Eric Pepin - Higher Balance Institute - Discussion

[The Mechanic]

Nice one guys! Might even get back the money, that would be funny...

Btw reading "Ryan, Jedi Council Member" in a legal document was priceless

 

[Meg]

Beautiful!

 

[anart]

Btw reading "Ryan, Jedi Council Member" in a legal document was priceless

Isn't it?

'Horse hockey' in a legal document is also a side splitter ahhhhh - so ridiculous is Pepin's self-involved view of the world that he would launch such proceedings - at least that comes through clearly in the motions.

 

[Laura]

'Horse hockey' in a legal document is also a side splitter lol ahhhhh - so ridiculous is Pepin's self-involved view of the world that he would launch such proceedings - at least that comes through clearly in the motions.

Yeah, that cracks me up! Who would have thought my words would be immortalized in the archives of the law? As one of our atty's wrote to me after filing:

Though not altogether by choice, you have come to play a part now not only in the
exercise of free expression, but in its institutional defense in the developing online context. The
law takes a long time to catch up with change, so this is cutting edge.

Pepin's atty's must respond before the end of May, and then there is a short period before some kind of decision must be made by the judge, as I understand it. So, sometime in June we should know something.

 

[sHiZo963]

Excellent work by the attorneys here. The logic is fool-proof, IMHO, with dozens of relevant past court cases and crystal-clear dissections of the forum posts in question. Kind of reminds me of the meticulousness of Laura's written work ;)

Though not altogether by choice, you have come to play a part now not only in the
exercise of free expression, but in its institutional defense in the developing online context. The
law takes a long time to catch up with change, so this is cutting edge.

SoTT's making history, but only by being proactive and actually DOing something about the initial suit by HBI. It would have been much 'easier' to be passive and give in, so as to 'avoid all the trouble'. Unscrupulous people rely on those they tread upon to retreat in fear under their supposed power/authority.

I bet Pepin never intended it to come to this - he really didn't know who he was dealing with here. As is often said here on the forum: "wishful thinking [or lack of thinking] will get you every time."

It should be mentioned that this defense would not have been possible without the funds that were raised for this very purpose. I wish to thank whole-heartedly all SoTT.net members and readers, forum members and readers, and others who contributed to the fund-raising. Just goes to show that only through teamwork and networking can anything of objective significance get accomplished in this world.

Can you tell I'm happy? I am :)

 

[purplehaze]

I bet Pepin never intended it to come to this - he really didn't know who he was dealing with here. As is often said here on the forum: "wishful thinking [or lack of thinking] will get you every time."

Yes, some of the legal responses are truly masterful.

You know, we often say the same thing ('didn't know who they were dealing with') about our cyberpaths/ predators. As cunning as they are, they often underestimate the intelligence & fortitude of their victims. It seems the depth and force of their rage when they are exposed increases when they realize they did underestimate the victim.

Great work Laura, et al!

 

[name]

Nice work what the lawyers did.

BTW, for a look back in time, I found the following:
"Is Truth Defamatory?" --> http://www.cassiopaea.com/archive/most2.htm

It would seem that this time it is a variation of that same theme just more radical, because this time it isn't even about "truth" but about "opinion".

What will it be next time: "You thought badly about me/us" ... ?

 

[ark]

I think that there are times when it does not matter whether you are going to win or to lose. You only know that you are doing your duty in the name of the dearest principles. Sometimes it is the appropriate time - as it was in the case of Rosa Parks. Greeks had a special name for such times and such actions - KAIROS.

Amelie Prost Benedikt, „On Doing the Right Thing at the Right Time. Towards and Ethics of Kairos”, in: Phillip Sipiora and James S. Baumlin, eds. „Rhetoric and Kairos: Essays in History, Theory, and Praxis”, State University of New York Press, Albany 2002
....
Through the following essay, then, I will argue that concern for kairos be­gins with an effort to recognize opportunity, making one sensitive to the crit­ical character of moments that require decision. The decision concerning the right moment signifies understanding concerning this moment as distinct from others, concerning this moment as the culmination of a series of events. A concern for kairos signals an interest in being “on time” chronologically speaking, which leads to being “on time” ethically speaking. What this means is that the right action at the wrong time is not kairic. Neither is the wrong action at the right time kairic. An action that is morally right at the present moment may not be so in the next. This way of thinking about time results in greater attention to the idea of favorable and unfavorable opportunities that must be seized before they are lost—or avoided before they occur, as the case may be. Judgments of “too late” or “too soon” or “now” or “never” are qualita­tive decisions about the ordinality of historical events in the temporal order, decisions about moments that seem discontinuous, or “set apart,” from the succession of moments before and after.
....
Gorgias, too, considered this kind of assessment, and thought of it as a fundamentally creative act. As Mario Untersteiner describes it, Gorgianic rhetoric stressed the pure subjectivity, spontaneity, and creativity of kairos that invites one to “seize the time.” For Gorgias, kairos names moments of “willful imposition of choice on conflicting opportunities.” Drawing upon the Pythagorean doctrine of opposites, Gorgias was committed to the view that the world’s underlying ordering principle, or logos, is unapproachable ra­tionally. Given the concurrence of “special circumstances” (Untersteiner, 141), interpretations perpetually split into opposing viewpoints; indeed, all cir­cumstances are potentially “special” in this way. This commitment resulted in Gorgias’s denial of rational explanations of experience—the philosophical doctrine known as “irrationalism”—since every decision is an imposition of one of the opposing viewpoints or alternatives upon an otherwise irreducible antithesis. All interpretive judgment, therefore, is fundamentally irrational, a matter of seizing the kairos (Untersteiner,137, 262)
...
Gorgias seems committed to taking action in the face of uncertainty by calling on kairos to create something new and irrational, in place of the in­escapable and endless clash of antitheses (Untersteiner, 159). Instead of merely “repeating the ready made categories of tradition” (White,18), Gor­gias insisted that we remain “open to the irrational novelty of the moment” (White, 14). Through kairic spontaneity and radical openness to chance, one regains creative control over the world.

When judging the right moment for an action, a sense of kairos gives us creative control over the world by introducing a sense of possibility, of oppor­tunity. But there are limits to how much is subject to interpretive change. Al­though I can change my action to fit a situation, the only part of the situationitself that I can change unilaterally is that part of the moment that consists of myself; and the most significant change I can make to the moment often oc­curs, simply, by increasing or decreasing how much of the situation I am aware of. This is what it means to ground the “order of interpretation” in the “order of actual happenings.” And this is also part of what it means for chro­nos to be altered by sensitivity to the kairic context (as I explain later, our kairic actions can also affect the kairos of others).
....

 

[Azur]

Ark,

This is excellent!

Thank you for this.

 

[Laura]

http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquirer/news/2008/05/04/odd-news-site-slaps-back

Odd news site slaps back at lawsuit

Not liable for forum comments

By Egan Orion: Monday, 05 May 2008


IN OUR QUEST for IT news to interest you, our readers, we often trawl some of the more obscure nooks and crannies of the web, so you don't have to do so.

One of the websites we visit because it's a veritable magnet for odd technology news is Signs of the Times, so we couldn't help but notice when it was sued for Internet defamation. The INQUIRER takes a rather keen interest when other news sites are sued for libel, for reasons that might be obvious to our readers.

In February, Eric Pepin of Beaverton, Oregon and his company, Higher Balance Institute, filed an Internet defamation lawsuit against the California non-profit organisation Quantum Future Group, which operates the Signs of the Times news and analysis website, and Laura Knight-Jadczyk, who resides in France and is the chief webmistress of Signs of the Times.

Pepin's complaint (pdf) alleged that comments that appeared on the Signs of the Times reader forum were libelous, and it sought damages of $4.47 million.

Signs of the Times has only a relatively small readership, but it's a loyal group. When the website was sued it appealed for donations to cover its legal defence costs. Within just a few weeks its readers donated £65,000 (about $128,000).

On Saturday, Signs of the Times announced through its attorneys that on April 25 it filed motions challenging Pepin's lawsuit in US District Court in Portland, Oregon. In a statement, defendant Quantum Future Group (QFG) said it asked the court to dismiss the lawsuit and further asked to recover its attorneys fees.

In its legal briefs, QFG cited Oregon's anti-SLAPP ("Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation") statute to claim that its statements about New-Age "guru" Pepin and Higher Balance Institute (HBI) are constitutionally protected speech.

Under the anti-SLAPP law, QFG argues, if the plaintiffs cannot show that they will probably prevail on the merits, the lawsuit must be dismissed before QFG and other defendants have to incur high attorneys fees to defend themselves.

QFG contends that Pepin and HBI can't show they will probably prevail on the merits because, "Without exception, the statements are all constitutionally protected expressions of opinion rather than verifiable assertions of fact."

Since the statements to which Pepin and HBI object are opinions, QFG argues, "HBI cannot meet its burden to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that the statements are false, let alone that Defendants knew that they were false or had serious doubts as to their truth."

Signs of the Times reader forum comments that Pepin and HBI alleged were defamatory included some posts questioning Pepin's meditative techniques and commenting on Pepin's 2007 trial on multiple alleged sexual offences involving his behaviour with a 17-year old follower.

"These are exactly the sort of statements that the First Amendment and recent statutes protect as free speech," said QFG attorney Stephen Kaus. "People are entitled to believe in gurus such as Pepin and buy their books and courses for hundreds of dollars or more, but people are also entitled to point out their view that the techniques of telepathy and development of a sixth eye promoted by Pepin are nonsense."

QFG maintains that the forum comments were opinions in reaction to matters of fact reported by mainstream news sources, including The Oregonian, a daily newspaper published in Portland, Oregon, and the Associated Press, and are therefore protected by both the US Constitution and the Oregon Constitution.

An article in The Oregonian reported on Pepin's 2007 court trial on charges of sexual misconduct with a minor. Pepin was acquitted because the judge did not believe that the state's allegations had been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Washington County Circuit Court Judge Steven L. Price reportedly said it was "'probable that the conduct alleged in all counts occurred,' but [that] he wasn't convinced beyond a reasonable doubt." According to The Oregonian, Judge Price "called the leader of a metaphysical Internet sales company manipulative and controlling and his testimony unbelievable, even as he acquitted him... of charges that he had sex with an underage boy."

Signs of the Times readers pointed out on its forum that being found "not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" is not the same thing as being found " innocent of all charges."

QFG's motion also argues that, under the US Communications Decency Act of 1996, Signs of the Times, as the operator of an Internet forum, is not liable for third-party comments posted on its website. It also questions the Oregon based federal court's jurisdiction over QFG, a California non-profit organisation with its primary place of business in France.

QFG attorney Walter Hansell stated in an earlier press release, "HBI's lawsuit is a frontal assault on free speech, and on the free global flow of information and opinion on the Internet. It is a blunt force attack on the discussion of sincere opinions among people sharing common interests."

Following QFG's April 25th motions filing, Hansell said, "The intent of this suit by HBI is to stifle free speech, but luckily the anti-SLAPP statute allows us to nip the matter in the bud before the cost is out of hand."

Hopefully the court will order Pepin to pay the attorneys fees incurred by QFG and Signs of the Times to defend themselves as well.

Nice to know we have fans and supporters among the mainstream types who appreciate what we do! "Odd technology!" What a hoot!

 

[Thomas Alan]

I'd say this article nicely summarizes the case and it's issues. And coming from a source not connected with QFG or SOTT gives it more weight. I notice at the top of the page on the link is: "Not liable for forum comments"
That's the point, it's an exchange of opinion. A discussion. In fact Mr Pepin himself could have entered the discussion at any time expressing his own view of the matter.
This suit has no legs at all.

Thomas

 

[ark]

About freedom of speech, where all are equal yet some more equal than others. These are just examples of what Vincent Bridges, Storm Bear and the gang were writing on the net again and again about me:

"Soros is a Rothschild agent who funded Ark's many trips to the US"

"Ark is a spy "

"Ark Jadczyk worked with George Soros on a plan to depopulate the earth. "

"„It was the Ark/Stasi connection plus the European business men that showed up at the Montana Avenue home of Laura (about the same time some other European business men were buying flight schools in the area of New Port Richey where terrorists trained).”

"Exposing a DARPA counter intelligence operation like Laura Knight jadczyk and Ark Jadczyk may be boring to some but it is also necessery"

Hmm,.... So it is the freedom of speech, right? Well, I am a public person, so any dirty comments by one square idiot or another about me are OK.

Orwell was right. But Orwell was only partly right. Orwell did not know about the species of psychopaths that took over the Animal Farm hiding behind the masks of sanity :)

P.S. Are they, using the literary term invented by Gurdjieff, becoming somewhat more rounded idiots? The most recent rant reads:

This means that Ark passed all the security checks as a good right wing citizen, and was given a top secret security clearance.

This means that Ark WORKED for the (IMO obscene) USA military-industrial complex.

Did you notice "IMO"???? Something new? Are they learning something? Even Vinnie the Pooh, the bear of Very Little Brain, has learned something from the bees....

 

[Laura]

Looks like Vinnie has shown up to defend Pepin in the comments to the Inquirer article as follows:

http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message115499/pg149


It seems to me that Laura is once again confusing issues regarding
protection of free speech. She has done this in the past and apparently
did not learn from her experiences. Not surprising, for those who know her.

The First Amendment to the US Constitution protects the **right** to free speech. It does *not* protect one from any and all possible consequences which may result from speaking freely.

As such, it would seem to me that her motion to dismiss is beside the point. This is a civil action, not a criminal action. The issue at hand is not whether or not Laura Knight-Jadczyk has the right to free speech. The issue is whether or not the results of her speaking freely about someone else has resulted in financial and/or other damages occurring to that person and/or his enterprise. And further, whether or not the plaintiff has the right to demand compensation as overseen by the Court for these alleged damages.

I would think that Pepin's lawyers would be competent enough to be able to make that distinction before the Court in their counter argument. Likewise, I am a bit surprised that Laura's counsel would try to take this tack, considering that protection of free speech is not the issue here.

And that brings the issue back to just what the First Amendment provides for one with regard to free speech. It appears that Laura, as in the past, honestly believes that she and QFG are to be allowed to say whatever they want to, anytime they want to and about anyone, anywhere and in any way that they could possibly conceive, without suffering any sort of consequences for this in any form or fashion or from any direction or entity whatsoever.

But again, this is a civil action. The State has not stepped into the fray, demanding punishment for criminal malfeasance. A private individual has sought financial damages in a civil court, relating strictly to civil matters.

Libel is normally pursued as a civil action and no division of government manages its conveyance. It is only when someone requests a hearing in a civil proceeding that the issue is debated and only then does the court pronounce a verdict.

It will be interesting to see how the Court in Oregon responds to this motion to dismiss.


_http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message115499/pg154

He's never gotten over being exposed as a con-artist with no credentials who lied about his whole life and background. Pepin really ought to find a better class of supporters.

 

[anart]

He's never gotten over being exposed as a con-artist with no credentials who lied about his whole life and background. Pepin really ought to find a better class of supporters.

The man is FULL BLOWN insane - I mean, seriously - first of all, he writes this as if you have launched this legal maneuver - as if you are your lawyer - what the heck is this guy smoking????

At this point, one wonders if he can even dress himself? (yes, as long as it is black clothing... and his pony tail isn't mussed) - Then - he starts on one of his classically pathological pontifications (CPP : vinny bridges registered trademark) - about what you can or cannot say when he spends more time than most of us spend at our day jobs spewing lies of black bile about you whenever he gets the chance?

This man is seriously - totally - completely - insane. No wonder the 'big dogs' would never really give him any play - no wonder he has to spend his life trying with all his pathological might to build a reputation off of you - no wonder he's hooked up with the likes of Pepin - how ultimately sad for him that - ultimately; when all is said and done - absolutely nothing can ever - ever - trump the Truth.

Perhaps this 'bear of very little brain' can learn a mimic from the bees - yet he will always end up muttering 'oh bother' to himself as his impotent attempts prove nothing other than how truly insane he is.

 

[Redrock12]

An open letter to Vincent Bridges.
HEY VINNIE YOU BOZO! I SEE YOU'RE UP TO YOUR OLD TRICKS!
Dont' you ever get tired of embarrassing yourself? I know you probably won't grok this, but the only thing you do when you try to smear or defame Laura or Ark is increase the number of visitors to SOTT, which make more people aware of how stupid and insanely jealous of the Jadczyks you really are, not to mention the fact that more people get to know your real history. But thanks for all the free advertising.
And finally-and this is probably totally incomprehensible to your twisted psychopathic psyche- YOU'RE THE BAD GUY, THE LIAR, THE FRAUD, THE THIEF, THE PARASITE.
NOT LAURA OR ARK. GOT THAT?:o
Laura and Ark are the good guys, the ones who do all the work and are making genuine contributions to humanity. You, on the other hand. Well, see the above.