Eric Pepin - Higher Balance Institute - Discussion

[gwb1995]

I am so happy that the truth prevailed in this case for you and Sott!! The entire point was to silence Sott, and you Laura, and take down all associated sites. I know Sott, and all of you know this. I don't think the site, or yourself will face any real opposition down the road on this issue. Payment may be slow in coming, but I agree with you that this one is over for the most part.

Now, when it comes to Vinny and his attacks, I am seeing a totally different situation. I am NO legal expert at all, but this is a entirely different animal, IMHO!! This is a 'person', who in my opinion, is using the very same laws, to make his statements, 'attacks', and hide behind the system for protection. Pepin, on the other hand, attacked up front, and lost as was right. I am seeing 'Vinny', as totally on the 'Inside' of the system. An attack on him will result in a all out attack on Sott, ie., all associated connections. The PTB will not allow the truth to ever come to light, in this situation, IMO. When it comes to justice and truth, it is still in the hands of the PTB, and I think it will come down against any lawsuit that Sott would be able to bring forward.

I maybe missing the real truth here, and I hope I am totally wrong.

FWIW

gwb1995

 

[Kesdjan]

Any pathological looks for ways to turn a 'loss' into a 'win', and my concern is that a suit, even one that is won in Laura's favor, will be turned against her as some sort of vindication or martyrdom-like spin.

Good! The only people who were convinced by Bridges' site were pathological anyway. If he turns a loss in court into some kind of vindication, it will just make him look more ridiculous and alienate him further, imo.

Some key points from the ruling to consider:

A defamatory statement is a factual assertion that subjects another to "hatred, contempt or ridicule" or tends "to diminish the esteem, respect, goodwill or confidence in which [the other] is held or to excite adverse, derogatory or unpleasant feelings or opinions against [the other]."
[...]
When deciding whether a statement is capable of a defamatory meaning, the court must look to "the extent of figurative or hyperbolic
language used and the reasonable expectations of the audience in that particular situation."
[...]
To be actionable, a statement must be not only defamatory, but also false.
[...]
[The court determines whether a statement is a factual assertion or opinion by examining]
(1) "the statement in its broad context, which includes the general tenor of the entire
work, the subject of the statements, the setting, and the format of the work"; (2) "the specific
context and content of the statements, analyzing the extent of figurative or hyperbolic language
used and the reasonable expectations of the audience in that particular situation"; and (3)
"whether the statement itself is sufficiently factual to be susceptible of being proved true or false."

I think the "raffle scam", as just one example, fits all of these criteria.

 

[Laura]

I think the "raffle scam", as just one example, fits all of these criteria.

Indeed it does. As I have noted many times, we keep ALL records and it would be a simple matter to prove a prima facie case that Vinnie and Stormbear and Jay Weidner and gang are asserting lies as truth and claiming some "inside knowledge" that is clearly bogus.

Another assertion that is defamatory is his claim that I am "wanted by the police" and am a "criminal on the run". Notice that Judge Haggerty mentions that the court conducted an independent investigation (that's probably why it took so long to issue the opinion) and clearly he found absolutely no basis in fact for any of the assertions made by the Pepin gang which were based on the Vinnie rants. Judges have a lot more leeway/power to gather information than the average person does, I should think.

So, we've been investigated by a federal judge and he found that there is no evidence for any of that nonsense. And surely, if he had found that there was some outstanding case against me for any reason at all, some action would have been the result. But that is not the case. As we have been saying all along, all those accusations are a bunch of hooey, just out and out lies. Obviously, if we had anything to hide along that line, we would not have mounted a defense!

We notice that there is a clear distinction between opinion and assertion of fact. Vinnie bases his rants on assertions of fact. He claims "inside knowledge" though he never produces one bit of evidence that has anything to do with being evidential.

Vinnie claims that I was tried for attempted murder and makes all kinds of claims about that which he asserts are based on the "court record." He never produces the court record and quotes from the decision in that case directly followed by his opinion. In fact, he ignores the fact that I have produced a true copy of a letter from the attorney in that case that states the exact opposite of his assertions of fact.

I could go on. The point is, there is a very interesting point in this case which is that Pepin's attys were saying that my statements could be considered to be "fact" by a reader when it was clear that they were opinions about things that were reported in a newspaper article about a legal case and statements of a judge.

Vinnie, on the other hand, quotes no newspaper articles or legal opinions or matters of fact, about which he offers his opinion, clearly stated as an opinion. He writes about my private life, the lives of my children and friends, which is not a matter of public interest or concern, and does so as though he is reporting facts from "inside knowledge." So, it seems to me that he is really on thin ice.

Obviously, the public forums where he posts things cannot be held accountable under the CDA, but as individuals who are making assertions of claimed fact that are, in fact, lies, Vinnie, Jay and Stormbear could easily be found to NOT be expressing opinion about a matter of public interest, but rather asserting lies as truth all over the internet.

I don't think that any of them own anything, so there would be no real financial advantage, but if a judge ruled against them, everything they have written would have to come down and if they did it again after such a ruling, they would risk being thrown in jail.

What would be interesting would be if we filed a motion for discovery - and if we had a prima facie case, as it seems we very well might have - then we could definitely trawl through all their finances and what they own and who they are connected with, etc. THAT might be very interesting. There are a couple of sites where Vinnie publishes his rants that the owners might be included in such a case because the rants are not published as opinions on a public forum, Jeff Rense, for example, educateyourself.org and even Rick Ross. Heck, if Pepin can sue QFG, QFS, SOTT and me all at once, don't see any reason why we couldn't include a whole slew of associated defendants in one case too! I DO have emails showing a close relationship between Rense and Weidner even though Rense claims otherwise publicly. Rense and Rick Ross might have some bux to lose.

All in all, this case has been VERY educational!

 

[Iconoclast]

I'm wondering if it would be worthwhile filing suit. After all, we have attys who know us, know our situation so all we would have to do would be to hand over all the tons of files of the Vinnie Defamation and Slander project we've been collecting over the years. Since our corporation is in California, we would naturally file suit there.

What do ya'll think?

i am not at all versed in law, but i think the question is in which area this newly aquired sum of money will do the most to further the goals of this site.
(further) exposing one of the myriad of COINTELPRO operations
or putting it into spreading the essential information on psychopathy as much as possible.

(sorry, but i generally dislike the whole "law & suits" swamp sooo much, i see every cent pumped into it as a waste)

;)

 

[Laura]

i am not at all versed in law, but i think the question is in which area this newly aquired sum of money will do the most to further the goals of this site.

(further) exposing one of the myriad of COINTELPRO operations
or putting it into spreading the essential information on psychopathy as much as possible.

Well, is it just a matter of exposure of Vinnie, Weidner and gang, or defense so that we can do more? One wonders how much good we could do if there wasn't such a blather of defamation. You can easily see how they work: following me around the internet and no matter what the discussion is about, they start their slanderous attacks. That really does interfere in my ability to say or do as much as I could and, by association, SOTT and QFG. So, despite the fact that their COINTELPRO-type activity proves (to many, at least), that we are doing a valuable work, that we must be on the right track, there are certainly many others - less critical thinkers - who are taken in by their crap.

This is an issue that has to be sorted and evaluated. There are pluses and cons on either side. After all, look at the millions Pepin was suing us for! I suspect that we could sue for a LOT more and include a whole raft of suspects, and who knows? We might actually end up getting something. If nothing else, we get a similar result to the one Stan Tenen got regarding danwinter: he got ownership of danwinter.com where a notice was posted by Dan confessing his guilt and lies and plagiarism, etc. Geeze... what if we were awarded ownership of some of the domain names where the libel has been posted with a court ordered confession and apology from Bridges, Weidner, Williams, Rense, Ross, and others posted there? A sort of line by line "I wrote or published this and it was untrue and I knew that it was untrue when I wrote/published it and I apologize for the harm and/or damage I've caused" type of thing.

I dunno... it's all in the realm of discussion right now.

 

[Iconoclast]

laura, i know far too little about the whole mess, but i have complete trust that you guys & girls are gonna make the right decision!

 

[Erna]

[quote author=Laura]
One wonders how much good we could do if there wasn't such a blather of defamation.
[/quote]

This is something I always thought as well. That ‘cult’ word is enough to send anyone running. It’s about truth and justice, and while you’re on speed, keep going. This was always going to be a battle, you don’t turn the other cheek when fighting evil.

And you sure as hell don’t ignore evil, because that's when evil flourishes. Always gotta sound that whistle, even if it takes up resources in the form of energy, time and money. It's about exposing it.

That’s just how I see it.

 

[RedFox]

I'd been hoping for a while it would turn out this way so that you guys had the resources available to be able to have a greater effect.

It would be helpful, though, if some of ya'll would read the judges order and offer some analyses. I'm not sure it's worth the time or money. We often think that Vinnie has actually done us more good than harm - it's great advertising, that's for sure!

Perhaps this has been discussed before and I'm remembering it in an odd sort of way...but one of my views of him is he helps sort the wheat from the chaff....for those truly ready for the truth they gravitate here anyway...
Perhaps its down to what sort of gravity appeals mostly to the person?

This is an issue that has to be sorted and evaluated. There are pluses and cons on either side. After all, look at the millions Pepin was suing us for! I suspect that we could sue for a LOT more and include a whole raft of suspects, and who knows? We might actually end up getting something. If nothing else, we get a similar result to the one Stan Tenen got regarding danwinter: he got ownership of danwinter.com where a notice was posted by Dan confessing his guilt and lies and plagiarism, etc. Geeze... what if we were awarded ownership of some of the domain names where the libel has been posted with a court ordered confession and apology from Bridges, Weidner, Williams, Rense, Ross, and others posted there? A sort of line by line "I wrote or published this and it was untrue and I knew that it was untrue when I wrote/published it and I apologize for the harm and/or damage I've caused" type of thing.

Wow, what a great idea! To see a public apology by them all over the net!
Like getting them to wipe the mud they've slung off the outside of the lighthouse....
Which leaves room for the light to shine brighter....and more people to see it.
I guess this is where my fear (the same one I had when Pepin sued, the fear of _loosing_ sott) comes back into play.
So trying to keep it balanced, I'll add my thoughts and see what you think.

First thought is your current position of little known/low resources (at least from my perspective) would change.
So does keeping this position suit your goals? I guess I'm thinking 4th way in some respects. To keep the strategic enclosure of staying in the background, would it help or hinder sott development as a whole?
I remember one of G's quotes being about a handful of the population being in possession of esoteric substance, it becoming diluted (inefective) and harmful if spread too thin. But I do not have enough understanding of the Work to know if the analogy fits sott current standing.

Having more resources would attract more flys for sure.

Perhaps my (slightly fear based) thoughts are along the lines of 'better the devil you know'?

I find myself wondering who or what would replace Vinny. Because they could not be carbon copies.
And if you make a louder impact, the attacks may well be louder (bigger).
What would the PTB do if several COINTELPRO agents where silenced (or about to be silenced)?

From some of the things I've read you may already have been through the mill on this when you moved to France....but the thought it there none the less.

....I'm reminded of history...the need to speak out vs the need to keep quiet or loose your head (literally).
But maybe I'm being a bit to body centric in that thought. And perhaps my fear comes from all the pathology in society.

Lastly how much more light does the world need right now? Odd question I know.
Quite a lot in my opinion....so this one would probably shine a 1000 times brighter than you'd expect if you cleaned the dirt of the lenses...
Perhaps my flu's getting the better of me here.

My conclusion however is this.
What would you do/expect if you won, and suddenly found yourself 1000 times brighter than expected?
I don't think I can see past my own reactions at the moment. Part of me does feel that the impact of such a event (i.e. winning) would be larger than expected.

 

[Gimpy]

Thank you Redfox, for putting into words exactly what I was thinking, but couldn't express! (not a good communication day on this end)

Gimpy
fighting a stomach bug
myself

I'd been hoping for a while it would turn out this way so that you guys had the resources available to be able to have a greater effect.

It would be helpful, though, if some of ya'll would read the judges order and offer some analyses. I'm not sure it's worth the time or money. We often think that Vinnie has actually done us more good than harm - it's great advertising, that's for sure!

Perhaps this has been discussed before and I'm remembering it in an odd sort of way...but one of my views of him is he helps sort the wheat from the chaff....for those truly ready for the truth they gravitate here anyway...
Perhaps its down to what sort of gravity appeals mostly to the person?

This is an issue that has to be sorted and evaluated. There are pluses and cons on either side. After all, look at the millions Pepin was suing us for! I suspect that we could sue for a LOT more and include a whole raft of suspects, and who knows? We might actually end up getting something. If nothing else, we get a similar result to the one Stan Tenen got regarding danwinter: he got ownership of danwinter.com where a notice was posted by Dan confessing his guilt and lies and plagiarism, etc. Geeze... what if we were awarded ownership of some of the domain names where the libel has been posted with a court ordered confession and apology from Bridges, Weidner, Williams, Rense, Ross, and others posted there? A sort of line by line "I wrote or published this and it was untrue and I knew that it was untrue when I wrote/published it and I apologize for the harm and/or damage I've caused" type of thing.

Wow, what a great idea! To see a public apology by them all over the net!
Like getting them to wipe the mud they've slung off the outside of the lighthouse....
Which leaves room for the light to shine brighter....and more people to see it.
I guess this is where my fear (the same one I had when Pepin sued, the fear of _loosing_ sott) comes back into play.
So trying to keep it balanced, I'll add my thoughts and see what you think.

First thought is your current position of little known/low resources (at least from my perspective) would change.
So does keeping this position suit your goals? I guess I'm thinking 4th way in some respects. To keep the strategic enclosure of staying in the background, would it help or hinder sott development as a whole?
I remember one of G's quotes being about a handful of the population being in possession of esoteric substance, it becoming diluted (inefective) and harmful if spread too thin. But I do not have enough understanding of the Work to know if the analogy fits sott current standing.

Having more resources would attract more flys for sure.

Perhaps my (slightly fear based) thoughts are along the lines of 'better the devil you know'?

I find myself wondering who or what would replace Vinny. Because they could not be carbon copies.
And if you make a louder impact, the attacks may well be louder (bigger).
What would the PTB do if several COINTELPRO agents where silenced (or about to be silenced)?

From some of the things I've read you may already have been through the mill on this when you moved to France....but the thought it there none the less.

....I'm reminded of history...the need to speak out vs the need to keep quiet or loose your head (literally).
But maybe I'm being a bit to body centric in that thought. And perhaps my fear comes from all the pathology in society.

Lastly how much more light does the world need right now? Odd question I know.
Quite a lot in my opinion....so this one would probably shine a 1000 times brighter than you'd expect if you cleaned the dirt of the lenses...
Perhaps my flu's getting the better of me here.

My conclusion however is this.
What would you do/expect if you won, and suddenly found yourself 1000 times brighter than expected?
I don't think I can see past my own reactions at the moment. Part of me does feel that the impact of such a event (i.e. winning) would be larger than expected.

 

[Joe]

I'm well aware of the tactics and lies that Bridges and Co have used over the years against Laura and Sott, and having read the ruling and definition of defamation, it's clear that a case against Bridges and co by Laura would have a very good chance of succeeding. It would also be very interesting to see precisely who Bridges hangs out with in private, not to mention see him forced to retract his lies and expose himself for the obsessed slime ball that he is.

Perceval

 

[anart]

I'm well aware of the tactics and lies that Bridges and Co have used over the years against Laura and Sott, and having read the ruling and definition of defamation, it's clear that a case against Bridges and co by Laura would have a very good chance of succeeding. It would also be very interesting to see precisely who Bridges hangs out with in private, not to mention see him forced to retract his lies and expose himself for the obsessed slime ball that he is.

Perceval

I completely agree.  Laura has documents - hard proof - that the things that have been written (and continue to be written) by Weidner, Bridges and gang are patently false - yet they continue as if they are untouchable.  Well, now we know they aren't untouchable.   Once we lift up that rock that is VB and his 'buddies', no telling who we'll find under it - but it will be very, very interesting indeed.

One thing the Pepin ruling has shown is that, even in this day and age, when the facts are clear - they can prevail.  Laura has all the facts on her side as far as VB/Weidner, et al, are concerned - so "forcing him to expose himself for the obsessed slime ball that he is" sounds quite nice.

 

[RedFox]

Thanks gimpy, but I'm not sure I expressed myself clearly enough.

From what I've been able to read and understand, it does appear that Laura stands a good chance of winning.

Laura has documents - hard proof - that the things that have been written (and continue to be written) by Weidner, Bridges and gang are patently false - yet they continue as if they are untouchable. Well, now we know they aren't untouchable. Once we lift up that rock that is VB and his 'buddies', no telling who we'll find under it - but it will be very, very interesting indeed.

I agree with what you and Perceval are saying.
I think your comment helps me express what I was trying to say better. That being, is its in Laura's/sott's best interest to tip its hand (strategic enclosure), when they still 'think' they are untouchable?
I am not saying that Laura doesn't deserve to have the deformations pointed out as the lies that they are, that I am all for. No disrespect to Laura, but I feel a certain amount of protectiveness towards her (and I think most of the people here do to), so the idea of getting 'even' with the ones that have defamed her is very appealing on that level....and my reading equipment flags up the desire for this 'even' (so potentially I'm just reading my own situation and not the actually one?)......
I guess I'm trying to work out if there is a trap door or land mine under the rock? Could Vinnie's 'buddies' theoretically have deep pockets and keep any law suit tied up until resources are spent (general law keeping Laura focused on A influences)?

Maybe I'm being to cautious about the potential positive/learning experience :)
Perhaps I'm also mixing the work too much into this, and identifying Laura as sott...

Do you guys feel that tiny little tug (smiling/glinty eyes) for 'getting even' with Vinny? If so are you guys able to do a better job of separating that tug from the idea of a potential law suit against him (and the potential good it could do)? Where does the tug for 'even' lead you? I'm sure I can see that tug in this thread, perhaps it is my projection?
I'm not sure my flu will let me express this any better.

 

[Johnno]

This is an issue that has to be sorted and evaluated. There are pluses and cons on either side. After all, look at the millions Pepin was suing us for! I suspect that we could sue for a LOT more and include a whole raft of suspects, and who knows? We might actually end up getting something. If nothing else, we get a similar result to the one Stan Tenen got regarding danwinter: he got ownership of danwinter.com where a notice was posted by Dan confessing his guilt and lies and plagiarism, etc. Geeze... what if we were awarded ownership of some of the domain names where the libel has been posted with a court ordered confession and apology from Bridges, Weidner, Williams, Rense, Ross, and others posted there? A sort of line by line "I wrote or published this and it was untrue and I knew that it was untrue when I wrote/published it and I apologize for the harm and/or damage I've caused" type of thing.

I dunno... it's all in the realm of discussion right now.

Just had a look at Dan Winter dot com and Stan Tenen has posted a reward for Dan's whereabouts to recover $140,000 for outstanding legal fees! Seems like he is still on the lam.

REWARD
Meru Foundation is offering substantial rewards and "finders' fees" for information that leads to the collection of the $140,000 in court costs and interest owed to it by Mr. Daniel E. Winter.

If you have done business with Mr. Winter, or have information with regard to his business and/or business partners, please contact reward@danwinter.com for further information.
Meru Foundation is also accumulating evidence for possible future legal action (US and world-wide) with regard to Mr. Winter's (and those acting with and for him) new plagiarism and disparagement. If you have purchased copies of Mr. Winter's illicit works, if you have attended presentations by Mr. Winter, or those working with and for him, or if you have other first-hand knowledge or physical evidence of the new -- and quite obvious -- works of plagiarism and disparagement, please contact action@danwinter.com.

 

[Erna]

[quote author=RedFox]
so the idea of getting 'even' with the ones that have defamed her is very appealing
[/quote]

[quote author=RedFox]
Do you guys feel that tiny little tug (smiling/glinty eyes) for 'getting even' with Vinny?
[/quote]

I don't think it's so much about getting even as it is about someone's (actually the whole group) life's work not being able to reach it's full potential as long as that crap is all over the show. Since the internet is the platform being utilized, I can't see how you can not give it a go. The success of any info on the internet relies on how many websites it can link to or who links to them, and how many websites / blogs / discussion forums can be populated or involved.

So every time one of the following words pop up anywhere on the internet: ponerology, psychopathology, Laura, any of the editors, SOTT, Cassiopaea etc. etc. etc., Vinnie & Co. gets an email in their inbox from Google Alerts and jump in and do their thing. Like those thingies in the Matrix - "search and destroy".

That .... and of course ... "Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned" 

 

[mamadrama]

Just want to give you a few other things to consider. I was IMing with my first ex (not the psycho) who is a lawyer and has done a good deal of federal work. I asked him about countersuing Pepin & HBI. This is the transcript of our IM:

Black Swan: a forum that i read was sued by a person for defamation, libel etc.
Black Swan: the case was filed in Oregon which has anti-SLAP laws
Black Swan: are you familiar with that?
Ex: was it a famous person or not very critical
Black Swan: well not really, but known. the judge dismissed the case based on anti-SLAP laws
Black Swan: plaintiff has to pay legal fees of forum
Black Swan: forum owner is wondering whether to counter sue
Ex: no should not sue
Ex: anti slap two requirement public forum
Ex: and
Ex: public discussion for public betterment
Ex: can not sue at all for defamaiton
Ex: court ruled blogs etc are public forum
Ex: so that is why case dismissed
Ex: they get fees
Ex: never reached issue of whether or not they actually defamed --which they might have--- because they are in a sense immune
Ex: no counter suit
Ex: ok?
Black Swan: ok just one more thing in judge's conclusion he says counsel for parties shall confer & file Joint Status Report proposing the appropriate further disposition of the action... is this standard?
Ex: yes either extensive hearing as to amout of fees or agreement status conference common will try to twist arms to agree
Black Swan: so they'll say they shouldn't pay, the other side will say they should and the judge will determine how much?
Ex: Already found has to pay fees now down to simply amount
Black Swan: well isn't that pretty straight forward. won't they pay what was charged to client?
Ex: NOOOOO will be over 50% to argue over always padded hourly rate lots of time wont be counted etc etc Lucky to get 50% of actual cost billed if in FL
Black Swan: ok good to know
Black Swan: then what chance do you have of collecting the amount?
Black Swan: you know the guy's assets are in another name etc?
Ex: will get some amount for sure should gladly take 75% and settle if they agree
Black Swan: but how do you actually collect the money aren't there tons of ways to avoid this?
Black Swan: what if the forum person has suffered severe health issues as a result of this suit? is that a basis for countersuing?
Ex: no no suit for that since not bodfily harm
Ex: no none
Black Swan: well the initial suit was for financial harm
EX: to collect the money take extensive depo of assets and every thing he did since filing suit
Ex: no has to be bodily harm to get anything but actual economic loss
Black Swan: well she has really been hounded by these people all over the internet and she's wondering if it's worth making a point in court to shut them up
Ex: nope take the win publicize the fee amount awarded as the lesson
Black Swan: ok thanks

So these are some things to keep in mind when consdering whether pursuing this further in court. Just my two cents, but I think it's better to put the time, energy, and money elsewhere.