June 13, 2003: According to Robert Hare, one of the main tactics of the psychopath is to blame the victim either for their problems (forgetting how they brought them on themselves). We have discovered, after long observation and discussion of the evidence, another interesting feature of the psychopath: the fact that psychopaths reveal their own nature and plans by projecting them onto their victims!

This was never more evident than the series of attacks from Most and Co where they repeatedly accused Ark of being a "hacker" and "hacking" into their computers. Aside from the absurdity of a mathematical physicist with an international reputation - who is working hard on writing a paper and collaborating with other scientists on important issues regarding the nature of our deep reality - even considering such an activity worth a moment's thought or a modicum of energy, it is astonishing.

But of course, as we learned some months after this particular accusation was made, this was exactly what Maynerd Most was doing himself: hacking into other people's computers, stealing their passwords, stealing their money, and running up charges in their name.

What seems to be so is that the psychopath not only blame the victims for what they suffer as a result of their inability to conceive of higher values than self-gratification, they also accuse their victims of what they ARE and what they have done and INTEND to do.

In short, we have a sort of "rule of thumb" here.

Some of our readers here at cassiopaea.org who have read Richard Sauder's article on Rense.com, are aware that, last night, Rense added a "comment" to the article from Maynerd Most and Alvin Wiley.

Yes, we know, it's very tiresome for those two to keep showing up like bad pennies, but that's what psychopaths do. The essential feature of Psychopaths is a Pervasive, Obssesive-ompulsive desire to force their delusions on others. Psychopaths completely disregard and violate the Rights of others, particularly the Freedom of Association which includes the right not to associate. Also, as one victim reported:

Others around me would get so tired of the whole thing and insinuate that I was perpetuating things. All I wanted was for him to leave me alone. Part of the hurt and damage was done because others could but would not see what was actually happening. He would always try to ingratiate himself to others it was sickening. Usually psychopaths put on the nicest act, and you look like the harpy and bitch, and so everyone takes their side, it is a horror story, a psychopath can be very charming, and manipulative and manipulate the smartest of people.

However, as we pondered this interesting fact that was emerging from our current analysis, that psychopaths accuse others of what they are and what they do themselves, there was something that was seen as a consequence of Most public, libelous attack on Ark and Laura: See today's article: The Mossad Happy Dance.

After putting the above article together, Laura went through her emails and collected together a very interesting exchange between Most and the webmaster of the Universal Seduction site. For a real DEMO of psychopathy in action, and how it was handled by someone who was NOT taken in by it, which may provide clues for other victims, have a look at this exchange, keeping always in mind that the psychopath is accusing his victims of what he himself is, and has done, and intends to do:

On Thursday, May 9, 2002, I (Laura) received the following email:

Laura, Could I please have your input concerning the following attached email from Maynerd Most?

Thanks!

Webmaster, Universal Seduction Team

---

Here is the email from Most:

From : ...@ac.net
To : webmaster@theuniversalseduction.com
Subject : Laura Knight-Jadczyk
Date : Wed, 08 May 2002 22:16:40 -0400

Dear Webmaster,

My name is "Maynerd Most", the subject of the article/letter at Universal Seduction which is completely untrue and possibly libelous.

They have indulged in this kind of spurious character assassination for months and are currently the focus of several criminal actions and law suits, including copyright infringement, plagiarism, invasion of privacy, cyber-stalking, internet fraud by means of a fake non-profit organization, libel, defamation and communicating threats.

I am shocked and disheartened that an organization which in general does such fine work would allow such an obviously unstable individual to use their website as a forum for attacks of this nature. If you do not have the decency to take it down, you might at least give me equal space in which to respond.

Thank you,

"Vincent Most"

---

Here is our response to the Maynerd Most claims as requested by the webmaster:

My name is "Maynerd Most", the subject of the article/letter at Universal Seduction which is completely untrue and possibly libelous.

It is completely true, with witnesses, and libel is, by definition, something that is untrue. Since every word is true and can be demonstrated by evidence AND witnesses, there is no libel.

They have indulged in this kind of spurious character assassination for months

One cannot assassinate a character when there is no character to assassinate. "Vincent Most" is, purely and simply, a liar, a con-artist, and a thief and our experiences with him, with witnesses and evidence, proved it.

and are currently the focus of several criminal actions and law suits,

Mr. "Most" has been making these claims for months. He claims to have spent 8,000 bux on attorneys, and to this day we haven't even received a single "intent to sue" letter from an attorney, much less any other indications that he isn't blowing hot air. If I couldn't get a letter of intent for 8 grand, I'd find another attorney.

including copyright infringement,

Mr. "Most", like all psychopaths, always accuses his victims of what he does himself. Please ask for proof of copyright infringement. We, on the other hand, can provide stacks of evidence that he has not only infringed our copyrights, he has literally stolen our material by fraud and misrepresentation. And we can provide proof.

plagiarism, invasion of privacy,

Mr. "Most" has the idea that publishing public records and checking public claims that prove to be false is "invasion of privacy." He seems to suffer from serious semantic aphasia. Public records are called "public records" because they are there for people to check and validate the claims of individuals. A check of Mr. "Most" public records proved him to be a liar. There was no invasion of privacy.

However, Mr. "Most" HAS invaded our privacy. He began by posting private emails on August 7 of 2001. He continued by seeking out anyone else who he could con into supporting him to turn over to him any private emails from any of us here at Cassiopaea so that he could publish them also. He continued his invasion of privacy by seeking out a former member of our group, to induce him to reveal private information about our personal lives, our children, our finances, and other information that he then attempted to use to blackmail us into removing the factual report about his false claims from the Perseus site.

He further invaded our privacy by trying to contact friends and associates, including Tom French of the St. Pete Times, to try to convince them that we were turning the Cassiopaean Material into a "cult."

He further engaged (along with his gang) in public defamation against us on public discussion boards, including those boards where Ark participates in physics discussions with other physicists.

In short, not only has Mr. "Most" conducted a campaign of libel and defamation, he has attempted to bring harm to Ark's reputation amongst his colleagues, thereby causing damage to his ability to earn a living. Not only did he commit fraud and misrepresentation against us regarding his book publishing company, causing us to lose our source of income, he has further attempted to destroy our ability to make a living.

"Vincent Most" further invaded the privacy of a member of our discussion group - a single mother trying to make ends meet - by hacking into her computer and stealing her user name and password and racking up over $700.00 in charges to her account. Bellsouth is currently investigating this matter and have already determined that it was "hacking" and that a "roaming number" was used. As it happens, Mr. "Most" attempted to access our site and post a message on our discussion board from the IP number that identifed him as the hacker. The server logged not only the number, but his computer ID and the message he was trying to post. This investigation is ongoing, but it is going to be interesting to watch Mr. "Most" try to create a run a "class action" suit against us from prison.

cyber-stalking,

Mr. "Most" began his activity of violating our privacy, violating the privacy of our discussion group, plagiarism, copyright infringement, libel, defamation, on August 7, 2001. After four months of this continued harassment and "stalking," the Perseus Foundation, Inc. published a report on "Maynerd Most" on Thanksgiving Day. [In short, we endured his nonsense for four months before we even responded.]

Mr. "Most" seems to think that he is allowed to say and do anything he likes - no matter how libelous and defamatory - but when the victims of his harassment, libel, defamation, plagiarism, lies and theft undertake to stand up for themselves and respond, he screams like a baby rolling on the floor in a fit, demanding equal time for "his side" of the story. The problem is, he was telling his side/lies for months before anyone called him on it. In fact, he has been doing it for years. And it's all lies.

internet fraud by means of a fake non-profit organization,

Mr. "Most" is lying again. Anyone can check the records of the Florida Department of State to ascertain that the Perseus Foundation is a legally registered entity. It was formed in January of last year, and we have just filed our first annual report as of April 30th.

Most, on the contrary, has spent years claiming to have a legally registered company, Aethyrea Books, and has published books under this imprimatur, only it never existed except in his imagination.

He sought to induce us to sign a contract with him under this fraudulent misrepresentation. It was discovered - again, in public records - that he did not, in fact, have a legally registered company.

A call to the courthouse and tax collector's office in the county where he lives revealed that he had no business license and paid no taxes on any business. His former writing partner, in an effort to salvage his own copyrighted material, registered Aethyrea Books, LLC in January of 2002. A check of the PUBLIC records will give evidence of these facts.

The bottom line is: just like all psychopaths, "Maynerd Most" has nothing but words - empty words - devoid of substance and reality - with which he manipulates and dupes his listeners. As Hervey Cleckley wrote:

Only when we observe him not throught his speech but as he seeks his aims in behavior and demonstrates his disabiltiy in interaction with the social group can we begin to feel how genuine is his disorder. [...]

To know them adequately, one must try to see them with the eye of the ordinary man on the streets, whom they confound and amaze. We must concern ourselves not only with their measurable intelligence, their symptomatology (or rather, lack of symptomatology) in ordinary psychiatric terms, but also with the impression they make as total organisms in action among others.[...]

The faulty reactions in living which these patients show are indeed difficult to describe without sometimes using terms that come more readily to moralists of sociologists or laymen than to psychiatrists. [...]

It is nevertheless true that the psychopath engages in behavior so unlike that of others and so typical of his disorder that no act can be reported of a patient from Oregon seen ten years ago without strongly suggesting similar acts by hundreds of psychopaths carried out in dozens of communities last Saturday night.

When there is the opportunity to follow the career of a typical psychpath, his pattern of behavior appears specific - something not to be confused with the life of an ordinary purposeful criminal or of a cold opportunist who, in pursuit of selfish ends, merely disregards ethical considerations and the rights of others.

This pattern, I believe, differs no less distinctly than the specific and idomatic thought and verbal expressions of schizophrenia differ from those of thementally defective and from other psychiatric conditions. Never in faults of logical reasoning, or in verbal confusion, or technical delusion, but rather in the sharper reality of behavior, the psychopath seems often to produce something strange and obviously pathologic. [The Mask of Sanity, Cleckley, 1988, fifth edition]

In Vincent Most, we see this pathology. We see it in his history as revealed by his fraudulent biography and false credentials. We see it in the persistent denial that he has ever done a single thing that can be proven to be a lie or a fraud - even in the face of irrefutable evidence.

We see it in his history with Dan Winter and the acts of plagiarism he has committed there, and has continued to commit against Stan Tenen right up to the summer of 2001, even when he knew that he was violating a court ruling.

We see his pathology in the statements above where he writes so compellingly that white is black and black is white - and people who are not clever, people who are lazy, people who are gullible and susceptible to manipulation are repeatedly duped and fooled. They don't check their facts; they don't listen to their instincts when they realize that there is something about the behavior that simply doesn't match the words. And it is even more difficult to discern these things on the internet when we have only words to go by.

Nevertheless, it seems that there are people out there who do their homework, who do the research, and who are not easily fooled by the slippery and silvery tongue/pen of the psychopath. The Webmaster at Universal Seduction responded to Mr. Most as follows:

Subject: Re: Complaint concerning Laura Knight-Jadczyk's article

Mr Most,

We have received your requests to remove Laura Knight's article. Our policy respects free speech but requires that our authors submit documented research. Authors are responsible for their own work and The Universal Seduction team takes no legal responsibility for what they write as long as it is well researched and documented.

To remove Mrs Knight's article would be a violation of our policy unless she were legally forced to retract her statements.

Therefore, the best we can do at this time is allow you to submit a response, pending that you provide us with documented evidence of your claims as per our policy.

Please send as much documented evidence (text, URLs, pdf files, jpgs, gifs, etc...) as you can, so that we may get a balanced picture of your situation.

Looking forward to your reply.

Sincerely,

Universal Seduction Team

---

From: Vincent Most
Subject:Re: Complaint concerning Laura Knight-Jadczyk's article

Dear Ed Gahn,

Thank you for the offer of a response. I will send it to you in the next day or so.

Thanks again,

Vincent Most

---

After a few days went by - undoubtedly because Most was feverishly writing his masterpiece - a nearly book-length missive was sent to the webmaster of Universal Seduction.

Go HERE to read it with commentary. He then anxiously wrote to the webmaster (who later forwarded the entire correspondence to us) as follows:

From: Vincent Most ...@ac.net
To: webmaster@theuniversalseduction.com

Dear Ed Ghan,

I just sent you my rebuttal to Ms Knight Jadczyk's article. My co-author, Jay Wiley, who has also been libeled by Ms. Knight-Jadczyk, plans to send you his response sometime tomorrow. Thanks for your consideration,

Vincent Most

---

Dear Mr. Most

Thank you for the information you have sent thus far.

I understand Alvin Wiley was to send me an email, which I am still waiting for.

Perhaps you misunderstood my last request, which was a request for *documented* evidence, not personal opinions. We have reviewed Laura's article and backup evidence including various emails, websites, and documents from yourself and others which she used to justify her claims. We need something equivalent, such as emails, websites, and documents proving your case beyond mere subjective objections.

We respect truth over credentials, and truth is what is meant by 'documented' evidence.

Furthermore, her article discussed 'cointelpro' phenomena, a subject matter close to those of our project, and with documented research backing her claims we posted her article on the website.

We have no reason to remove her article, and to give you equal time, we need equally thorough documented evidence, plus the discussion of subject matter that does not only consist of rebuttals against attacks, but carries a unique thrust of information applicable and beneficial for our website's readers.

Sincerely,

Ed Ghan

---

From: Vincent Most
Subject: Re: Complaint concerning Laura Knight-Jadczyk's article
Date: Fri, 17 May 2002

Dear Mr. Ghan,

I find your attitude utterly incomprehensible.

Thank you for the information you have sent thus far. I understand Alvin Wiley was to send me an email, which I am still waiting for.

Yes, his article will be coming soon.

Perhaps you misunderstood my last request, which was a request for *documented* evidence, not personal opinions. We have reviewed Laura's article and backup evidence including various emails, websites, and documents from yourself and others which she used to justify her claims. We need something equivalent, such as emails, websites, and documents proving your case beyond mere subjective objections. We respect truth over credentials, and truth is what is meant by 'documented' evidence.

And this is what I find so incomprehensible. Her "documented" proof that I am some sort of "cointellpro" agent consists of what exactly? I certainly find no example of it in her attacks on me. And just how does one prove a negative anyway? If Ms Knight-Jadczyk has evidence that she has shared with you privately, since there is none in her public postings, then I would request the opportunity to review that material for comment.

The so-called evidence of any of her claims of my involvement with anything remotely resembling a "cointellpro" type operation is simply non-existent as far as I can tell. Again, how do you refute non-existent evidence? Perhaps she is now channeling Joe McCarthy?

What exactly has Ms Knight-Jadczyk documented? Nothing that I can see that proves anything but that she is a very vindictive and untrustworthy person. That at least should be obvious...

Furthermore, her article discussed 'cointelpro' phenomena, a subject matter close to those of our project, and with documented research backing her claims we posted her article on the website.

Once again, what "documented" evidence? Show it to me. Ms Knight Jadczyk sure can't, but perhaps she has shared something with you? Her "article" doesn't discuss anything related to "cointellpro", it simply attacks me on the basis of her delusions.

We have no reason to remove her article, and to give you equal time

How about simple fairness, decency and integrity?

we need equally thorough documented evidence, plus the discussion of subject matter that does not only consist of rebuttals against attacks, but carries a unique thrust of information applicable and beneficial for our website's readers.

I would think that reassuring your readers that your material is NOT the product of a diseased mind might be important to you, but perhaps I misjudged both them and you.

One more time: Exactly what kind of documented evidence does it take to prove a negative?

Mr. Ghan, my article addressed the key issues. I am not an agent, of any kind, and her pronouncements are based on a desire to harm me both personally and professionally. To that, Mr. Ghan, you are now contributing.

Very Sincerely,

Vincent Most

---

Mr. Ghan,

Attached you will find my direct rebuttal to Ms. Knight-Jadczyk's "article," as well as Mr. Wiley's response.

If you should still be reluctant to give us equal time to respond, then I can only conclude that "truth" in any form is simply not one of your objectives.

Thank you either way,

Vincent Most

---

Mr Most,

I have taken time from my busy schedule to take a deeper look into Alvin Wiley's, Terri Burns', and your claims concerning Ms Knight and her article. I have also further reviewed Ms Knight's material at cassiopaea.org, and have now come to some conclusions regarding this matter, but still have a few questions. You have said:

She has presented absolutely no evidence that I am a cointellpro agent, unless she privately shared something with you. If that is the case, I would very much like to see that "evidence."

Could you please show me where in her article, posted at the Universal Seduction site, does it specifically label you as a COINTELPRO agent? I've read her article "COINTELPRO" several times, and although it deals with the COINTELPRO subject, it does not label you an agent.

If you are referring to something she said in an article at cassiopaea. org, that's between you and Ms Knight, as the article we have from her does not state anything of the sort and we must dismiss your argument against such a nonexistent statement.

To be fair, I did look into where this accusation of you being a COINTELPRO agent originated, and your associate Alvin Wiley seems to be the source. Perhaps you are aware of this?

In addition to the article/letter you attached called "Laura Knight Jadczyk, Jay Wiley, And the Cassiopaeans," written by Mr Wiley, we have also received a few emails from him urging us to take down Ms Knight's article. To do this, as I have stated to you before, we need some proof that what she is saying is false, or at least documentation backing your claims, documentation that is better in quality and greater in quantity that that which she has on her site.

So far your rebuttals have employed plenty of ethos and pathos, but only meager amounts of logos.

If the Universal Seduction team were a fickle group of people easily swayed by emotional arguments and reluctant to do research themselves, you might have won your case the first couple tries, but as stated before, we value truth over self-proclaimed credentials and infantile objections.

While we thank Mr Wiley for his theatrical input on the subject and respect his opinion, we do not find it coherent, logical, or convincing. You have written:

And just how does one prove a negative anyway? If Ms Knight-Jadczyk has evidence that she has shared with you privately, since there is none in her public postings, then I would request the opportunity to review that material for comment. The so-called evidence of any of her claims of my involvement with anything remotely resembling a "cointellpro" type operation is simply non-existent as far as I can tell. Again, how do you refute non-existent evidence? Perhaps she is now channeling Joe McCarthy?

Of course no one can refute non-existent evidence, but you're asking a faulty question based on the assumption that her evidence is non- existent.

We're asking you to show that it is indeed non-existent, not to refute non-existent evidence.

Please untangle your logic before objecting with faulty questions...sometimes such twisted one- sided argumentation has the logical geometry of a mobius strip.

You asked how anyone could prove a negative. This is another misleading question, as all you have to do is disprove a positive via counter example.

Also be reminded that as far as I can determine, Ms Knight has not claimed you to be a cointelpro agent, but has instead made many other 'positive' statements concerning your past actions, backed with convincing documentation, statements you have avoided addressing.

Disprove her statements via counter examples, for this is what we mean by 'documented proof' we have repeatedly asked of you.

Her documentation is on her site, and I do not need to show it to you because you can view it at her site -- if you are blocked from viewing it, there are archived copies available on the web, or else some of your associates who are not blocked could send you the necessary documents.

Just becasue you claim her evidence is non-existent does not mean it is just because you say it is. Logos, Mr Most, not ethos.

The Universal Seduction is indeed committed to truth. After having made considerable sacrifices of time (due to our fairness) to investigate your claims, we must conclude that the scant counter-examples and documented evidence you have provided, the contradictory and childishly sarcastic tone of Mr Wiley's emails and letter, and the solidity of Ms Knight's material in its entirety make it clear that the best course of action is to leave Ms Knight's article up.

You may post whatever rebuttals you wish on your site, but by our standards the one you have sent to us does not have sufficient counter-examples and documented proof to be considered 'the other half of the story' -- fairness is about truth, not about 50/50 equal time, the latter concept being faulty when equal consideration is given to two sides, one of which may tell 90% truth and the other 10%, for example. It's simple logic, really.

If, in the future, we do come across more evidence backing your claims, enough so to make it clear that Ms Knight is indeed the character you have painted her to be, we would gladly take her article down. Also, if she is legally forced to retract her statements and remove her articles, we would then remove it from ours as well.

Truth reveals itself in time. As it stands now, however, it is clear to us that her article deserves to stay up, and posting your weak rebuttal would be unnecessary to our site, and unfair to the truth.

Sincerely,

Ed Ghan Universal Seduction

---

We won't comment on the following response from Maynerd Most; though we will suggest that the student of psychopathy will want to read the Wiley correspondence for more background to Most' comments.

At this point, one gets the strange feeling that this guy lives in another reality altogether. And indeed, that is probably the case. After reading this exchange, it might be useful to read "Organic Portals" for more insight. Only then, can one fully grasp the "nature of the beast" and how their focus on "survival" as a predator can drive such a creature to create such fantastic deceptions.

And frankly, we still haven't decided if Most is really aware that he is lying or not. If he is aware, then he is truly, deeply evil. But we just don't think that's the case. We think he lies for the same reason that a cat goes after a bird. It's just what they are.

In short, Maynerd Most is the diet Coke of evil: just one calorie.

Dear Mr. Ghan,

Ok, now let me get this straight...

Even though the "article" is entitled COINTELPRO and I am the only subject discussed, it is somehow NOT designed to cleverly give the impression that I am such a "COINTELPRO" agent?

So, if I wrote an article about our exchange of emails and labeled it COINTELPRO, then you wouldn't feel that I was trying to imply that you were indeed an agent?

Please Mr. Ghan, try not to insult my intelligence with your conflated logic and special pleading. Your site contains links to material that is not only libelous in its nature and intent but also contains links to material that is used in flagrant violation of copyright law.

Unfortunately, since you have chosen to side with those who are perpetrating these actions even though I have asked for, and been refused, a correction or even a link to my site where the other side of the story can be found, you have now made yourself a party to any future action on these issues.

I've read her article "COINTELPRO" several times, and although it deals with the COINTELPRO subject, it does not label you an agent. Could you please show me where, exactly, in the article of hers you posted, it discusses anything related to COINTELPRO? One sentence, perhaps...

All I see is her husband's credentials, pure lies on her "credentials," a reference to an article complimentary to her, but which contains many inconsistencies pointed out even by its author, Tom French, another reference to her website and then a reference to an article that has nothing to do with me but is used to cleverly buttress her lack of any real evidence.

And then she tells her story of her involvement with me.

Where is there anything in the article about COINTELPRO? It just ain't there...  Much like the supposed "aliens" with which Ms. Knight-Jadczyk communicates, it is conspicuous by its absence. You write:

as the article we have from her does not state anything of the sort and we must dismiss your argument against such a nonexistent statement.

Then I must ask why you felt it was significant at all, if you did not feel that she was trying to imply that I was some kind of COINTELPRO agent?

Are you then in the habit of publishing and getting involved with personal vendettas? That would certainly go against your stated devotion to the truth, at the very least.

My argument was against both the general implication of the article and the specific points made. Perhaps you failed to read my rebuttal carefully enough....

You write: To be fair, I did look into where this accusation of you being a COINTELPRO agent originated, and your associate Alvin Wiley seems to be the source. Perhaps you are aware of this?

Yes, but perhaps you didn't read closely enough to notice that Ms Knight-Jadczyk's contribution to the exchange has been edited out. Mr. Wiley was replying to her accusations by saying that IF what she was saying were true, THEN I might be a COINTELPRO agent. But as you can see from the emails that are posted, completely without permission and after an agreement to keep them confidential, NO such evidence was ever presented. Just as you are doing, Mr. Wiley's speculations based on Ms Knight-Jadczyk's libels are offered as some kind of "proof."

You write: In addition to the article/letter you attached called "Laura Knight Jadczyk, Alvin Wiley, And the Cassiopaeans," written by Mr Wiley, we have also received a few emails from him urging us to take down Ms Knight's article. To do this, as I have stated to you before, we need some proof that what she is saying is false, or at least documentation backing your claims, documentation that is better in quality and greater in quantity that that which she has on her site.

So here we come down to it. No pretense of objectivity whatsoever. Guilty until proven innocent, huh? If Ms Knight-Jadczyk, as you suggest, is NOT trying to paint me as some kind of nefarious agent then what exactly is the point of her article? Pure character assassination for the purpose, as I stated in my letter to you, of discrediting me before I can finish my book on channeling.

 If you agree with her so completely, perhaps it is because you share her concern over the contents of my work? Would indeed be a shock to learn that the whole UFO/Alien paradigm is based on a common mental disorder, wouldn't it?

Shall we look at some of her false claims in her article?

1) She has, by her own admission, no credentials in anything. She is in  fact a High School drop-out. (She was being prosecuted for attempted murder at the time...) She admits practicing hypnotherapy, for very dubious reasons, without any training whatsoever, a misdemeanor in Florida.

2) She attempts to back up her COINTELPRO title by a reference to an article from a semi-nonexistent book that has very little to do with COINTELPRO, and absolutely nothing to do with me.

3) She claims that my publishing company didn't exist, then cites court documents from long before I met her that prove that it did in fact exist. She also is quite aware that the company did exist, and neglects to mention that it was the actions on her part that led to its dissolution and reformation.

Aethyrea Books now exists legally as an LLC in the state of North Carolina and as of June 1st, all conflicts between versions of the company will be resolved. I have tax numbers, tax forms, bank records, statements and bills from lawyers and so on to prove that I am telling the truth. I do not chose to make those public, for obvious reasons, but they will be included in the class action libel, invasion of privacy and harassment suit presently being put together against Ms Knight-Jadczyk and her minions.

4) She claims that I presented myself as an expert on mind control, etc. yet the evidence she cites, including our exchange of emails, has NO such claims anywhere in it. I presented cases I had come across and research that I personally had done, nothing more.

5) She claims that I tried to convince members of her cult that they were part of a Satanic mind control experiment, and again presents no evidence. Yes, members of her group shared their personal stories with me, but only  at Ms Knight-Jadczyk's urging. As can be seen by the sample Ms Knight-Jadczyk had posted at one point, I informed them to seek professional help.

6) She claims that I somehow induced them to appear at my conference and perhaps coerced them into letting me publish their work. The opposite is actually true. They were so thrilled at being invited to speak at the conference that they posted it on the front page of their website two months before the official announcement. They were quite happy with the publishing arrangements until they discovered that I expected to be paid for my work.

7) I made no accusations of any kind about her family and only allowed her to free associate under mild suggestions of relaxation. Her story of her troubled childhood is prominently displayed in several of her autobiographical works. She has tapes of those sessions that would prove my point, but of course no one will ever see or hear them.

8) She claims that because I had an agreement to publish someone that was accused of copyright infringement, that I am somehow guilty of something. Just what is never made clear. I was never a party to any suit by Stan Tenen and the mention cited clearly shows that I was a victim of Dan Winter's bad faith as much as Mr. Tenen. It also clearly shows that the court considered my company to be very real back in 1998, a full year before the shadow of Ms Knight-Jadczyk darkened my life.

9) She claims I never offered them a contract and that somehow I failed to live up to my end of the bargain. If there was no contract, then how was that bargain made? They received a very generous contract in July and the book was through production and ready to go before they pulled out of everything in early August.

10) She claims the tenor of the conference was not scientific enough for her, when in fact she was the controversial one, with no credentials whatsoever. The other speakers were all published authors and the acknowledged leaders in their field.

I could go on and on.

As I demonstrated before, almost every paragraph in her article contains lies and distortions of the truth designed to support her argument that I am some kind of COINTELPRO agent without having to provide any factual evidence whatsoever.

To wrap this up and perhaps put it into perspective for you, look at this one: "We already knew from the research of Terri Burns that his publishing credentials were false."

Yet, Dr. Burns has this to say: "In any case, my "research" did not show that Vincent's publishing credentials were false. They showed that he had written far more than he'd claimed to."   This is a direct refutation from the person involved.

Furthermore, Dr. Burns goes on to say: "What Laura has done in the sentence where she mentions me is seize upon the one "credit" problem I did find, from an old bio, and run with it for going onto ten months, while ignoring all  "research"--basically, all the rest of what anyone found--that showed Vincent has many publishing credentials. When I and others - including Vincent himself - provided information about his publications she did not change any of her statements."

Now Mr. Ghan, how much more simple and direct refutation would you like? Ms Knight-Jadczyk is simply lying, period. And you are helping her do it by spreading them without one word of rebuttal.

You say: by our standards the one you have sent to us does not have sufficient counter-examples and documented proof...

Yet what better evidence is there than the direct testimony of the individual involved?

No Mr. Ghan, your bias is showing. I wonder by what means you determined  the truth of the situation? Do you perhaps have your own ouiji board or crystal ball? That would explain your persistent lapses of logic, rationality and common sense.

Mr. Ghan, if you do not publish my letter and rebuttal, or at least put a link on her article to my website where the rebuttal can be found, then I and everyone else who looks into the matter can only conclude that you knowing support Ms Knight-Jadczyk's effort at character assassination, libel, and copyright infringement and are therefore a party to such actions.

I suggest you look up a copy of Digital Millennium Copyright Act and check on your degree of liability. It might even be a good idea to get a lawyer, unless, like Ms Knight-Jadczyk, you get your legal advice off a ouiji board. In which case, good luck...

Vincent Most

After the letter above, there was no further communication from Maynerd Most to the Universal Seduction team. When he wrote "So here we come down to it. No pretense of objectivity whatsoever" in response to the request for documentary evidence, that was it.

 

You are visitor number .