UPDATE: Allegations by psychiatric patient Tiffany Bredfeldt, wife of Phil Bredfeldt, the subject of this post, were invalidated in July of 2018, and Phil’s wife is expressly prohibited by order of the court from making false or frivolous accusations to law enforcement officials in the future. Phil Bredfeldt’s own claims to the court were dismissed entirely.

Philip (“Phil”) Bredfeldt is a geoscientist employed by Weston Solutions in Austin, Texas. The writer babysat Mr. Bredfeldt’s wife for three months in 2005 (September through early December). During the 2016 court procedure this post describes, the latest of many initiated or inspired by this couple over a 10-year period, Mr. Bredfeldt testified he “never met” the writer, which is true. No one the writer knows ever so much as glimpsed or heard a word about a “Phil” when his wife was a regular presence on the property where the writer lives, and Mrs. Bredfeldt took care never to use her last name at all.

In 2012, one of Phil Bredfeldt and his wife’s witnesses (in both 2013 and this year) told the writer that Mr. Bredfeldt had been known as “the phantom husband” in 2005, because none of his wife’s pals had ever seen him either, and his wife “never talked about Phil at all” (but did complain of marital dissatisfaction and did talk about the writer to “EVERYONE…at the time”). The same witness (their witness) said Phil Bredfeldt’s wife, Tiffany, had been “considering an affair” with the writer and that she had known Tiffany Bredfeldt for “years maybe?” before learning the woman was married herself.

Among Phil Bredfeldt’s slated witnesses in 2016 was his daddy, who was also Phil’s best man in 2001. Over the years the writer’s family has been sickened by Tiffany and Phil Bredfeldt’s effluvia, Dr. Ray Bredfeldt, an M.D.—but no less a political creature for that—rented his credentials to Arkansas Blue Cross and Blue Shield. The starting salary for a regional medical director approaches $200,000, and Dr. Bredfeldt held the position for some dozen years. Above is his mugshot from Blue and You, the corporation’s quarterly magazine. It conveys the correct impression of caring and trustworthy professionalism. When Dr. Bredfeldt’s family’s invasive violations began in 2006, the writer’s mother was in chemotherapy for breast cancer, and his father was hospitalized and died, skeletal and too weak to move, while the Bredfeldts’ latest attack was in full swing. Dr. Bredfeldt, who has been a deacon of the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) and lauded “Arkansas Family Doctor of the Year,” has shown nothing but indifference. To avoid paying any damages caused by his family’s conduct, he has temporized for over 10 years and was last summer prepared to testify in court to have the writer incarcerated to conceal what this preface bares.

These facts are undisputed: Phil Bredfeldt’s wife was frequently outside of the writer’s residence at night (alone) in 2005, never wore a wedding ring, and never identified herself as married or made any reference to a spouse. She gave in evidence to the court months later (March 2006) the statement that the writer had been “nice” to her and that she had “never felt the need to explain” to him that she was married. Then Mrs. Bredfeldt testified to multiple judges (including in her husband’s presence) that the writer had serially sexually harassed her. Fully seven years later, in 2013, the court was told the writer had “propositioned” Mrs. Bredfeldt and “ask[ed] for” or “offered her sex.” During the same procedure—a two-hour hearing with a six-month coda that violated both the state and federal constitutions—the court was informed Mrs. Bredfeldt “would not wear a wedding ring” while she was outside of the writer’s residence at night.

A normal mind might wonder why a woman’s husband wouldn’t have intervened if she said she was being sexually harassed. Most (non-phantom) husbands would.

Mr. Bredfeldt testified to the court in the procedure this post introduces that he only heard the writer’s name for the first time months after the alleged sexual harassment…right about the time the writer demanded (in three emails sent over a weekend) that Mrs. Bredfeldt explain her behaviors at his home—which behaviors shouldn’t be difficult for the reader to imagine (“Where I come from, it’s considered rude not to at least invite a person onto your porch”/“Breasts aren’t shaped that way”/“Are you cold?”).

Mr. Bredfeldt compensated for his absenteeism in 2005 by emailing the writer and calling him a “SICK FUCK.” The Bredfeldts sent the email and cc’ed it to the University of Arizona Police Department the same day they got a restraining order, which prohibited the writer from responding. The officer the email was cc’ed to, who said the couple had been on the phone with her when the email was sent, told the writer she believed Mrs. Bredfeldt “wore the pants.” The court injunction Mrs. Bredfeldt secured emphatically forbade the writer from speaking to her husband, a total stranger whose name twice appears on the form—including in a section demarcated for little kids at risk.

No allegations of sexual harassment were ever made to the police, whom Mr. Bredfeldt’s wife provided with a completely different narrative from the one she would present to the court two days later (and then three weeks after that, three months after that, and seven years after that). Mrs. Bredfeldt told the police that she had admitted to the writer she was married and that he’d subsequently left her alone…but did seize her phone, copy her number from its back against her wishes, and “[proceed] to contact her.” The writer never spoke to Mrs. Bredfeldt on the phone. There was no need: He could find her outside of his house most nights.

Phil Bredfeldt identifies himself as a victim and recently testified to the court that he’s “frighten[ed].” The relief from “fear” the Bredfeldts have sought is punishment of the writer for reporting what he has in this preface. That’s supposed to make them feel “safer.” During his testimony, Mr. Bredfeldt avoided meeting the writer’s gaze. The Bredfeldts’ game has gone on for over a decade…and it has eroded lives.

It’s a novel argument—and impressive as much for its preposterousness as for its ability to influence a judge.

In the latest of a series of abusive prosecutions initiated or inspired by Tiffany and Phil Bredfeldt against the author of this site, it was alleged on July 15, 2016, by the couple’s attorney, Christopher Scileppi, that I had “contacted” the Bredfeldts by repeatedly setting off Google alerts that one of them had followed the above steps to activate.

Any time a specific word or phrase Phil Bredfeldt had asked Google to be alerted about appeared in anything I published online (like “red herring,” say), an email was automatically generated by Google and transmitted to Mr. Bredfeldt.

This, attorney Christopher Scileppi told Pima County Superior Court Judge Richard Gordon, represented a communication FROM me TO Mr. Bredfeldt.

Why the ridiculous stretch? I’ve had no contact whatever with Tiffany Bredfeldt, a woman who was routinely to be found outside of my residence at night in 2005, since her accusations against me began in the spring of 2006, and I’ve never met the husband Mrs. Bredfeldt denied having. Tiffany—and I only knew her as “Tiffany”; she was careful to hide her last name—presented a cover story to the police and courts in 2006 that she has repeatedly sued me to maintain for over 10 years. She says I stalked and sexually harassed her. Never mind that I have never been to her house (at midnight or any other hour)…or eagerly told her about my body or my underwear.

Role reversal by false complainants is standard operating procedure.

Because no-contact-in-over-10-years more than lames the allegation that I have “stalked” and “harassed” the couple, they had to get creative. Satisfaction of stalking and harassment statutes requires that some conduct be directed AT the so-called victim (e.g., phone calls TO him or her, or emails or texts sent TO him or her). In the past decade, I’ve only ever written ABOUT the couple, who live in a different state, and speech ABOUT people is protected by the First Amendment. So the Bredfeldts concocted a workaround: They set up an automated service to contact them and then alleged that contact from Google equated to contact from me.

In testimony to the court, Phil Bredfeldt explains how he “set up” the Google Alert he claimed represented “contact” by the author of this blog.

What should have elicited a derisive scoff from the judge instead inspired his rapt attention.

Judge Gordon made no effort to conceal he knew little about computers or the Internet, and Mr. Scileppi, the plaintiffs’ attorney (a criminal attorney), produced an expert witness on computers and “cybercrimes” to testify (also a criminal attorney). The expert, Brian Chase, a scrupulous man, did not propose to the court that a Google alert represented a communication from me to the plaintiffs. But the effectiveness of nonsense arguments isn’t determined by their legitimacy; it’s determined by the air of legitimacy that the right theatrical elements confer.

What distracts, works.

Here’s an analogous argument: I ask someone to monitor my neighbor and tell me every time she says good morning; she says good morning every day; thus I’m harassed every day. My spy’s bulletins to me about my neighbor’s activities are “the same” as if my neighbor contacted me.

Why absurd arguments work like magic spells in cases like this is that what should be obvious becomes muddied by prejudicial associations: “court order,” “Internet,” “cyberstalking,” etc. Such arguments also exploit judicial credulity. They’re conceived to manipulate the court.

Mr. Scileppi concluded his remarks during the hearing by asserting I was manipulating the court.

Get it?

Copyright © 2016 RestrainingOrderAbuse.com

*I was represented by a talented lawyer, Kent F. Davis, whose appointment was only permitted because the plaintiffs insisted that I be jailed. Mr. Davis objected to the “entire line of questioning” during the July 15 hearing, because it was irrelevant. A good half of the day was consumed by testimony about “tags,” the keywords at the bottoms of posts that catalog their topics (and that haven’t been used by any major search engine in forever). There are very few conceivable ways that tags could be used that wouldn’t be constitutionally protected. Mr. Davis’s objection was offhandedly overruled. Had he not been there to demand a stay of the proceedings, what do you suppose the outcome would have been? And had he not been there, who in the system do you suppose would have cared?