Leykis Gets Murder Confession
by Marc H. RudovUnless you haven’t heard by now, a girl named Sue called into The Tom Leykis Show last night from Ahwatukee, Arizona, to confess and BRAG about murdering the father of her child.
As I wrote in my article, “Why Women Hate Tom Leykis,” Sue began her bizarre tale by reminding all men that Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned. It turns out that, after a one-night stand, she got preggers and had a bastard child at the age of 19. Why not — doesn’t Hollywood teach that this is the cool thing to do?
Sue, a nurse, and the baby’s father both worked at the same hospital. The father refused to pay child support, so she had family court garnish his hospital wages. He didn’t like that, so he quit his job. Sue approached him privately for “under the table” money. He refused to pay her that, too. What else could she do but take his 9mm pistol and shoot him in the heart (she bragged about knowing exactly where in the heart to shoot because of her nursing background).
When the police arrived, Sue, while blubbering for effect, gave them the standard VAWA-speak: “He was beating and threatening me. He was drunk. He shot himself.” Of course, the police AUTOMATICALLY believed her. Why? She’s a woman. (Read “Will She Call 911 on You?”) That’s right: No hearing; no trial. VAWA rules! Had the situation been reversed, and the police arrived to see a living man and dead woman, do you think the investigating officer would have believed a male’s version of this story? Don’t bust a gut laughing.
Sue, the hubristic, moronic man-hater, decided to confess, on international radio, to killing a man. She didn’t realize that, when calling an 800 number, her caller ID is revealed — even if unlisted. When Leykis, incredulous as we all were, reminded her about the consequences of her public confession, Sue waxed indifference, feeling untouchable, saying that the body had been cremated and that she was using her friend’s phone.
Tom Leykis, who was doing his show as a live listener event in “Porkland,” Oregon (his nickname for the city of fat women), immediately had his sidekicks contact the Phoenix media and the Ahwatukee police. Then, the throng of Leykis men began chanting, “Fry that b-tch. Fry that b-tch.” This is an adaptation of Tom’s oft-repeated chant, “Dump that b-tch,” which he uses when admonishing men for hanging onto incompatible, abusive women.
Shortly after the confession, one female caller expressed happiness that a man died over child support. Wow! Another was scared for her 14-year-old athlete son, who could become prey for cheerleaders. Said she: “Women are mean. I know; I am one! Tell all your guys to be careful.” Then, Tom announced on the air that he would pay $5K in cash to anyone who helps lead to Sue’s capture and conviction. It was the most-amazing segment of radio I had ever heard.
I urge you to be careful with women. Because they have most of the civil rights, thanks to VAWA, they can be dangerous. While “pumping and dumping” them may seem appealing and expeditious, it can backfire. Police will always presume men guilty and women innocent. Sue’s story, once again, proves it. It also proves, as I wrote in “Playing Abortion Chess,” that women care more about child support than abortion — even to the point of killing for it.
==========================================
PS: In the first hour of his broadcast on Monday, November 6, 2006, Tom Leykis replayed most of Sue’s call and discussed it afterwards with callers. CLICK to hear the highlights >>> Windows Media Player | Everything Else.
==========================================
About the Author
Marc H. Rudov is an internationally recognized author of 30+ articles and the book, The Man’s No-Nonsense Guide to Women: How to Succeed in Romance on Planet EarthTM (ISBN 0974501719).
Rudov’s book, articles, blog, and podcasts are available at http://www.TheNoNonsenseMan.com/.
Copyright © 2006 by Marc H. Rudov. All rights reserved.
This entry was posted
on Saturday, November 4th, 2006 at 11:43 am and is filed under Vox Populi.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
| 
Print This Post
November 4th, 2006 at 12:29 pm
As more and more men learn about the VAWA and how it is used by women, the more men will turn away from women. The VAWA is actually creating a FAR MORE dangerous world for women. Men will hesitate to intervene in any situation where a woman is in danger, and men who feel threatened will realize that a dead and missing woman cannot talk lies to the police.
November 4th, 2006 at 12:38 pm
Yes, Marc Rudov, many women care more about child support than abortion.
They just HATE it when you cite the Antipeonage Act! Will they kill you for that?
November 4th, 2006 at 12:45 pm
Roger,
1) I never cited the antipeonage act.
2) I don’t know how to answer your question.
3) You have become Johnny One-Note. It seems that, regardless of the issue, your solution is the antipeonage act.
November 4th, 2006 at 4:33 pm
Marc, I’m a fan of yours! I loved the No-Nonsense book (used Amazon). I’m also a HUGE fan of Tom Leykis. What was said over the radio last night on his show was just unbelievable. I truely hope this bitch is caught and put away true or not.
November 4th, 2006 at 4:44 pm
Good job, Marc…. in providing an example of how VAWA can literally be used to commit murder, and walk away scot-free.
This case needs to be publicized so that men understand that women can and will murder….. and now use their superior civil and legal rights to avoid prosecution, not to mention incarceration.
As far as “Sue” is concerned – if this story is TRUE, the “fry the bitch” pretty well covers it.
VAWA is the legislation from hell. And evil women and their chivalrist allies were behind it.
November 4th, 2006 at 4:46 pm
Guys,
We can be proud that men are responsible for creating the whole anti-male climate, for eliminating men’s civil rights.
That’s right: men built and financed the Estrogen Express and passed all the gotcha legislation that makes us second-class citizens.
If unwed mothers were not entitled to child support, they wouldn’t have the illegitimate children. If VAWA didn’t exist, the police wouldn’t automatically give credence to mendacious women — and then fail to prosecute them later for their felonious lies.
But, all these inequitable rights and entitlements exist, and they exist because of weak men.
November 4th, 2006 at 5:18 pm
My question is related to the incident where a woman, who had a job, killed a coworker with whom she had a child out of wedlock because he refused to pay the child support. He accomplished such refusal be quitting his job when his paychecks were being garnished.
That is where the Antipeonage Act come in.
If he cited the Antipeonage Act, would she have killed him for that, and would we ever hear about it in the MSM?
I know you never cited the Antipeonage Act.
To me it is like dealing with and suffering from the energy crisis by trying everything else before exploiting the oil shale in Colorado and Wyoming!
It is human nature to avoid the obvious solution to a chronic problem and thus continue to suffer from it.
In other news, as an illustration of the MSM’s habit of cone of silence, I bring to your attention my new web page:
http://www.antipeonage.0catch.com/gourley.htm
This is about a recent Supreme Court of Washington decision affirming a finding of “domestic violence committed” and the protection order thus granted.
Now if you were to search the news websites for Washington’s MSM, the Seattle Times and PI, the Tacoma News Tribune, the Everett Herald, Spokane Spokesman Review, what you find is not a peep about the Gourley decision.
Why not? Because it is outrageous and the MSM does not want to provoke the Washington voters into pressuring the Legislature into changing the statute so as to provide for a better due process of law procedure for protection orders.
Same reason they embargo any news about the Antipeonage Act.
Now given that no one has suggested a better idea, to me, the Antipeonage Act is it.
“Getting off the Estrogen Express” is not a better idea, and neither is “finding Jesus” or beating a drum in a forest.
Screaming for the enforcement of the Peonage Law has the virtue of never having been tried by Marc Rudov.
November 4th, 2006 at 5:20 pm
Denis, the gamble by legislators and the NOW-sows is that men will continue to be estrogen-dazed enough to unquestioningly if unwillingly continue to accept the premise of VAWA that men are automatically guilty of whichever crime a woman chooses to accuse them of……
With the mainstream media largely feminist-friendly, it’s a fair bet on their part.
Whether or not America’s men and women have the will to stand up for American men’s civil, social, and legal rights remains to be seen.
The longer that VAWA stays in force, the more ingrained into American society gender apartheid becomes.
Resources like MND and writers like Marc are doing their part to spread the discussion about VAWA among men and women, but the jury is still out on this one.
November 4th, 2006 at 6:08 pm
Marc:
I would like to hear the audio of that broadcast. But when I visit BlowMeUpTom.com, I can’t find the link. I know that in the past Leykis has made audio of his broadcasts available. Do you know whether it has been posted anywhere?
John Dias
Founder, DontMakeHerMad.com
November 4th, 2006 at 6:15 pm
When the audio of that broadcast is available, I will embed it in my article. Currently, The Tom Leykis Show is a few days behind in posting its podcasts.
Please stay tuned…
November 4th, 2006 at 6:21 pm
To Roger and all flamers:
Let me say that this is MY blog. You are invited to submit comments on the topics I write about. It is not YOUR blog and not YOUR platform to execute YOUR agenda — namely, to direct people to YOUR Website, to insult me, and to insult each other.
We have become a world well-connected electronically and disconnected emotionally. Let’s not hide behind the camouflage of computer screens.
If you cannot respect that you are on MY turf when posting comments here, I will prohibit you from returning.
Thank you.
November 4th, 2006 at 6:51 pm
I am sorry you consider me a flamer. I merely try to answer your questions, and suggest a solution to the problems you so eloquently describe.
November 4th, 2006 at 10:45 pm
“Now given that no one has suggested a better idea, to me, the Antipeonage Act is it.
“Getting off the Estrogen Express†is not a better idea, and neither is “finding Jesus†or beating a drum in a forest.
Screaming for the enforcement of the Peonage Law has the virtue of never having been tried by Marc Rudov.”
Roger, please note that “Getting off the Estrogen Express” is a damned fine idea for that part of the human race born with a penis….. and one of the very best approaches to combatting misandry in our society that I have read on mensnewsdaily.com in recent months.
You may prefer approaches to combat misandry in our society based on an antipeonage act. Well and fine. Have at it, for my sake…
But you are behaving foolishly when you attempt to make light of other peoples’ efforts (such as Marc Rudov, f.ex.) in comparison.
Reading Marc’s columns, it’s apparent to anyone with triple-digit IQ’s that Marc has given quite a bit of thought to issues related to men, women, sex, dating, reproductive rights, and relationships……. far more than can be covered by any antipeonage act.
As such, he’s a valuable contributor to MND, in my opinion on those issues, just as Dave Usher is a valuable contributor.
And trying to browbeat either of them to push for enforcement of an antipeonage act will likely get you nowhere.
November 5th, 2006 at 1:19 am
Fourthwire,
Thanx for recognizing the work I do and the thought I put into what I write, as well as the value you receive from it.
It is important to me that men and women learn to get along — an objective rendered impossible without stripping bare what keeps us apart and fixing it at the root.
November 6th, 2006 at 12:47 am
I get that Marc and some of you think I am hurting the cause and that you don’t want to push for the enforcement of the Peonage Law because I am rude.
It is not me, or only me, that would benefit from pushing for the enforcement of the Antipeonage Act.
I realize you all mean well, and no doubt Marc is very knowledgeable in what he does and is about. We can do everything Marc’s way, and get off the Estrogen Express. Shucks, while we are at it perhaps we can find Jesus and sit in a forest beating drums.
We do that, and at the end of the day, Mike Cox Sucker will still be Attorney General of Michigan, and if not him someone almost exactly like him. We will still be denied equal protection of state constitutions that prohibit imprisonment for debt, and still be subject to permanent license suspensions due to our inability to comply with patently unreasonable child support orders. Of course, it is only called “child support” for there is no requirement that such funds be accounted for in how they provide for the needs of the children in question.
There is Gregory Amunrud whose case was recently decided by the Supreme Court of Washington. His attorney, Robert Stevenson, gave the oral argument, duly recorded by TVW Docket. I posted a link to this at
http://www.antipeonage.0catch.com/586476.htm
What Robert told the Supremes is that Greg only earned $900 per month driving a cab. He tried to obtain a modification and the tyrants in black robes INCREASED the monthly support amount. Naturally Greg was unable to comply and his cab driver’s license was permanently suspended without any consideration allowed by the statute, RCW 74.20A.320, of his ABILITY to comply with the order.
Now he cannot drive a cab.
So, Marc Rudov and fourthwire, what advice have you to give to Greg Amunrud? How does “getting off the Estrogen Express” get him back his cab license?
My point is that the only non-violent way Greg is going to be able to drive a cab again is if the United States Grand Jury for the Western District of Washington gets a clue and commences enforcing 18 U.S.C. §1581 and demand that the prosecutions be performed with vim and vigor.
Which will not happen as long as we keep the Antipeonage Act a secret from the public from whom the grand jury is drawn.
Please Marc and fourthwire, think about guys like Greg Amunrud, and what needs to be done to help them.
Because for them, the alternative looks more and more like dropping the guillotine blade on the necks of those who so pervert American law.
I would rather that we at least try a million angry men and women screaming for the enforcement of the Peonage Law.
I cannot imagine a better way to jump off the Estrogen Express!
November 6th, 2006 at 1:09 am
Roger,
Apparently, you do not understand the depth, complexities, nuances, and simplicity of The Estrogen Express.
The Estrogen Express is a runaway train that vaginized MEN built to give women inequitable entitlements and privileges.
Because vaginized men bow down to women in their personal lives, they do so in legislatures, courthouses, police stations, mayors’ residences, governors’ mansions, and the White House as well. THAT is why so many anti-male laws and the anti-male climate exist.
A man freely enters matrimony, and swears he is doing so, during a marriage ceremony. More than uniting his precious soul with that of his bride, he is forming a corporation — one in which he will become the minority shareholder. He is not, therefore, an involuntary servant. He cannot use antipeonage laws to defend himself against child support and alimony. This tortured logic of yours makes zero sense.
Unfortunately, because of vaginized public officials — elected and appointed — matrimony has come to equal alimony, as cigarettes have come to equal lung cancer, emphysema, yellow fingers, and halitosis. In other words, as I stated in the first paragraph of my article, Riding the Estrogen Express, the United States has killed marriage. Any man who marries today is a fool, as any person who smokes today is a fool.
The only way to reverse the anti-male climate is to begin at the local level: dismantle The Estrogen Express. How? Stop tolerating female nonsense in your personal life! As all politics is local, so is all misandry. The construction, and the perpetuation, of the gynocracy begins on the first date. If 50 million men go out tomorrow on first dates, kissing their potential paramours’ asses, they will be perpetuating the gynocracy and all that it entails. If, on the other hand, these men demand to be treated as well as the women they’re with, the whole gynocracy begins to crumble.
If you don’t grasp this, you are part of the problem!
November 6th, 2006 at 12:25 pm
Roger wrote: “I get that Marc and some of you think I am hurting the cause and that you don’t want to push for the enforcement of the Peonage Law because I am rude.”
Actually, you could only “hurt the cause” if you were to convince men like Marc or Dave Usher not to write any longer, which is extraordinarily unlikely to happen.
As for pushing for enforcement of the Peonage Law, you will likely continue to do so whether or not I happen to agree, but from my perspective, simply pressing for enforcement of the antipeonage law is not nearly enough of a solution to stem the tide of institutionalized misandry in our society as you seem to think it is, in my opinion.
I happen to have read enough of your posts to understand that you are an intelligent individual, and I certainly would enjoy reading your opinions and perspectives on other aspects than enforcing the antipeonage laws of our nation.
November 6th, 2006 at 1:51 pm
I can’t believe this article started out being about a woman who murdered her husband (then used domestic violence laws and manipulated public sympathy to excuse her actions) and has now become about Roger’s anti-peonage act efforts. Roger, start your own column! What’s so hard about that? If you have something to say, don’t bury it in the Comments section of a Web site.
A little thing that bothers me about the men’s movement is our lack of relevance. Too often we hash out our views on blogs and Web sites, and don’t notice how little influence that is gaining for us. I consider Marc Rudov’s articles 100% relevant, however, because they contain a call to action — that being that men should modify their personal lives so that they reject double standards that solely benefit women. I also salute guys like John Murtari for taking the fight from the blogosphere to the news headlines, and to the courtroom. I salute organizations like Fathers for Justice for getting in people’s faces (and into their minds) with demonstrations and protests that highlight the need to prevent exclusion of fathers from their kids’ lives. I salute men like Steven Baskerville who fight for political initiatives, like Shared Parenting in North Dakota. I salute Glenn Sacks for being a national leader who has a radio show, syndication in many large newspapers, as well as an e-mail list and Web site. I try to emulate their efforts on my own Web site, DontMakeHerMad.com, which appeals to individuals (not mass movements) to protect themselves from false allegations by actually recording their innocence as a last ditch effort to prove a negative. In all these examples, activists are making a difference with real actions that get beyond the blogosphere.
Roger, if you can’t make any headway with your own Web site, why then do you think you’re going to forge a coalition by leaving comments in response to opinion columns and news stories at Mens News Daily? Comments are not effective at moving the masses. Ideas, thoughtfully expressed (like Marc’s), are what make a difference. Better yet, ideas coupled with specific actions are even more effective. Instead of saying, “Scream for enforcement…” you should be identifying candidates at the local level who agree with this view. Then endorse them on your Web site. Compile a list of them, and like-minded legislation and ballot initiatives, and invite people to vote for them. Write columns in support of such candidates, initiatives, and legislation. Invite mens rights activists to participate. THAT’S how it should be done.
But you DON’T get anywhere by trolling the comments section of other people’s opinion columns and news stories. You just don’t! Tactics have got to change, Roger. I wish you well, I really do; I want you to be successful. But it’s starting to tick me off that you’re wasting your efforts like this, instead of using the more effective routes I’ve detailed above. You’re taking up valuable space in Marc Rudov’s Comments section, and other columns and stories, to the point where we are no longer discussing the issue. This was supposed to be about women who use VAWA to get away with murder. It is not about the Anti-peonage law. Build up the courage to post your own columns. It’s quite simple.
John Dias
November 6th, 2006 at 1:56 pm
I must apologize, for I had an answer to Marc’s latest response, but unfortunately we suddenly lost Internet.
Seattle. November. Rainstorms.
Whodathunk!
The short version is that I was only asdking for 1 million to scream for the enforcement of the Peonage Law, and here is Marc suggesting 50 million men getting of the Estrogen Express!
I like that thinking big!
The little correction is that the Antipeonage Act applies to contracts as well as court orders. So the fact that men voluntarily enter into marriages does not by itself cause any problems for Antipeonge Act claims.
Do everything else you are doing, yes, but while at it, mention the Peonage law too.
What better way is there to jump off the Estrogen Express?
November 6th, 2006 at 2:00 pm
Roger,
Enough with your APL. You are misapplying the law, and you are blind to your quest. Enough.
I will delete all your future mentions of it on my blog. Get your own blog. Don’t use mine for your agenda.
November 6th, 2006 at 2:02 pm
John Dias and Fourthwire,
Thanx for your excellent contributions.
November 23rd, 2006 at 10:33 am
John Dias said, “I can’t believe this article started out being about a woman who murdered her husband (then used domestic violence laws and manipulated public sympathy to excuse her actions) and has now become about Roger’s anti-peonage act efforts.”
Wars are fought on many fronts. When the generals begin to battle each other, the war cannot be won.
If each of your endeavors is pushed to fruition, the war will be won. Keep fighting amongst each other and the enemy takes more.
Disagreement and debate are healthy. Backbiting is not.
November 23rd, 2006 at 10:36 am
You are correct, wheresmy40. This bickering happens every time I post an article.
November 25th, 2006 at 1:52 am
I have a FACT sheet generously provided by http://www.mediaradar.org illustrating in ellicit detail how FLAWED the VAWA(violence against women act)stats are, and how the ultra(radical)-feminists are using these ill stats to support their ideology.
Here you will find the REAL and UNBIASED truth about “violence”. Please do be enlightened…
http://www.mediaradar.org/media_fact_sheet.php