GaLyn Hargis, Mother of a Freak Who Accused Me to the FBI, Could Put This on Her Pinterest Page

February 5, 2021August 8, 2023Moderator 4 Comments

GaLyn Hargis, GaLyn Hargis, GaLyn Hargis, GaLyn Hargis, GaLyn Hargis, GaLyn Hargis, Tiffany Hargis, Jon Hargis, Tim Hargis, Timothy Hargis, Arkansas

The images juxtaposed above (dated approximately 2005, 2016, and 2022) are of the same person, a serial liar named Tiffany (Hargis) Bredfeldt, daughter of GaLyn Hargis.

Below is a photo of one of the few mementos of my father I possess, besides the plastic box containing his ashes. The flip phone was returned to me by the nursing home where he starved to death in 2016.

My dad’s other belongings, things that my brother and I had made for him when we were kids, for example, were unceremoniously dumped in a landfill after the bank foreclosed on his home. That was while I was last in court with the freak daughter of GaLyn Hargis: for two years, under threat of imprisonment, based on a web of lies her daughter had been spinning for a decade to conceal an extramarital dalliance at my home.

GaLyn Hargis, the wife of retired Arkansas banker Tim Hargis, considered launching a Pinterest page during the interim, I guess, and then aborted the project. I gather that her son-in-law ditched her daughter around the time the court put an end to her daughter’s petty reign of terror in 2018, which besides multiple prosecutions included crackpot reports to city, county, state, and federal police.

It would sure suck if the dissolution of her daughter’s marriage dampened GaLyn Hargis’s enthusiasm for online scrapbooking.

A solution might be for her to reconceive her ambitions for the project. I wouldn’t be surprised if her husband, a fourth-generation cattle rancher, didn’t have a stuffed head or two on a wall someplace and a something-or-other-skin rug on the floor.

Gay Hargis could put up a collection of trophies of her own. The photo of my father’s phone that’s included in this post would make a fine centerpiece.

*Like many of those who were caught up in a 12-year hoax perpetrated on the police and courts by her daughter, Tiffany (Hargis) Bredfeldt, at the expense of my family and me, GaLyn Hargis seems to prefer a low profile, which she has kept since she was informed of the truth 15 years ago. Her daughter, who is or was a public official in Texas, apparently devotes a portion of her days now to endeavoring to suppress reports of her and her stooges’ sick conduct.

GaLyn Hargis, Gay Hargis

Phil Bredfeldt Apparently Dumps Wife, a Woman Who Serially Accused Me for a Decade with Him at Her Side

January 24, 2020July 28, 2023Moderator 4 Comments

Ruth Bredfeldt, GaLyn Hargis, Philip Bredfeldt, Philip Alan Bredfeldt, Tiffany Bredfeldt, Tiffany Gail Hargis, Tiffany Hargis, Phil Bredfeldt, Ray Bredfeldt, Dr Ray Bredfeldt, Raymond Bredfeldt

The subject of this post, Phil Bredfeldt, along with his wife, serially prosecuted the writer for 12 years. Words that appear in the image above are excerpted quotations from emails sent to the writer by one of the Bredfeldts’ witnesses. The same person was induced to lie in court on the Bredfeldts’ behalf in 2013 and then to lie again both to the police and to the court a couple of years after that.

For reasons I may share in a forthcoming post, I believe someone has been manipulating Google’s algorithm to submerge or suppress returns for posts on this blog.

If I’m right, one of the ironic side effects has been the elevation in Google returns of what should be obscure facts about an obscure guy named Philip Alan Bredfeldt.

A seeming attempt to quash negative information has only succeeded in bringing other facts to the fore.

Phil also pops up as “Philip Allen Bredfeldt,” which would seem to be a lame attempt at disguise.

Same address, same relations, altered middle name

Phil Bredfeldt is an infantile middle-aged tool who, at his wife’s side, subjected me to repeated prosecutions over a 12-year period, alleging everything from harassment to stalking to sexual assault and violent danger—all to cover up extramarital mischief of hers. The couple used my public record as a no-flush toilet.

They also tried to have me imprisoned while my father lay on his deathbed and my inheritance was in foreclosure.

That was until the court turned on them. An unlawful injunction they had secured with the help of a lowlife attorney in 2013, which prohibited me from exposing their deceits (even by “word of mouth”), was dissolved in 2018.

While I was being sued by Phil, whom I’ve never seen outside of a courtroom, he and his wife, Tiffany Bredfeldt, used a post office box in another state in order to maintain the sham that they were terrified I might come calling.

Now Phil’s home address tops the returns for the search terms Phil Bredfeldt on Google. It would seem that either Phil’s vestigial testicles descended in his fifth decade of life, or he’s no longer concerned who knows about his hoax.

Stephanie Bergeron Perdue, Toby Baker, Beth West, TCEQ, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, Tiffany Bredfeldt, Tiffany G. Bredfeldt

Also notable is that while Tiffany G. Bredfeldt appears to remain in or around Bastrop, Texas, in the employ of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ), Phil himself reportedly resides and is registered to vote in a different time zone. His new home base, Durango, Colorado, confirmed by his engineering license, is nearby the town of Montrose, which is where his sister and brother-in-law Kim and Jeremy Cheezum and (suggests Google) his mother and father, Ray and Ruth Bredfeldt, live.

I guess deceiving the court for so long was stressful on Phil, and he craved the comfort of family.

I don’t care enough to try to determine conclusively whether Phil and Tiffany Bredfeldt, who made a great show for over a decade in court of being conjugally devoted, are now divorced.

What seems evident, though, is that they live in different states, which is tantamount to the same thing, and my belief that their marriage was one of convenience, which wed the wealth of a conservative Christian doctor’s family to a conservative Christian banker’s family, seems corroborated.

The last case against me (two-years long) concluded about the time the Internet reports Phil Bredfeldt “shared his journey on the Rimrocker Trail” with RimRockerTrail.org (June 22, 2018). Phil submitted selfies, including one in which he smiles in rainbow socks, taken as he rode the 160-mile Colorado trail on his mountain bike. Alone.

It must have been very cathartic for him after tormenting me for a dozen years and steamrolling my ambitions while he advanced his own career.

I can still picture Phil on the stand in 2016 whimpering of honest statements I had made concerning marital infidelity by his wife, “It isn’t true!” He hammed it up for his audience, as I imagine his sleazy lawyer had instructed him to do.

His amateur hour salesmanship was probably convincing enough to the judge. The only one it seems to have failed to convince was everybody else.

*Phil Bredfeldt’s family members are evangelical Christians who belong to a denomination called the Presbyterian Church in America and who purportedly view divorce very gravely. If Phil did divorce his wife, I may have provided the validating excuse (possibly the one that Phil denied under oath). And this family, which seems to have learned the value of piousness but not the values of piousness, is, I think, just self-important enough to believe that I should draw some consolation from that.

**Below is a synopsis of statements Phil Bredfeldt’s wife, Tiffany, gave in evidence to the court or, in one instance, to the police only between the years 2006 and 2017. They provide all the background to the matter a reader will require. Phil Bredfeldt, who was privy to all of these statements, supported them fully, including under oath. The couple even provided sworn affidavits to the court “confirming” that they were telling the truth. The reader may wonder where Phil Bredfeldt was while this was purportedly going on (and with whom), which is a question he escaped ever having to answer in court.

Michael Honeycutt, TCEQ, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, EPA, Environmental Protection Agency, Tiffany Bredfeldt, Governor Greg Abbott, Beth West TCEQ, TCEQ Human Resources Director Beth West, TCEQ Executive Director Toby Baker, Toby Baker TCEQ, TCEQ Deputy Executive Director Stephanie Bergeron Perdue

Michael Honeycutt, Hack Ph.D., Grooms Chronic Liar to Give Expert Witness Testimony as TCEQ Rep; Both Named to Trump EPA

January 9, 2020July 28, 2023Moderator Leave a comment

Michael Honeycutt, Dr. Michael Honeycutt PhD, Michael Honeycutt PhD, TCEQ, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, Gov Greg Abbott, TCEQ, L'Oreal Stepney, Loreal Stepney
“Almost every time there’s a public concern about pollution, [Michael Honeycutt] says there’s nothing to worry about. Almost every time industry takes a position against stronger health protections, he takes their side and contorts the science to advocate for doing nothing. He just doesn’t have any credibility anymore.”

—Luke Metzger, director of Environment Texas

The subject of this post, Michael Honeycutt, Ph.D., is the toxicology director for the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) and the Pruitt-appointed chairman of the EPA’s Science Advisory Boards.

I can corroborate that he has a knack for pollution, a knack, that is, for producing it.

Here is a bio possibly written by Michael Honeycutt about himself, in which either he or one of his TCEQ subordinates identifies Dr. Michael E. Honeycutt as a “dedicated, distinguished scientist.” That alone would be a sufficient commentary on the man’s ethics, besides a testament to his vanity, arrogance, and professional ridiculousness. But I have more.

Michael Honeycutt indiscriminately helped further tatter my life at a time when I might still have been able to patch the rents, and he did that by supporting a hoax, which is something that apparently comes naturally to him.

Greg Abbott, Texas Governor Greg Abbott, TCEQ, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality

Governor Greg Abbott, who says he supports “faith, family, and freedom,” but whose agency, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, has been repeatedly implicated in censorship, including censorship of the author of this post to cover up public mischief

A guy I had never met and still haven’t, Honeycutt “witnessed” against me in 2013 before the Arizona Superior Court—by phone from the comfort of his office in Texas, where I can’t help but imagine he was talking around a jelly donut and taking care not to dribble its contents on his shirt.

Some of his testimony appears below, along with that of the person on whose behalf he testified, a liar in his employ. Texas Governor Greg Abbott and TCEQ directors Toby Baker, Stephanie Bergeron Perdue, L’Oreal Stepney, and Beth West should be ashamed. Both my best friend and my father died while this mischief was ongoing. And its residue doesn’t simply evaporate as the TCEQ seems to believe chemical pollutants do. The only one who can undo lies is the liar.

Thanks in no small part, I’m certain, to Honeycutt’s flash credentials and suave delivery, which I have no doubt was coached, I would be denied my constitutionally guaranteed First Amendment freedoms for the next five years by an unlawful speech injunction that was imposed without a trial (which is, of course, also illegal). The TCEQ has been repeatedly implicated in censorship and information suppression, so in that regard there’s nothing exceptional about this instance.

During the five years I was silenced, I might have racked up a couple of Ph.D.’s of my own or published a book or two, as I had intended, had a case initiated by a protégée of Honeycutt’s at the TCEQ, senior toxicologist Tiffany Bredfeldt, been settled instead of unlawfully hushed.

Tiffany Bredfeldt, who represented the TCEQ on the news while seeking the writer’s imprisonment, was apparently dumped by her husband around the time the case concluded against her. That case stemmed from a 2013 censorship order validated by Michael Honeycutt, who might have averted manifold damages to all parties concerned had he demonstrated a molecule of discernment.

Tiffany Bredfeldt is a developmentally arrested, chronic, documented liar. She’s also a liar who has ridden her mentor’s coattails straight into the federal government—which, I grant, is where many of society’s least scrupulous succeed in turning their ethical disinhibition to profit.

I imagine Mike and Tiffany are flourishing there. I’d be surprised, really, if they weren’t already conspiring to occupy the office of EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler.

Eugene Volokh, UCLA School of Law, UCLA Law Prof. Eugene Volokh, First Amendment

Constitutional scholar Eugene Volokh, who blogs on Reason.com, among other things about faith, family, and freedom, addressing the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee

I was first in court with Bredfeldt in 2006, when I was granted a 20-minute self-defense against cooked allegations, and I was last in court with her in 2016, accused of having violated the illegal speech injunction Honeycutt had helped her illegally secure three years prior. Discounting many pretrial conferences, the entire 2016 “trial” again amounted to a single hearing, during which the proceedings were indefinitely suspended. Then they were dismissed…two years later. That’s 12 years of lying and legal abuse, including lawbreaking. What made the difference in 2016 was that I had public defenders and the support of UCLA professor of law and eminent First Amendment scholar Eugene Volokh; it wasn’t just a backroom lynching as it had been in 2013 when Honeycutt glibly voiced an appearance.

At the end of the 2016 hearing, after the mics had been turned off, Honeycutt’s apprentice could be heard exclaiming, “God damn it!” She then remarked for her courtroom entourage that Honeycutt had joked that her prosecution would be “good experience” for when she gave expert witness testimony as a TCEQ rep. That was Honeycutt’s alleged commentary on a prosecution meant to have a man wrongfully imprisoned. And Honeycutt’s a guy who identifies himself as a stalwart Christian and a devotee of the Boy Scouts.

Here’s a synopsis of statements Texas state official and EPA adviser Tiffany Bredfeldt gave in evidence to the court or, in one instance, to the police only between the years 2006 and 2017. The story they tell isn’t the half of it, but it’s succinct, and its contradictions are palpable. The statements provide all the background the reader will require. Honeycutt’s contribution to this list is the third from the top. His apprentice, a stranger who had routinely hung around outside of my house at night, alone, has lied impulsively and randomly to whitewash what might be called an extramarital infatuation, and she has lied without qualm and to anyone who would listen. Like her mentor Honeycutt, she’s fond of attention.

The crackpot who made the preceding statements was, the last I knew, entrusted with a role in determining U.S. public health policy besides that of Texas.

And she’s a virtual phantom. Anyone with a grievance toward the TCEQ who’s curious to learn if a Tiffany Bredfeldt is employed there will be disappointed. Thanks to Mike Honeycutt, she hasn’t appeared on its employee roster since 2011 or 12, though she represented the TCEQ on the TV news less than three years ago (see the image above) and still draws an agency paycheck (annual salary: $73,608).

Here’s Mike’s 2013 explanation to the court:

Even the reader with no courtroom experience can appreciate how steered testimony like that could drive some coffin nails home.

I encountered Honeycutt’s protégée in 2005, a few feet from my house, which is the only place I’ve ever seen her outside of a courtroom, and I’ve never been to Texas.

A woman who was scheduled to testify in the 2016 lawsuit that was meant to have me jailed had characterized Bredfeldt’s behavior toward me this way:

The email containing the woman’s remarks has been online for two years and is presumably known to Honeycutt, who, as far I can tell, has only sought to keep the matter from interfering with his moment in the limelight and his activities in church and with the Boy Scouts.

The exclusive basis for Michael Honeycutt’s involvement in the case at all was that I had contacted him in 2011 to tell him he was employing a scientist who had no compunction about lying.

It wouldn’t have occurred to me then that a willingness to lie, including under oath, might be a qualification the TCEQ prized.

*Michael Honeycutt told the court in 2013 that I had accused his apprentice Bredfeldt of engaging in scientific fraud, which is something I’ve never done. In fact I was careful to clarify that I knew nothing about her professional conduct. Honeycutt’s testimony, given under oath, was false. It was, however, effective, and I’m convinced that effectiveness was his priority, not accuracy. Misrepresenting a material fact in a sworn court proceeding, that is, stating a fact under oath that is likely to influence the judge but is untrue, is called perjury, and it’s a felony crime.

**Liberal detractors of Michael Honeycutt’s favor PC characterizations like this one by Honeycutt’s peer Elena Craft, Ph.D., senior health scientist for the Environmental Defense Fund in Texas: “[Honeycutt’s] positions generally are totally inconsistent with mainstream thinking.” To someone who distrusts conventional perspectives, as I do, this sounds like a compliment. Moreover, the conduct this post criticizes accords with mainstream thinking, which is something people like Ms. Craft might broaden themselves by considering. Archly feminist views, I’ve noted, are endemic in the hard sciences (and in a good many of the soft ones). A scientist is someone who confronts the truth in whatever unsettling form it comes. Otherwise, s/he’s misappropriating the title.

Emails by PCA Pastors Kevin Hale, Daren Dietmeier, and Jeremy Cheezum Used to Support Lies, Lawbreaking, and Abuse

September 22, 2019March 5, 2025Moderator 3 Comments

Kevin Hale, Jeremy Cheezum, DietmeierDaren, USAF, Daren Dietmeier, Rev. Kevin Hale, revkevinhale, ozarkdogmatics, Christ Church, Christ Church Conway, ozarkdogmatics.com, Ozark Dogmatics, Conway Arkansas, Pastor Kevin Hale, Jeremy Cheezum, Rev. Jeremy Cheezum, Pastor Jeremy Cheezum, Trinity Reformed Presbyterian Church, Montrose Colorado, Rev. Daren Dietmeier, Pastor Daren Dietmeier, Trinity Presbyterian Church, Aledo Illinois

From left to right, Rev. Kevin Hale of Christ Church in Conway, Arkansas; Rev. Jeremy Cheezum of Trinity Reformed Presbyterian Church in Montrose, Colorado; and Rev. Daren Dietmeier of Trinity Presbyterian Church in Aledo, Illinois

Emails authored by pastors Kevin Hale and Daren Dietmeier of the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) and displayed in this post were submitted in evidence to the Arizona Superior Court in 2013 to procure what has since been recognized as an illegal speech injunction—the intention of which was to conceal false testimony to the court and false reporting to law enforcement officials—and the pastors’ emails are accordingly public documents.

The unlawful injunction they were used to obtain, which was imposed without a trial and which deprived the writer of his constitutionally protected freedom of speech for five years, was dissolved in 2018, and a family that had endeavored to have the writer imprisoned based on filthy and/or frivolous allegations spanning 12 years is today prohibited by mandate of the court from harassing him further.

Note to the reader: When the writer appealed to the ministers named in this post for help in gaining relief from persistent false accusations by church insiders, he had already existed in the shadow cast by those lies for six years.

Probably the Presbyterian ministers pictured above wouldn’t be grinning so broadly if members of their congregations had accused them, for example, of inappropriately touching their children. Whispered nicknames like Creepy Kevin, Germy Jeremy, and Dirty Dietmeier are punishing, especially on the job security of men in professions like theirs. The tolls are far worse when the innuendo and gossip are the products of lies.

Many who’ve been lied about to the courts feel the acid burn of such labels even if they’re never put into words. I’ve been lied about a lot and for a long time, and I have felt the actual words.

This message was communicated to me by email on the first day of what would become 12 years of legal abuse by a woman named Tiffany Bredfeldt and her husband, Phil Bredfeldt, sister- and brother-in-law of Rev. Jeremy Cheezum.

To relate the background as briefly as possible, Tiffany Bredfeldt had nightly lingered outside of my house for months in 2005 and taunted me with references to her body and underwear, apparently relishing the attention. Then she lied to the police and the court to conceal her misconduct when I learned she was married and demanded an explanation—and she has lied over and over since, as the testimony I’ve included below shows plainly.

Tiffany Bredfeldt in 2005

The message above was sent after Tiffany and Phil Bredfeldt had obtained a court injunction forbidding me from responding to it. Sort of like a four-letter nyah-nyah. The couple thought it would be cute to send a copy of the message to the police, apparently to reinforce the idea that they were afraid for their lives (because why wouldn’t you provoke someone you were afraid of?). The restraining order, which was petitioned by Tiffany Bredfeldt, particularly emphasized that I was a danger to her husband, a guy I had never met, and shouldn’t be allowed to talk to him.

I was an aspirant kids’ writer with a puppy and a parent in chemotherapy. Maybe the spoiled brats, both of whom were reared in the church, thought that was funny also.

Certainly evident is that everyone I appealed to for relief from lies that would continue for 11 years (and may be repeated and embellished upon today) couldn’t have cared less.

Here’s a synopsis of statements Tiffany Bredfeldt gave in evidence to the court or, in one instance, to the police only between the years 2006 and 2017. The story they tell isn’t the half of it, but it’s succinct, and its contradictions are palpable. The woman has lied impulsively, randomly, and wickedly and then lied to conceal the lying—and gotten by with a little help from her friends. Her husband, Phil, after whom one of Rev. Cheezum’s kids may be named, was incidentally privy to all of these statements and has supported them fully, including under oath.

People of moral character might call the woman psycho, or they might call her evil.

Here are a couple of alternative interpretations by men I appealed to for help seven years ago whose profession it is to conscientiously listen.

Rev. Kevin Hale, Pastor Kevin Hale, Christ Church, Christ Church Conway, Conway AR, Presbyterian Church in America, PCA

In the email above, Rev. Kevin Hale offhandedly dismisses an appeal for help I sent him (unread) as “porn spam,” and the person he says he pities is the woman whose lies are glossed above. Rev. Hale’s addressee in the email is Rev. Jeremy Cheezum, to whom I had also appealed. Rev. Cheezum played middleman during this interlude, snatching up my appeals for help, which he also disregarded, and funneling them to my accuser’s husband, Phil Bredfeldt, his brother-in-law. Phil Bredfeldt would then use the appeals to coerce an illegal speech injunction in 2013 (putting me at risk of incarceration for exposing his wife’s lies even by “word of mouth”) and later (2016) to accuse me of felony extortion. The extortion ploy was ditched when it failed to scare me into abandoning my defense and agreeing to shut up, and the unconstitutional court order was eventually dissolved. Had it not been, this publication would have been grounds for my imprisonment.

Daren Dietmeier, Rev. Daren Dietmeier, Pastor Daren Dietmeier, Trinity Presbyterian Church, Aledo IL, Presbyterian Church in America, PCA, Trinity Aledo

In response to the appeal I sent him, Rev. Daren Dietmeier concluded I should invest in a book of sudoku puzzles, perhaps, or take up crochet.

A woman who was scheduled to testify when I was most recently prosecuted (2016) had characterized Tiffany Bredfeldt’s behavior toward me this way:

The email containing the woman’s remarks has been online since the beginning of last year and is presumably known to Rev. Cheezum, though I suppose it’s unlikely he has brought it to the attention of his fraternity brothers Kevin and Daren, whose denomination, the Presbyterian Church in America, asserts, “Godliness is founded on truth.” (Besides Pastors Hale, Cheezum, and Dietmeier, I had apparently appealed to a Pastor Paul Sagan of Covenant Church in Fayetteville, Arkansas, and an L. Roy Taylor, whose title is stated clerk of the Presbyterian Church in America and who’s seemingly the church’s top administrator. Needless to say, they also turned a blind eye.)

Rev. Hale, who is married, expressed his sympathies for a liar who had violated the bounds of the marriage covenant, a subject he probably has occasion to speak of often.

Rev. Dietmeier, a married former serviceman who would unwittingly be made an accomplice to a violation of the liberties this country’s flag stands for, simply scoffs. Worthy of note is that that flag is the banner image on his Facebook page and that that page is plastered with those pithy digital posters, one of which quotes Mark Twain on the importance of reading and another of which claims something like, “Everyone sins. Christians repent.” If Rev. Dietmeier is sincere about that, there’s a comment section below.

God sees everything; we grieve Him when we claim His name in Christ, and act as if we’ve never had a saving experience with Him at all. Our actions, public and private, must meet the words we utter [Rev. Daren Dietmeier, “The Fear of the LORD,” Aug. 4, 2019].

My father starved to death in 2016, alone in a cramped room in a cut-rate nursing home, while the latest series of prosecutions brought or motivated by the family this post concerns was raging. I spent the last night of my dad’s life preoccupied with another family’s sins, sins that have now been allowed to fester for almost 14 years. One of that family’s members who was slated to testify against me, moreover, was Dr. Ray Bredfeldt, M.D., a Presbyterian deacon.

In the early hours of the Sunday morning when my father stopped breathing, while I was poring over legal jabberwocky, the pastors mentioned in this post were probably dreaming of the inspirational sermons they would deliver on the importance of truth, love, and charity.

*For those who might wonder what I could have said in my appeals that would have urged seasoned clergymen to dismiss them as the ramblings of a stalker, here are a couple of examples.

Jeremy Cheezum, Pastor Jeremy Cheezum, Rev. Jeremy Cheezum

I wish I could say I haven’t had cause to revise my impressions.

Jeremy Cheezum, Pastor Jeremy Cheezum, Rev Jeremy Cheezum, Daren Dietmeier, Rev Daren Dietmeier, Pastor Daren Dietmeier, Rev Kevin Hale, Pastor Kevin Hale, Presbyterian Church in America, Presbyterian Church in America PCA, PCA

Christ Church’s Sara Rojas Part of 11 Years of Lying and Abuse

September 10, 2019July 28, 2023Moderator Leave a comment

The text of this post is based on an earlier one originally titled, “Uncle Phil Said He’s a SICK F–K.” That phrase was one I was labeled with in a document submitted to the police by the brother of Sara (Bredfeldt) Rojas, a staff member of Christ Church Milwaukee, whose two children are the inspiration of this post. Those children’s aunt, uncle, and grandfather, who are today prohibited by mandate of the court from harassing me further, endeavored to have me imprisoned based on false, filthy, and/or frivolous allegations. They employed unscrupulous attorneys and exploited laws that are typically criticized by conservatives as destructive to the family, conservatives, it’s worth noting, like those of Christ Church Milwaukee’s evangelical Christian congregation. Conservatives criticize the laws for good reason: While advocates of these laws pay lip service to child welfare, children are arguably the predominant victims of the laws’ commonplace abuse. Among the ways children are damaged is exposure to the twisted games that self-indulgent adults play.

This message was communicated to me by email on the first day of what would become 12 years of legal harassment by the aunt and uncle of the children who inspired this post. Their uncle Phil I had never met. Their auntie Tiffany I knew better than I ever should have. She had nightly lingered outside of my house for months and taunted me with references to her body and underwear, apparently relishing the attention. Then she lied to the police and the court to conceal her misconduct when I learned she was married and demanded an explanation—and she has lied over and over since (as testimony I’ve included below shows plainly). The message above was sent after Phil and Tiffany Bredfeldt had obtained a court injunction forbidding me from responding to it. Sort of like a four-letter nyah-nyah. The couple thought it would be cute to send a copy of the message to the police, apparently to reinforce the idea that they were afraid for their lives (because why wouldn’t you provoke someone you were afraid of?). I was an aspirant kids’ writer with a puppy and a parent in chemotherapy. Maybe the spoiled brats thought that was funny also.

I was most recently prosecuted by liars in 2016. What made that year different—and what made this publication possible—was that the liars sought my imprisonment (to cover up lies), and I requested and was granted court-appointed representation.

What’s more, the attorneys I was granted were excellent. Allegations spread across multiple prosecutions were thrown out in their entirety.

Maybe I have divine intervention to thank. To be certain, the God of the Bible despises bullies, especially rich, self-satisfied ones, which is what this post is about.

Like many or most of those who visit this site and identify with its accounts and criticisms of false accusation and abused and abusive laws, I’ve been lied about a lot and for a long time, and the lies probably continue today.

I have no way of knowing.

What I do know, because I know I’ve been monitored for as long as I’ve been lied about, is that there’s no one I’ve appealed to for help over the years who can possibly be unaware of the truth today.

Sara Rojas, Mrs. Roberto Rojas, Sara Bredfeldt, Sara Bredfeldt Rojas, Pastor Jon Talley, Rev Jon Talley, Jon Talley, Christ Church Milwaukee

Sara Rojas, daughter of a doctor, wife of a doctor, who has lived a privileged life while ignoring her family’s corruption of others’

That includes Sara Rojas, today children’s and women’s ministries coordinator of Christ Church Milwaukee under Rev. Jon Talley. If mention of the church attracts any of his congregants to this post and site, so much the better, because I think they’re exactly the kind of forthrightly ethical people who are offended by the excesses of feminism and #MeToo movementeers.

I appealed several times to Mrs. Rojas for aid in gaining relief from persistent false accusations made by her brother’s wife, Tiffany Bredfeldt. I reasoned a woman whose father and husband were doctors would appreciate the harm such behavior could cause, and I reasoned, wrongly, that she would care or that her Christian conscience would bid her to.

Not only did I never hear from her, but her father, Dr. Ray Bredfeldt, a Presbyterian deacon who got rich flacking health insurance, volunteered to testify in court eight years later to have me jailed while my father lay dying and to have me forbidden, besides, from ever sharing the truth with anyone in any way for the rest of my own life. He wasted his time and years more of mine.

I had also appealed to Mrs. Rojas’s brother-in-law, Jeremy Cheezum, who, like Rev. Jon Talley, whose congregation Mrs. Rojas serves, is a Presbyterian minister, which seemed like an ideal person to negotiate a remediation. I never heard from Rev. Cheezum, either. I had told him that cleaning up Auntie Tiffany’s lies would be costly and that those lies had left me in no position to foot the bill. This “devout” Christian family represented my settlement appeals as extortion to the court. The allegation was baseless, and it was abandoned when I declined to be intimidated and submit to their terms.

Their terms boiled down to disappear and die.

Here’s a synopsis of statements Christiano Rojas and Maria Rojas’s aunt gave in evidence to the court or, in one instance, to the police only between 2006 and 2017. The story they tell isn’t the half of it, but it’s succinct, and its contradictions are palpable. The children’s aunt has lied impulsively, randomly, and wickedly and then lied to conceal the lying, and I have lived in the shadow of those lies every minute of every day since they began, while Sara Rojas has reared two beautiful children and enjoyed “spending time outdoors with her family and cooking up new recipes in her kitchen.” (The children’s uncle Philip, Mrs. Rojas’s brother, was incidentally privy to all of these statements and has supported them fully, including under oath.)

Dr Roberto Rojas, Aurora St Lukes, Roberto Rojas MD, Pastor Jon Talley, Rev Jon Talley, Jon Talley, Christ Church Milwaukee

Jeremy Cheezum, Ray Bredfeldt, Roberto Rojas MD, Dr. Roberto Rojas, Aurora St Lukes, Pastor Jon Talley, Rev Jon Talley, Jon Talley, Christ Church Milwaukee

Tiffany Bredfeldt, Jeremy Cheezum, Ray Bredfeldt, Dr. Roberto Rojas, Roberto Rojas MD, Aurora St Lukes, Pastor Jon Talley, Rev Jon Talley, Jon Talley, Christ Church Milwaukee

People of moral character might call the woman a crackpot, a Jezebel, a monster, or a pageant of much coarser things. What they couldn’t call the woman is a victim.

Jeremy Cheezum, Rev. Jeremy Cheezum, Pastor Jeremy Cheezum, Trinity Montrose, TRPC, Trinity Reformed Presbyterian Church, Kim Cheezum, Fletcher Cheezum, Bailey Cheezum, Logan Cheezum, PCA, Presbyterian Church in America, Pastor Jon Talley, Rev Jon Talley, Jon Talley, Christ Church Milwaukee

So Rev. Jeremy Cheezum, Sara Rojas’s brother-in-law, tells his followers at Trinity Reformed Presbyterian Church in Montrose, Colorado, and I think Sara would say she agrees with the directive. The message their children register, however, may be very different: Do what you want. Don’t get caught. Lie. Wealthy people love you. Nothing else matters.

I’ve never met Sara Rojas or her kids. The children, however, I pity, because I don’t think this conduct is a kind that should be role-modeled, and I think a children’s and women’s ministries coordinator should be particularly sensitive to that. Some might consider deceiving law enforcement officials and judges against the law.

Mrs. Rojas and her husband, Dr. Roberto F. Rojas, an M.D. at Aurora St. Luke’s Medical Center, have seemed cool with it, and to me that’s worse role-modeling yet. Mrs. Rojas’s father, moreover, Grampa Bredfeldt, is presumably a cherished figure in her children’s lives, and he’s a man who sought to have another man his family had already wronged for 10 years gagged and locked in a concrete box to save face and what I think is most precious to this family: money.

A woman Grampa Bredfeldt was scheduled to testify with in 2016 had characterized his daughter-in-law’s behavior toward me this way:

Jeremy Cheezum, Rev. Jeremy Cheezum, Pastor Jeremy Cheezum, Tiffany Bredfeldt PhD, Dr. Tiffany Bredfeldt, Pastor Jon Talley, Rev Jon Talley, Jon Talley, Christ Church Milwaukee

The email containing the woman’s remarks has been online since the beginning of last year and is presumably known to Dr. and Mrs. Rojas, whose denomination, the Presbyterian Church in America, asserts:

Godliness is founded on truth. A test of truth is its power to promote holiness according to our Saviour’s rule, “By their fruits ye shall know them” (Matthew 7:20). No opinion can be more pernicious…than that which brings truth and falsehood upon the same level.

By the church’s own standard, Sara Rojas and her family’s fruits are rotten.

Pastor Jon Talley, Rev Jon Talley, Jon Talley, Christ Church Milwaukee

I’m reminded of a Biblical quotation about whited sepulchers, and some readers of this post may be too.

*My father starved to death in 2016, without dignity or grandchildren, alone in a cramped room in a cut-rate nursing home, while the latest series of prosecutions brought or motivated by the family this post concerns was raging. I spent the last night of my dad’s life preoccupied with another family’s shit. These people have allowed their disease to corrupt and diminish others’ lives for almost 14 years.

Jeremy Cheezum Complicit in 11 Years of Lying, Abuse

July 28, 2019March 5, 2025Moderator 1 Comment

This post was formerly titled, “Uncle Phil Said He’s a SICK F–K.” That phrase was one I was labeled with in a document submitted to the police by the brother-in-law of “Rev.” Jeremy Cheezum, whose four children are the inspiration of this post. Those children’s aunt, uncle, and grandfather, who are today prohibited by mandate of the court from harassing me further, endeavored to have me imprisoned based on false, filthy, and/or frivolous allegations. They employed unscrupulous attorneys and exploited laws that are typically criticized by conservatives as destructive to the family, conservatives, it’s worth noting, like those of Pastor Cheezum’s evangelical Christian congregation, which Montrose Mirror columnist Gail Marvel has reported is mostly “young families with children.” Conservatives criticize the laws for good reason: While advocates of these laws pay lip service to child welfare, children are arguably the predominant victims of the laws’ commonplace abuse. Among the ways children are damaged is exposure to the twisted games that self-indulgent adults play.

I have no way of knowing.

Jeremy Cheezum, Counselor Jeremy Cheezum, Innovation at Work Interview with Jeremy Cheezum, Rev. Jeremy Cheezum, Pastor Jeremy Cheezum, Watch D.O.G.S., Watch Dads of Great Students, Trinity Montrose, TRPC, Trinity Reformed Presbyterian Church, Montrose, Kimberly Cheezum, Kim Cheezum, PCA, Presbyterian Church in America, Rocky Mountain Presbytery, Ray Bredfeldt, Ruth Bredfeldt, Trinity Presbyterian Church, Montrose High School, Olathe High School, Peak Academy

Above, in an interview with InSync Media CEO Laura Williams, Jeremy Cheezum, pastor of Trinity Reformed Presbyterian Church in Montrose, Colorado, and “volunteer coordinator” of an elementary school mentoring program called Watch D.O.G.S. (“Watch Dads of Great Students”) jokingly clarifies the program’s requirement of a background check for participation. Thanks to Rev. Cheezum’s family’s sleaze, it’s uncertain the author of this post would pass such a check. Rev. Cheezum’s church hosts a weekly “Men’s Coffee Klatch.” This post’s contents could be mined for many rich topics of discussion, among them repentance and atonement, men’s and fathers’ rights, and spousal fidelity. Of note is that Rev. Cheezum, unlike his brother-in-law’s wife, actually wears his wedding ring.

That includes Jeremy Cheezum, today minister of Trinity Reformed Presbyterian Church (TRPC) in Montrose, Colorado. If mention of his name attracts any of his congregants to this post and site, so much the better, because I think they’re exactly the kind of forthrightly ethical people who are offended by the excesses of feminism and #MeToo movementeers.

I appealed several times to Rev. Cheezum for aid in gaining relief from persistent false accusations made by his brother-in-law’s wife, Tiffany Bredfeldt. I reckoned a pastor, a person who might well identify himself as an evangelist of truth, would be eager to serve the truth and promote peace.

Not only did I never hear from him, but his wife’s father, Dr. Ray Bredfeldt, a Presbyterian deacon who got rich flacking health insurance, volunteered to testify in court five years later to have me jailed while my father lay dying and to have me forbidden, besides, from ever sharing the truth with anyone in any way for the rest of my own life. He wasted his time and years more of mine.

In my appeals to Pastor Cheezum, I had told him that cleaning up Auntie Tiffany’s lies would be costly and that those lies had left me in no position to foot the bill. The good reverend passed my appeals along to his in-laws whose shyster lawyers represented them to the court as extortion (and threatened a felony prosecution in federal court). The allegation was baseless, and it was abandoned when I declined to be intimidated and submit to their terms.

Their terms boiled down to disappear and die.

Here’s a synopsis of statements Fletcher Cheezum, Bailey Cheezum, (Philip) Logan Cheezum, and Lydia Cheezum’s aunt gave in evidence to the court or, in one instance, to the police only between 2006 and 2017. The story they tell isn’t the half of it, but it’s succinct, and its contradictions are palpable. The children’s aunt has lied impulsively, randomly, and wickedly and then lied to conceal the lying. (The children’s uncle Philip, Rev. Cheezum’s brother-in-law, after whom one of the kids may be named, was incidentally privy to all of these statements and has supported them fully, including under oath.)

People of moral character might call the woman a crackpot, a Jezebel, a monster, or a pageant of much coarser things. What they couldn’t call the woman is a victim.

Jeremy Cheezum, Trinity Montrose, PCA, Presbyterian Church in America, Colorado, Trinity Reformed Presbyterian Church, Pastor Jeremy Cheezum, Rev. Jeremy Cheezum

So Jeremy Cheezum tells his followers. The message his children register, however, may be very different: Do what you want. Don’t get caught. Lie. Wealthy people love you. Nothing else matters.

I’ve never met Rev. Cheezum or his kids. The children, however, I pity, because I don’t think this conduct is a kind that should be role-modeled. Some might consider deceiving law enforcement officials and judges against the law.

Rev. Cheezum and his wife, Kim, an elementary school teacher, have seemed cool with it, and to me that’s worse role-modeling yet. And what a simple Google search suggests is that their kids spend a lot of time with Grampa Bredfeldt, a man who sought to have me shut up and locked away to save face and expense (but who probably supports the Cheezums generously—both in church and out of it).

A woman Grampa Bredfeldt was scheduled to testify with in 2016 had characterized his daughter-in-law’s behavior toward me this way:

The email containing the woman’s remarks has been online since the beginning of last year and is presumably known to Rev. Cheezum, whose denomination, the Presbyterian Church in America, asserts:

Godliness is founded on truth. A test of truth is its power to promote holiness according to our Saviour’s rule, “By their fruits ye shall know them” (Matthew 7:20). No opinion can be more pernicious…than that which brings truth and falsehood upon the same level.

By the church’s own standard, Jeremy Cheezum and his family’s fruits are rotten.

I’m reminded of a Biblical quotation about whited sepulchers, and some readers of this post may be too.

*My father starved to death in 2016, without dignity or grandchildren, alone in a cramped room in a cut-rate nursing home, while the latest series of prosecutions brought or motivated by the family this post concerns was raging. I spent the last night of my dad’s life preoccupied with another family’s dysfunction. These people have allowed their disease to corrupt and diminish others’ lives for almost 14 years.

**My impression of Jeremy Cheezum’s reaction to this post (which may give him more credit than he deserves):

Jeremy Cheezum, Rev. Jeremy Cheezum, Pastor Jeremy Cheezum, Montrose High School, Olathe High School, Peak Academy, Montrose

Why Lying Women Don’t Cry Rape All the Time

June 25, 2019July 28, 2023Moderator Leave a comment

A rhetorical catfight has been waged for years on the Internet between injured men and injured women or people who advocate on behalf of injured women. It’s a logical mare’s nest. Untold men (and women) have been wronged by casually abused and abusive procedures of law whose genesis owes to rabid feminist politicking at the end of the last century. These men (and women) have, again in untold because incalculable numbers, been unjustly deprived of children, home, property, livelihood, security, dignity, and/or liberty, and that fact has largely gone disregarded. A perusal of the quotations in the margin of this blog will satisfy any conscientious reader that this is a fact and not merely an allegation. The laws themselves are bent. Injured men (their predominant victims) have, sensibly or not, accordingly sought to draw attention to lying by women by emphasizing that women will lie even about rape (the specter in the room, incidentally, during any legal proceeding based on an allegation of abuse). There have, of course, been many documented cases of false rape allegations’ being made by women. Feminist advocates deny false accusation of rape “occurs” to any significant degree, ignoring the underlying male plaint, namely, that women lie in heinously vengeful, passive-aggressive, attention-seeking, destructive ways—and contrary to what some apologists for feminine lying would have the public believe, unscrupulous women (and men) don’t lie because they’re crazy, per se. They lie because it’s effective, just as diverting the “conversation” away from lying to lying about rape is effective at denying either one merits consideration.

These are not people.

“Feminism is the radical notion that women are people.”

—Marie Shear

Far from suggesting that women are Barbie dolls or marble angels, a proposition that may even have offended its speaker, this quotation, oft brandished by feminists today, promotes the idea that women are people. And people, unlike Barbie dolls or marble angels, lie. They lie about anything it serves them to lie about.

So much then for the myth of the faultless woman—which is one you’re unlikely to find debunked on Jezebel.com.

The question this post considers is that if women are willing to lie to cops and judges (and they are, as are men), why pussyfoot and not just accuse any target of malice of sexual violation? It’s a potent allegation.

Well, it comes with a host of complications is why. In civil court, a false (or possibly real but baseless) claim of fear is all it takes to procure a protective order and turn a person’s life on its head. It can win a perfect stranger the exclusive entitlement to a person’s home and property while possibly landing him or her in jail. Unless a lying plaintiff aims to drive her victim to suicide, falsely alleging rape is overkill and pointlessly invites exposure.

A criminal claim of rape, on the other hand, both figuratively and literally invites strangers’ noses into uncomfortable places. Government wants specifics and evidence. Girlfriends and family members may gently inquire about details.

This is the kind of claim, if false, that requires a great deal of determination to pull off and carries a heavy risk of tattering under scrutiny.

Let’s not deceive ourselves that unscrupulous women are too virtuous to lie about rape. Rather let’s be honest: Lying about rape is demanding and dicey.

That said, it’s really not that tough in civil court, which doesn’t require “proof beyond a reasonable doubt.” In civil court, it’s just he-said-she-said. A defendant doesn’t even have to be heard in court for a “default” judgment to be entered against him. And even if he does appear, there’s no guarantee the plaintiff will be required to or that the accused will have the opportunity to cross-examine her, making a mockery of the adversarial process. A judgment in civil court doesn’t represent a finding that a rape was committed, necessarily, but it’s not a denial that a rape was committed, either, and the accusation is what’s preserved.

The injustice is glaring but note that it’s legally no worse than that any other allegation that works can be made and can accomplish the same damaging consequences.

People have to live with this shit. Their families have to live with this shit. Their children have to live with this shit.

This is what men’s rights advocates would be saying if there were anyone who would listen or have the least capacity to comprehend the breadth and depth of injuries that instead tend to be casually batted aside (while accounts of groping or sexual harassment are gravely highlighted on NPR).

Most of these men have not been accused of rape, which doesn’t mean they couldn’t also have been accused of rape had their accusers been gutsy enough or that it wasn’t implied (point 1). And it doesn’t mean they have nothing to complain about (point 2).

Injustice is always something to complain about (point 3).

*I think I even read that on a liberal yard sign.

Ray Bredfeldt, Doctor and Deacon, Scorns God’s Law: A Consideration of the Biblical Commandment against False Witness

February 21, 2019July 28, 2023Moderator Leave a comment

This post is inspired by Dr. Ray Bredfeldt, a physician who purports to be a man of faith. By means of one lowlife attorney and then a second equally unscrupulous one, whose conduct during a rape trial attained minor notoriety, Dr. Bredfeldt and his son and daughter-in-law sought to have me wrongfully imprisoned while my father lay dying (to conceal sins). The reader may conclude from these details that court process corrupts or that the corrupt are drawn to court process…but s/he may not conclude otherwise.

Ruth Bredfeldt, Ray Bredfeldt, Raymond C Bredfeldt, Dr Ray Bredfeldt, Dr Raymond Bredfeldt, Dr Raymond C Bredfeldt, Ray Bredfeldt MD, Raymond Bredfeldt MD, Raymond C Bredfeldt MD, Dr Raymond C Bredfeldt MD, Dr Ray Bredfeldt MD, Ray and Ruth Bredfeldt, Ruth and Ray Bredfeldt, Jeremy Cheezum, Pastor Jeremy Cheezum, Rev Jeremy Cheezum, Sara Rojas Christ Church, Kim Cheezum, Kimberly Cheezum, Montrose

Dr. Raymond Bredfeldt is an adherent of a religious sect called the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA), which seems to consider itself Christian while holding both that the Bible and its laws are to be interpreted literally and that believers are saved or damned before they’re born so how they actually behave in life doesn’t matter one way or the other. Three guesses where Dr. Bredfeldt reckons he’ll be hanging out in the afterlife. According to PCA doctrine, which has nothing to do with the Bible I’ve read, Hitler may be wearing wings and a halo. Presbyterianism, the reader may be unastonished to learn, was founded by a lawyer.

Today, in a dialogue dominated by #MeToo jihadists, voices denouncing false or unfounded accusation are as quickly overwhelmed as those of sanitation workers responding to a sewer explosion.

It’s accordingly kinda great to count God Almighty’s voice as an exception.

Not bad, either, is knowing that if He’s up there taking notes, which He’s reputed to be very meticulous about, the karma of false accusers stands to be more than just a bitch.

Think snap-crackle-pop, like, forever.

And that’s discounting the liberties demons might take when they’re bored and horny—which I would imagine is pretty much always.

Ray Bredfeldt, Raymond Bredfeldt, Ruth Bredfeldt, Presbyterian Church in America, Presbyterian Church in America PCA Some of those who have or who had intended to witness against me in court, either to have me denied rights or to have me locked up, would know better than I, though.

They style themselves pious Christian souls—and I would wager that many people who’ve been falsely accused include the indifference of hypocrites like these in their litany of grievances.

In my case, take Dr. Michael Honeycutt, Ph.D., chairman of the EPA’s Science Advisory Boards, who identifies himself as a dedicated churchgoer. Although he’s never met me, Mike willingly testified against me in 2013 on behalf of his protégée, Tiffany Bredfeldt, a crackpot who harassed me for over a decade through law enforcement and the courts following a three-month association at my own home…where she was routinely to be found at night minus her wedding ring.

Or take Dr. Ray Bredfeldt, M.D. (“First, do no harm”). When the accusations against me by his daughter-in-law began in 2006, I recall reading he was a church deacon. I subsequently learned he and his wife, Ruth, hosted Bible study classes in their home and that their daughter Kim was married to Presbyterian pastor Jeremy Cheezum (who ignored my pleas for his help in mediating a settlement of the matter, pleas made fully eight years ago).

Here’s testimony Ray Bredfeldt’s daughter-in-law, Tiffany, gave in court during a 2013 hearing (that’s seven years after her accusations started):

Ray Bredfeldt’s family’s version of conservative Christianity differs considerably from the one I knew growing up. When I was a boy, there was no conceivable chance a married woman could be mistaken for single, least of all by a man she met and discussed her underwear with alone in the dark—unless she wanted to be. The word my Southern Baptist family would have used to characterize such a woman the reader will guess easily enough.

Ray’s daughter-in-law broadly accused me from 2006 to 2016 of “pursu[ing]” her, “proposition[ing]” her, trying to kiss her, and making “physical, romantic advances” toward her despite “rebuff[s]” and “rebuke[s]” based largely on a 12-week “friendship” in 2005 during which, by her own sworn admission, she never felt any urgent need to inform me she was married.

I don’t have to call her a liar; the contradictions are obvious and—and—they always were.

Reverend Ray was nonetheless prepared in 2016 (that’s 10 years later) to make sworn statements against me to have me jailed for a year and judicially forbidden (on pain of further incarceration) from ever sharing these contradictions with anyone in my defense. Because what would the neighbors think, right? Never mind, apparently, whether God might take a dim view of his daughter-in-law’s conduct…and his own.

Where Ray’s son, Phil Bredfeldt, was while his wife was indulging herself at my home in 2005 has incidentally never been explained. I don’t recall a single conversation I ever had with Tiffany Bredfeldt, including up to and past midnight, being interrupted by a phone call (“Uh, Honey, are you coming home?”). If Phil Bredfeldt is homosexual, that would explain a lot, both about his conduct and the keenness of his family’s interest in keeping up appearances.

At any rate, things didn’t ultimately work out the way they had envisioned. And Ray Bredfeldt’s son has apparently dumped his wife.

Telling to note in this context is that at the conclusion of the closest thing to a trial that ever occurred in 12 years of courthouse mischief, Tiffany Bredfeldt, herself the daughter of a fundamentalist evangelical Christian exclaimed, “God damn it.”

Well, here’s hoping, anyhow.

It turns out the Jews—at least once upon a time—appreciated false witness to be the grave and consequential trespass that it is, so much so that they ranked it a cardinal no-no. Yahweh’s even reported to have carved its prohibition in stone, which seems fairly emphatic. According to Proverbs (stresses added):

There are six things that the LORD strongly dislikes, seven that are an abomination to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked plans, feet that make haste to run to evil, a false witness who breathes out lies, and one who sows discord among brothers.

Witnesses in prosecutions may wear the same suit to court that they do to church. But in my experience of legal games, imperatives of the soul take a backseat in the courthouse to cardinal sins, like avarice and wrath, and avoiding blame in this life is the definite priority.

If the avowed faith of people like Ray Bredfeldt has the cosmic order of things right, though, escaping a court’s censure is only a very temporary reprieve from judgment.

*Jezebel, the millennial feminist house organ, which takes its name from a Biblical figure, tends to discount false accusation and its damages. The sophistical line of reasoning, demonstrated, for example, by Donna Zuckerberg in “He Said, She Said: The Mythical History of the False Rape Allegation,” conflates the phrase “false allegation” with “false rape allegation” and dismisses both collectively as extremely rare, apparently on the basis of the number of criminal allegations of rape that are determined to be untrue by, perhaps, the FBI. Rape allegations can, of course, be judged “worthy” by a court based on no standard of actual proof at all. (A rape claim made in a civil proceeding can be validated simply by default, for example, because a defendant was unable to travel cross-country on his own dime to appear in his defense. How often this happens is tabulated nowhere, though civil “protective order” cases are estimated to number in the millions per annum.) False accusation, what’s more, can include any number of ruinous claims other than sexual assault. False accusation can also be chronic. So mountainous is the political resistance to acknowledging it happens at all, it’s perpetrated with impunity. Ms. Zuckerberg surveys literary instances of false rape allegations, including Biblical ones, and finds grounds to deride them. A story she ignores is that of Jezebel, who amid a career of wickedness conspired to have a man falsely accused and stoned to death. His alleged crime was blasphemy, not rape. Jezebel was fittingly thrown from a window to become fodder for stray dogs—as today the tabloid website that bears her name is.

A Brief Introduction to Feminist Rape Culture

May 17, 2018August 16, 2023Moderator 1 Comment

“For those who don’t know, rape culture is an environment in which rape is highly prevalent, normalized and excused by the society’s media, popular culture, and political figures.”

—Ashley Jordan, The Humanist

*Omitted from this collage, its author realizes belatedly, is the acronym VAWA, which stands for a vector of evil. A chronicle of what this collage summarizes is here.

What Feminist Writer Sandra Newman Gets Right about False Accusation and Why That Disarms Her Contention That It “Almost Never [Has] Serious Consequences”

March 16, 2018July 28, 2023Moderator 4 Comments

In a recent Quartz.com article titled, “What kind of person makes false rape accusations?” (commented on here), novelist Sandra Newman answers that, among others, people with (Cluster B) personality disorders do (sociopaths, narcissists, histrionics, and borderlines), which is true. People who exhibit the traits associated with these disorders, whether clinically or subclinically, are identified in the law as “high-conflict people.” Court process perfectly syncs with their drive to blame, and they may lie without compunction.

Here’s the problem: While psychological motives may be discerned in major criminal investigations, they are never detected in any “lesser” type of prosecution, particularly in civil court. “Investigators” like Ms. Newman, whose agenda is clearly to challenge the notion that false rape accusations are a serious matter, must discredit that notion while relying on the legitimacy of “lesser” so-called “epidemic” violations like stalking and domestic violence, which may also be alleged (and to a much greater extent) by high-conflict litigants. No one can know what quotient of violence hysteria is based on lies or distortions, and the Sandra Newmans out there have no interest in dispelling that hysteria or promoting a balanced perspective. Sympathy for “the adversary” is unthinkable.

The goal is to emphasize the victimization of women and to dismiss the victimization of the falsely accused (who include women, which is a fact that’s also ignored).

The title of Pulitzer-prize-winning columnist Dorothy Rabinowitz’s book, No Crueler Tyrannies: Accusation, False Witness, and Other Terrors of Our Times, characterizes (false) accusation much more squarely, that is, damningly.

Here are some stories about false accusation and its effects:

Ms. Newman has elsewhere acknowledged what she thinks of liars and expressed how she feels society should regard them:

Yet the thrust of her Quartz arguments is not that liars are monstrous and should be stopped. It’s that lying, even about rape and even to people with guns and gavels, is unworthy of remark, because it “almost never [has] serious consequences.”

*The link on Ms. Newman’s Twitter remark is broken because her account has been suspended since the publication of this post.

Why Are Pro Se Defendants More Suspect in the Eyes of Judges than Lying Accusers?

February 26, 2018July 28, 2023Moderator 3 Comments

Showing candor that was as unexpected as it was refreshing, a judge I stood before in August acknowledged that he knew restraining orders were “abused” by litigants who made “blatantly false” statements to the police and the court.

Doing the former is a misdemeanor crime; the latter, a felony.

The judge, Tony Riojas, besides being the presiding magistrate of the Tucson City Court, is a member of the Task Force on Fair Justice for All. Much of what he told me I already knew: Neither false reporting nor perjury is ever prosecuted, there are no “mechanisms” to stop false litigants, and there’s no statutory limit on the number of times they can file fictive complaints with the court.

(For the curious or indignant: This status quo owes to feminist politicking. See also VAWA. No act by government, women’s advocates insist, should be seen to discourage “true victims” from coming forward. It’s a sentiment whose use-by date expired at least 20 years ago.)

After my brief dialogue with the judge, he tossed out allegations brought against me 20 months earlier by a woman I’d only met once in the previous decade and who is reportedly diagnosed with a mental illness (bipolar disorder). I lived with her allegations, made in one of three legal actions she brought back-to-back in 2016, every day for most of two years. All of the actions were frauds, and all have been dismissed. (In 2014, she had initiated or instigated multiple prosecutions against her own husband, from whom she’s now divorced.)

This post formerly featured my accuser, Jennifer Terpstra, in a selfie she published on a website cataloging her professional accomplishments. A generous critic might call her countenance “forbidding.” This person, whom I first encountered hanging around my residence in late 2005 and who insisted I meet with her and give her a hug in 2012 (when she called herself my “avid reader”), told officers in multiple police departments in 2015 and 2016 that I had been stalking her since she invited herself into my house 11 years earlier.

When all of her and a friend’s legal actions began to unravel in 2016, Terpstra, who also uses the names Jenn Oas and Jen Oas-Terpstra, fled the jurisdiction.

(She had been employed for over a decade as a researcher in the University of Arizona College of Medicine. Today she has apparently returned to my home town and possibly to her old job but has assumed a new last name.)

I was a “pro se” defendant in the restraining order case Terpstra initiated, and after 11 years of false accusations, it was the first case I’d won—despite having been denied my lawful right to a hearing and having had my first notice of appeal dismissed by the judge quoted above, possibly because I was a pro se defendant.

Pro se is Latin for “for oneself” or “on one’s own behalf.” It means I was my own lawyer.

In court, where no phrase is used more pejoratively, pro se connotes unqualified, unworthy, or off-the-wall, and lawyers use it to remind judges that they shouldn’t trust anything their unschooled adversaries say. Pro se, in other words, means easily blown off.

It’s yet another excuse to deny the credibility of the accused in restraining order cases, which can be initiated by any scrofulous degenerate entirely for free. (See again VAWA.)

No one, of course, applies the phrase pro se derogatorily to plaintiffs who breeze into courthouses, fill out some forms, and recite narratives that may be arrant lies during a five-minute interview with a judge—which is all procurement of restraining orders demands. Accusers, who are largely pro se, are called “victims.” They don’t have to be competent to represent anything but their “torment.”

To prevail, in contrast, the falsely accused

MUST appear in court to defend themselves already prejudged guilty;
MUST defuse lies that may be incapable of disproof like “I’m afraid”; and
MUST do it within rigid time constraints (usually minutes).

They may what’s more be prohibited from cross-examining the prosecuting witness, who may not even be required to show up. (In the prosecution against me referenced above, in which there were three hearings, the plaintiff never appeared a single time.)

On top of this, defendants may be treated dismissively based on their inability or unwillingness to shell out $5,000 to hire an attorney…to troubleshoot the court’s defective garbage disposal.

*As the reader might have predicted, remedying inequities like those sketched above is not the brief of Arizona’s “Task Force on Fair Justice for All.”

How Blindness to the Consequences of False Accusation Is Perpetuated

September 30, 2016June 22, 2023Moderator Leave a comment

The last post highlighted the murder of a woman’s cherished dog by police officers responding to a false report.

First thing, then, let’s acknowledge that false accusation can do more than “inconvenience” the accused: It can kill.

Why then isn’t it roundly criticized? Why aren’t multitudes clamoring for accountability? Answer: politics.

Few who are sympathetic to the effects of false accusation are induced to crusade against it, journalists who appreciate the consequences of lying tend to believe that nothing short of being false accused of rape is even worthy of complaining about in the first place, and vociferous critics of complaints of false accusation deny it’s ever a big deal (if they even allow it occurs).

The latter position, particularly, assumes that the falsity of false allegations is always detected before any real harm can be done (always wrong), and that the falsely accused therefore are only ever “hassled” and will recover after a shower and a Xanax.

The result of this wanton idiocy is that citizens (traditionally men) who’ve been falsely accused of “lesser” violations of catastrophic significance to them (like “domestic violence” or “stalking”) find reasons to question the validity of rape claims (and there certainly are some legitimate ones), because only false rape claims pique press attention (and maybe they think that exposing false rape claims will make people scratch their chins and say, “Hey, if people lie about rape, what don’t they lie about?”). They’re also provoked to hit back against a virulently sexist advocacy base where they know it will sting most.

This, in turn, confirms to the false-allegations-are-no-big-deal crowd (which is a powerful and noisy contingent) that complainants of false accusation are simply misogynistic cranks (“See?”) who should not only be discounted but denounced.

This finally translates to the inane formula: Critics of false accusation and its consequences are rape deniers.

Accordingly, for example, innocent citizens must continue to have to watch impotently as their dogs are gunned down by the police at their own homes. (The cops are criticized; the false accusers escape notice.)

*However objectionable mainstream feminists may find the phrase false accusation culture, there’s no denying that a culture that tolerates false accusation is a culture that fosters it. (Exasperatingly, deniers of false accusation culture point out that rarely is anyone prosecuted for lying and assert that fact to be “proof” that lying rarely occurs…even as they bombard government with objections to prosecuting anyone for lying.)

Martina Walkingstick, Marty Grist, Marty Tackitt-Grist, Martha Grist, Martha Tackitt Grist

Restraining Order Abuse and Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy

April 6, 2016July 4, 2023Moderator 12 Comments

Since my companion died in August, I’ve doped myself before bed with genre fiction and a bottle of wine. After 10 years of legal assaults, including three simultaneous ones as of this writing, alcohol is the only thing that quiets my mind and affords me a few hours of oblivion. I’m into my third novel by thriller writer Gillian Flynn. (The movie Gone Girl, about a woman who fakes her death to frame her husband for murder, is based on a Flynn novel.)

The woman in this photo, Marty Grist, has persecuted a friend of the writer’s for several years by lying about him in social media and on public record. Her reign of malicious self-publicity abruptly ended when she testified to a judge (the most recent of numerous) that he’d “hacked” her phone, computer, and email account (from his house across the street) and said she had some record (“someplace”) that proved he was a disbarred attorney who had “embezzled” from his clients (both serious charges and both false). She reported on Facebook, besides, that he had mooned her friends and provoked invisible dogs to howl at her for hours. She has two daughters and teaches children for a living. (The writer’s accuser, who was isolated as a child, is also the daughter of a schoolteacher.)

I won’t give away its plot, but her novel Sharp Objects involves “MBP” or Munchhausen (Syndrome) by Proxy. It’s a mental illness that induces a caretaker, usually a parent and usually the maternal parent, to sicken a child to get attention. Recall the movie Sixth Sense.

Flynn, besides being a delicious writer, plays rock-‘em-sock-‘em with feminist dogma. Her villains, who are seriously villainous, are all women.

If Flynn is a feminist, and I think she is, she’s the real thing. None of her female characters are weak, least of all the monstrous ones. I’d call her honest negotiation of male-female dynamics (thoughts, actions, interactions) “refreshing” if that word weren’t moldy. She’s bravely candid (she’s accurate), and she doesn’t play for (or pander to) a “team.” There’s nothing flinching about her or her writing.

Munchhausen by Proxy, pathological behavior that figures in her novel Sharp Objects, exemplifies (with science) that there are women who commit heinous abuses to draw attention to themselves and excite drama, and this is one of the motives the FBI remarks is common to cases of false accusation. It’s also a motive for bullying, which can include crying wolf (BullyOnline.org, now defunct, formerly had a page devoted to MBP). The disease MBP is just a metaphor writ large for what women do when they go wrong: They poison. (Both false accusation and crying wolf figure in the plot of Flynn’s novel Gone Girl.)

Flynn’s stories involve violent murders by people of the “fairer sex,” but the female violence they portray best is the psychological kind: sinuous, spiteful, and constant.

Mainstream feminists militate against the notion that women are attention-oriented, competitive, or catty…or that they can lie unconscionably to exact petty revenge for some perceived slight.

That’s a fictional bubble in need of collision with a sharp object.

Why People Who’ve Been Falsely Accused “Blog”: A Tutorial for Judges

December 4, 2015July 29, 2023Moderator 9 Comments

An absurd notion seems to prevail in the minds of men and women of the court—many of whose familiarity with the Internet begins and ends with shopping for bargains on eBay or Skyping their grandkids—that people who “blog” about being abused in court have nothing better to do.

No, they do it because they’ve been screwed, blued, and tattooed, and the peace of mind needed to do what they’d rather be doing has been denied them.

Their sanity, dignity, and good names, if not their children, have been sacrificed to the false idol of justice. They’ve been railroaded through one or more gimmicky, derelict procedures that confounded their lives for nothing…excepting politics, that is, and cash.

(Seriously, what pinnacle of pretense does a person need to surmount to entertain the idea that someone would expend dozens, hundreds, or thousands of hours decrying inept, lopsided policies of law merely because s/he was “miffed” or “disappointed”? )

Demonstrating the ability to write isn’t proof of anything but the attainment of a third-grade education.

Wake up and smell the Folgers: Not everyone knows to or has the means to enlist a lawyer to swat down some false or hyped allegations whose only ascertainable basis is that they were scrawled on a bureaucratic form in 10 minutes with a Bic Round Stic by someone displaying anxiety.

If you’re a veteran of process, you know very well the obstacles people face (even if they have representation) in disentangling themselves from accusations after a judge has once signed off on them. Tell yourself what you want, but this isn’t deliberative stuff (an order of the court can be delivered sooner than an order of waffles at Denny’s).

This stuff is, however, saprogenic. That’s a fancy word—and we know judges favor fancy words—that means producing decay and putrefaction.

What may be a few moments of your workday can profoundly influence years (or all) of a person’s life. It can hasten a body into the grave.

If this is news to you, that’s probably because you began your career before a medium existed in which the legally abused little guy could publicly air his or her grievances. That doesn’t mean you haven’t been arbitrarily trashing lives all along; it just means you didn’t have to hear about it before.

Probably you felt securer on your pontifical peak before casualties of slovenly adjudications could complain about them.

Probably, too, that’s why orders of the court are routinely issued that prohibit the exercise of free speech by complainants of procedural abuse, orders that have recently fallen under stern scrutiny.

The reason people “blog” or “video-blog” (“vlog”) is that the courts fail them, and the court’s miscarriages exact a grave toll that endures and compounds over the months and years. The victims of those miscarriages live in limbo, and speech is the only recourse left them to air truths the court disdained, ignored, edited, or quashed.

*Doctors may get to bury their mistakes; judges don’t. “Public record” doesn’t mean only as public as you want it to be.

Bruce Aristeo, NJ, New Jersey, indefinite temporary restraining order

New Jerseyite Bruce Aristeo was cited for violating an “indefinite temporary restraining order” for, among other things, using his accuser’s image and that of her “pet Belgian Malinois.” He has been arrested at least four times.

The Rape Victim’s Trauma in Court Is the SAME Trauma Experienced by the Falsely Accused

November 6, 2015August 25, 2023Moderator 17 Comments

“[Tina] Renton still has nightmares about her time in the witness box. ‘During the day I can cope with it. In my sleep…. You can’t control your subconscious.’ She dreams of ‘running and never being able to find anyone able to help you’ and of ‘standing in court, people laughing at you, but you don’t know why.’”

—Amelia Gentleman, the Guardian (April 13, 2013)

Above are the words of a woman who was the prosecuting witness in the rape trial of her stepfather.

Below are the words of a man who was repeatedly accused by a prosecuting witness (his estranged wife and the mother of his children):

I couldn’t flee and I could not fight. I was never going to be allowed to heal or recover. I wish I were better at articulating the psychological and emotional trauma I experienced.

I could fill a book with all the lies and mysterious rulings of the Court. Never have I experienced this kind of pain. I asked for help, but good men did nothing and evil prevailed.

Correspondences between the man’s and woman’s statements are obvious, as are contrasts between the man’s and woman’s treatment under the law.

The woman prevailed in criminal court. She also authored a book. The man was hectored in family court until he killed himself, and his wife obtained a court order granting her the intellectual property rights to his final words, which she attempted to expunge from every nook and cranny of the Internet.

Tina Renton, quoted in the epigraph, accused her stepfather of “raping and assaulting her multiple times during her childhood,” and a jury found him guilty. The trauma Ms. Renton describes, however, isn’t the residue of being physically violated by a parental figure years before; it’s the aftereffect of being psychologically violated in court.

She defended herself and was taunted and denounced as a liar.

“It is hard being accused of being a liar,” she says. “I would never have put myself through the trauma of a court case if it wasn’t true.”

Her stepfather was sentenced to 14 years. Still Ms. Renton reports having nightmares about her experiences in court, and certainly no feminist is going to contradict her claim of trauma.

Why, then, are feminists the most adamant critics of those who allege they’ve been falsely vilified or persecuted in civil and family court (where there is no standard of proof)? Is it reasonable to argue that being falsely called a “liar” is more traumatic than being falsely called a “stalker,” “wife batterer,” “child abuser,” or worse? If feminists understand the trauma described by Tina Renton and sympathize with it, why are they the most unyielding obstacle to reform of restraining order and domestic violence laws that make false accusation easy and rewarding? Ms. Renton, a woman, very plausibly says she was caused lasting injury by being falsely accused of lying. Yet some feminists assert that a man’s being falsely accused of rape is insignificant. How is this not only hypocritical but heinous?

When it’s asserted that rape victims face “being raped all over again” in court, what’s meant is that they face being lied about, misrepresented, defamed, badgered, and shamed. They face, in sum, being falsely accused.

This is compared to being raped.

It must be appreciated that those falsely accused in civil or family court (women among them) are traumatized by exactly the same treatment (including by their judges), and many of them may also have been abused by their accusers, including violently. Moreover, the abuse they receive in and from the court may be aggravated (exorbitantly) by having their children taken from them, being cast out of their homes, and/or being forced to pay their false accusers’ living expenses.

Feminists seem to have no difficulty imagining the psychic scars caused to rape victims by being denounced and disparaged in criminal court.

For feminists to identify with complainants of false accusation in civil and family court, then, they need only imagine what it would feel like for those rape victims to be forced to surrender all they value to their abusers and pay them for the privilege of being lied about and publicly humiliated.

*The quoted Guardian story includes a case of a woman who prevailed in court but nevertheless committed suicide. “Her son, Oliver, told a newspaper how profoundly the cross-examination had affected her.”

What Do People Accused in Civil Court Have to Complain About?: Civil Prosecutions and PTSD

July 27, 2015June 24, 2023Moderator 2 Comments

“Contemplating, undergoing, or having undergone a lawsuit is disruptive. The experience saps energy and distracts the litigant from the normal daily preoccupations that we call ‘life.’ Litigants, who commonly feel alone, isolated, and helpless, are challenged to confront and manage the emotional burden of the legal process. The distress of litigation can be expressed in multiple symptoms: sleeplessness, anger, frustration, humiliation, headaches, difficulty concentrating, loss of self-confidence, indecision, anxiety, despondency: the picture has much in common with the symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD).”

—Dr. Larry H. Strasburger (1999)

Prior posts on this blog have considered Legal Abuse Syndrome (LAS), a concept proposed by marriage and family therapist Karin Huffer that has been discounted by the courts as a “novel theory.” This post spotlights a journal monograph published almost 20 years ago by psychiatrist Larry H. Strasburger that unequivocally states Dr. Huffer isn’t wrong and the courts are.

Dr. Strasburger’s comments in “The Litigant-Patient: Mental Health Consequences of Civil Litigation” are based on his having treated the legally abused (who may include anyone who’s been exposed to litigation).

The therapist of a litigant will encounter not only the trauma that produced the lawsuit, but the distress and disruption of litigation as well, including the delays, rehashing and reliving the original trauma, and challenges to honesty and integrity. The patient may come after years of feeling frustrated and thwarted by a system that moves at a snail’s pace, preventing the litigant from putting the issue of the litigation behind him [or her] and “moving on” with life. Gutheil et al. have recently coined the term “critogenic harm” to describe these emotional harms resulting from the legal process itself.

The term “critogenic harm,” by its etymology, refers to the psychic damages that arise from judgment, i.e., the pain and humiliation of being verbally attacked and publicly disparaged.

This, the reader will note, is a blaring clinical denunciation of those self-appointed, armchair authorities who would deny the damages of false prosecution. Nearly two decades after the publication of the journal article this post examines, such deniers are everywhere, including in the mainstream press.

The deniers, according to the experts, are talking out of their blowholes. Mere accusation, ignoring the effects of protracted legal battles, drives some to suicide and multitudes more into agoraphobic withdrawal.

The adversarial system is also a threat to the maintenance of personal boundaries. Formal complaints, interrogatories, depositions, public testimony, and cross-examination are intrusive procedures that aggravate feelings previously caused by trauma. Such procedures amplify feelings that the world is an unsafe place, redoubling the litigant’s need to regain a sense of control—often in any way he or she can, including exhibiting characteristic symptoms or defenses. It is not unusual to find entries such as the following in the medical records of litigants: “Janet is hearing voices to cut herself again after talking to her lawyer today.” Similarly, a male plaintiff in a sexual harassment suit threatened violence when he was informed that he was to be deposed, and he required hospitalization.

Exposure to civil process can very literally drive people nuts, and inspire in them urges to commit violence, whether to themselves or others.

Consider Dr. Strasburger’s remarks in the context of restraining order abuse and appreciate that the strains they describe can be compounded by loss of residence (some defendants are left homeless), loss of family, loss of income, loss of employment/career, loss of property, etc. Those so deprived may accordingly become estranged from friends and relations, if not socially ostracized. (They must also live with the consciousness that they’re vulnerable to warrantless arrest at any time.)

Litigants are often further distressed as various members of their support systems “burn out.” Their need for human connection and their need to talk about their experience often exceed the tolerance of family members and friends. Embarrassment and humiliation shrink their social world.

That’s besides the discord and isolation caused by a damning accusation, which may be accepted as fact even by kith and kin. Loyalties may become divided, and the accused may be spurned based on allegations that aren’t true. The sources of outrage to the mind and emotions multiply like cancer cells.

It should come as no surprise then that many who complain of procedural abuse report they’re in therapy. If the costs weren’t prohibitive to most, they might all be. Desolating, as Dr. Strasburger points out, is that even if this were the case, the promise of “healing” isn’t necessarily good. The therapist’s role may be little more than cheerleader.

Psychotherapy for a patient involved in ongoing litigation can take on the aspects of managing a continuing crisis. The therapist, facing this need for crisis management, may be providing support more than insight.

Litigation (or its aftermath) may become consuming; normal, healthy activities are suspended. (One woman this author has corresponded with laments she hasn’t known intimate contact in years; a recent female commenter, alienated from her child, refers to herself as a living homicide.) People may become stuck in a tape loop perpetuated by interminable indeterminacy, insurmountable loss, and a galling sense of injustice.

The legal battle enables people to put their lives on “hold,” thereby avoiding other aspects of their lives (e.g., “How can I be intimate with you when I’m involved in this lawsuit?”). The patient may be so attuned to psycholegal issues and hypotheses that she focuses thereupon in resistance to dealing with significant personal conflict. As a result, she is continually “pleading her case” in the therapy hour.

This cognitive rut exemplifies Legal Abuse Syndrome, and the state may be unending.

*The journal article cited in this post may be introduced to the court by litigants in need of an authoritative voice to validate complaints of pain and suffering induced by fraudulent or vexatious prosecution.

If a Man Who Complains of Procedural Abuse is an “MRA,” What Do You Call a Woman Who Complains of Procedural Abuse?

July 12, 2015June 30, 2023Moderator 7 Comments

It isn’t just the men disparaged as “MRAs” (men’s rights activists) who denounce the injustice of feminist-inspired “women’s law.” Women also lose their homes, their families, their dignity, and their lives to misapplications of restraining order and domestic violence statutes. Unlike the men whose lot they share, these women aren’t distinguished with a label.

I propose the acronym “BRA,” which could stand for any of the following:

Beleaguered rights activist;
Baffled, boggled, buffaloed, or bewildered rights activist; or
Buggered rights activist.

The latter of these, especially, would evoke the same mockery shown the men’s rights activist to whom “MRA” is applied like a markdown sticker.

Make no mistake: Women who complain of procedural abuses are no less ignored than the men who do. They’re not saying anything anyone wants to hear—not the ACLU nor the Southern Poverty Law Center nor battered women’s advocates nor feminists in general. They’re misfits, and they’re accordingly denied status. No one dares contradict them, because that might sound misogynist. So they’re just disregarded.

Here are some different proposals for what BRA might represent: bypassed rights activist, betrayed rights activist…or balanced rights activist.

You want the straight dope about false accusation and the need for procedural reform? Ask the ex-wife who’s had her child taken from her, ask the disabled girl who’s been accused of domestic violence and cries herself to sleep every night, ask the mom who can’t attend her child’s school functions or keep a job, ask the ex-girlfriend who was nearly parked on the curb, or ask the professional woman who’s been denied protection against a brute and then framed.

But only ask if you can tolerate an inconvenient truth.

*A woman is the best rights activist, and more women’s voices should be heard in coordinated public protest.

An Anagram of RationalWiki Is “A Liar—I Know It”: Talking Back to Little Sisters Who Play Big Brother

July 5, 2015March 9, 2018Moderator 2 Comments

They have a network of informants. They target dissenters, lump them, and apply a label. They maintain lists. They coerce lockstep conformity with their perspectives by ridicule and censure….

No, I don’t mean the former East German secret police; I mean those liberal/feminist pretenders to enlightenment and humanism whose robotic pronouncements are so clotted with jargon they actually read like computer code: YEC, ID, MRAs, MGTOWs, PUAs, Nice Guys/Incels/AFCs, TERFs, radfems, Randroids, etc.

RationalWiki’s logo, fittingly, is a disembodied brain.

Don’t underestimate the potency of nerds, though. They have Twitter accounts…and they’re not afraid to use them.

I learned the other day that this blog had been put on one of their blacklists. If my motive for writing about reprehensible acts like fraud, corruption, perjury, betrayal, parental alienation, discrimination, legal abuse, judicial dereliction, and bullying people to suicidal despair were self-promotion instead of firsthand knowledge of the ruin they cause, I might be flattered that my desultory musings had achieved the notice of (dotdotdotDAAAAAA)…

RationalWiki.org. (Enter Chihuahua, stage left, in a tutu,)

No, I didn’t know there was a RationalWiki.org, either—and after visiting the site, I’m still not sure there is. If “rational” is meant to imply “having reason and understanding,” then this is to report the domain name lacks qualification. The word rational can also mean “involving division,” however. Maybe that’s what the editors meant.

RationalWiki, “Authoritarianism”

The rhetoric of sites like this isn’t without its amusements. For example, RationalWiki invites its audience to “Check Our Entitlement.” In other words, it doesn’t want to exclude the less advantaged, or seem to talk down to them.

Considering there’s nothing on RationalWiki that doesn’t smack of pop-culture-poxed, pseudo-intellectual, East Coast establishment condescension, and that the educationally impoverished victims of racism and classism that RationalWiki purports to defend probably couldn’t track a fraction of what’s published there, the invitation to “Check Our Entitlement” deserves to be met with chorus of raspberries or a barrage of moldy tomatoes.

The page on RationalWiki that pans the blog you’re reading is charmingly titled, “Webshites.” The word is a pun that will only be understood by fans of the BBC or the novels, say, of Graham Swift—and there’s nothing elitist or alienating about that. (Shite is Anglo-Irish for shit.)

RationalWiki accuses this site of being “sexist.” Since RationalWiki is plainly a stalking-horse for feminist and otherwise PC propagandists, this site proposes it’s projecting. Since RationalWiki is blind to the wealth of pain its derelict dogma produces, this site further proposes it’s vicious.

Finally, this site’s editor dismisses RationalWiki’s editors as a collective of dorks.

*Propaganda is “the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person” (Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary). This is how information control is disguised:

This is reality:

Borderline Personality Disorder, Procedural Abuse, and Feminism: A Victim’s Reckoning of Their Tolls

June 26, 2015January 31, 2018Moderator 6 Comments

“I hate this world and almost everybody in it. People use each other. I find most of you disgusting. My brothers are disgusting. The people I used to work with are disgusting. You’re shallow, you’re two-faced and hypocritical, you’re judgmental, you cause me more pain than you could ever possibly know. You don’t want me around? Guess what? I don’t want to be around you ugly motherf[—]ers, either. You cause all of your own problems, heap them onto other people, and then blame those people for your problems. You bitch about the amount of pain you’re in, then tell other people to get over their pain.

“I am done with all of you. I am done with your lies and your shitty society, and most of all, I am done kissing your ass.”

—Mrs. Nathan Larson (May 9, 2014)

Virginian Nathan Larson has had a tumultuous year.

He married a woman he met online (April 23, 2014); then she moved out (June 21, 2014) and accused him, among other things, of rape (August 2014 through January 2015); then they divorced; then he learned he was a father when the news reached him that his ex-wife had committed suicide.

The quotation above is from an online post of his former wife’s published between their marriage and their separation. Below is an excerpt from a digital diary entry of hers written when she was a teen (which included a “hit list”):

I hate the students at […]. They are arrogant and foolish. My one dream, my passion is to achieve a machine gun or something and shoot every f[—]er in the school. I want to pump them full of metal, their blood splattered on the tiles. I want to make a massacre that becomes the worst in American history. There are only a few people who I would spare. Everyone else…I would love to see them writhing on the ground in pain, blood oozing out of a million holes in their body.

Nathan’s wife, who was an arguably troubled woman, abruptly terminated their relationship of “75 days total” and then informed him she had miscarried their child. In August 2014, she accused him of rape to the police, but he declined to talk with them and was never charged. In November 2014, she began to accuse him to the courts.

This wasn’t a trial run, either. The accusations brought against Nathan by his wife mirrored charges she had made against a previous partner, also to damning effect.

She petitioned three ex parte (temporary) restraining orders before successfully obtaining a permanent order against Nathan in January of this year (by default). Its alleged bases were “domestic abuse, stalking, sexual assault, and physical assault.” The order was petitioned in Colorado, and Nathan would have had to travel a significant distance to be heard in his defense. “Not wanting to invest money and emotional energy in fighting it, and knowing it would be hard for me to successfully contest it, I didn’t show up to the hearing,” he says. He elected to “move on.”

The two were divorced in April 2015, and that seemed to be an end on it.

Two months later, Nathan was told his (then) wife had given birth to a child in February, presumably the one she had told him she had miscarried. This information reached him along with the news that his former wife had killed herself following her commitment for “suicidal depression” and allegedly hearing voices compelling her “to hurt or kill the Child.”

Nathan must now contest a “dependency and neglect petition” in Colorado asserting he’s an unfit parent.

What follows are his reflections on his marriage to a woman who he alleges had untreated borderline personality disorder, on feminism, and on “abuse culture” and its damages.

Nathan Larson (with his new fiancée’s infant cousin)

Having the benefit of distance from the situation and more calmness about it (especially now that she’s dead), I would say that we both made a lot of mistakes during and after the relationship. There are some people who say that it’s a mistake to enter into a relationship with someone with untreated borderline personality, because it simply won’t work, no matter what you do. Unfortunately, once you get into a relationship like that, your sense of reality can get distorted because you’re so in love, and they’re so convincing, and they get so many other people to agree with them, that you too start to believe it if you don’t have enough of an understanding of BPD to realize what’s happening and why.

For example, suppose you used to argue with your BPD partner, and occasionally lost your temper and had to apologize for saying something unkind. Because they’re so sensitive to minor betrayals, they might claim that you horribly emotionally abused and bullied them to get your way, and then tried to be sweet to them and make up, just like in the classic model we’ve been taught of the cycle of abuse. If you’re still thinking this person is the most wonderful person in the world, then logically you might think that you really did emotionally abuse them, because why would such a wonderful person say it if it weren’t true? Plus, they are clearly very upset over how you treated them, and they broke up the relationship over it, and now they’ve told everyone in your circle of friends and family about it, and many of them are telling you they agree that the breakup was your fault because of your emotional abuse.

These are people you respect and trust, and therefore this could not possibly be happening unless you really were abusive!

You start to blame yourself and even tell people, “She left me because I was emotionally abusive” (which of course attracts more criticism, because who would admit that if it weren’t true?). Eventually, you run into someone who hears your account of what was actually said and done, and challenges your interpretation, saying you’re being too hard on yourself, and that this chick is not as great as you seem to think she is. (To which, of course, you may think, “He just doesn’t know and understand her and our deep and beautiful relationship! We were soulmates! What are the chances I will ever find another woman like that? I searched my whole life, and she was the only one like that I’ve ever met who loved and appreciated me so much.”)

If you have good friends, they’ll awaken you to the fact that someone who truly loved you that much would be willing to forgive and come back to you, or at least treat you decently, rather than holding a grudge and trying to make you suffer.

Also, there’s the fact to consider that people with borderline personality disorder idealize and devalue, and they view people as either completely good or completely bad. This means that once they’re faced with the inescapable reality that you’re not perfect, they have to view you as completely evil. They also have to deny any blame at all for the end of the relationship, lest they have to conclude that they too are flawed, which would cause them to view themselves as completely evil. They can’t handle any feelings of guilt; they have to deflect all blame, including the blame for their own emotionality.

Feminists, of course, are not thinking about all this psychology going on behind the scenes.

They’re busy calculating whether being skeptical of the claims of someone like that will make the public more likely to be skeptical of the claims of someone with legitimate, serious complaints, and make those victims more reluctant to come forward. So the innocent who was accused gets sacrificed for the greater good.

Some women with borderline personality disorder are attracted to the feminist movement and voraciously read all of their materials about abuse, patriarchy, rape culture, etc. because it helps them view themselves as a helpless victim of powerful sociopaths, and thus deflect blame.

They can find a community of people who will give them the benefit of the doubt by believing their stories, and confirm their interpretation of what happened. Borderlines also sometimes struggle to find a sense of identity, and the feminist movement can provide that as well. Their victimhood actually makes them useful to someone, since it’s a story they can tell and retell to those who need to be persuaded that political change is necessary to stop these abuses. (Feminists, like advocates for most other political movements, would bristle at any suggestion that their ideology attracts mentally ill people, since that would tend to discredit them.)

Yet what the feminist movement can never satisfactorily explain to them is why, despite all this training in recognizing red flags of abusers, and despite all the tools the system has provided for punishing abusers (e.g., restraining orders, prison sentences, etc.), they keep getting “abused” by partner after partner, while many other women seem to have successful, happy relationships.

The only possible answer is that it’s a combination of sociopaths’ finding them particularly attractive for some reason (maybe they sense they’ve been abused and think it’ll be easy to re-victimize them) combined with the fact that the patriarchy is still strong, abused women are still not being believed, and therefore we need to punish abusers more harshly and give the accusers even more benefit of the doubt.

Then, finally, when we have a world where all you need to do to get a man locked away for life is cry rape without any supporting evidence, rational men will finally stop raping. Except, even if such a system were put in place, these insecure women would still feel victimized by their partners, and they would attribute the “abuse” to these guys’ acting impulsively without regard to the certain punishment.

*An excellent explication of procedural abuse by “high-conflict” people (who are associated with personality disorders like BPD) and why court procedure is attractive to them is here.

It All Starts with the “Rape Question”: Before Society Can Be Expected to Redress the Harms of False Accusation, It Must First Be Led to Acknowledge That False Accusation Destroys

June 20, 2015August 3, 2023Moderator Leave a comment

“Having demonstrated that the percentage of false sexual assault reports is not as high as many people think, this does not deny their terrible reality. We all know that false reports do really exist, and they are incredibly damaging both to criminal justice personnel and to the countless victims of sexual assault whose credibility they undermine.”

—Dr. Kimberly A. Lonsway, et al. (2009)

Everyone “thinks” that male invocations and criticisms of false rape claims are really the misogynist yowls of the disentitled patriarchy…or something like that. They aren’t. Rape is the tinderbox issue. If complainants of false accusation and unjust demonization, who are typically men, seem to focus on false rape claims, it’s because that’s where everyone else’s focus is directed.

Rape overrules all other concerns and trivializes them.

Read the epigraph by Dr. Lonsway again and ask yourself what’s missing from her brief catalog of “incredibly damaging” consequences of false rape reports.

Her statement owns that “false reports [of rape] do really exist.” It also owns that they’re “incredibly damaging.” But it completely discounts the damage to the people falsely accused by those reports.

They’re not even mentioned as victims; they don’t count at all.

If victims of false rape claims aren’t acknowledged to be victims of anything, then how can victims of false accusations of other sorts expect to be afforded a sympathetic ear? Societal regard has been coerced to the extent that acknowledgment of false accusation (any act of false accusation) is equated with rape denial. To own false accusation is a significant problem is to commit an act of moral treason.

What those who haven’t been abused by process will never appreciate, so long as false accusation is dismissed as inconsequential, is that any foothold a false accuser can obtain can spell the end of someone’s life as s/he knew it.

People can be hounded to the end of time, particularly through civil procedures (like restraining orders), which generate records that gnaw, humiliate, and limit life options, and that open the door (gapingly wide) for further false accusations. The falsely accused can lose everything. They can find themselves felons and exiles, homeless and jobless, and possibly suicidal or homicidal…based on nothing real or true: a layered sandwich of lies.

What’s more, the dismissal of false accusation as an urgent societal concern is contagious. It influences judicial policy and practice; it influences the law. Thus is the problem compounded: False accusation is encouraged, because it’s effective. There are no risks, so there’s no downside.

Denial of the problem worsens it.

Our civil rights advocates vociferously decry violations of women’s rights, children’s rights, minority rights, gay and lesbian (GLBTQ) rights, animal rights, and on and on, and there aren’t any of these rights that aren’t violated by false accusers. None. Children are scarred (voicelessly); women are stigmatized and stripped of all resource; minorities, who may have the least access to legal representation, are railroaded or sidelined; gays and lesbians are handily represented as “creepy queers”; and pets are abandoned (possibly to be killed).

They might as well be living in 1956…and that’s significantly because of the “rape question.”

Look, how widespread false accusations of rape are is irrelevant. It’s irrelevant. What’s relevant is that they hurt and they kill, as do false accusations of all varieties. Rape also hurts and kills…but only also. What hurts and kills must be censured categorically, not selectively.

Dogma must be rebuked. Those who haven’t been falsely accused have no place at the table. They’re due to listen for a change.

The reason so many energies are concentrated on the “rape question” is that until the harm of being falsely accused of society’s “worst” crime is acknowledged, there can be no expectation that the harm of being falsely accused of any other will even register.

*Rape has been used to chasten society’s conscience, which means anti-rape advocates have determined society’s conscience. Their priorities have become “our” priorities and to gainsay them is to be ridiculed and vilified. A reason news stories of false rape claims are bruited by those denounced as “MRAs” (men’s rights activists) is because they often reveal deeply warped motives and methods, and these deeply warped motives and methods aren’t exclusive to false rape claimants.

False Accusations and Procedural Abuse Hurt Pets…and May Be the Death of Them

June 3, 2015July 4, 2023Moderator 3 Comments

This post is the first of a projected series that will explore the rollback of advances in women’s rights, civil rights, minority rights, gay and lesbian (GLBTQ) rights, children’s rights, and animal rights by bad procedural policy, bad procedural practice, and procedural abuse. The detriment to animal rights begins the series because dogs are dear to the blog’s author and many of its friends, including fraud victims and blog authors Betty Krachey (who maintains a Facebook page dedicated to Dobermans) and Larry Smith (who dotes on three toy poodles).

Consequences of legal abuse are often invisible, and its victims may die invisibly…whether by slow deterioration or in terror.

“Pets, mostly dogs and cats, can be used as pawns to threaten and coerce people to stay in abusive situations or keep quiet about them. Women are told if they leave the relationship, their beloved pet will be harmed or killed. Abused children may be threatened into silence because they fear their pet will be hurt, too.”

—Cathy M. Rosenthal, “Preventing pets from being used as pawns” (2013)

This is the scenario the public hears about, and it’s a reality, certainly, and a horrific one.

Consequently, protection order statutes to safeguard pets from domestic abusers exist in many states. (See this 2012 survey prepared by Phil Arkow of the National Link Coalition: “Pets in Protection Orders by State.”)

A reality that’s not publicized is that pets, no less so and possibly much more so than adults and children, may be victims of false accusations and procedural abuse, which aren’t uncommon when relationships stagnate or couples’ conflict reaches a crescendo. Procedural abusers are also hostage-takers…or may relish the prospect of a pet’s demise as the decisive blow in a malicious attack based on lies.

Millions of pets are abandoned each year and subsequently killed.

Legal abuse often aims for the heart. (The author of this blog was contacted by a friend of his false accuser in 2012, while his dog was crippled and in need of a surgery. His and his dog’s lives were daily a misery. The woman strung him along for months, insisting she was an ally and promising aid as his dog’s condition worsened. She then testified against him the following year in the fifth of a series of prosecutions over a seven-year span, all based on a hoax begun in 2006. The blog author’s dog has lived her entire life in the shadow of lies.)

Naval officer Theresa Donnelly, who calls her three boxers her “fur kids,” was inspired to write about “What to do with pets when getting divorced,” because she recognizes that the stresses of separation can lead to companion animals’ being abandoned. “If you’re facing a family separation, please explore every possible option before dropping the animal off at a shelter,” she urges.

How much more likely pet abandonment is in instances of bitter and vicious legal abuse is easily imagined. Some falsely accused are left homeless and unable to provide for themselves. Shelters, besides, may not admit pets. Victims of a malicious restraining order or false allegations of domestic violence can find themselves instantly on the curb and stripped of all resource.

The flipside to the scenario sketched in the epigraph is the misapplication of protection order statutes designed to protect pets from abusers. Nancy Peterson, an issues specialist with the Humane Society of the United States, has been quoted as saying, “[T]he pet may become a symbol of power and control.” Since “power and control” are common motives of procedural abusers, possession of pets may be part of the grand f*-you.

Also unacknowledged by earnest dogmatists who never consider the misuse of the laws they celebrate is that domestic abusers may also abuse process—to compound the abuse and to conceal it. The protection order process, which is handily manipulated by liars and usually costs them nothing to exploit, is perfectly suited to this purpose. Accordingly pets, like children, may be awarded to abusers by the court. “Protection” orders can be instrumental in child and pet abuse.

Then there are the cases when one person in a stagnant relationship rides it out, because s/he’s concerned for the welfare of his or her animal friend(s). Betty Krachey, whose legal ordeal has been chronicled on this blog, exemplifies such a person. Betty postponed calling it quits with her long-term boyfriend, concerned for her dogs, only to be falsely accused and nearly left indigent. She faced the choice of living on the streets until her court date or seeking residency in a shelter that didn’t admit pets.

Only about one in 10 dogs in this country ever finds a home in the first place, according to “11 Facts about Animal Homelessness,” which also approximates that 7.6 million dogs and cats are abandoned to shelters every year and that 2.7 million dogs and cats are killed.

How pets are killed is by lethal injection, suffocation in a decompression or gas chamber, or electrocution—among other methods. Their bodies are then cremated (atypically), rendered into reusable products, or buried in a landfill.

Do formerly cherished, exuberantly joyful, trusting members of families meet such an end because of impulsive lies and petty vindictiveness?

Unquestionably they do…every day.

*Government and agents of the press are more concerned with “service dog fraud” than they are with legal fraud and its consequences.

What “the Law” Means in the Restraining Order Arena and Why All Reasonable Expectations Defendants Have Are Wrong, Wrong, Wrong

May 31, 2015February 4, 2018Moderator 5 Comments

“I put a restraining order on my ex-husband. Now he’s depressed and staying in his truck.”
“Can a restraining order result in suicide?”
“Get [a] restraining order lifted for job.”
“Can a restraining order be appealed if there isn’t evidence?”
“How will it affect my child custody if I filed a false order for protection?”
“What if my abuser files [a] restraining order against me?”
“My daughter falsely accused her stepmother of civil stalking.”
“Falsely accused of breaking a protection order.”
“A crazy person filed a restraining order on me.”
“Teacher falsely accused [in] Ohio.”
“Girlfriend filed a frivolous, retaliatory protection order against me.”
“I’m falsely accused. I need help. My ex has [a] protective order on me. I’m the victim, not him.”
“Suicide [and] false accusations.”
“I was served a domestic violence restraining order, but I don’t see any evidence.”

—Some recent search terms that led visitors here (punctuation added)

Victims of restraining order fraud often voice the conviction that restraining orders require evidence, because trials, we’ve been led to believe, must have an ascertainable basis; you can’t just summon a person to court for whatever. They also express the conviction that plaintiffs “can’t” lie. After all, accusers are made to swear an oath to tell “nothing but the truth.” They should be in trouble if they lie. They should go to jail.

These expectations are all reasonable ones…but they’re wrong.

Q: To get a restraining order, you have to have proof, right?

A: No. “Proof” is not the standard by which civil restraining order allegations are judged. Also, a person can’t “prove” s/he’s afraid; all s/he can do is say so, and his or her say-so is all that’s required.

Q: But if you have proof your accuser is lying, the restraining order has to be dismissed…doesn’t it?

A: No. This is the expectation of everyone summoned before a judge, for obvious reasons: Allegations aren’t facts, and only facts can mean someone is “guilty” of something. Restraining orders, however, don’t require evidence of anything or a determination of “guilt” of anything. What “provable” facts may exist are only as relevant as a judge elects to make them.

Q: A restraining order can be finalized even if a judge knows the plaintiff is lying?

A: Yes. Oath-swearing is just a ritual; lying doesn’t invalidate a petition. Restraining order statutes don’t have a “truth” standard. A person files a petition. If the alleged grounds satisfy the law according to a judge’s personal standards—and a judge’s personal standards are the legal standard—s/he’s authorized to approve the petition. In a subsequent hearing, even if the veracity of the plaintiff is controverted, the law doesn’t require that the order be dismissed. That’s up to the judge. Often if a judge can find a reason to “believe” the plaintiff has a reason to feel harassed or afraid, based on nothing but what the plaintiff says s/he feels, that’s sufficient (even if s/he has given false testimony). Glaringly false allegations may rile a judge, but the law doesn’t require him or her to dismiss a petition on those grounds (or on any others).

Q: So a judge can do whatever s/he wants on no grounds or even on bad ones?

A: Right (a judge who may not be a lawyer or even have a college degree). The only grounds necessary are that someone submitted an application.

Q: And if a plaintiff lies to get a restraining order, s/he can also lie to have someone arrested?

A: S/he can call the police every day if s/he wants to, and allege anything. There’s also no statutory ceiling on the number of restraining orders someone can petition (for free, usually), and subsequent allegations are that much more easily put over, and subsequent orders that much more easily obtained, once one has been approved. Some people are dragged into court relentlessly.

Q: So it’s like that story by Kafka?

A: Exactly like it (with some Lewis Carroll mixed in).

*On this basis, people are removed from their homes, stripped of all possessions, denied a role in their children’s lives, incarcerated, and left broke(n) and homeless. Some kill themselves.

Women Are Bigmouths: Why This Has Been Bad for People Who’ve Been Abused by the Court…but COULD Be Good

May 30, 2015August 4, 2023Moderator 1 Comment

I grudgingly constructed a page this week on Facebook, which confirmed to me two things I already knew: (1) I really hate Facebook, and (2) women are more socially networked than men.

Calling women “bigmouths” isn’t strictly right, and people affronted by the assertion will insist women and men talk about the same amount, or that men talk more than women do.

Uh-huh.

Not impolite to observe is that women “collaborate” more than men do, that is, they sooner work in tandem, which is what statistics I gleaned from Facebook corroborate.

“Tell us about the people you’d most like to connect with,” Facebook urges when you piece together a page on its site. My entries under “Interests” brought up terms like Men’s rights movement, Feminism, and Women’s rights. Accompanying these topics were figures about how many others had expressed an interest in connecting with people who shared those interests.

See for yourself.

Notice that 200 to 400 times greater interest in bonding with people concerned with women’s rights has been shown than interest in bonding with people concerned with men’s rights. That’s a lot…A LOT a lot.

I don’t think there’s anyone who would deny that the fruits of feminism owe to social networking. Some of these fruits have been great; some really horrible. This blog concerns the rotten ones: a culture of victimhood and false accusation combined with the legislation of accelerated and derelict legal procedures presided over by judges bigoted by politics, bad practices (including engineered social science), and money.

Men have been the majority of victims, and they’ve been the only source of concentrated complaint, concentrated complaint that’s been mocked and muted. If we can assume the 200 to 400 times greater interest shown in women’s rights translates more or less proportionally to the number of people disinterested in or opposed to men’s beefs, then no wonder. Female influence, which is significantly feminist influence, is vastly predominant. The sympathy market has been cornered.

Men aren’t the only victims of procedural abuse, however.

Many if not most of the victims who comment on this blog are women, and they’re often desolate. Some live like hermits, some like refugees. They feel exiled and isolated.

The irony is this is exactly how women felt before the rise of feminism, and there’s a lesson to be taken from that.

Men’s struggles for a market share of sympathy face a phalanx of resistance and the priority of conditioned sentiment (prejudice); they’re also troubled by men’s lesser inclination to work collaboratively (the maverick mentality is a losing one). Women, however, can work from behind the lines. They can tap into the women’s rights network and harness its power.

And they should.

If You Doubt the Grief Caused by False Accusation, Consider the Whimpers of False Accusers When THEY’RE Exposed

May 12, 2015August 4, 2023Moderator 10 Comments

Forthcoming posts on this blog will consider character assassination, and they will critique one of the many execrable ironies of the civil restraining order process. It is possible to falsely accuse a person of anything—literally anything (mooning the neighbors, groping children, chewing the ears off of puppies, rape, you name it)—and the act of false accusation, which is universally deemed a statutory crime (perjury), is not sanctioned by the court. The falsely accused, what’s more, cannot litigate the crime of perjury him- or herself nor apply to the court for relief from the falsehoods or an award for the damages they do, which may include PTSD, loss of home, and financial ruin. But…but if the falsely accused exercises his or her constitutionally protected right to free speech and exposes his or her false accuser, which is his or her only lawful defense (and a feeble one at that), this act may paradoxically be construed as “character assassination” by state prosecutors and judges. This post will ease into the topic of character assassination gently.

An alternative way of understanding the pains inflicted by false accusation, if you’re among the compassionately challenged, is to consider the complaints of those accused of falsely accusing.

They don’t like it much when the table is turned.

A woman I’m in correspondence with and have written about was accused of abuse on a petition for a protection order last year by a scheming long-term domestic partner, a man who’d seemingly been thrilled by the prospect of publicly ruining her and having her tossed to the curb with nothing but the clothes on her back. He probably woke up each morning to find his pillow saturated with drool.

The woman he accused, meanwhile, probably didn’t sleep at all during the weeks of purgatory between the accusation and her hearing. For a while, she had to worry about where she’d be able to sleep.

She successfully had the protection order dismissed and has since publicly exposed her false accuser. She’s also filed a lawsuit and endeavors to have the laws in her state amended so people like her ex face consequences for defrauding the court (which at present they never do…anywhere). After her exoneration in court, she says her ex starting circulating it around town that she tried to kill him.

Now her former boyfriend complains that the stir she’s caused by expressing her outrage in public media is affecting his business, and he reportedly wants to obtain a restraining order to shut her up…for exposing his last attempt to get a restraining order…which was based on fraud.

He feels defamed, you see.

Public exposure is not the same thing as being put on the legal rack, but, oh, how those outed for lying will snivel and pule. They expected their testimony would be neatly kept under wraps, and it’s just…not…fair!

Anyone who doubts or misconceives the torments of legal abuse need only look to the whiners who object to being revealed as its perpetrators to be disabused of illusion.

*First Amendment advocate Matthew Chan, who recently prevailed in a protection order appeal before the Georgia Supreme Court, keeps a constant vigil over what’s said about him by his own accuser, who reportedly began a social media campaign to reboot the conflict after the court ruled against her. Larry Smith, who authors BuncyBlawg.com, was ordered to show cause in 2014 why he shouldn’t be censured for writing about his false accuser, a disturbed woman who complained of grave emotional distress. A sometime commenter here, Sean Heeger, has had a restraining order against him extended, has been jailed, and has had his character and sanity impugned for talking publicly about legal abuse. Neil Shelton, who was jailed for a year, alleges his (now ex-)wife’s divorce attorney, a state congresswoman, conspired to frame him as a terrorist to shut him up after he ridiculed her on Facebook for her efforts to frame him for various violations of a restraining order obtained on false grounds (Neil represented himself in six hearings and each time won). Though Neil’s case is extreme, cases like these are exceptional only insofar as the victims of legal abuse have elected to speak out.

False Accusations and Suicide: Some Headlines about the Effects of Finger-Pointing and Legal Abuse (Culled for the Empathically Challenged)

April 14, 2015June 24, 2023Moderator 11 Comments

Since the publication of this post, the one quoted above has been deleted.

One of the stories highlighted below concerns a young man who was falsely labeled a rapist by some bullies at school. He hanged himself. He was 16. Another concerns a man who spent a year and a half in prison based on a false accusation of sexual assault (among other false accusations). While the man was behind bars, his mother killed herself, believing her son was a pimp and a rapist.

A word to the wise: Only ask a rhetorical question if you know the answer…and it favors your position.

The question posed above by the zealous, young author of Not Sorry Feminism isn’t, of course, a question at all; it’s an indictment. She means how dare anyone think false accusations happen. What problematizes the writer’s rhetorical-question-cum-admonition is that it has a very obvious answer: The reason people think false accusations “happen” (so to speak) is that they do.

(It might alternatively be asserted that no one does believe false accusations “happen,” the same way no one believes rapes “happen.” Both are acts, and both have agents. If rape happens isn’t a construction a feminist could get behind, false accusations happen shouldn’t be, either. You’re a proponent of accountability, or you’re not.)

Worse than her question’s being problematic, because answerable, is that its answer isn’t one the writer wants to hear. Motives for false accusations, including of rape, are greed, malice, bullying, vengeance, jealousy, possessiveness, attention-seeking, mental illness, and cover-up, to name a few. They’re ugly, often petty, always destructive…and they can kill.

This post surveys examples of false allegations or deadly allegations or false and deadly allegations drawn from news stories. Here’s one such:

Unlike most of the rest, the first story glossed in this hastily cobbled digital scrapbook doesn’t include a suicide or references to suicide. It’s nevertheless a good starting point, because it’s old news.

The article’s from 15 years ago. Fifteen. Significantly, though, no half-hearted sleuth would find it a challenge today to turn up commentaries on the Internet, mostly from feminist writers like the one who introduces this post, that either (1) deny such a thing ever happens or (2) deny it’s a big deal when it does happen—and deny it’s a sign that a culture of false accusation exists and has for some time. (A story so uncannily similar as to be almost identical can be found here. It appeared in The Huffington Post less than 24 months ago.)

Consider: Where would six elementary school girls and a boy get the idea of framing their gym teacher as a molester, and where would they get the impression this conduct was okay (or “cool”) or that they’d get away with it and not face dire consequences? Should we believe the notion had no cultural influences and was purely a product of these honors students’ collective wicked imagination?

For accusing their teacher of groping them, the kids were suspended for 10 days. It’s likely the most traumatic part of their punishment was being detained by police and “fingerprinted, photographed, [and] booked.” Keep this thought in mind.

Keep this quotation in mind, too: “‘When they made the charge, that’s about 80 percent of the damage to your reputation right there,’ [attorney Paul F.] Kemp said. ‘Because even if you’re found innocent, people will assume you got off on a technicality. Or that there’s something there when there’s not.’”

Editorial intrusions end here; the remainder of this post is a series of Internet clippings (linked to the “complete stories”) from which readers may draw their own conclusions about the motives and effects of accusation, bullying, and legal abuse. The author of this post would only point out before absenting himself that an accusation that may induce someone to kill him- or herself need not be of rape and that one of the suicides chronicled below is of a woman who faced being tried for falsely alleging she was sexually assaulted (“In notes left for her family, she described her overwhelming fear of giving evidence…”).

The common denominator is accusation and public scrutiny and judgment, not being accused of a particular act, per se. Zerlina Maxwell and her ilk are categorically wrong.

TALKING BACK to restraining orders

THEY’RE NOT JUST ABUSED BUT ABUSIVE

Tag false accusation