 |
|
Add to My Group
|
July 8, 2008 at 09:40:48
Promoted to Headline (H2) on 7/8/08: by Mr. Blint Page 1 of 4 page(s) |
|
|
The lawsuits that become landmark cases generally start as small disputes that no one aside from those immediately involved pay attention to. They begin as something as simple as public school students wearing black armbands in protest of the Vietnam War, as in the case of Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District. That case made it all the way from the Des Moines School Board to the U.S. Supreme Court, which handed down a decision on February 24, 1969. In that case, the Supreme Court upheld the First Amendment right of children on a public school campus to peacefully protest, but the political climate as well as the Supreme Court has changed since 1969. The First Amendment continues to undergo attack, and it is showing undeniable signs of buckling under the pressure.
The Case
Our story begins, appropriately enough, with an up-and-coming self-styled New Age "guru" named Eric Pepin. Based on what can be gleaned from his websites and self-promotion, he would seem to be little more than a snake-oil salesman preying on gullible people by selling enlightenment through a proprietary form of meditation and a pill called Magneurol6-S that, so he claims, enhances brain function and heightens paranormal experience. His promotional material states that his fee-based "Higher Balance" courses will impart secret, mystical knowledge, profound spiritual experience and modern tools for advanced awareness. In other words, he seems to be nothing more than a hustler making a easy buck on pseudo-spirituality.
It is a matter of public record, reported in several news articles (The Oregonian) that Pepin was accused by a former employee of criminal sexual misconduct. The accuser claimed he was only 17 when Pepin forced him into sexual relations, an act Pepin allegedly referred to as "crossing the abyss." The story of the New Age guru earning the trust of followers, then using that trust to manipulate those followers into feeding an insatiable lust is hardly new. Pepin even admitted to his voracious sexual appetites in testimony during his hearing, saying that he has had sexual relations with most of his 11 employees. Whether priest, minister, politician, Boy Scout troop leader, teacher, counselor, or psychologist, the authoritarian dynamic of exploitation is unnervingly and disturbingly familiar
It is also a matter of public record that Pepin was found "not guilty" which, it should be noted, does not mean that the alleged sexual misconduct did not occur. It simply means that the evidence did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the victim was underage at the time the events occurred. There was no doubt that they occurred because there was a videotape. Unfortunately, the tape was not date stamped and the victim turned 18 before the case came to court. After the acquittal, Pepin hired attorneys to have the record expunged. Pepin appears to know well how to use the legal system to cover his tracks. Sound familiar? It should. It happens all the time in powerful and wealthy circles, and Pepin has shown that he can use the tricks like a pro.
Now, with his criminal record expunged - never mind that it was clear that the incidents occurred - Pepin has filed suit against an alternative media website for a discussion of his case in the public forum associated with that site. That fact - that such cases are even being heard by a court - is chilling. A case like this, if it makes it to the Supreme Court, could become a landmark case. A Supreme Court ruling in such a case could, potentially, put an end to free and open discussion on the Internet.
The name of the suit is HIGHER BALANCE, LLC, an Oregon Limited Liability Company, dba HIGHER BALANCE INSTITUTE, Plaintiff The Higher Balance Institute v. QUANTUM FUTURE GROUP, INC, a California corporation, and LAURA KNIGHT- JADCZYK, Defendants. It was filed over comments made on the public forum that is part of Signs of the Times, an alternative news aggregation and commentary website. A forum thread entitled, "Eric Pepin - Higher Balance Institute -- Discussion" was begun by an anonymous poster regarding the validity of the claims made by Pepin.
Eventually, following a generally unremarkable series of posts, the fact that Pepin had been accused of statutory rape, and the contents of articles that covered the details of the accusation and subsequent trial, were posted on the thread. After reviewing this information, Laura Knight-Jadczyk, an administrator of the site, made the statement, "It's really starting to look like this Eric Pepin and his Higher Balance Institute may be merely COINTELPRO and a front for pedophilia."
The suit alleges that this comment made by Knight-Jadczyk and others in the user discussion forum of the Signs of the Times news site concerning Pepin has caused his Higher Balance Institute to lose a pretty sizable chunk of change in snake-oil sales and loss of reputation. In fact, it claims over $1 million in economic damages. Apparently there is quite a bit of money to be made in his line of work. Adding the special and general damages, the total sought is nearly $4.5 million. All of this because a few people dared discuss articles about Pepin that had been published in publicly available media sources.
The statement would hardly seem actionable when one considers that it was based directly on information provided in articles printed in Pepin's home state of Oregon following his trial, and when one considers the fact that what was said may actually be accurate. True, Pepin was found "not guilty" on all counts. According to Pepin, that is proof that the acts in question were never committed never mind the unequivocal statements of the prosecutor and judge, quoted in the news reports, that they did occur. Or at least, he seems to believe, that verdict should serve as a de facto gag order keeping anyone from ever mentioning the subject in public again. But that is not what "not guilty" means in a court of law.
According to a May 23, 2007 article in The Oregonian, "A Washington County Circuit judge called the leader of a metaphysical Internet sales company manipulative and controlling and his testimony unbelievable, even as he acquitted him today of charges that he had sex with an underage boy." It goes on to quote Judge Steven L. Price as saying it was "probable that the conduct alleged in all counts occurred," but he wasn't convinced beyond a reasonable doubt.
This case was brought before Judge Price after a grand jury agreed that the case had merit. Pepin's attorneys were clever, though. They realized that in cases of statutory rape, proof beyond a reasonable doubt is very hard to come by. It is usually a case of he said/she said or, in the case of Pepin, he said/he said. A jury may feel disposed to find the accused guilty in such a case, but a judge would not without very substantial evidence of a specific kind. This is, incidentally, a legal maneuver sometimes used by those who would later gain notoriety as so-called "serial killers." For example, Gary Heidnik who, charged with kidnapping, rape, false imprisonment, unlawful restraint, involuntary deviate sexual intercourse, interfering with the custody of a committed person and reckless endangerment, waived his right to a jury. Because the judge determined the witness too "retarded" to testify, Heidnik got off with only a couple of misdemeanors.
A judge would require what amounts to a smoking gun. The plaintiff nearly had one with the evidence of the video tape of a sex orgy presented as spiritual practice was produced. Why a self-proclaimed guru would be videotaping an allegedly "spiritual" orgy I leave to the reader's imagination. Unfortunately, as mentioned, the video tape did not have any sort of date stamp, so there was no "smoking-gun" proof that it was taken when the boy was still 17 years old, merely evidence that Pepin is a kinky sexual predator. So, Pepin waived his right to trial by jury, presented himself to a judge - about whom we know nothing - and found himself a free man.
To the casual observer, this case could easily look like an easy one to ignore, just like with most other suits that eventually lead to landmark decisions. After all, a cursory Internet search will reveal that Laura Knight-Jadczyk is involved in some things that might sound strange herself, namely the "Cassiopaean Experiment", in which she claims to communicate with a group of beings that call themselves the Cassiopaeans. That same search will also turn up accusations that Ms. Knight-Jadczyk is running a cult and is some sort of New Age guru, herself!
A recent article in Willamette Week Online titled A New-Age Smackdown and Free Speech for Bloggers even described sott.net as a New Age alternative news website. Personally, I don't see it, though I would definitely accent the alternative part. The folks at SOTT cover more political, psychological and scientific territory than than a room full of doctoral candidates. In the 80's I was tangentially involved in the New Age movement, meaning that I found it interesting, not that I ever contributed anything to it. Having read through sott.net, this has nothing to do with New Age thought. I think many of the New Agers I've known would find the site fairly horrifying as it takes a decidedly up-front and realistic position that things are not going well in the world, are only getting worse, and does not advocate anything like the position that thinking "nice" thoughts will turn things around.
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
 Contact Author |
Contact Editor |
 View Authors' Articles |
|
|
|
|
| 27 comments |
|
Well done ...
I have no doubt that Pepin is a member of a Satanic cult in league with many of those currently in power. If you think that statement over-the-top, you haven't done your research. Many of the leaders of the most influential countries can be traced to ancient Satanic cults such as Illuminati, Masons, Nights Templar and others. There agents are everywhere and in positions of power and they are using that power to bring about a world only exposed in fables, but they are as real as death itself. Any of us who can must help to defeat this attack. If you can contribute money, please do. We don't have much time left. The forces of evil are going for their final push in a plan they have formulated for centuries. They're well ahead of us and we have hardly become aware of what they're doing. Our only hope is knowledge and information and if they take this tool away from us we'll surely be defeated. by Mr M (8 articles, 0 quicklinks, 66 diaries, 2845 comments [654 recommended, 27 rejected]) on Tuesday, Jul 8, 2008 at 12:35:54 PM  (0+)
|
|
Reply: i don't see anything new in this case:
Not so sure; where's the precedent setting material? Pepin says he was defamed/libeled; that they made false statements knowing they were false- huge hurdle there for the prosecution. Even if a corrupt judge and stacked jury decide in favor of Pepin, it'll get knocked down on appeal. Even this corrupt SCOTUS has sided with free speech; they even upheld Habeus Corpus, twice- 1st time was what prompted the Military Commissions Act of 2006, 2nd when they just recently held detainees have Habeus Corpus rights, regardless of the Act. Barbara Honegger has been pushing the "No 757 at the Pentagon" theory for years, despite the lack of evidence that something other than a 757 hit, and despite the evidence that one did. Good thing for the 9/11 Truth Movement that "theory" never caught on- only 12% of Americans believe it, and that many do thanks to the hype- 62% think it "very" or "somewhat" likely "that some people in the federal government had specific warnings of the 9/11 attacks in New York and Washington, but chose to ignore those warnings." http://www.scrippsnews.com/node/28534 The PentagonNo-757-Crash Theory: Booby Trap for 9/11 Skeptics by Jim Hoffman by Better World Order (4 articles, 568 quicklinks, 39 diaries, 1110 comments [56 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Tuesday, Jul 8, 2008 at 1:40:44 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Nothing new?
Looked at one way, I see what you mean there not seeming to be anything new in the suit. The key here is that the suit was filed against someone who apparently has no funds and lives in another country. Obviously, the hope would be, as I stated in the article, that the suit would be a war of attrition. The appeals process can be lengthy and expensive. If one party has money and access to attorneys and the other doesn't, the "logic" legal outcome is anything but a certainty. As for your comment that there is no evidence that anything but a 757 hit the Pentagon, that is hardly the point of the article. What is at stake is our ability to even argue that sort of point in public. by Mr. Blint (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 4 comments) on Tuesday, Jul 8, 2008 at 11:26:29 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: right to speech and frivolous lawsuits
i agree the issue of the right to speak freely transcends the need to check facts before speaking. The truth isn't tarnished by what people say, but human rights can be oppressed. I would hope she's gotten in touch with the ACLU or someone- it's a free speech case, and lots of attorneys have taken such cases on principle. If the judge whose court it's in has a brain or principles, it's gonna get tossed- of course, the judge may be an idiot, but a jury is less likely. I just really can't see this getting far, and if a jury does side with the plaintiff, i'd say it's pretty much guaranteed the ACLU or some other public interest legal org will take her case pro bono to preserve the Constitution, and Pepin will have a world of bad publicity to deal with. Even Duhbya periodically stresses we have freedom of speech in the USA. by Better World Order (4 articles, 568 quicklinks, 39 diaries, 1110 comments [56 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Wednesday, Jul 9, 2008 at 12:40:19 AM (0+)
|
|
This is scary.
Ok - that was a lot of reading - but - this really is seriously scary - and not just because yet another 'guru' has been caught with his hands in the pants of his 'students' - why is that so common? - but because the internet is quickly becoming the last bastion of freedom of expression. If someone with enough money to make a sexual abuse charge 'go away' can then also shut down the ability of people to discuss it openly on the internet - based on facts from a newspaper - then it is no longer just the Bush's and Cheneys of the world who get away with breaking the law at will and walking away with no one ever mentioning it again. As far as who this woman is that this guy Pepin is suing, she sounds a bit odd - but it looks to me like the oddness was brought up to distract from the point - the point is that if this lawsuit by this perv Pepin succeeds - all and everyone could (will?) be legally liable for discussing things that are covered in the news??? I agree with the guy who said that the prosecution has a huge battle ahead to prove defamation - but - lately - I have about as much faith in the judicial branch as I do in the executive, so - here's hoping that we won't have to continue to protest in wire-enclosed 'free speech zones' (already a fact on the ground) - and that we won't have to expect litigation any time we actually just tell the truth about some perv with enough power and money to shut us up, despite the truth. by Arthur Jasp (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 7 comments) on Tuesday, Jul 8, 2008 at 10:43:29 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Small steps
Time will tell how this case will turn out. What scares me about it is that it is in the spirit of the Bush signing statements, used to set an environment that is more condusive to the abridgement of liberties. As far as I can see, the real battle is fought in the dark corners. The up-front assaults on liberty are only for show, to keep people occupied. That is what the eigth strategy is all about. Sadly, in China they teach the 36 Strategems in grade school. Here, they are only taught in the exclusive business and political schools, which leaves us all at the mercy of the strategic. by Mr. Blint (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 4 comments) on Tuesday, Jul 8, 2008 at 11:37:09 PM (0+)
|
|
It's pretty obvious
Pepin sells magnesium pills for $69 and claims they will give you a profound spiritual experience. He has already been officially exposed as a sexual pervert who preys on his adepts, what more needs to be said? It is obvious that the guy is taking the case against Sott.net in an attempt to silence free speech and the right to identify sickos like him in our society. As the author of the article states, if Pepin wins the case then a dangerous predecent that threatens internet free specch will have been established. by Joe Quinn (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 2 comments) on Wednesday, Jul 9, 2008 at 7:01:09 AM (0+)
|
|
mr blint
i will try again make the space smaller after .com http://www.godlikeproductions.com /forum1/message115499/pg1 by steve quayle (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 13 comments) on Wednesday, Jul 9, 2008 at 7:51:54 PM (0+)
|
|
mr blint
and this http://www.gather.com /viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474977361322 by steve quayle (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 13 comments) on Wednesday, Jul 9, 2008 at 7:53:04 PM (0+)
|
|
victims of laura knight-jadczyk
Laura Knight-Jadczyk deserves to be sued for $4.7m. Why? Because she has a long history of libel, defamtion, and slander ... don't believe me? Check out her own forum, where she is the chief initiator of much of the defamation, and the enabler of all of it: by steve quayle (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 13 comments) on Wednesday, Jul 9, 2008 at 7:58:39 PM (0+)
|
|
more victims
Laura is being sued for $4.7m for libel and defamation. The fact that Laura's SOTT forum encourages her minions to join in the ongoing feeding frenzy to libel and defame multitudes of folks - all without a shred of evidence, indicates that the suit has merit. Laura supervises this feeding frenzy on a daily basis so she is DIRECTLY RESPONSIBLE for EVERY thread. by steve quayle (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 13 comments) on Wednesday, Jul 9, 2008 at 8:01:34 PM (0+)
|
|
Mr. Quayle
You have posted all 5 of your total comments one after another on this thread in the span of 10 minutes and flagged a comment of someone else. That will be quite enough. by JC Garrett (40 articles, 65 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 604 comments [10 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Jul 9, 2008 at 8:27:02 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: messenger
don't shoot the messenger, even bush has the right to speak by steve quayle (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 13 comments) on Thursday, Jul 10, 2008 at 3:25:34 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: "Even" George Bush?
Surely you jest, Mr. Quayle? "Even George Bush"? Are you comparing yourself to Bush? Do you think that George Bush has been unfairly treated? Do you think that George Bush needs you to defend his "right to free speech"? You may want to have a look at how George Bush and his Reich are handling their own lawsuit here: LINK There are some similarities between the Bush attempts to cover up evidence of wrongdoing in the above linked article and Eric Pepin's attempts to cover up his criminal record. If you examine the HBI case documents linked to in the article by Mr. Blint, you will find that Pepin had his criminal record expunged and, as soon as that was done, he filed suit against Knight Jadczyk for talking about it. Not very sporting, now is it? To file suit over remarks made about a criminal record that you have just had expunged is a bit over the top since the main defense against the lawsuit filed by Pepin/HBI is the truth of the statements made in the Oregonian articles and that evidence has been hidden from view. Yes, a very Bush-like tactic. Are you an admirer of Mr. Bush? If so, I think you just stumbled into the wrong bar. by Bonnee (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 12 comments) on Thursday, Jul 10, 2008 at 4:08:46 AM (0+)
|
|
The Topic at hand
Mr. Quayle, after reading this article, I did some looking around myself and a search on the name of Ms. Knight Jadczyk. What I found and read, put together with this egregious lawsuit, indicates very strongly to me that this woman has been the target of a campaign of hate and defamation for a long time. Looking at the links you provided only confirms this suspicion. Your claims and links are not credible, sorry. I'm a skeptic regarding her interests and experiments, but I do notice that she is rather skeptical herself and I respect that. It's not for me, but different strokes for different folks. The main thing is that she has the right to do what interests her and to talk about it as long as it isn't illegal and I don't see one illegal thing there - not even the comments made about this Pepin guru. Getting on with the topic at hand, it looks like this woman has been set up for the very purpose that the article states: a Sneak Attack on Free Speech. She is vulnerable to contempt from the 9-11 Truth community because of her unusual interests and research, no matter how scientifically she might approach things. She is vulnerable to contempt from the mainstream types because of both her unusual interests AND her 9-11 Truth interests. She is vulnerable to contempt from the so-called New Age milieu because she insists that their claims must be looked at skeptically. Who is left to support her? And so, there she is without support from any side and this guy Pepin comes along and files suit - a suit that endangers everyone - and she has no support. Occurs to me that every alternative news site, every 9-11 Truth group and organization, everyone who values free speech, should be looking to preserve their own rights by supporting this legal fight whether they agree with her and her work or her interests or not. And that includes you, Mr. Quayle. Do you realize that everything you have posted here could be actionable if Mr. Pepin wins his suit? That all the links you have provided to defamatory discussions about this woman would be actionable? You may believe what you are promoting; I don't. But you have the right to believe it and say it. You seem to want to deny that right to Ms. Knight Jadczyk. And by negating her rights, you negate your own as well as the rights of everyone else. I am very glad that OpEdNews exists as a place where these things can be brought to light in a fair and balanced way. I'm surprised you can't see this. Even YOU should be supporting this fight. by Bonnee (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 12 comments) on Thursday, Jul 10, 2008 at 3:29:08 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: LOL
That's one thing that really made me laugh about Steve's comments - he didn't quite understand the implications of Pepin's lawsuit, which means to me, he didn't understand the article... huh, now I'm wondering if he even read it. On newsvine we often get people who look for keywords or phrases and just rant off their agenda when it's thoroughly obvious they didn't even read the article. Seems it's not website-specific. by Cyre Gray (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 3 comments) on Thursday, Jul 10, 2008 at 9:24:21 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: credibility
This comment has been flaggedReason: (Inappropriate Content) Inappropriate Content
Mr. Quayle, after reading this article, I did some looking around myself and a search on the name of Ms. Knight Jadczyk. What I found and read, put together with this egregious lawsuit, indicates very strongly to me that this woman has been the target of a campaign of hate and defamation for a long time. Looking at the links you provided only confirms this suspicion. Your claims and links are not credible, sorry. they are perfectly credible - the godlike link runs to 159 pages about laura knight-jadczyk and her scams -i am an ex-member of her cult and know her and ark personally - i have seen many lives destroyed by this woman, and have lost many friends because of this woman and her kool aid antics i personally bought several very expensive raffle tickets for her fake house raffle scam back in 2001 - i left her group shortly after, in great disgust, after i and many other group members saw what she had pulled the house was in new port richey, FL, and i now live close by - on the link i gave i and other concerened cassiopaean members and ex-members have posted all the pasco county details of the house and how it was disposed of fact is she took in over 250,000 bux in raffle tickets and by selling the house to a convenient thirs party - she then ran off to france with that money and has been living high on the hog ever since ii is a huge money-making scam for laura, she exists on tithes and donations - know how lucrative it is? well, she took in 130,000 bux in just 3 weeks to fight this case a case by the way which SHE cuased, by going after pepin and hbi in the most malicious way possible, by insulting pepin (sick puppy doing all the young boys, according to laura) and his lawyers (cretins according to laura) , then by unleasing her mini-me leprechaun joe quinn to defame mr pepin and hbi all over the net via repeated postings of libelous press releases, picked up by the bbc and all the hbi potential market on the new age and alternative health sites laura was not set up, this is not a mccarthy sting laura set herself up, and fools like bonnee and blint have fallen hook line and sinker it is almost comical to watch you allegedly clued up folks make idiots of yourselves on such a monumental scale I'm a skeptic regarding her interests and experiments, but I do notice that she is rather skeptical herself and I respect that. It's not for me, but different strokes for different folks. The main thing is that she has the right to do what interests her and to talk about it as long as it isn't illegal and I don't see one illegal thing there - not even the comments made about this Pepin guru. she has the right to do what she likes unless it harms others - well, the fact is she IS harming others, she has ruined many lives, monetarily, spiritually, ruined many relationships and careers, and she is a felon running away from the law - she outright stole 250,000 bux and the authorities (IRS and FBI and FL law enforcement) are well aware of her and her actions - tax scams and charity status scams - plagiarism, and not forgetting ripping off vincent bridges for 5,000 bux plus agter she illegally pulled out of the zaca lake conference and encouraged all of her supporters to demand their money back from vincent at the very last minute this woman's actions are quite disgusting, and know-nothing blinkered fools like bonnee enable this woman? what a disgrace Getting on with the topic at hand, it looks like this woman has been set up for the very purpose that the article states: bonnee you are a complete moron if you think that, laura did the equivalent of bush saying 'bring 'em on'....!!! she was NOT set up, she repeatedly taunted pepin about his sexuality, and then when asked to cease and desist she ratcheted up the attacks and claimed evem more outrageous things about pepin and hbi pepin is a sick puppy ... doing all the houng boys hbi is a cointelpro operation hbi is a front for pedophilia in no way shape or form did hbi initiate any of this, nor pepin, laura brought it all down herself and only complete and utter morons think otherwise (step forward bonnee for a bow) a Sneak Attack on Free Speech. She is vulnerable to contempt from the 9-11 Truth community because of her unusual interests and research, precisely, so if she truly believes that 911 was an inside job like most inteligent folks do, then she should keep her big fat yapper shut as she should know that inevitably the 911 truth movement WILL BE DAMAGED by its association with the whackjob knows as laura knight-jadczyk geddit bonnee??? i doubt it no matter how scientifically she might approach things. LMAO!!! she sure approached dealing with pepin and hbi 'scientifically' didn't she! LOL LOL LOL!!! She is vulnerable to contempt from the mainstream types because of both her unusual interests AND her 9-11 Truth interests. She is vulnerable to contempt from the so-called New Age milieu because she insists that their claims must be looked at skeptically. Who is left to support her? idiots born every day - take another bow my dear And so, there she is without support from any side and this guy Pepin comes along and files suit - a suit that endangers everyone - and she has no support. grow up Occurs to me that every alternative news site, every 9-11 Truth group and organization, everyone who values free speech, should be looking to preserve their own rights by supporting this legal fight whether they agree with her and her work or her interests or not. no they should not becaue this is a classic case of poisoning the well blint should run a mile from this case and retract his piece, or re-write it with new information but he won't do that, too stubborn, you too my dear, too stubborn to DO THE RESEARCH, you are a marriage made in heaven... And that includes you, Mr. Quayle. Do you realize that everything you have posted here could be actionable if Mr. Pepin wins his suit? That all the links you have provided to defamatory discussions about this woman would be actionable? you are talking crapola, because one day a real test case will come along (not this one) and we shall see what happens - i for one know already which way the wind is blowing and the internet is dead, all the laws passed since 911 have seen to that, which was the purpose of 911 in the first place, to crush islam and keep the mic in profits for the next 30 years +++ You may believe what you are promoting; I don't. But you have the right to believe it and say it. mcgarret and yourself in your attacks would seem to indicate otherwise, you would deny bush a voice, that sez to me you are a fascist, am i right? You seem to want to deny that right to Ms. Knight Jadczyk. lmao, nice try - no i don't, the old windbag can say or write anything she likes unless it involves slander or libel, in which case she will suffer the consequences, as she is doing right now if she harms others, there will be consequences - the french do not like foreign cults on thir soil and are watching the gang closely, as are authorities in the usa laura sets foot in the usa she is arrested for several felonies, simple as that, hence all her wriggling to avaoi a trial at all costs, hents all her motions to dismiss but wait!!! bonnee and blint think laura WANTS a huge precedent-setting internet freedom of speech fight, LMAO!! they could not be more wrong! laura is figting the oregon jurisdiction and she is fighting to have the case dismissed under anti slapp laws and anything else she can dream up and bonne and blint call themselves intelligent? they actually BELIVE this conwoman's schtick??? no - laura is doing all she can to avoid going to court, so blint's essay and bonnee's cluelessness about free speech is jst that, clueless And by negating her rights, you negate your own as well as the rights of everyone else. bonnee you are extremely TIRESOMY i am NOT negating ANYONE"S rights, sheesh, i even defended shrub and he is the lowest of the low in my book, but i will defend his right to free spech YOU wouldn't, as you have said above that puts me in a far higher moral position than your own fascist views I am very glad that OpEdNews exists as a place where these things can be brought to light in a fair and balanced way. well done, that took quite some effort to beat your last few posts in that regard by steve quayle (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 13 comments) on Friday, Jul 11, 2008 at 6:21:17 AM (0+)
|
|
My homework
Actually, I did my homework Mr. Quayle. Quite a lot of homework. The rather lengthy passage concerning the work of the Jadczyk's was a result of that homework and having seen ranting the likes of which you have subjected the readers of these comments to. I admit that when I first ran across the accusations you have posted, it gave me pause. Quite a lot of pause. It didn't take much digging, however, to realize that the accusations carry no weight. No one is willing to back them up with anything. The most pitiful of them all are the accusations that the Jadczyk's are running a cult. Yes, I did read the cult accusations through and give due consideration to what was being said. In fact, giving it due consideration is exactly what lead me to realize it was nonsense. It rather alarmistly lists the ways you can tell a group is a cult, then states that the Jadczyk's are running a cult...but none of the things they are doing match the description of a cult. I've got to tell you, Mr. Quayle, once I really saw beyond a doubt that all of this cult talk was just a smear campaign, I knew what this law suit was about. In fact, you might say that that smear campaign just about directly lead to my writing this article as it really helped clarify the issue for me. Clearly, there are some people who want Laura Knight-Jadczyk to shut up. That is very telling. If she really were running a cult, it would be the most miniscule and harmless cult of all time, and NO ONE WOULD CARE. The logical conclusion one draws is that she is not, in fact, running a cult but she is saying some things that are making some people veeeery uncomfortable. This is precisely why these smear campaigns are launched. Just ask Barbara Honegger. She started saying some things about the Republicans that were making people feel very uncomfortable. Why? Because if we'd listed to Ms. Honegger back then, perhaps W wouldn't be in office today. But we didn't listen because Ms. Honegger was smeared. Her varied interests were turned against her. So, thanks for sharing Mr. Quayle. You rather frantic ranting and rapid-fire posts have helped convince me that I have, indeed, backed exactly the right horse. That would be the horse defending freedom of speech. by Mr. Blint (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 4 comments) on Thursday, Jul 10, 2008 at 11:21:13 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Mr. Blint May Be Onto Something
Thank you, Mr. Blint, for taking the time to explain the process you went through. After reading Mr. Quayles take on the situation, I admit I had some doubts. However, after spending the better part of a day following one link after another, reading endless diatribes that are not backed by a single fact, while Ms. Knight-Jadczyk takes great care to provide sources and citations and documentation, I have come to the same conclusion. One thing I noticed that was very telling was that anywhere there is a complimentary word written about this woman on the internet, the same handfull of ranters show up with the same old, same old. It's like they follow her around on the internet - or they must search google every day to see if any new mention of her name shows up. Now, what does that suggest? To me, it says that there are people whose full-time job is to defame this poor woman. Instead of libel and defamation, I see her repeatedly writing careful and thoughtful explanations on a variety of topics and, for the most part, even being polite to her defamers. So, again, sorry Mr. Quayle, your accusations don't stand the test of being examined closely. You didn't think I was going to read just the links you gave, did you? I'm capable of investigating things myself. I even read about the so-called "raffle scam." It wasn't a scam at all. One guy just got unhappy because he didn't win and went off and started making stuff up that had no relation to the facts. But these gang defamers - such as yourself, Mr. Quayle - just keep that thing going and going and going. I read your threats and all that, the same threats that have been being made against this poor woman since 2003. Didn't you and your gang ever hear of "statute of limitations"? That makes all the claims and threats totally empty. So why do you people keep repeating them over and over and over? The only thing I can see is that it is the amplifying of the rantings started by a crazy person in an attempt to make the mud stick. And the only reason I can see for that is exactly what Mr. Blint said: Ms. Knight-Jadczyk is making somebody very, very uneasy. In this day and time it's called "Swift Boating" and that's exactly what you and your gang are doing. That's how it looks to me. by Bonnee (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 12 comments) on Thursday, Jul 10, 2008 at 12:26:10 PM (0+)
|
|
It's not about freedom of speech or the 1st amendment...
This comment has been flaggedReason: (Slanderous) Slanderous
It is about libel and defamation pure and simple. by Vincent Bridges (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 5 comments) on Friday, Jul 11, 2008 at 12:45:48 AM (0+)
|
|
Mr. Blint and Bonnee are SOTT... why argue?
This comment has been flaggedReason: (Nasty Attacks) Nasty Attacks
This has to be obvious to other people too. Mr. Blint just created his account to write this article. He is "concerned citizen" and this is topic he chooses? He plays like he is neutral at the start of the article, saying he thinks SOTT is a cult, but how quickly he comes around ending up heaping praises on the "channeling" and the "internationally known physicist" and that the "experiment" is one of the "most interesting he's ever laid eyes on". It's like even in disguise these people can't help kissing their own behinds hoping people are too stupid to see. All you ever see from these people is manipulation and lies. If you want to write an article blowing smoke up your own asses, then do it. Don't complain about how the media is all spin, and the government lies, then turn around and be just like them! They try so hard to make this case seem larger than it is, like they are fighters for Internet freedom. Before the Internet you could not say or put things in print that harmed others and was not true. After Internet should be the same. If you say something that you lie about, and it harms the person you saying about, sorry time to pay. So it is in the "real world", so it should be on the Internet. No other bloggers out there are going to effected by some "precedent". The precedent was set long ago called "libel and defamation". Laura and SOTT aren't being sued by comments some "forum readers" posted. They are being sued for things they said and they wrote themselves. If people going to write something be accountable for it. Plain and simple. This is just another effort by them to make it seem like world is on their side and they are some great, legitimate organization and not some cult trying to do everything they can to control what people think. They do it on their site, they are doing it here by writing things themselves trying to manipulate and control like any cult does and things they claim to fight against. Hypocrites. Not only do they lie to all of us and people who give money to their "legal defense" they lie to the courts by submitting altered evidence. Then they were caught and the judge knows about it now: "Of note, in a shameful attempt to deceive the Court, defendant Knight-Jadczyk submits to the court the modified post and represents to the court that it is the original." Now, they trying to say all these other lies about why they altered the evidence. First, they didn't alter it, now they say they did alter it but it was a long time ago, then Laura said it wasn't altered the comments were in other threads. Is it possible for Laura or SOTT to say something that isn't a lie? What does that say about the "news" that comes from them? If you want to support a cult that lies and manipulates to you and support their house in France, go ahead free life, but at least know what is true and do it with your eyes open. Check when Bonnee sign up to, then check administrators at SOTT. She is one, so is "Mr. Blint". Read Quinn's writing style in his other press release, then read this. Same guy. Give people more credit for seeing through the BS. So why argue with people like they are real people when they are really SOTT. No point except now you know who you are really talking to. by S Segurdson (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 2 comments) on Friday, Jul 11, 2008 at 12:27:45 PM (0+)
|
|
IT sure IS!!!!
This comment has been flaggedReason: (Ad hominem) Ad hominem
"It's not about freedom of speech or the 1st amendment." lol, that one made me laugh. The word pathetic comes to mind. You know this reminds of when I was younger. Remember the kids that farted always accused immediately everybody else. And the more hot air the kid blew the louder his accusations “full of sound and fury; signifying nothing.” After reading this article and following all the info, your agenda Mr. bridges is quite clear. I just want to thank Mr. Blint for a very informative and accurate analysis of the situation. Moreover, I like to thank Mr. quayle and Mr. bridges, for proving to those of us who have been following along, this IS indeed about Freedom of speech. In addition, they have shown all of us how imperative it is to support Mrs. Laura Knight-Jadczyk on her cause in any way that we can. Because beings like Mr. quayle and Mr. bridges will go to such lengths to defame, marginalize, and slander the truth and accuse others of the very things THEY are Doing. PS S Segurdson wow, accusing others of the very thing you do huh. People who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw rocks. Looks like to me, more and more that there sure is a cult out there and Mr. bridges is the leader. Just look at the approach of such comments by briges and quale and now S Segurdson. They just cannot handle the truth. They are incapable of any thought, If you start making sense and don’t agree with them they immediately try to marginalize and accuse you of all the vile things that they do themselves. Wow, you guys are so naked it’s not even funny. by Mr. X (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments) on Friday, Jul 11, 2008 at 1:43:06 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: I guess it is not possible for Laura Knight to not lie...
This comment has been flaggedReason: (Nasty Attacks) Nasty Attacks
It would be funny if not so sad but thanks for proving the point MRS. X. Interesting way to make point that you people don't lie and manipulate by making post with fake name. Also funny that the very people you trying to shoot are using their real names. What does that say about their integrity and what they have to say versus you? Could be they don't need to lie and manipulate because what they say is true and willing to stand up for it. Don't try to say Joe Quinn posted real name either. He only did that so people would think he did not write the article. Kind of obvious way of saying how could I write the article and post in comments?!! Amazing!! Amazing you would bother and expect people to buy it. Maybe you want to try again? You did not even argue lying to the court or why you write an article using fake name. You cannot ban people here so the tough questions won't go away. Want to answer them? by S Segurdson (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 2 comments) on Friday, Jul 11, 2008 at 3:02:27 PM (0+)
|
|
To all the duped minions...
This comment has been flaggedReason: (Ad hominem) Ad hominem
To Mr. X - Do you know what an "ad homenim attack" is? Or did you learn that from Mrs. Laura Knight Martin Jadcyzk? You neglected to mention the two points I raised. Would it be libel if we in fact did exactly as LKJ did and infered a continuing criminal enterprise from her attempted murder acquittal? And how about the COINTELPRO accussation? Here's how she justifies it: by Vincent Bridges (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 5 comments) on Saturday, Jul 12, 2008 at 2:24:14 AM (0+)
|
|
See dem flags a-flyin'...
S Segurdson said: "You cannot ban people here so the tough questions won't go away." Technically correct; here they can just be flagged and left for the editors to decide... Just to make everything even, I flagged Mr. X's comments, which I had said were ad hominim attacks in a comment that someone has flagged as an ad hominim attack, as being, as I said, an ad hominim attack... Mr. Blint's article, while smoothly written, is hardly objective. Here's how he describes Mr Pepin: "...an up-and-coming self-styled New Age "guru" named Eric Pepin. Based on what can be gleaned from his websites and self-promotion, he would seem to be little more than a snake-oil salesman preying on gullible people by selling enlightenment through a proprietary form of meditation and a pill called Magneurol6-S that, so he claims, enhances brain function and heightens paranormal experience. ...In other words, he seems to be nothing more than a hustler making a easy buck on pseudo-spirituality." And then goes to echo the Cassiopaeans' party line by misstating the nature of the case as a suit against "an alternative media website for a discussion of his case in the public forum associated with that site." It is not. It is case for libel and defamation, concerning several comments made and supported by Laura Knight Jadczyk. Discussion is fine, libel is not... Laura changed the heading of the thread from: "Eric Pepin - Higher Balance Institute -- Discussion" to "Eric Pepin - Higher Balance Institute -- Front for Pedophilia?" And added her own comment: "It's really starting to look like this Eric Pepin and his Higher Balance Institute is merely COINTELPRO and a front for pedophilia." When called on it by the HBI folks, she changed it to "may be" and took down the "Front for Pedophilia?" heading. This, she thought, was being very accomodating... So, the case is not about free speech or the act of discussing someone, it is about libel and defamation. Odd that someone trying to be objective would miss seeing that... So after several paragraphs of border-line defamation of Mr Pepin, Mr. Blint gets to Laura: "After all, a cursory Internet search will reveal that Laura Knight-Jadczyk is involved in some things that might sound strange herself, namely the "Cassiopaean Experiment", in which she claims to communicate with a group of beings that call themselves the Cassiopaeans. That same search will also turn up accusations that Ms. Knight-Jadczyk is running a cult and is some sort of New Age guru, herself!" Okay, some degree of objectivity raising its head above the general tone of bias. However, it doesn't last long... The very next paragraph is full of praise and defense for the SOTT team. By the next page, Mr Blint is calling them "one of the most interesting and far-reaching research projects I've personally ever laid eyes on, and they also seem to be offering the results of this research available for free to whomever will take the time to visit their sites and do the reading." So much for objectivity... One side is "a snake oil salesman preying on gullible people" and the other is suddenly equal to Barbara Honegger in truth telling and standing up to the authorities. "So, here we have two women, both with interests in unusual phenomena who are primarily interested in exposing governmental lies and misfeasance, and very much involved in 9-11 research. One has leaked vital information from within the Beltway, the other is part of fascinating and potentially important research who was intimately involved with reviving the 9-11 Truth Movement. And both of these women have been/are being attacked." And what of Mr Pepin: Notice how Mr Blint neglects to mention the astonishing amount of information about Laura's own snake oil sales, fake non-profits and illegal raffles. Quite amazing... The third page starts: "The difference in this particular case is the fact that a lawsuit against writings unrelated to truth activism has been filed against a truth activist that could well lead to a crackdown on all speculation and the free exchange of information that is not officially endorsed, across the Internet." Now, would you mind explaining just how that could possibly be true? An unrelated libel action, as you say, has no connection to protected political discourse. Yet, you state categorically: "What is at stake could well be the ability of any of us to speak truth in public at all, ever." Hyperbole? The Cassiopaean party line? Simple intellectual blindness? What is it that blinkers you here, Mr Blint? It is about libel and defamation, not free speech... I think anyone with a little common sense and knowledge of the law might be able to see through your ardent protestations of an imminent danger to Free Speech, but that doesn't stop you from repeating it over and over again. Pure bias, and a blatant attempt by the cult and its leaders to stir up sympathy from the free speech supporters and the 9/11 truth community. Talk about snake oil... VB by Vincent Bridges (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 5 comments) on Sunday, Jul 13, 2008 at 4:16:12 PM (0+)
|
|
an answer, please...
"Now, would you mind explaining just how that could possibly be true? An unrelated libel action, as you say, has no connection to protected political discourse. Yet, you state categorically: 'What is at stake could well be the ability of any of us to speak truth in public at all, ever.' " So no one has an answer for this one? Nobody from the cult seems to have a response; they believe that if they say it often enough, then it must be true. What about the other folks reading this? The editors who have chosen to censor these comments and allowed Mr Blint's very one sided article to go up in the first place also seem to have no response. Curious... VB by Vincent Bridges (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 5 comments) on Wednesday, Jul 16, 2008 at 8:13:31 AM (0+)
|
|
The House Raffle Scam of the Millennium Revealed
Update: by Vincent Bridges (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 5 comments) on Friday, Jul 18, 2008 at 10:59:11 PM (0+)
|
Want to post your own comment on this Article? 
|
||||
|
||||||||||||||
Must Read (0) 
Well Said (0) 
News (0) 
Touching (0) 
Funny (0) 
Supported (0) 
Interesting (0) 
Inspiring (0) 
Valuable (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tell a Friend:
|
Copyright © 2002-2009, OpEdNews |
