Regulation C-2012-02

I am so pissed that motherfucker is trying to make this out like he’s scared of me. You threatened to shoot me and punch me, and your stupid ass literally said, “The difference is you can’t hurt me and I can hurt you.” So spare me the victim routine, you pussy-ass bitch.

I’m thinking about asking them if we can do this in person. You’re not afraid of me, sweetheart—you’re afraid to look me in the fucking eye. That’s what you’re afraid of. Be afraid of the deposition. You’re going to have a hard time tap-dancing through that shit with me. You remember the good old days when you’d freak out and tell me I was “doing my psychology thing again,” just asking questions? Guess what, sweet pea—your look? I know it’s bullshit. That shit will never scare me again.

See, I’m not afraid of you. Not even a little. You’re nothing. You can’t hit me or do anything to me anymore. Your threats are—and always have been—empty. Can you still piss me off? Sure. Showing up here, trying to boost the video on Christmas, fucking with me on dating sites—whatever. But fear isn’t on the menu.

You didn’t get it the day it happened: I truly have nothing to lose. Even if you tried to intimidate me physically, injuries heal. Pain doesn't last and if it does, you get used to that shit. I’ve fought to survive too many times to be impressed by a man like you. I don’t throw the first punch, but you could have me on the ground and I’m still winning because I’m still alive.

Not a fucking thing in my life to lose. Sure as hell not to you. My fight remains. My beliefs and integrity are intact. My morals—however questionable some people find them—are still solid. The few things I actually had, you didn’t take, because you couldn’t. You’re just a fucking assclown.

Now—let's discuss the prospect of your legacy. Will be EB5? Will it be rape allegations and quiet surrender? Or will it be what I have spent all day reading and researching (hi I'm unemployed).

I will preface this with I don't know but I read everything and I have had a feeling you are working in captive insurance management. It's all I've come up with that made sense to me (location location location as they say), but I don't know the ins and out of where disgrace regulators get to go to die and wait for their pensions. I assume it's still a good gig if you can get it. Keeps the liquor flowing and used Mercedes running at least. Thirty years and I'm sure some people don't simply view you as a creep. They either haven't heard or give you the benefit of the doubt.

Am I reading Vermont DFR’s proposed rule update correctly that they’re tightening disclosure and transparency around who’s involved in an insurance holding company system—especially around management/cost-sharing agreements and group oversight? Because the way it reads to me is: less room for shadow roles when a person is actually in a disclosable, controlling, or key-management position. And that matters because the standard biographical disclosures tied to these systems tend to ask the questions that matter—criminal history, and professional discipline—license suspension, revocation, surrender, that whole universe. Not “prosecution,” but the facts that force someone to answer, in writing.

Now I’m not an attorney but this, section 18 specifically is reading to me like “The {D} Rule” as I am enjoying calling it. It could be completely unrelated. DFR Regulation No. C-2012-02. They seem to be calling for a lot of disclosure of personnel and biographical information or affiliates and employees

So if {D} is trying to work in a space where regulator comfort is the whole game—whether that’s captive-adjacent, advisory, or behind-the-scenes influence—this kind of disclosure framework can still be a career problem if the role crosses into something that triggers disclosure: officer, director, controlling person, key service provider, or someone functionally running the show. And yes—someone with decades of regulatory experience doesn’t need a public title to have influence. They can operate as an advisor, reviewer, or strategist—quietly shaping filings and decisions—unless the role crosses into an official or disclosable position. That’s the line.

God I hope he isn’t working in captive insurance and did help write this rule. That would be ironic. I’m going to need to look up NAIC committees he was on. From like section 18 it’s feeling very anti-{D}.

I may be wrong about {D} being the catalyst. It could be completely unrelated. But it’s hard not to notice the irony: I made a joke once about him having to resign over a sex tape. He got indignant and said no one was going to remember why he left—that it wouldn’t be among the significant things he’d done.

And yet—being the kind of person whose personal conduct forces more disclosure, more scrutiny, and less tolerance for quiet “influence” roles? I have nothing but a slow clap for that. Bravo. That is something of pure beauty.

There are moments where things happen to {D} that I never could have imagined. Imagine a man who spent decades in insurance regulation—and his biggest, boldest impact is the collateral damage of his own actions. No one needs to know. There doesn’t need to be a DR-C-2012-02 with his name on it. Oh wait, whoops typo forgot the “F” DFR Regulation C-2012-02. My bad. He is going to know for the rest of his fucking life THAT was his legacy.

God bless America.

PS I know I have been wrong before, but this was a day's work, and I enjoyed the idea of our dear {D} living with this being his legacy. If I am wrong, I will recant. Right now, just let me enjoy my research boner. 

“Proposed Rules and Public Comment | Department of Financial Regulation.” DFR.Vermont.Gov. Accessed January 23, 2026. https://dfr.vermont.gov/about-us/legal-general-counsel/proposed-rules-and-public-comment.