<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Sic Set To Sue Over &#8220;Heroin User&#8221; Accusation</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.fitsnews.com/2008/06/08/sic-set-to-sue-over-heroin-user-accusation/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.fitsnews.com/2008/06/08/sic-set-to-sue-over-heroin-user-accusation/</link>
	<description>Politics, Sports and Pop Culture</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 15 Feb 2012 01:00:28 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tom Davis, Baby &#124; FITSNews For Now</title>
		<link>http://www.fitsnews.com/2008/06/08/sic-set-to-sue-over-heroin-user-accusation/#comment-26370</link>
		<dc:creator>Tom Davis, Baby &#124; FITSNews For Now</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 11 Jun 2008 04:39:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.fitsnews.com/?p=3872#comment-26370</guid>
		<description>[...] Ceips went even further out of bounds when she accused our founding editor Sic Willie of being a &#8220;heroin user&#8221; at the final debate of the campaign, a charge that has landed her on the business end of our legal team&#8217;s disapproval. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Ceips went even further out of bounds when she accused our founding editor Sic Willie of being a &#8220;heroin user&#8221; at the final debate of the campaign, a charge that has landed her on the business end of our legal team&#8217;s disapproval. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Natasha</title>
		<link>http://www.fitsnews.com/2008/06/08/sic-set-to-sue-over-heroin-user-accusation/#comment-26162</link>
		<dc:creator>Natasha</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 09 Jun 2008 16:20:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.fitsnews.com/?p=3872#comment-26162</guid>
		<description>So are Andy Griffith and Believe It Nucklehead the same person, has anyone decided that yet? 

If not, AG and BIN should totally hook up. They have a lot in common. 1) They both enjoy to pass their time ganging up on ol&#039; Sic Willie 2) They both think they&#039;re highlarious and 3) Neither has probably been on a date in years...

If I were to write an article about their hooking up, I&#039;d title it &quot;It may be short but it&#039;s skinny.&quot; Yep, that about sums it up.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>So are Andy Griffith and Believe It Nucklehead the same person, has anyone decided that yet? </p>
<p>If not, AG and BIN should totally hook up. They have a lot in common. 1) They both enjoy to pass their time ganging up on ol&#8217; Sic Willie 2) They both think they&#8217;re highlarious and 3) Neither has probably been on a date in years&#8230;</p>
<p>If I were to write an article about their hooking up, I&#8217;d title it &#8220;It may be short but it&#8217;s skinny.&#8221; Yep, that about sums it up.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Believe It Not (a.k.a. Sic Willie's Stalker)</title>
		<link>http://www.fitsnews.com/2008/06/08/sic-set-to-sue-over-heroin-user-accusation/#comment-26159</link>
		<dc:creator>Believe It Not (a.k.a. Sic Willie's Stalker)</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 09 Jun 2008 15:50:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.fitsnews.com/?p=3872#comment-26159</guid>
		<description>Another willie scam. 

We join others is demanding sic(k) willie disclose his â€œirrefutable evidenceâ€ that he never used heroin.  Which reminds us that sic(k) willie never answered our question.  We made it simple.

Dear Mr. Will Folks, have you every used any illegal drug or substance and/or have you ever improperly or illegally used any legal or illegal drug or substance?  

The BIN Legal Department crafted this question so that exceeding the recommended dosage for Tylenol or Alka Seltzer to help with one of your daily hangovers would require a &quot;yes&quot; response.

We care not about Tylenol or Alkiee Seltzer, but we are interested in your answer.  Yes or No.  Then you can explain.

BIN News Editorial Sfaff</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Another willie scam. </p>
<p>We join others is demanding sic(k) willie disclose his â€œirrefutable evidenceâ€ that he never used heroin.  Which reminds us that sic(k) willie never answered our question.  We made it simple.</p>
<p>Dear Mr. Will Folks, have you every used any illegal drug or substance and/or have you ever improperly or illegally used any legal or illegal drug or substance?  </p>
<p>The BIN Legal Department crafted this question so that exceeding the recommended dosage for Tylenol or Alka Seltzer to help with one of your daily hangovers would require a &#8220;yes&#8221; response.</p>
<p>We care not about Tylenol or Alkiee Seltzer, but we are interested in your answer.  Yes or No.  Then you can explain.</p>
<p>BIN News Editorial Sfaff</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dude</title>
		<link>http://www.fitsnews.com/2008/06/08/sic-set-to-sue-over-heroin-user-accusation/#comment-26158</link>
		<dc:creator>Dude</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 09 Jun 2008 15:49:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.fitsnews.com/?p=3872#comment-26158</guid>
		<description>With public figures, the truth is not a defense.  Falsity is actually an element of the cause of action -- a burden born by the plaintiff, as well as the additional element of malice, which could probably be shown here.  Public figures have this additional burden so that the defendant&#039;s First Amendment rights are protected.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>With public figures, the truth is not a defense.  Falsity is actually an element of the cause of action &#8212; a burden born by the plaintiff, as well as the additional element of malice, which could probably be shown here.  Public figures have this additional burden so that the defendant&#8217;s First Amendment rights are protected.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dude</title>
		<link>http://www.fitsnews.com/2008/06/08/sic-set-to-sue-over-heroin-user-accusation/#comment-26139</link>
		<dc:creator>Dude</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 09 Jun 2008 13:51:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.fitsnews.com/?p=3872#comment-26139</guid>
		<description>You are publishing the allegedly slanderous material yourself, didn&#039;t your lawyers tell you not to do that?  That&#039;s a primo defense against damages, which is hard to show anyway.   Be careful, you&#039;re about to file a frivolous lawsuit.  But you know about that statute because you were still up Sanford&#039;s ass when he took all the credit for it, right?

Â§ 15-36-10. Frivolous lawsuits; signing pleadings; imposition of sanctions; notice and opportunity to respond; reporting violations.

(A)(1) A pleading filed in a civil or administrative action on behalf of a party who is represented by an attorney must be signed by at least one attorney of record who is an active member of the South Carolina Bar or who is admitted to practice in the courts of this State and must include the address and telephone number of the attorney signing the document.

(2) A document filed in a civil or administrative action by a party who is not represented by an attorney must be signed by the party and must include the address and telephone number of the party.

(3) The signature of an attorney or a pro se litigant constitutes a certificate to the court that:

(a) the person has read the document;

(b) a reasonable attorney in the same circumstances would believe that under the facts his claim or defense may be warranted under the existing law or, if his claim or defense is not warranted under the existing law, a good faith argument exists for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law;

(c) a reasonable attorney in the same circumstances would believe that his procurement, initiation, continuation, or defense of a civil cause is not intended merely to harass or injure the other party; and

(d) a reasonable attorney in the same circumstances would believe his claim or defense is not frivolous, interposed for delay, or brought for any purpose other than securing proper discovery, joinder of parties, or adjudication of the claim or defense upon which the proceedings are based.

(4) An attorney or pro se litigant participating in a civil or administrative action or defense may be sanctioned for:

(a) filing a frivolous pleading, motion, or document if:

(i) the person has not read the frivolous pleading, motion, or document;

(ii) a reasonable attorney in the same circumstances would believe that under the facts, his claim or defense was clearly not warranted under existing law and that a good faith or reasonable argument did not exist for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law;

(iii) a reasonable attorney presented with the same circumstances would believe that the procurement, initiation, continuation, or defense of a civil cause was intended merely to harass or injure the other party; or

(iv) a reasonable attorney presented with the same circumstances would believe the pleading, motion, or document is frivolous, interposed for merely delay, or merely brought for any purpose other than securing proper discovery, joinder of parties, or adjudication of the claim or defense upon which the proceedings are based;

(b) making frivolous arguments a reasonable attorney would believe were not reasonably supported by the facts; or

(c) making frivolous arguments that a reasonable attorney would believe were not warranted under the existing law or if there is no good faith argument that exists for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law.

(B)(1) If a document is not signed or does not otherwise comply with this section, it must be stricken unless it is signed promptly or amended to comply with this section after the omission is called to the attention of the attorney or the party.

(2) If a document is signed in violation of this section, or an attorney or pro se litigant has violated subsection (A)(4), the court, upon its own motion or motion of a party, may impose upon the person in violation any sanction which the court considers just, equitable, and proper under the circumstances.

(C)(1) At the conclusion of a trial and after a verdict for or a verdict against damages has been rendered or a case has been dismissed by a directed verdict, summary judgment, or judgment notwithstanding the verdict, upon motion of the prevailing party, the court shall proceed to determine if the claim or defense was frivolous. An attorney, party, or pro se litigant shall be sanctioned for a frivolous claim or defense if the court finds the attorney, party, or pro se litigant failed to comply with one of the following conditions:

(a) a reasonable attorney in the same circumstances would believe that under the facts, his claim or defense was clearly not warranted under existing law and that a good faith or reasonable argument did not exist for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law;

(b) a reasonable attorney in the same circumstances would believe that his procurement, initiation, continuation, or defense of the civil suit was intended merely to harass or injure the other party; or

(c) a reasonable attorney in the same circumstances would believe that the case or defense was frivolous as not reasonably founded in fact or was interposed merely for delay, or was merely brought for a purpose other than securing proper discovery, joinder of proposed parties, or adjudication of the claim or defense upon which the proceedings are based.

(2) Unless the court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that an attorney, party, or pro se litigant engaged in advancing a frivolous claim or defense, the attorney, party, or pro se litigant shall not be sanctioned.

(D) A person is entitled to notice and an opportunity to respond before the imposition of sanctions pursuant to the provisions of this section. A court or party proposing a sanction pursuant to this section shall notify the court and all parties of the conduct constituting a violation of the provisions of this section and explain the basis for the potential sanction imposed. Upon notification, the attorney, party, or pro se litigant who allegedly violated subsection (A)(4) has thirty days to respond to the allegations as that person considers appropriate including, but not limited to, by filing a motion to withdraw the pleading, motion, document, or argument or by offering an explanation of mitigation.

(E) In determining if an attorney, party, or a pro se litigant has violated the provisions of this section, the court shall take into account:

(1) the number of parties;

(2) the complexity of the claims and defenses;

(3) the length of time available to the attorney, party, or pro se litigant to investigate and conduct discovery for alleged violations of the provisions of subsection (A)(4);

(4) information disclosed or undisclosed to the attorney, party, or pro se litigant through discovery and adequate investigation;

(5) previous violations of the provisions of this section;

(6) the response, if any, of the attorney, party, or pro se litigant to the allegation that he violated the provisions of this section; and

(7) other factors the court considers just, equitable, or appropriate under the circumstances.

(F) In determining whether sanctions are appropriate or the severity of a sanction, the court shall consider previous violations of the provisions of this section.

(G) Sanctions may include:

(1) an order for the party represented by an attorney or pro se litigant to pay the reasonable costs and attorney&#039;s fees of the prevailing party under a motion pursuant to this section. Costs shall include, but not be limited to, the following: the time required of the prevailing party by the frivolous proceeding, and travel expenses, mileage, parking, costs of reports, and any additional reasonable consequential expenses of the prevailing party resulting from the frivolous proceeding;

(2) an order for the attorney to pay a reasonable fine to the court; or

(3) a directive of a nonmonetary nature, including injunctive relief, designed to deter a future frivolous action or an action in bad faith.

(H) If the court imposes a sanction on an attorney in violation of the provisions of this section, the court shall report its findings to the South Carolina Commission of Lawyer Conduct.

(I) This act shall not alter the South Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure or the South Carolina Appellate Court Rules.

(J) The provisions of this section shall not apply where an attorney or pro se litigant establishes a basis to proceed with litigation, or to assert or controvert an issue therein, that is not frivolous, which includes a good faith argument for an extension, modification, or reversal of the existing law.

(K) The provisions of this section apply in addition to all other remedies available at law or in equity.

(L) The amount requested for damages in a pleading may not be considered in a determination of a violation of the provisions of this section.

(M) All violations of the provisions of this section must be reported to the South Carolina Supreme Court and a public record must be maintained and reported annually to the Governor, Senate, and House of Representatives.

HISTORY: 1988 Act No. 432, Â§ 6.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You are publishing the allegedly slanderous material yourself, didn&#8217;t your lawyers tell you not to do that?  That&#8217;s a primo defense against damages, which is hard to show anyway.   Be careful, you&#8217;re about to file a frivolous lawsuit.  But you know about that statute because you were still up Sanford&#8217;s ass when he took all the credit for it, right?</p>
<p>Â§ 15-36-10. Frivolous lawsuits; signing pleadings; imposition of sanctions; notice and opportunity to respond; reporting violations.</p>
<p>(A)(1) A pleading filed in a civil or administrative action on behalf of a party who is represented by an attorney must be signed by at least one attorney of record who is an active member of the South Carolina Bar or who is admitted to practice in the courts of this State and must include the address and telephone number of the attorney signing the document.</p>
<p>(2) A document filed in a civil or administrative action by a party who is not represented by an attorney must be signed by the party and must include the address and telephone number of the party.</p>
<p>(3) The signature of an attorney or a pro se litigant constitutes a certificate to the court that:</p>
<p>(a) the person has read the document;</p>
<p>(b) a reasonable attorney in the same circumstances would believe that under the facts his claim or defense may be warranted under the existing law or, if his claim or defense is not warranted under the existing law, a good faith argument exists for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law;</p>
<p>(c) a reasonable attorney in the same circumstances would believe that his procurement, initiation, continuation, or defense of a civil cause is not intended merely to harass or injure the other party; and</p>
<p>(d) a reasonable attorney in the same circumstances would believe his claim or defense is not frivolous, interposed for delay, or brought for any purpose other than securing proper discovery, joinder of parties, or adjudication of the claim or defense upon which the proceedings are based.</p>
<p>(4) An attorney or pro se litigant participating in a civil or administrative action or defense may be sanctioned for:</p>
<p>(a) filing a frivolous pleading, motion, or document if:</p>
<p>(i) the person has not read the frivolous pleading, motion, or document;</p>
<p>(ii) a reasonable attorney in the same circumstances would believe that under the facts, his claim or defense was clearly not warranted under existing law and that a good faith or reasonable argument did not exist for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law;</p>
<p>(iii) a reasonable attorney presented with the same circumstances would believe that the procurement, initiation, continuation, or defense of a civil cause was intended merely to harass or injure the other party; or</p>
<p>(iv) a reasonable attorney presented with the same circumstances would believe the pleading, motion, or document is frivolous, interposed for merely delay, or merely brought for any purpose other than securing proper discovery, joinder of parties, or adjudication of the claim or defense upon which the proceedings are based;</p>
<p>(b) making frivolous arguments a reasonable attorney would believe were not reasonably supported by the facts; or</p>
<p>(c) making frivolous arguments that a reasonable attorney would believe were not warranted under the existing law or if there is no good faith argument that exists for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law.</p>
<p>(B)(1) If a document is not signed or does not otherwise comply with this section, it must be stricken unless it is signed promptly or amended to comply with this section after the omission is called to the attention of the attorney or the party.</p>
<p>(2) If a document is signed in violation of this section, or an attorney or pro se litigant has violated subsection (A)(4), the court, upon its own motion or motion of a party, may impose upon the person in violation any sanction which the court considers just, equitable, and proper under the circumstances.</p>
<p>(C)(1) At the conclusion of a trial and after a verdict for or a verdict against damages has been rendered or a case has been dismissed by a directed verdict, summary judgment, or judgment notwithstanding the verdict, upon motion of the prevailing party, the court shall proceed to determine if the claim or defense was frivolous. An attorney, party, or pro se litigant shall be sanctioned for a frivolous claim or defense if the court finds the attorney, party, or pro se litigant failed to comply with one of the following conditions:</p>
<p>(a) a reasonable attorney in the same circumstances would believe that under the facts, his claim or defense was clearly not warranted under existing law and that a good faith or reasonable argument did not exist for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law;</p>
<p>(b) a reasonable attorney in the same circumstances would believe that his procurement, initiation, continuation, or defense of the civil suit was intended merely to harass or injure the other party; or</p>
<p>(c) a reasonable attorney in the same circumstances would believe that the case or defense was frivolous as not reasonably founded in fact or was interposed merely for delay, or was merely brought for a purpose other than securing proper discovery, joinder of proposed parties, or adjudication of the claim or defense upon which the proceedings are based.</p>
<p>(2) Unless the court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that an attorney, party, or pro se litigant engaged in advancing a frivolous claim or defense, the attorney, party, or pro se litigant shall not be sanctioned.</p>
<p>(D) A person is entitled to notice and an opportunity to respond before the imposition of sanctions pursuant to the provisions of this section. A court or party proposing a sanction pursuant to this section shall notify the court and all parties of the conduct constituting a violation of the provisions of this section and explain the basis for the potential sanction imposed. Upon notification, the attorney, party, or pro se litigant who allegedly violated subsection (A)(4) has thirty days to respond to the allegations as that person considers appropriate including, but not limited to, by filing a motion to withdraw the pleading, motion, document, or argument or by offering an explanation of mitigation.</p>
<p>(E) In determining if an attorney, party, or a pro se litigant has violated the provisions of this section, the court shall take into account:</p>
<p>(1) the number of parties;</p>
<p>(2) the complexity of the claims and defenses;</p>
<p>(3) the length of time available to the attorney, party, or pro se litigant to investigate and conduct discovery for alleged violations of the provisions of subsection (A)(4);</p>
<p>(4) information disclosed or undisclosed to the attorney, party, or pro se litigant through discovery and adequate investigation;</p>
<p>(5) previous violations of the provisions of this section;</p>
<p>(6) the response, if any, of the attorney, party, or pro se litigant to the allegation that he violated the provisions of this section; and</p>
<p>(7) other factors the court considers just, equitable, or appropriate under the circumstances.</p>
<p>(F) In determining whether sanctions are appropriate or the severity of a sanction, the court shall consider previous violations of the provisions of this section.</p>
<p>(G) Sanctions may include:</p>
<p>(1) an order for the party represented by an attorney or pro se litigant to pay the reasonable costs and attorney&#8217;s fees of the prevailing party under a motion pursuant to this section. Costs shall include, but not be limited to, the following: the time required of the prevailing party by the frivolous proceeding, and travel expenses, mileage, parking, costs of reports, and any additional reasonable consequential expenses of the prevailing party resulting from the frivolous proceeding;</p>
<p>(2) an order for the attorney to pay a reasonable fine to the court; or</p>
<p>(3) a directive of a nonmonetary nature, including injunctive relief, designed to deter a future frivolous action or an action in bad faith.</p>
<p>(H) If the court imposes a sanction on an attorney in violation of the provisions of this section, the court shall report its findings to the South Carolina Commission of Lawyer Conduct.</p>
<p>(I) This act shall not alter the South Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure or the South Carolina Appellate Court Rules.</p>
<p>(J) The provisions of this section shall not apply where an attorney or pro se litigant establishes a basis to proceed with litigation, or to assert or controvert an issue therein, that is not frivolous, which includes a good faith argument for an extension, modification, or reversal of the existing law.</p>
<p>(K) The provisions of this section apply in addition to all other remedies available at law or in equity.</p>
<p>(L) The amount requested for damages in a pleading may not be considered in a determination of a violation of the provisions of this section.</p>
<p>(M) All violations of the provisions of this section must be reported to the South Carolina Supreme Court and a public record must be maintained and reported annually to the Governor, Senate, and House of Representatives.</p>
<p>HISTORY: 1988 Act No. 432, Â§ 6.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Toyota Kawesaki</title>
		<link>http://www.fitsnews.com/2008/06/08/sic-set-to-sue-over-heroin-user-accusation/#comment-26127</link>
		<dc:creator>Toyota Kawesaki</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 09 Jun 2008 12:27:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.fitsnews.com/?p=3872#comment-26127</guid>
		<description>Get a life.The Bong will be packed at 4:20 see ya then</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Get a life.The Bong will be packed at 4:20 see ya then</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Calhoun Fawls</title>
		<link>http://www.fitsnews.com/2008/06/08/sic-set-to-sue-over-heroin-user-accusation/#comment-26099</link>
		<dc:creator>Calhoun Fawls</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 09 Jun 2008 03:46:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.fitsnews.com/?p=3872#comment-26099</guid>
		<description>It will be interesting to see if this suit comes to pass after the primary is over.  Note that the Fits folks say Tuesday.  My guess is when Ceips loses to Davis, this will be over. 

If it is not, Sic, remember my own situation.  I was called a diabetic who drank a case of beer a day by a county official.  I was hot and ready to sue.  Then someone told me I was a public figure and the truth was a defense.  :) 

Relax, Will, you guys have Ceips beat.  Enjoy the win and move on.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It will be interesting to see if this suit comes to pass after the primary is over.  Note that the Fits folks say Tuesday.  My guess is when Ceips loses to Davis, this will be over. </p>
<p>If it is not, Sic, remember my own situation.  I was called a diabetic who drank a case of beer a day by a county official.  I was hot and ready to sue.  Then someone told me I was a public figure and the truth was a defense.  :) </p>
<p>Relax, Will, you guys have Ceips beat.  Enjoy the win and move on.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Pickle</title>
		<link>http://www.fitsnews.com/2008/06/08/sic-set-to-sue-over-heroin-user-accusation/#comment-26080</link>
		<dc:creator>Pickle</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 09 Jun 2008 02:19:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.fitsnews.com/?p=3872#comment-26080</guid>
		<description>Will - what I want to know is how does she know this about you?  Is she your dealer?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Will &#8211; what I want to know is how does she know this about you?  Is she your dealer?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: FreeBird</title>
		<link>http://www.fitsnews.com/2008/06/08/sic-set-to-sue-over-heroin-user-accusation/#comment-26043</link>
		<dc:creator>FreeBird</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 08 Jun 2008 23:27:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.fitsnews.com/?p=3872#comment-26043</guid>
		<description>Whoa.  I think she is coming on to you Willie.  Or it may be a he.  I think the new thing in some of Rod Shealy&#039;s customer base is lifting each other&#039;s buns.  They must have grown bored with the coke whores, and you-know-what in general.

Not sayin&#039;...Just sayin&#039;...

I&#039;d watch out.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Whoa.  I think she is coming on to you Willie.  Or it may be a he.  I think the new thing in some of Rod Shealy&#8217;s customer base is lifting each other&#8217;s buns.  They must have grown bored with the coke whores, and you-know-what in general.</p>
<p>Not sayin&#8217;&#8230;Just sayin&#8217;&#8230;</p>
<p>I&#8217;d watch out.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Courtney</title>
		<link>http://www.fitsnews.com/2008/06/08/sic-set-to-sue-over-heroin-user-accusation/#comment-26042</link>
		<dc:creator>Courtney</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 08 Jun 2008 22:47:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.fitsnews.com/?p=3872#comment-26042</guid>
		<description>I have a thing for musicians. Care to get married? I have attached my web site.

Wonder if the residual royalties from Fitsnews would add to my portfolio?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I have a thing for musicians. Care to get married? I have attached my web site.</p>
<p>Wonder if the residual royalties from Fitsnews would add to my portfolio?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

