A woman in Florida recently was evicted from a home she owned with her husband’s permission, on the public record. While she was on appeal, her husband was convicted of domestic battery by the judge, who dismissed the appeal on the basis that he didn’t have to live in the home at all. In a letter to the judge, the woman explained that he had just bought her a used car and that she was not about to let him kick her out.

In fact, he has a good reason to evict her, and it’s not because of the public record. The man has a long history of violence against women and he’s not about to let her go, even if he has to pay for the privilege. In fact, the judge wrote that the woman was simply “dissatisfied with the situation and desired to do something about it.

This seems to be a common thread throughout the many stories of men who have been evicted from their homes and/or evicted themselves through a variety of legal means. Like in the following case, a man who was evicted from his home in the summer of 2014 after he allegedly hit his ex-girlfriend multiple times in the face with a hammer, and then went on to assault her and her children.

The man has been evicted from his home and even attempted to have his eviction dismissed but was unsuccessful in his attempt. The man’s eviction was dismissed without a hearing because he apparently failed to pay the $11,500 (plus 6% interest) his court costs.

The man is now in the process of filing an appeal, but the process is still ongoing. We’ll see where this goes.

Well, I’ve said this before and I will say it again: “Oh, and as much as I disagree with this man’s actions, I don’t feel like I can hold a grudge against him.” Because, as someone pointed out on Facebook, his eviction was dismissed for failure to pay the judgment as well as the court costs. He had a hearing.

So what you have here is a man who has the temerity to publicly humiliate the people who bailed him out of jail. He then uses that same temerity to publicly shame the people who bailed him out.

I guess that one of the things I like about this, is that you can’t really hold a grudge against him. Because he got caught. He was caught with a stolen car. He was caught with a million dollar stash on his person. He was caught with a million dollar stash on his person. So you can’t have a grudge against the man, because he has no grounds to complain about. Not that he would.

In this case, we see that his crime has been committed by people who have bailed him out of jail. The fact that he’s now being “caught” with a stolen car is the problem. He was caught because he stole a car. We see that he is very clearly a bad person, because he took a million-dollar stash away from people he knew he couldn’t pay.

So you have two options. You can either have sympathy for the person he was trying to help, or you can be outraged by the fact that he stole a car. I think it is really important that we not be outraged, because we would be outraged if he stole the car. If he stole it, he did it to himself, not to the other person. If he stole it from himself, then he deserved to be caught.