What Bully Agents Don’t Understand about Court Process, a Tutorial Inspired by Pajama Pundits and Other Sanctimonious Snipers

Posted on April 21, 2019

1


In recent weeks, I was text-messaged by an apparent supporter of my false accusers of over a decade, a man called Micah Doris. This post is inspired by him as well as by worthier subjects of censure, like critics of those who complain of the costs and consequences of court procedures that invite inflated allegations or outright lies. These critics aren’t just bloggers or pseudo-journalists employed by the likes of Jezebel.com; they include members of the institutional press. Commentaries by these doctrinaire slouches can be found among the pages of The New York Times.


A casual Internet search will turn up numerous websites predominantly trafficked by women on which respondents can ventilate their interpersonal woes. These typically concern deceitful partners, the deceitful partners are usually men, and the moderators and commenters on these sites unreservedly conclude that lies are toxic.

They are. They’re ruinous.

This conviction is expressed with considerably less vehemence, however, when complainants of lies reveal the medium of treachery was a police report or testimony to a judge.

Why?

Dogma is one answer. To liberal feminists, for example, it’s blasphemous to question claims of abuse made through “official channels”—or any other kind. Their fundamentalist tenet runs something like “Women don’t lie about abuse.” It’s a religious thing with them (possibly a majority of whom would scoff at any other organized faith).

Another answer is fear. Amusingly, the same people who contend that being accused is no big deal are very loath to question government, because they’re afraid of it unless they’ve got a crowd of picketers flanking them, and their cause has the support of Twitter followers and NPR. Their own fear of bad attention belies their assertion that there’s no trauma attached to being the isolated target of a pointed finger.

In other words, they’re full of mierda.

One such, a fella named Micah Doris, anonymously texted me in February, possibly in violation of a hard-won court injunction prohibiting a woman who accused me for years from ever doing it again—or surveilling or contacting me, or inducing anyone else to. Mr. Doris’s message to me, in emphatic capitals, was “STOP.” His faith was that people he considered “good” were and therefore should be spared from criticism.

This faith is instructive.

Avvo.com is the premier “lawyer monitor” on the Internet. The two lawyers who represented the family that attacked me, Tiffany, Phil, and Ray Bredfeldt, folks Mr. Doris evidently thinks are super-duper, are Jeffrey Marks and Chris Scileppi, and both of these guys were employed in two or more actions brought against me by the Bredfeldts, who were not without the means to hire reputable attorneys. (By unscrupulous means, which I imagine are his modus operandi, Marks coerced an unconstitutional injunction against me from a since disgraced judge, Carmine Cornelio, in 2013 that was only unraveled last summer after an amicus brief was filed with the Arizona Court of Appeals by UCLA law professor and eminent First Amendment scholar Eugene Volokh. During the interim five years, I was unlawfully forbidden by the court from talking about my own case, including by word of mouth, causing what the U.S. Supreme Court has held to be an “irreparable injury.”)

Below are one of Marks’s negative client reviews (bottom) and Scileppi’s only client review (top).


Tucson attorney Jeffrey Marks, Tucson attorney Chris Scileppi

Tucson attorney Chris Scileppi has a single, one-star review on Avvo.com (top). Unlike Scileppi, who looks very dapper in a suit, Jeffrey Marks is conspicuously fat and looks like halitosis personified, and he probably depends on being the better guerrilla marketer (“25% OFF ALL MONTH LONG[!],” announces one of his old Facebook ads). Marks has reviews that are either over-the-top raves (“The best lawyer in town!”) or pans (as the one on the bottom), that is, they’re five-star or one-star. There are no in-betweens. What this suggests to me—I was scholastically trained as a critic—is that the positive, five-star remarks were solicited.


The lawyers, essentially labeled a crook and a liar by former clients of theirs, are dumpster divers. Neither of their profiles features an endorsement from another attorney, and Avvo notes, besides, that one of them, Scileppi, has been censured in two states for misconduct. The same attorney attained minor notoriety for what was arguably a cheap stunt pulled during a child rape trial in which he represented one of the alleged rapists of a 15-year-old girl.

The lesson here for the feminist crowd, which only understands the law in abstract, partisan terms, is that attorneys, discounting public defenders, are not do-gooders; they’re mercenaries. They’ll alternatively defend or destroy a female complaining of abuse. It just depends on who’s paying.


Tucson attorney Chris Scileppi, attorney Christopher Scileppi


A guy like this Micah Doris would probably say his friends “didn’t know” they’d hired douchebags.

Consider this sampling of evidence and pleadings to the court intended to implicate me, which incidentally spans many years (years during which I repeatedly asked for help from people like Micah Doris):





Micah Doris





Plain to anyone who has achieved fifth-grade literacy should be that the plaintiff is either wacko or a malicious liar. Twelve years of my life were preoccupied with this “mischief,” and it remains indelibly on my permanent public record.

What someone like the creep who texted me, this Micah, should ask themselves is what attorney other than a douchebag would have touched such a case with rubber gloves and a pool brush? Micah’s well-to-do friends didn’t accidently hire douchebags.

Note: Had they prevailed, I would be judicially prohibited from sharing any of the foregoing information or perspectives, First Amendment be damned. I would also be in jail. Note too that the statements quoted above span seven years and in cases cost a lot of money to procure. Most people don’t have the means or the stamina it takes to obtain evidence they can use to defend themselves with even in a boondock medium like this one.

This is what allows gutbucket gurus tweeting in their bathrobes to go on arguing to their clicking claques that false accusation is rare.

Oh, and trivial.

Copyright © 2019 RestrainingOrderAbuse.com

*I had to renounce any legal claims I had against my accusers in order to obtain the court injunction that shut them down, the court injunction Micah Doris may have casually blown off. Damage claims, for abuse of process, constitutional injury, and possibly civil conspiracy (i.e., attorney collusion), could conceivably have been in the seven figures (and could have been covered by their attorneys’ malpractice insurance had the Bredfeldts come clean in 2016 or 2017 or 2018). Micah Doris is a nurse, which requires some education to become. If he can’t discern the true motives for his friends’ actions, namely, protection of their images and wealth (fuck everything else), it’s because he chooses not to (and is accordingly no better than they are, and possibly worse…because there’s nothing lower than a flunkey).

Advertisements