Eric Pepin - Higher Balance Institute - Discussion

[christx11]

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.

There has never been any claim otherwise.

As such, it would seem to me that her motion to dismiss is beside the point.

Is beside what point? Now VinnieBear wants to tell the lawyers and the courts what is the law and what is not. Shame on you Laura and shame on you QFG and shame on you the defendants' lawyers for not fitting into VinnieBear's reality and serving his image of reality.

This is a civil action, not a criminal action.

What is this guy smoking? What kind of little manipulative psycho games is he playing? Has he even read the briefs and motions? Where in any of the court documents does anyone on any side claim this is a criminal action? Why even inject that into the conversation? It just shows the psychological projection of trying to paint someone or something in a specific framework that does not even exist in reality. If we want to look at someone's behavior and history it is evident every time this guy tries to project his reality onto the world at large.

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.

Horse Hockey! Or Bear Pooh! Did the guy even read the motions. Notice how VinnieBear keeps saying 'Laura' this and 'Laura' that ... blah, blah, blah... We see who the target is VinnieBear. Did you even read the motions? Laura was not even served. The only entity served was QFG. Every document shows "Defendant Quantum Future Group". What an idiot. VinnieBear wants to tell everyone what the issue is about and he does not even know the facts of the case. VinnieBear does not even know who the defendant is in the case and he wants tell (project) to everyone what the case is about and what the issue is (Laura saying bad things damaging an upstanding citizen). Laura is not even the defendant in the case. Can the transparency be any clearer?

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.

Here we continue with the swindle of the mind of the reader. VinnieBear, this isn't about Laura. Laura is not the named defendant. Quantum Future Group is and only Quantum Future Group. QFG was the only served party. I am not surprised that VinnieBear is surprised at what the issues are. VinnieBear does not even know who the Defendant is in the case. VinnieBear continues his Laura OCD, his target, his life's purpose.

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.

Brings the issue back? Please teach everyone what the law is VinnieBear. What is the issue VinnieBear?

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.

And here we go again with that projection that someone somewhere has painted this event as a criminal action. The only person injecting even the thought of this having anything to do with a criminal prosecution is VinnieBear. What in the heck is he even mentioning the 'State' for? Stepping into the fray? What kind of twisted mind can even speak about this case that does not even know what it is about, who is the defendant, projecting the 'State' and 'Criminal' into the issue when it has never had anything to do with it. Speaking as if State and Criminal were some kind of angle presented by QFG. Who is absolutely manipulatively bonkers here? VinnieBear. Your Pooh is showing VinnieBear. Your Pooh is showing.

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.

As if we all didn't know that this is a civil action. In case the projection of State and Criminal sunk in and now we are learnt how uneducated we silly folk was.

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

The only manipulative free sentence in this entire PoohFest.

 

[mada85]

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.

Huh?? Say again? How can it be possible for VB to deny the very issue that forms the crux of the case? This is truly a case of someone saying that white is black and up is down! I tried to understand VB's mind, to empathically feel my way into the mind of one who would be able to write as he has.

I read the documents, as I assume VB has, although my assumption may be wrong; the attorneys' approach is logical, well thought-out and clear - there is really no other course to take. In my mind, I compare the case documents and VB's ranting, and I cannot, however hard I try, put myself into VB's shoes to understand where he's coming from. Sure, I can understand his mindset on the theoretical level, but to truly empathise with him I find impossible. The VB mind is completely alien. I experience a strange sensation of disconnection, like trying to empathise with a blank.

It seems there is something essential missing from his Exceedingly Tiny Brain.

 

[ark]

It seems there is something essential missing from his Exceedingly Tiny Brain.

In fact this is called, technically, a "one-way logical gate".

He, Stormy and godlikeproduction over 2000 printed pages produced by their activities, can publicly call me a "spy", a "Stasi agent, working for DARPA on depopulating the Earth" etc. etc. and damage my business by this (using the funny legal terms: "but not less than $xxx millions" ). This is "just a free speech".

But nothing else is a free speech. I do not know if there is any cure for this defect, probably it is irreversible.

 

[Laura]

In fact this is called, technically, a "one-way logical gate".

He, Stormy and godlikeproduction over 2000 (printed) pages produced by their activities, can publicly call me a "spy", a "Stasi agent, working for DARPA on depopulating the Earth" etc. etc. and damage my business by this (using the funny legal terms: "but not less than $xxx millions" ). This is "just a free speech".

This "one-way logical gate" is a funny thing, as Ark has noted.

When the history of the Bridges gang activity is examined, we note the basic facts:

1) Vinnie maneuvered his way into our lives and work based on lies. We didn't know they were lies at the time (which is kinda obvious - that's why they are called lies).

2) Because his behaviors did not match his words, we began to have serious doubts about his intentions. Those doubts were tested, Vinnie failed. We still, at this point, did not know that his "life and work" was a pile of lies, we only knew we did not want to be associated with him at all.

3) We made steps to disassociate ourselves from Vinnie, canceling conference attendance, book editing/publishing arrangements, etc. This was done in a professional way, and Vinnie certainly had the option of responding professionally. Had he done so, nothing else that followed would ever have happened.

4) In reaction to our choice to not be associated with him, Vinnie launched his attacks on us. Not only Vinnie, but his pal StormBear and Jay Weidner. This was done publicly and we also received a number of emails that were vicious and vituperative beyond belief.

5) After enduring the most unbelievable assault of lies, manipulations, defamation, libel, etc, for three months, in defense, we exposed the instigator of this assault for the liar and poseur he was/is.

And Vinnie (assuming it is Vinnie) has the nerve to write:

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. [...]

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.

One wonders, of course, what he is referencing when he writes "did not learn from her experiences" and "without suffering any sort of consequences" ???

Does he mean that I should have learned something from the years of attack subsequent to the expose of Vinnie as a fraud and poseur? I'm supposed to have learned that Vinnie is allowed to say anything he wants about us, but we cannot defend ourselves by exposing the fact that the person making the statements lied about literally everything he claimed as his background and professional standing?

Is that the lesson that pathological deviants seek to "teach" their victims? "Resistance is futile! Do not fight back! Submit and be assimilated or it will be the worse for you!"

Aside from that, this case is interesting for a lot of reasons. We were talking about it the other day and one thing that came up was the fact that, should Pepin prevail, it will set a precedent that would almost instantly flood every court in the U.S. with similar claims. It would, in fact, even set a precedent that WE could use to sue Vinnie, StormBear, Jay, and the whole gang. Not only that, but we would be enabled to include GLP and abovetopsecret.com and rense.com and a number of other bulletin boards and websites in the suit with a good chance of prevailing to the tune of multiple millions of bux! Pepin's complaints would pale into insignificance beside the suit we could file if he wins!

And yeah, we have web snapshots of literally thousands of (printed) pages of libel and defamation. We have the entire Matrioshka group discussion downloaded and saved on a CD that was dated and notarized. We have all of Vinnie's website rants snapped as web images, and the thousands of printed pages on GLP, not to mention pages on ATS, etc. We have so much evidence that any judge looking at it would probably faint at the volume of viciousness!

Bottom line is: either way, we win. If Pepin loses, well... that's the simplest thing; everything proceeds as before and we get our money back. But, if he wins, we have precedent for some bodacious suits with very good chances of getting significant damages that will more than cover anything we would owe Pepin. If Pepin ridiculously claims 4.7 million in damages for a couple of months of discussion, what can we get for YEARS of defamation and libel. And here, of course, we are talking about lies that can be proved to be lies! As was written in our article "Is Truth Defamatory":

WHAT IS NOT DEFAMATION The following is where defamation does not occur:

Opinions, properly worded and identified as such, are not defamatory. It's called "Free Speech."
Statements that lack any of the three required elements: 1) they are true 2) they are not communicated to a third person 3) they do not damage character or reputation.

In other words, whether a statement is TRUE or NOT is the very crux of defamation. In other words, the court will FIRST inquire as to whether the statement itself is sufficiently factual to be susceptible of being proved true or false. See Partington v. Bugliosi, 56 F.3d 1147, 1153 (9th Cir.'94) (applying three-factor test as the starting point for analysis); Unelko Corp. v. Rooney, 912 F.2d 1049, 1053 (9th Cir.'90), cert. denied, 499 U.S. 961 (1991).

The entire article is worth reading for some background on Vinnie and Gang.

Finally, I see the post written by Vinnie or whoever as a "fishing expedition." The writer makes a number of assumptions about the legal doings that are just that: assumptions. I'm not going to bite, sorry. You may carry on in your delusional world of thinking you know stuff when, in fact, you are just making a fool of yourself.

 

[the rabbit]

The thing is, , Laura and the group in general always expect consequences . it goes with the territory when exposing these strange warped and perverted groups of people. The funniest thing is , and it does make me laugh , is that after many years, it is a perverted man who sells mumbo jumbo juice in a jar to people who really should know better , but sadly dont , who thinks he is going to champion the cause for perverts and deviants world wide. HA!

Just my opinion of course, mine alone which I take full responsibility for, I was in no way approached by any one at all to make me think or say this.

 

[purplehaze]

He, Stormy and godlikeproduction over 2000 pages produced by their activities, can publicly call me a "spy", a "Stasi agent, working for DARPA on depopulating the Earth" etc. etc. and damage my business by this (using the funny legal terms: "but not less than $xxx millions" ). This is "just a free speech".

This "one-way logical gate" is a funny thing, as Ark has noted.

...
One wonders, of course, what he is referencing when he writes "did not learn from her experiences" and "without suffering any sort of consequences" ???

Does he mean that I should have learned something from the years of attack subsequent to the expose of Vinnie as a fraud and poseur? I'm supposed to have learned that Vinnie is allowed to say anything he wants about us, but we cannot defend ourselves by exposing the fact that the person making the statements lied about literally everything he claimed as his background and professional standing?

Is that the lesson that pathological deviants seek to "teach" their victims? "Resistance is futile! Do not fight back! Submit and be assimilated or it will be the worse for you!"

You made us think of this post:

A Force of Nature
by Anna Valerious

If you've withheld forgiveness from the narcissists in your life then I am sure you have experienced some particular accusations. These come from the narcissist and their sympathizers. They accuse you of "refusing to forget the past", "holding a grudge", "being resentful", "not letting go". One of my and my family's favs is "a heart full of hate". We erupt in gales of laughter when we conjure up that particular memory of my father's accusation in defense of my mother.

Narcissists have a very limited range of emotions. While being able to fake having a wider range of emotions, they really operate on an emotional level of an animal with the two primary motivating emotions of fear and anger (jealousy is a close third, but is really a combination of the other two). This is one reason they impute one of these two emotions to you when you are not behaving properly. They project their own emotional state or reactions to you. Which is why, when you calmly and firmly withhold absolution for their misdeeds, they immediately assume a negative.

Is it true? Is it inevitable that your decision to wait for someone to show true signs of confession, contrition, restitution and a firm resolve to not repeat the offense can only mean that you are a resentful, grudge-filled, vengeful, nasty person? Is it possible to withhold a gift of forgiveness while simultaneously living your own life with productiveness, happiness, and a clear conscience without bitterness?

Indeed, the assumption of the narcissists, sympathizers and Holy Joes is that you can't be a spiritual person with a clean conscience and a focus on the good things in life while withholding forgiveness. They are screwed up in the head so you can put their opinion on this in the trash. Lets look at it from healthy person's perspective.

Emotionally healthy people are realists. They are people who want to see reality, accept reality and live in reality. The realist has seen that the narcissist is not wanting a real gift of forgiveness, therefore the realist has accepted that truth and proceeded to live their life based on that truth. The realist doesn't have to be upset or angry about this reality because it never does any good to get pissed and stay pissed at reality for any length of time. Reality is. If you refuse to accept what is, you end up fighting truth. Not a good situation since, in the end, truth wins. The person I'm describing is able to depersonalize the behaviors and accusations of the narcissist because they've come to understand that the narcissist is not truth-based. Because an emotionally healthy person is only interested in truth-based reality, they don't take a lying narcissist at their word. When the narcissist starts hurling accusations the realist doesn't take them to heart once they've figured out that the narcissist is an inveterate liar.

In fact, this person is able to completely depersonalize the narcissist too. The realist thinks of the narcissist as a Force of Nature. Realists do not get angry at a force of nature. It would be senseless to do so. The force of nature is just what it is and it can't help what it is. It does what it does, wreaks its destruction, and moves on. The energy and effort of the realist is used to stay out of the way of the force of nature until it passes. When the hurricane threatens, the wise realist does all they can to protect them self and their family from the coming storm. They hammer boards over the windows and hunker down in the relative safety of their basement. When the hurricane comes knocking you don't run up and open the door to it. You don't invite the hurricane to dinner. You don't throw your kids out on the front porch to appease the hurricane in order to save yourself. Or, like the natives of certain tribes, throw your virgins into the volcano to stave off its rage and rampage. No, you simply do all you can to protect yourself and stay out of the path of a force of nature. Where is the resentment? Where is the grudge-holding? It doesn't even apply. You have simply come to recognize the truth about the narcissist; they are destructive forces and unsafe for humans. You do not try to reason with a force of nature. You don't try to placate it. You don't waste time hoping the force of nature will grow a heart. You get out of its way and stay out of its way. That is all you can do.

In one significant way the narcissist differs from a tornado, hurricane, tidal wave, volcano, etc...a force of nature is not predatory. The narcissist is. And, unlike most predators in nature, narcissists are predators of their own kind making them a wholly unnatural creature. This reality only underlines the need to get out of the way of the narcissist's storm.

Let us say for a moment that you've misjudged the narcissist, or perhaps a non-narcissist person who has become a detrimental force in your life. If you have misjudged them, your withdrawing doesn't prevent them from proving they are good people. Your withdrawal doesn't hurt someone in an irreparable way. Yes, maybe their feelings get hurt, but normal people are able to function in spite of some hurt feelings and eventually their feelings will resolve. What I'm saying is that withdrawing is the kindest and least damaging of any other action you can take. The other person, if misjudged by you, will lead their lives in such a way that will prove they are something other than what you thought they were. You may or may not be aware of how they are leading their lives, nevertheless, your withdrawal does not damage anyone's ability to carry on their lives successfully. You are no one's savior. Staying in the narcissist's life is not going to someday save them. Leaving them will not destroy them (no matter what they tell you). If you decide you must withdraw, do so without apology or shame. If you happen to be wrong, your withdrawal is not going to damage the other person's life. If you didn't misjudge, you've taken an action that has protected your self without taking retaliatory actions against the other party. Narcissists would like to pretend your withdrawal is retaliatory, but that is a lie. It is the kindest, gentlest way of dealing with their toxicity. It acknowledges that you are not willing to be hurt anymore, and that you've abdicated the idea that the narcissist's salvation somehow is dependent on you. While they characterize "no contact" by you as cruel, the opposite is true. It is the kindest thing you can do for yourself and for them. They are deprived of using you and you are not responsible for increasing their evil by letting them hone it on you.

Refusing to forget the past is thrown in your face like it is a bad thing, but if you don't have any recollection of the terrible damage a tidal wave can do, then you won't know enough to get off the beach when the water draws back. Remembering the past is essential for survival. It is not a fault of character. An operational memory is what helps keep us safe! Don't let someone shame you with that.

The narcissist should be asking us for our forgiveness. Instead, they demand us to forget. There is a very large difference between the two. They don't want forgiveness, they want us to wipe our memories into blanks. Why? Because they want carte blanche to recommit their crimes against us at their whim.

This is why I refuse to let the bad guys make the rules for my life anymore. The criminals want to make the rules. Their demands always boil down to the same thing--that I continue on as before and allow the narcissist the right to abuse me as they see fit. Well, I have a good enough memory, and enough sense, to know that I have been dealing with a force of nature. My desire for it to be different won't change it. When the blizzard threatens, I'm locking the doors and not stepping a toe outdoors until it has moved on. While the storm rages, I'll be quietly and contentedly reading a book or taking a nap. No, my heart isn't full of hate. I'm very happily and realistically leading a life out of the path of the storm.

"A prudent man foresees evil and hides himself, But the simple pass on and are punished." Prov 22:3 (NKJV)

http://narcissists-suck.blogspot.com/2007/07/force-of-nature.html

~~~~
The point is, Laura, no one can or should forgive a "crime in progress." VB has NEVER admitted, owned or even attempted to apologize. No forgiveness, forgetting or letting up is warranted on people like this. Ever.

 

[ark]

Re: One-way logical gates:

From the concluding section of "Recognizing those without a conscience"

Paul Schneidereit
The Chronicle Herald
Tue, 06 May 2008

... Here's something else about psychopaths. Experts say no treatment program ever tried has worked on psychopaths. Such programs, in fact, instead often made them more likely to reoffend. As Dalhousie's Porter put it, psychopaths don't even believe they have a problem. To them, it's the rest of the world that's screwed up.

Well, not exactly "the rest of the world", I think. They are being helped by the drug and alcohol addicts.

 

[Approaching Infinity]

Aside from that, this case is interesting for a lot of reasons. We were talking about it the other day and one thing that came up was the fact that, should Pepin prevail, it will set a precedent that would almost instantly flood every court in the U.S. with similar claims. It would, in fact, even set a precedent that WE could use to sue Vinnie, StormBear, Jay, and the whole gang. Not only that, but we would be enabled to include GLP and abovetopsecret.com and rense.com and a number of other bulletin boards and websites in the suit with a good chance of prevailing to the tune of multiple millions of bux! Pepin's complaints would pale into insignificance beside the suit we could file if he wins!

This is absolute gold. VB, pathological blockhead that he is, can't even see that his whole "free speech is protected, but not the consequences of free speech" spiel applies equally so TO HIM! So if Pepin wins, let's have a closer look at the dynamics: In this case, he will have won for statements that were made "on our own turf" so to say, with relatively few viewers and relatively little exposure. Now, if VB were to be on the receiving end of such a lawsuit, every blog, website, mainstream news source, etc. that mentions sott or Laura could be used as evidence. The judge would see that every public mention of Laura or anything related to Laura was hijacked by Vinnie and his thugs. How's THAT for "consequences" of free speech. VB has probably cost Laura millions!

 

[Laura]

If you've withheld forgiveness from the narcissists in your life then I am sure you have experienced some particular accusations. These come from the narcissist and their sympathizers. They accuse you of "refusing to forget the past", "holding a grudge", "being resentful", "not letting go". [...]

Is it inevitable that your decision to wait for someone to show true signs of confession, contrition, restitution and a firm resolve to not repeat the offense can only mean that you are a resentful, grudge-filled, vengeful, nasty person? Is it possible to withhold a gift of forgiveness while simultaneously living your own life with productiveness, happiness, and a clear conscience without bitterness?

Indeed, the assumption of the narcissists, sympathizers and Holy Joes is that you can't be a spiritual person with a clean conscience and a focus on the good things in life while withholding forgiveness. They are screwed up in the head so you can put their opinion on this in the trash. [...]

Refusing to forget the past is thrown in your face like it is a bad thing, but if you don't have any recollection of the terrible damage a tidal wave can do, then you won't know enough to get off the beach when the water draws back. Remembering the past is essential for survival. It is not a fault of character. An operational memory is what helps keep us safe! Don't let someone shame you with that.

The narcissist should be asking us for our forgiveness. Instead, they demand us to forget. There is a very large difference between the two. They don't want forgiveness, they want us to wipe our memories into blanks. Why? Because they want carte blanche to recommit their crimes against us at their whim.

This reminds me of an incident that is recorded in the Jay Weidner correspondence on this page: http://www.cassiopaea.com/archive/wiley6b.htm

At this point, Jay, pretending to be Vinnie's enemy, thinks he has gotten me to the stage where I will just drop the whole thing if he can convince Vinnie to take down his defamatory websites. If you read all the preceding pages of this correspondence, you'll see how he's "working it" to get me to that point. Me, of course, I'm just playing along and seeing where he's going, meanwhile, not giving an inch on the many topics discussed.

So, Jay thinks he's gotten me there, and he starts to push hard. Notice how he's about to go on vacation, so I'm supposed to "act now, or the deal will be lost." So, I wrote back to him:

[Dear Jay]

Here is what we did in response to your "mediation".

1) To show our good faith, and our will to try a nonconfontational solution, we changed VB's name in the Adventures series to a pseudonym.

We can do the following

2) Remove the "side articles" about VB from the public display

3) Remove from the public display the Foundation report on VB _under the following condition ONLY_:

IF VB will sign and notarize and provide us with the original copy of the following statement that we can permanently post on our website, and, whenever necessary, post links to on any discussion board where he or his "pals" are found to be posting libel or defamatory remarks based on his previous lies and defamation.

THIS STATEMENT is made on this _____ day of _____, 2002 by Vincent M. Bridges of North Carolina:

I, Vincent M. Bridges, do hereby affirm that I have made false claims about my background, my credentials, my experiences, my publishing credits, my publishing company Aethyrea Books, and my education. I apologize for this.

I affirm that when the matters of my false credentials and credits were discovered by the Perseus Foundation, that I began a campaign of libel and defamation against Arkadiusz and Laura Jadczyk and the members of the Cassiopaea discussion group, and the readers of the Cassiopaea website.

I apologize for all my libelous remarks and publications about Ark and Laura Jadczyk. I refute my former claim that Ark and Laura are attempting to turn the Cassiopaean Material into the basis for a cult.

I apologize for my statements that Ark and Laura and the members of the cassiopaea group were harassing me, stalking me, or violating my privacy.

I apologize for all my false claims, for my personal and technical untruths, including my claims of "expert status" as a "psychotherapist," my personal disparagement of Ark and Laura Jadczyk, and all negative characterizations I have made about them, their work, and the Cassiopaea discussion groups.

I apologize for inducing other people to distribute the Cassiopaean transcripts without permission. I request that any copies of these transcripts distributed through my actions be destroyed.

I regret that others have been misled by my false claims, and I strongly encourage all others who have repeated my false and hurtful claims, to stop doing so.

I refute my false claims and apologize for all of this, and I request that others now pass on, post, and report this Statement everywhere that false reports derived from anything I have said have appeared.

I am making this statement because I know it to be the truth. I request that my friends support my efforts to scrupulously honor and defend the good and respected reputations of Ark and Laura Jadczyk, their work, their sincerity and good will, and the honor and sincerity of the members of the Cassiopaea discussion groups and the readers of the Cassiopaea website and material.

By making this statement, Vincent Bridges admits no legal liability.

Signed: VB ..... Notarized.

There were some exchanges over that which are pretty funny. But the funniest came a few days later when Vinnie posted on the Matrioshka discussion forum the following:

Date: Tue, 07 May 2002 20:58:09 -0400
From: Vincent Bridges
Subject: Cassiopaean announcements

Greetings M-group,

I apologize before hand for bringing up the odious and continuing sore spot of the Cassiopaeans, but I have two simple announcements and I thought they would be of interest to the list.

A class action law suit for defamation, harassment and invasion of privacy is underway against Laura Knight-Jadczyk, Ark Jadczyk, Andrew C. Rowland and the Board of Directors of the Perseus Foundation. If you feel that you have been harassed, defamed, libeled or have had your privacy invaded by the actions of the above named individuals, please send me a private email at ...@ac.net and let me know if you would like to be a part of this legal action.

Also, a similar class action suit is underway for plagiarism and copyright infringement. If anyone on this list knows, or knows how to contact, any of the authors plagiarized or extensively excerpted without permission in any of the voluminous material generated and published by Laura Knight Jadczyk or the Perseus Foundation, please ask them to contact me at the above email address.

All replies will be kept strictly confidential.

Thank you,

Vincent Bridges

--- In matrioshka@y... , Vincent Bridges <> wrote:

As most of you know, all of us on this side of the Cassiopaean debacle have been trying to end the conflict and quit feeding the demon. Well, that hasn't exactly worked.

I offered to take everything down about L&A and the Cassiopaeans, and for the last few days it has been down. I also offered to drop any pending or future legal action against them, if they would just take their attack pages about off the web. That simply emboldened them to greater efforts, attacking even more innocent people who just want to get away from their slime and get on with their lives, and who never did anything to L&A but leave the cult and tell the truth about their experiences. To L&A of course this is treason of the highest order and must be avenged any way possible. Be warned, all of you still in thrall to Laura's spell, it could be your boss that receives the next email.

In return they proposed that I sign an agreement that they could post prominently on their website as a trophy of their victory over "Dr. Evil," my new nome de plume in C-World. Since we are all aware that Laura has never had an original thought in her life, it should come as no surprise that her statement for me was copied directly from the Dan Winter statement. Plagiarism is so much a part of her life that she can not apparently do without it.

So, rather than re-start the war, I thought we'd have a contest. Count the lies they wanted me to swear to in the following statement, and the person who comes closest to the correct total will win a brand new Disinformation Agent T-Shirt from paymenow.net.

OK, pencils ready? Here we go:

From Laura Knight Jadczyk and Ark Jadczyk:

1) To show our good faith, and our will to try a non-confontational solution, we changed VB's name in the Adventures series to a pseudonym.

We can do the following

2) Remove the "side articles" about VB from the public display

3) Remove from the public display the Foundation report on VB _under the following condition ONLY_:

IF VB will sign and notarize and provide us with the original copy of the following statement that we can permanently post on our website, and, whenever necessary, post links to on any discussion board where he or his "pals" are found to be posting libel or defamatory remarks based on his previous lies and defamation.

THIS STATEMENT is made on this _____ day of _____, 2002 by Vincent M. Bridges of North Carolina:

I, Vincent M. Bridges, do hereby affirm that I have made false claims about my background, my credentials, my experiences, my publishing credits, my publishing company Aethyrea Books, and my education. I apologize for this.

I affirm that when the matters of my false credentials and credits were discovered by the Perseus Foundation, that I began a campaign of libel and defamation against Arkadiusz and Laura Jadczyk and the members of the Cassiopaea discussion group, and the readers of the Cassiopaea website.

I apologize for all my libelous remarks and publications about Ark and Laura Jadczyk. I refute my former claim that Ark and Laura are attempting to turn the Cassiopaean Material into the basis for a cult.

I apologize for my statements that Ark and Laura and the members of the cassiopaea group were harassing me, stalking me, or violating my privacy.

I apologize for all my false claims, for my personal and technical untruths, including my claims of "expert status" as a "psychotherapist," my personal disparagement of Ark and Laura Jadczyk, and all negative characterizations I have made about them, their work, and the Cassiopaea discussion groups.

I apologize for inducing other people to distribute the Cassiopaean transcripts without permission. I request that any copies of these transcripts distributed through my actions be destroyed.

I regret that others have been misled by my false claims, and I strongly encourage all others who have repeated my false and hurtful claims, to stop doing so.

I refute my false claims and apologize for all of this, and I request that others now pass on, post, and report this Statement everywhere that false reports derived from anything I have said have appeared.

I am making this statement because I know it to be the truth. I request that my friends support my efforts to scrupulously honor and defend the good and respected reputations of Ark and Laura Jadczyk, their work, their sincerity and good will, and the honor and sincerity of the members of the Cassiopaea discussion groups and the readers of the Cassiopaea website and material.

By making this statement, Vincent Bridges admits no legal liability.

Signed: VB ..... Notarized.

Naturally, it will be a very cold day in hell when I put my name to something like this.

My final comments outside of court: Bugger off you losers... You and the demon deserve each other.

Vincent

Needless to say, no legal actions ever materialized from Vinnie. At one point he claimed to have spent thousands of dollars in legal fees (this was to get sympathy). We, however, never received even a letter from an atty. Nothing. Zero. Zip. Zilch. Nada.

The guy couldn't speak the truth if his life depended on it!

 

[christx11]

I liked the picture of VinnieBear so much

VinnieBear!


I thought I would put up a picture representing my image of Pepin

Pepin Le Pooh!

 

[purplehaze]

Why are we not surprised? You should see the garbage threats we get from predators.

AGAIN: they believe their words create reality.

They truly are "the sound & the fury: signifying NOTHING."

Needless to say, no legal actions ever materialized from Vinnie. At one point he claimed to have spent thousands of dollars in legal fees (this was to get sympathy). We, however, never received even a letter from an atty. Nothing. Zero. Zip. Zilch. Nada.

The guy couldn't speak the truth if his life depended on it!

 

[Ryan]

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

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.

This is a false distinction right at the beginning, which only makes sense as an abstraction. In real terms, having the right to do something means that you ARE protected from SOME consequences that may result from exercising your right. For instance, the right to "life" as in "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" can only be a right if it evokes the responsibility of others not to kill you. This responsibility of all citizens is formalized via the criminalization of murder in society. For most normal people, who have a clear and deep-rooted psychological understanding of the difference between "self" and "other", this is so straightforward as to really need no explanation.

Psychopaths do not inhabit such a realm. To them, no rules apply, because rules applying would mean acknowledging an "other person" to whom they would be responsible for in the process of abiding by the rules. Thus, their deep seated "bafflement" that Lobaczewski describes about the "customs of normal man". To them, there is only one rule - what they say, goes. Making the false distinction as presented in the above example is the "output" of a pseudo-logical thought process seeking to adjust objective reality (which includes "other people") to conform to the conceptual "fantasy reality" in which the infantile state of "only me and no-one and nothing else" is preserved.

It is para-logic, or perhaps, "patho-logic", and accepting it in place of real logic places a person in confluence with the psychopathic reality - ie. a person AGREES TO BECOME the "non-entity" in the psychopath's belief system. This may be a kind of "hypnotic opener" which renders a person vulnerable to further suggestion, eventually resulting in them surrendering physical things to the deviant - money, sex, possessions - whatever is considered to be appropriately symbolic of "incorporation" by the deviant's psyche.

Or so I think. Trying to understand the psychology of pathological deviants in depth nearly always gives me a headache, which can mess with my own application of logic a little bit!

 

[ark]

It is para-logic, or perhaps, "patho-logic"

It suggests that another array of logical gates is defective. Namely the one that is responsible for differentiating between the following two statements:

A) Some sheep are black
B) All sheep are black

Although the research in this direction is still not quite conclusive, it is worth to take a note of this paper:

Neuropsychologia. 1987;25(1B):163-72

The detection of errors in sentences after right hemisphere brain damage.

Grossman M, Haberman S.

Several experiments have shown that non-aphasic, right hemisphere-damaged adults encounter difficulty solving syllogistic reasoning problems. In order to confirm and further explore the nature of this deficit with different linguistic material, patients with focal cerebral insult were asked to detect logical errors in sentences describing familiar causal situations. The findings revealed significant impairments in detecting errors after insult to anterior portions of the right hemisphere and to the left hemisphere, but qualitatively different patterns of errors in these two groups of patients.

 

[name]

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.

That whole posting reads like it could be an example in the ponerology book: extremely tenacious psyche, inability to understand the gist of what is being said (as per Ark's "one-way logic gate", Mada85 comment) ...

And then, is it just me being paranoid, or is that phrase which I bolded a direct threat of violence or death against Laura (and kin) and QFG ? That is at least what I understand it to be, worded in the oblique way which is characteristic for certain groups, not actionable legally, but very clear in its meaning and intended/proposed consequences.

I hope that it is just my paranoia (like when I warned against quoting from Reed's CofZ), and not a case of psychos becoming ruthless in the face of (repeated) and looming defeat.

 

[vinny]

And then, is it just me being paranoid, or is that phrase which I bolded a direct threat of violence or death against Laura (and kin) and QFG ? That is at least what I understand it to be, worded in the oblique way which is characteristic for certain groups, not actionable legally, but very clear in its meaning and intended/proposed consequences.

it is standard 'covert aggressive' mode of operation to give veiled (or not so veiled) vague threats at every opportunity. it is just part of the ongoing... sliminess. of course it is always plausibly deniable because nothing specific is said, it is just insinuated.