" I guess the youth in Hendersonville aren't exotic or shirtless enough for him.
What's YOUR name, little boy?
Mary Scriver
Surrab Mit, of course!
I agree with this post.
I wonder if Tim Barrus is Holden Caufield. He has this image of himself as the rescuer of innocents/innocence, the 'catcher in the rye,' while in fact he is liar and hypocrite and obviously disturbed.
It seems to me I have seen this before both in life and in literature.
You know what's going to be funny? When the actual Lars Eighner goes after NasTim for defamation.
If Lars is doing to sue anyone for defamation, the first thing his lawyer will tell him is to take down the Lars Eighner porn website.
Prairie Mary
Tim Barrus: Discovery: Sworn Statement of Settlement: May 12, 2009
May 12, 2009
Cinematheque Films, Paris France
Let it be known that I am an OLD, OLD hand at dealing with lawsuits. BIG girls with BIG guns have gone after me. To NO avail. They have WON nothing but extraordinary expense, and we are talking hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees.
In the United States, there is a procedure called discovery. Discovery can be imposed by a judge. Discovery can be requested and is always granted. Discovery will COST you. SERVING me will COST you. I am not physically present in the United States. I am extremely aware of being tracked down and followed. I go way, way, way out of my way to make it difficult, very difficult, indeed, to physically find me. It will COST you. I CANNOT be sued without being served. Period. I can move on a moment's notice (or a whim) and have demonstrated this time and time again. ANY law firm engaged to sue me reads this blog. They are COMPELLED to do so. This is for THEM. You are going to need a LOT of money to sue me, and any court will REQUIRE it upfront. A LOT of money. This is NOT a new game to me.
Once a lawsuit is filed, lawyers start gathering information related to the lawsuit. This investigative process is aptly named "discovery," because it often turns up facts and documents that were previously unknown -- to at least one party to the lawsuit anyway. You will receive in this malicious attempt and patterned and documented attempt to harass me many, many surprises.
For the most part, discovery takes place outside the courtroom. The operant term, is for the most part. You know what that means. Every time you have to go to court, it's going to COST your client. Especially if my attorneys seek delays to extend discovery, and I will guarantee it. Let me put it thusly: to sue me is going to take you YEARS. As you know, discovery includes but is not limited to the parties (this can be the parties AND the court) exchanging written information, videotaped information (which COSTS) and sitting through face-to-face questioning sessions (called "depositions"). However, if the parties can't agree on what should be handed over -- and this will definitely be the case in suing me -- a judge may have to resolve the dispute. This is going to COST you a LOT of money. Your client's financial ability to continue any such lawsuit (suits because there will be a countersuit) will be explored in minute detail by the court. All of your clients financial records will have to be submitted. As any attorney knows, and you will know as to be acutely aware of, that parties who are not involved in the lawsuit can be and most definitely will be brought into said dispute.
This would include but not be limited to such Internet-based entities as Google, Yahoo, ISPs, ISP proxies, other websites maintained and run by other entities, including but not limited to software development teams, and any subsequent parties corresponded with. As you know, these entities are deposed EVERY DAY. All correspondence and email would be required. A repeated pattern of electronic stalking (illegal here in the EU) will be established beyond the shadow of a doubt. And, not insignificantly, your client's physical computer will have to be examined for any and all files, records, and any indication whatsoever that would even touch upon THE COUNTERSUIT. And there would be one. I will seek not insignificant damages.
You would be well-advised to know that any court documents submitted by me regarding financial attachable assets will indicate: 1.) I receive no attachable income (only in kind which includes but is not limited to legal representation which is not attachable) from any entity whatsoever. 2.) there is no property whatsoever attachable or otherwise owned by me or in my name.
You would be well-advised to know that additionally, other parties (all of whom would be deposed) damaged by the harassment demonstrated by your client -- specifically legal residents residing in the State of Ohio and working in Kentucky -- would be compelled to testify regarding your client's assumption of their identity used and assumed maliciously to harass me on YouTube as if your client were, in fact, them, with all such assumptions of identity theft of a REAL PERSON (said person being totally uninvolved in any way, shape or form with Cinematheque Films but whose professional reputation was nevertheless maligned) with said appropriation being employed to specifically harass me and designed to malign me and prevent me from conducting legal business with other legal businesses where I legally conduct business transactions with such entities as but not limited to YouTube would have to be thoroughly examined and put into the public record as to the intent of maliciousness as would any and all subsequent apologies issued by your client to said third party. This would be entered as evidence to the court and would demonstrate the disregard of remorse as said apologies (including the statement of which there are records of: "I was only trying to have fun with Tim") were only issued anonymously by your client at which time the stalking and harassment of me continued unabated. Additionally, any and all websites designed and maintained by your client as mirror sites including but not limited to said websites designed by "Nasdijjfan" including but not limited to such entities as I do legal business with as Cinematheque Films such as YouTube and Google would be entered into evidence to indicate the extent to which the maliciousness has continued for a three year period. Additionally, both YouTube and Google (which owns YouTube) have indicated their cooperation in providing such documentation which would be immediately forthcoming. Such evidence and testimony would be entered into the record.
Additionally, all telephone records indicating content, times, dates, and duration of phone calls made to my family -- some of which I was present while conducted; many of which I was not but were received by family members -- will be documented as having been placed and made by your client. Any settlement in this case (and in the countersuit) would have to contain the provision that your client would never call my family members ever again.
You would be well-advised to understand that your client has no relationship whatsoever to or with either me or Cinematheque Films or any minor or adult associated with me or Cinematheque Films in any way. We have never attempted to either contact or conduct business with your client which, again, goes directly to your client's maliciousness regarding stalking and harassing me, my family, and Cinematheque Films which includes but is not limited to the various relationships Cinematheque has with social service agencies, clients, business entities, and legal relationships in the EU, the United States, and Canada. Your client has contacted me continuously. Your client has interfered with all of these and has systematically attempted to prevent me from conducting legal business. This is demonstrably in violation of the Mann Antitrust Act as your client has inserted himself anonymously into the relationships I do business with which your client has attempted to abrogate time and time again. Your client has inserted himself into my relationships with poetry websites, art websites, Literary Kicks, the Medium at the New York Times, Paper Cuts at the New York Times, a libertarian (Reason) magazine, and all of this constitutes a pattern. All of this has been documented.
Any effort on the part of your client at having maliciously harassed me and stalked me and lied about me to the media where your client was regarded on the record as a journalistic source, and where your client swore in print electronic and otherwise that there existed correspondence by me but your client "lost" any such material -- and where maliciousness on your client's part will be proved and any behavior on my part will be offered as a response and only a response to maliciousness aimed and executed at me -- particularly in the form of your client demonstrably assuming a history of anonymous identities to do so (I would ask them if I were you about this, and if you believe they have never done this, you are being lied to, and you are in for a variety of BIG unpleasant surprises) all of which will be explored to the fullest extent imaginable. Even a jury trial will regard the harassment my representatives will lay out in detail and in excruciating, minute form with times, dates, and content going to maliciousness that will affect such judgments with particular emphasis on financial burden. ANY judge will caution settlement, and you know it. Please be advised that your client is not legally empowered to represent anyone. He is not an attorney or a member the bar -- anywhere. He is not the police. He does not represent law enforcement, and many of his actions can be construed as obsessive as the law defines the terminology of stalking. He is not legally imbued with the power to extract any form of payment, vengeance, or imagined retribution from my person or my business in any way, shape, or form. He has no relationship or connection to me whatsoever. Law enforcement in both the EU and in the United States and Canada have been informed of his profile and his behavior. He can only represent and does represent himself. I would strongly and respectfully suggest that if he is going to take it upon himself to bring unwarranted and frivolous lawsuits against the very people he has terrorized -- going so far as to set up accounts in their name; accounts where impersonating Tim Barrus is of dubious value, that he be cautioned against this illegal practice (which can be corroborated) in no uncertain language by someone who IS imbued with power as an officer of the court. That would be you. His attorney. Your client is not an attorney, and his assumption that his identity cannot be traced is erroneous and misguided.
Let this be a statement (for any such judge and included in the public record) that can be and will be put forth within the context of sworn testimony, and I will so swear, that SETTLEMENT can be achieved before the court's time is wasted. SETTLEMENT would be based on your client's BEHAVIOR (especially the stalking as it is aimed at myself or anyone else whatsoever associated with Cinematheque Films) in ending said harassment immediately. I can END any communication about, to, or with your client or that involves your client in any way, shape or form, and I would swear to do that immediately, and would hereby offer it as TERMS to avoid wasting any court's time and resources. I do hereby swear that these two potential lawsuits can be immediately resolved on this day, May 12, 2009, as they regard and effect both parties and any subsequently involved third parties who have been stalked and harassed by your client. I have been advised to construct this offer to settle myself in an attempt at demonstrating my good faith with the court through my published, public willingness to settle. There will not be another settlement offer and I will not settle under any other terms than the ones stated so clearly here.
So sworn: May 12, 2009, Tim Barrus, Cinematheque Films, based in, and obliged to legal procedure in Paris, France.
"Mann Antitrust Act"??? Ho, ho, ho. Must be some kick-ass gofast in "Paris."
Nothing says "I'm serious!" better than ALL CAPS FAKE LEGALESE.
Looks like Le's leaving home. D'ya think Tim's new lawyer told him the Digital Millennium Copyright Act he keeps mentioning don't apply in Europe?
I did not post the above comment. It had to be posted by the blog owner.
Mary Scriver
Mary Scriver says Tim has died, which I suspect means some sort of literary metamorphosis, not actual, clinical death.
Any news and views?
Hey NasdijjFan, hope you're still following this (if infrequently). I don't know why, but Nasdijj and Deb Frisch have become my two (intermittent) guilty online pleasures. What is it about the narcissistic insane that make them so darn funny?
In your opinion, how do you pronounce Nasdijj? Because I've been saying NAZ-didge, and while it's almost certainly wrong, it does lend itself well to modification (like "Nasdijjian" or "Nasdijjisticism").
Hope to hear from you soon, and keep on Nasdijjin'.
Thanks, AMLN - you spurred me into a brief update. I'd never heard of Deb Frisch - what a story! In some ways, it puts poor NasTim to shame, given that it would appear to be all happening in the real world.
As for the pronunciation, I'm increasingly of the opinion that, whatever the actual phonetics, it's best pronounced "Big Chief Full-o-Shit"...
As brilliantly evidenced by the legalese idiocy above.
Possibly it gives another reason, not money, why a person, who always writes regarding the sex with children, can maintain a fiction around a group of children? Could it maybe be a reason to form profiles for them on Twitter and Myspace and Facebook, and to distribute an email address for young people contacting him?
Post a Comment