L’Oreal Stepney TCEQ | TALKING BACK to restraining orders

L'Oreal Stepney, Loreal Stepney, L'Oreal Stepney TCEQ, Loreal Stepney TCEQ, L'Oreal Stepney PE, Loreal Stepney PE, TCEQ, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, Toby Baker, Greg Abbott, Gov Greg Abbott

Has L’Oreal Stepney, a Texas Commission on Environmental Quality deputy director and the subject of a recent post on this site (here represented as a children’s entertainer), gone off and joined the circus? This post will use the disappearance of images of her from the first page of Google’s returns to exemplify how legal abuse is concealed.

Since a series of malicious prosecutions against this writer terminated in 2018 and his First Amendment rights were “restored” by a court system that never had the authority to deny them in the first place, he has endeavored to expose wrongdoing—in a majority of cases by government officials who enjoy the public’s trust undeservedly—while at the same time demonstrating to others who have endured abuses similar to those the writer has that they have the constitutionally guaranteed liberty to voice complaint.

Not meekly, not anonymously, not in prose sanitized of names and dates and allegations but pointedly and graphically. Criticism is protected speech, and it doesn’t have to be polite.

In the name of “social justice,” procedures of law that enable any adult, citizen or not, to stroll into a courthouse and upend other people’s lives according to nothing more than their own say-so have been allowed to stand for decades. Lying is not only tolerated in court; it’s standard operating procedure, especially in civil court, which is a procedural backwater with zero accountability. The processes and how they’re conducted are farcical, which translates to cruel and indecent.

Here are a few ways, for example, that protective orders may be employed:

to conceal rape or to coerce sex or to commit and/or conceal any other statutory crime;
to conceal evidence of abuse or adultery or any other social violation;
to make a partner subject to police violence and reinforce racial profiling and homophobia (cf. Black Lives Matter movement);
to gain custody of children;
to gain legal control of a complete stranger’s home and property;
to have a documented or undocumented immigrant deported;
to hurt a friend, neighbor, family member, partner, boyfriend, girlfriend, or—a favored target—an ex’s new girlfriend;
or to have a tenant evicted or to get a landlord off of one’s back.

The gamut of abuses is only limited by accusers’ imaginations and lack of scruples.

One successful prosecution (total investiture: less than two hours’ time and sometimes mere minutes) can moreover open the door to serial mischief, including violation of constitutional rights and liberties. In the writer’s case, past false but prejudicial claims were used to deny him the freedom to speak, including by “word of mouth,” about his own travails in court. For five years. And he’s hardly alone (see for instance the case here or that of Bruce Aristeo, who remains subject to one of the most draconian speech injunctions the writer has ever seen).

The order that forbid the writer from discussing even matters of public record was eventually dissolved (after more strenuous exertions than any outsider could possibly comprehend).

So what do scofflaws do when the court is no longer willing to abet them? They get creative (or desperate, depending on your perspective).

The woman named in the title of this post, L’Oreal Stepney, has done nothing to injure the writer directly. He has merely pointed out that in her capacity as a representative of the Texas Commission of Environmental Quality, which has injured the writer directly, she falsely reported that the TCEQ doesn’t engage in censorship. Her role in anything concerning the writer was tangential only. Still, what he has reported is potentially embarrassing to her. So—

Here is the carousel of images that pop up when Google is queried with the search terms L’Oreal Stepney.

In recent weeks, this carousel hasn’t appeared on the first page of Google’s returns, as such image strips typically do when names are queried. As of this writing, it’s deep on page 2. The same is true of other TCEQ administrators the writer has criticized, Michael Honeycutt, its director of toxicology, and Stephanie Bergeron Perdue, its deputy executive director: The carousels for them disappear from the first page of Google’s returns, or they regularly plummet to the bottom.

It’s common knowledge that most people only pay attention to what emerges on page 1. I don’t know what specific underhand methods are used to accomplish this end, but this is how the game of politics works.

You don’t make wrongs right; you cover your butt.

*The writer believes the suspected agent of this suspected conduct, a disturbed woman named Tiffany Bredfeldt, currently or formerly an employee of the TCEQ, who appears to have been dumped by her husband a couple of years ago, makes search engine manipulation a dedicated part of her everyday routine since duping the court for over a decade.

L'Oreal Stepney, Loreal Stepney, Loreal Stepney TCEQ, L'Oreal Stepney TCEQ, L'Oreal Stepney PE, Loreal Stepney PE, TCEQ, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, Toby Baker, Greg Abbott, Governor Greg Abbott
“Let me say this clearly. We are not an agency that is about censorship. It is not what we do, it is wrong, it is not who we are.”

—L’Oreal Stepney (2011)

That’s how the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality’s deputy director of the Office of Water responded to allegations by scientists that their conclusions had been censored by her agency, which considers climate change to be “unsettled science.” The TCEQ was accused of censoring facts that appeared to support the contrary.

L’Oreal Stepney countered the criticism by flatly stating that censorship was wrong and was not representative of TCEQ practices.

Less than 24 months after Stepney’s public protestation, a censorship order against this writer was unlawfully coerced from an Arizona judge by TCEQ senior toxicologist Tiffany Bredfeldt with the help of TCEQ Toxicology Director Michael Honeycutt to conceal facts that were potentially embarrassing to them and to the agency that apparently still provides them with paychecks seven years later.

A detailed account of Bredfeldt’s and Honeycutt’s statements to the court, including contradictory testimony, is here.

The 2013 injunction that they succeeded in securing against the writer, which made reporting his experiences with Bredfeldt both in and out of court, even “by word of mouth,” a criminal offense was itself in violation of the law, specifically, the Constitution. It was furthermore issued without a trial, which was also illegal.

According to testimony given by Honeycutt in 2013 (linked to above), the TCEQ had, besides, censored the writer within its agency before any court judgment was issued, in 2011 or 12, in other words, almost exactly concurrent with Stepney’s denial that the agency engaged in censorship, and it seems unlikely that Honeycutt would have or could have acted without other TCEQ administrators’ knowledge. Either Stepney knew, or she arguably should have known. Her 2011 public pronouncement that “censorship…is wrong” should have placed the entire agency on notice.

“[A]s a general matter, the First Amendment means that government has no power to restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its content” unless the speech falls within one of the “well-defined and narrowly limited” exceptions, like defamation or obscenity. United States v. Stevens, 559 U.S. 460, 468-69 (2010) (citations omitted). Here, the injunction restricts Greene’s speech based on its subject matter and content—but covers speech that does not fit within any First Amendment exceptions [Greene v. Bredfeldt, Brief of Amicus Curiae, 2017].

The unlawful speech injunction (or “prior restraint”) that was imposed on the writer in 2013, and whose intent was to conceal a vicious hoax, stood for five years and was only dissolved after Bredfeldt attempted to have the writer imprisoned for its alleged violation, a threat that loomed over the writer’s head for two years, during which his father died, alone, while the writer was preoccupied with defending himself from accusations founded on lies.

The writer was rewarded with nothing but sore joints and muscles in contrast to the six-figure annual salary Stepney enjoyed during the same period. His ambition, corrupted by a dozen years of false, filthy, and/or frivolous allegations (which remain unrectified to this day), had been to publish humor for kids.

The loss of First Amendment freedoms, for even minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes [an] irreparable injury [Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347 (1976)].

I’m pretty sure the TCEQ was implicated in information suppression recently, moreover, and there’s no question that some critics of the agency consider suppression and/or distortion of facts typical of TCEQ “science.”

L’Oreal Stepney, a consummate bureaucrat whose claims of disdaining censorship are ones this writer considers expedient falsehoods, has reportedly sought to hold the TCEQ’s top administrative position. She apparently feels she should run the agency.

The writer wouldn’t trust someone so willing to sweep dirt under the rug with a job on its janitorial staff.

Stepney has the last laugh, though. At the expense of the Texas working class, she’s lavishly paid $165,000 a year.

TALKING BACK to restraining orders

THEY’RE NOT JUST ABUSED BUT ABUSIVE

Tag L’Oreal Stepney TCEQ

L’Oreal Stepney, TCEQ Director, Falsely Denies Agency’s Censorship Practices