Eric Pepin - Higher Balance Institute - Discussion

[Ryan]

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 think it's just you being paranoid. I didn't read anything like that in it. Like Vinny just said, psychos love using ambiguous turns of phrase because they can hide any intended meaning behind it, or let the target project whatever meaning they want onto it, and thus read their reactions for information about what it is that the person in question might fear or want. Those fear/greed-based reactions provide means by which the targets can then be manipulated. But if a person can get a handle on their own reactions via self-knowledge then perhaps the playing field becomes a little more "level"?

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.

You're probably projecting your own self-importance onto this group/forum. I think most "cultured" psychos (ones with a near-flawless Mask of Sanity) don't really pay any attention to what goes on here. They're that wrapped up in their own plans and dog-eat-dog schemes that unless they come into direct confrontation with the group (as in the case of Pepin), they're unlikely to really bother about us that much.

Of course, there are "hints" that a higher-level group of psychos are VERY interested in what goes on here, but these are the sort that hold secrecy as a key value and are unlikely to direct the garden-variety type psychos to hassle us "by proxy" unless it can be done in a way that ensures they are completely immunized from exposure if things go wrong. Although it seems on first glance that STS have a wider scope of action due to their lack of conscience, there are other "rules" that they are bound by which do not apply to those working towards true conscience. OSIT.

Wishful thinking will get ya every time...

 

[purplehaze]

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.

On our site, when predators throw that sort of rhetoric at their victims we tell them to err on the side of caution. We Strongly recommend they get a cease & desist order ON THEIR OWN (savvy people can write their own), get their signature notarized, pay for IN PERSON service and THEN send a copy with copy of proof of service to the police.

Here's something this guy: http://cyberpathlinks.blogspot.com/2007/06/j-aka-gridney-aka-yidwithlid-aka-sammy.html
posted all over the net about his victim: (pardon the harsh language in advance)

She is divorced several times so goes by her maiden name of XXX. She lives in XXXX. She is XXX years OLD. And I mean OLD. This woman posts inoccent people on sites as this one. She claims to be religious. She should be shot for the filth she says about people she has never met and never will. She tells horrid lies about them. She has posted at least two of her victims on this site. This woman claims NAME OF PREDATOR (http://www.playersandpsychos.com/search/viewSpecific.php?id=536) hurt her. Well...guess what XXX! You played his game with him. YOU had phone sex with ME. Your a whore. You blame ME. You post sh*t all over the net about this wonderful man who helps many, many people. All you do is try to pass the blame. You have made yourself look like the scum bag you really are.

You've done this to women too. Women you don't know. Women who work hard and raise wonderful kids. You have tried to disgrace them. It didn't work. Your so fucking stupid that you didn't realize that the people who know these kind women know you have lied. YOU ARE A FUCKING C*NT. A FUCKING L**R. It's come back to bite you in your smelly ass. Your name is all over the net on sites like this. You won't learn. Maybe this will help you to see the light. You owe alot of people an apology. Especially God. How the fuck do you sleep at night? Your a whore who lies. Your a mouthy bitch.

I know where you live and I know your number. Watch out. I'm out to get you. Your f**ked now! I hate the thought of you. God won't forgive you for your actions. I'm e-mailing ***, *** and many more that think they know you. Yes, I am. Your done. Nodda. Good by bitch!

Simply reported - lawyers & police rarely take it seriously. But with a C&D - they have to make a report. And we tell everyone to be a polite NUDGE and ask the police for a copy of the report until you get it.

name, we don't think you're being paranoid at all

 

[acetate]

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.

Sorry to make this my first post, but i'm a bit confused ... I've been following this free speech issue with interest, and have read most of the source material, including the hbi.pdf legal documents - which seem to state that QFG and Laura are both defendants in this case. Have I read the documents wrongly?

 

[ark]

Sorry to make this my first post, but i'm a bit confused ... I've been following this free speech issue with interest...

Well, if this is your first post, it is not very communicative. You create noise by extensive quoting and asking just one question. It would be better if you first described the nature of your "interest" and then asked your question. But, in fact, it seems that you are able to answer your question yourself. So, what exactly is your point? Please, be informative and precise in your next posts, if any.

 

[acetate]

But, in fact, it seems that you are able to answer your question yourself. So, what exactly is your point? Please, be informative and precise in your next posts

Well, if Laura actually is a defendant I can't understand why nobody corrected christx11's mistake ... I know it's a little awkward, but when someone says they've read documents that they actually haven't, and then accuse others of not having read the documents, then they should be pulled up on it. As I said - sorry for this being my first post, but I found this thread via articles on news sites and have been following it for a few weeks now - but after nobody pointed out the error I thought maybe I was as much an idiot as VinnieBear because I was under the same impression as him. Hence the question, and my point ... if a question can be a point.

 

[ark]

What mistake EXACTLY. Please, spell it explicitly, and please, provide the EXACT basis, why do you think it WAS a mistake. But, please, be precise, avoid vague words.

 

[acetate]

Is christx11 mistaken in saying this:

Laura was not even served. The only entity served was QFG. Every document shows "Defendant Quantum Future Group" ... Laura is not even the defendant in the case ... 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

The exact basis for my thinking it is a mistake is this document here: http://laura-knight-jadczyk.com/images/hbi_.pdf ... the first page of that document, titled "Civil Cover Sheet", lists the Plaintiff as Higher Balance LLC, dba Higher Balance Institute and the Defendants as Quantum Future Group, Inc; Laura Knight-Jadczyk which would seem to directly contradict the statement by christx11 that "Laura is not even the defendant in the case".

 

[ark]

The exact basis for my thinking it is a mistake is this document here: http://laura-knight-jadczyk.com/images/hbi_.pdf ... the first page of that document, titled "Civil Cover Sheet", lists the Plaintiff as Higher Balance LLC, dba Higher Balance Institute and the Defendants as Quantum Future Group, Inc; Laura Knight-Jadczyk which would seem to directly contradict the statement by christx11 that "Laura is not even the defendant in the case".

Notice that the civil cover sheet you reference was prepared by Pepin's attorneys... Not QFG's. You can read all of QFG's filings which are linked from this post:

http://www.cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=1360.msg62572#msg62572

Pepin's attorneys can write whatever they imagine ....

So, if your basis is what Pepin attorneys imagine, then you will certainly find more contradiction between what they possibly say and what the real facts are. They are being paid for what they do, their goal is clear, probably also to you, but if you are looking for the real data, they are not necessarily there to look for.

You can as well rely on StormBear's posts to godlikeproductions:

Simple crap (StormBear being not a careful reader, just trying to defame):

"Deeper into the Ark academic swamp.
In his CV, he lists this paper...
"TIME OF EVENTS IN QUANTUM THEORY.
Helv. Phys. Acta 69 (1996) 613-635, (with Ph. Blanchard)"
But Penn State lists the paper as being published in 1966.
[link to citeseer.ist.psu.edu]

stormbear, 9/3/2006 12:35 PM

and a more dangerous one:

"Ark's CV is riddled with errors and is probably manufactured to be part of an old academic
espionage cover. Whether it was for the Stasi or the Soviets only further investigation will
show."

StormBear, 9/11/2006 4:19 PM

Or, if you wish, on that of Vincent Bridges

"The new C-Cult movement is a White Op vacuum
cleaner; and as you'll find if read this thread carefully, good auld DARPA Ark seems to have
had some kind of early warning on 9/11."

Vincent Bridges, 3/12/2007 8:18 AM

 

[acetate]

Notice that the civil cover sheet you reference was prepared by Pepin's attorneys... Not QFG's. You can read all of QFG's filings which are linked from this post:

http://www.sott.net/signs/forum/viewtop … 572#p62572

Let's pretend that your distinction is relevant - which it isn't (you see, christx11's post was obviously in reference to the civil motion prepared by Pepin's attorneys). Every single one of the documents prepared by QFG's (and, I assume, Laura's) attorneys that you linked to also names Laura as a defendant. I can't make the basis for my claims that christx11 was mistaken any more objective, clear, or irrefutable than this. Laura is a defendant.

Even if your anti-SLAPP motions are successful, it doesn't change the fact that Laura is a defendant in this case.

So, if your basis is what Pepin attorneys imagine, then you will certainly find more contradiction between what they possibly say and what the real facts are. They are being paid for what they do, their goal is clear, probably also to you, but if you are looking for the real data, they are not necessarily there to look for.

I'm sorry, it is pointless to respond to such dissembling obfuscation.

You can as well rely on StormBear's posts to godlikeproductions:

Simple crap (StormBear being not a careful reader, just trying to defame):

I don't know why you thought this would be relevant? What do the ramblings of third-parties who have nothing to do with the case have to do with my post?

 

[ark]

"I don't know why you thought this would be relevant? What do the ramblings of third-parties who have nothing to do with the case have to do with my post?"

If you can't see, well ... you can't see. Sometimes eyes' problems can be helped. But not always. In "The Art of Seeing" Aldous Huxley was telling us that (Bates method) palming helps. And relaxation, and looking into the light - just glancing at it. Sunlight, apparently, is the best.

"The most important of these techniques of (predominantly) passive relaxation is the process which Dr. Bates called 'palming.' In palming the eyes are closed and covered with the palms of the hands. To avoid exerting any pressure upon the eyeballs (which should never be pressed, rubbed, massaged or otherwise handled) the lower part of the palms should rest upon the cheek bones, the fingers upon the forehead. In this way light can be completely excluded from the eyes, even though the eyeballs remain un­touched."

"This fantastic craze for blacking out the eyes had its origin in certain medical circles, where a panic terror of the ultra-violet radiations in ordinary sunlight developed about a generation back; it has been fostered and popularized by the manufacturers and vendors of coloured glass and celluloid spectacle frames. Their propaganda has been effective. In the Western world, millions of people now wear dark glasses, not merely on the beach, or when driving their cars, but even at dusk, or in the dim-lit corridors of public buildings. Needless to say, the more they wear them, the weaker their eyes become and the greater their need for ' protection' from the light. One can acquire an addiction to goggles, just as one can acquire an addiction to tobacco or alcohol.

This addiction has its origin in the fear of light—a fear which those who have it feel to be justified by the discomfort they ex­perience when their eyes are exposed to too intense a brightness. The question arises: why this fear and this discomfort? Ani­mals get on very happily without goggles; so do primitive men. And even in civilized societies, even in these days when the vir­tues of coloured glass are everywhere persuasively advertised, millions of people face the sunlight without goggles and, so far from suffering any ill effects, see all the better for it. There is every reason to suppose that, physiologically, the eyes are so constructed that they can tolerate illuminations of very high in­tensity. Why, then, do so many people in the contemporary world experience discomfort when exposed to light even of rela­tively low intensity?"

Of course, Huxley was not right in everything. Here and there he was wrong. Yet concerning the palming and looking into the light - I tend to think, based on my own eperience, that he may have been right ....

On the other hand acetate has bad side reactions:

"The use of these proportions but with 3.5 g ammonium acetate gave extensive side-reaction products even when worked up after only 1.5 h heating."

"I would have liked to, and was expecting to, have an exciting visual day, but I seemed to be unable to escape self-analysis. At the peak of the experience I was quite intoxicated and hyper with energy, so that it was not hard to move around. I was quite restless. But I spent most of the day in considerable agony, attempting to break through without success.

I do warn against using acetate or any hallucinogens.

 

[acetate3]

I guess there are limits to Free Speech, eh?

 

[ark]

I guess there are limits to Free Speech, eh?

On this forum, yes. You need to have a functioning brain and proper (according to the standards set by us) manners. If you don't like it - go and exercise your rights to free speech on your own web site, set your own rules, but not in our house, where we set the rules. Do you let anybody into your house and curse you and your family? It's a free speech, isn't it.

Capito?

 

[Laura]

Acetate, it is not so much limits to "free speech" as it is that we simply cannot talk about certain things while legal issues are being discussed by attys. We have tried to convey that to you, but your "subtle cue" sensing mechanism seems to be in the off position. As I mentioned already, the post that focuses on me is a "fishing expedition." The fact that YOU have continued to fish makes you look "interesting" to say the least!

 

[ark]

I deleted the consecutive post of acetate (this time registered as acetate4). He/she seems to be unable to understand one simple meta-rule:

This forum is not the appropriate place for debating the policies of administrators and moderators of this forum.

He/she may freely do it somewhere else - the internet is a huge space!

AcetateX seems to be friendly with the internet, as he/she is able to register using several IP's from different parts of the world, and they do not seem to be simply proxies.

 

[Laura]

One wonders if Eric Pepin uses something like this:

_http://www.conversational-hypnosis.com/?hop=lucidguru

" Who Else Wants To Discover A
Rebel Psychiatrist's Amazing Secret
That Lets You Put People Under Your
Control Quickly & Easily … and Get
Them to Do Anything You Want?"

Now you can unleash your natural ability to...

* Influence anyone to follow your lead
* Get clients & customers to buy from you
* Command new respect with everyone
* Negotiate with stellar success

* Compel colleagues to do what you suggest
* Get just about anyone to say “Yes”
* Have children & teens obey your commands
* Keep your lover(s) eternally loyal

And best of all, they will thank you for the
opportunity to do as you say.

One even wonders if such techniques are what he used on the judge who heard his case? One has to wonder why the guy would have waived a jury trial... ?